[Mb-civic] 911 mysteries

[Mike Blaxill]

as Bill O Reilly would say (or, um Steve
Colbert..) "it's just common sense" :0)

> 
> Mike:
> 
> Here, here!  The two most salient FACTS (not
> conjecture, for those who are 
> wondering...) re the WTC that come to mind for
> me are:
> 
> 1.  If one had dropped a quarter from the 110th
> floor, it would have landed 
> in 8.6 (or so) seconds.  This is called "free
> fall speed."  When the towers 
> fell, they fell at just under 9 seconds -
> essentially "free fall speed."  In 
> order for this to occur, there would have had
> to be NOTHING in between the 
> floors of the building; i.e., all the
> structural supports, etc. would have 
> had to "disappear."  Thus, even if we allow the
> "pancake theory" - i.e., 
> that the floors came down on top of one another
> "pancake" fashion - even 
> THAT would have been slowed down to a minimal
> degree by the time it took for 
> each successive floor to "break through" the
> support trusses.  Thus, the 
> "pancake theory" cannot explain the "free fall
> speed" of the collapses.  The 
> ONLY thing that would have allowed the towers
> to collapse at "free fall 
> speed" would have been if the internal support
> trusses and other 
> structures - to say nothing of the 47-column
> "center core" - had somehow 
> "disappeared" instantaneously.  And the only
> way THAT can happen is with 
> explosives.
> 
> 2.  To further support one of your comments, if
> you watch the videotape of 
> the towers from the point at which the second
> plane hit, it took less than 
> 15-20 minutes for the smoke to turn from
> grey/white to black.  As you note, 
> black smoke indicates a fuel-STARVED fire. 
> This means that the fire could 
> only have been truly "hot" for less than 20
> minutes.  However, one must also 
> consider that the vast majority of the fuel in
> both crashes was consumed 
> within the first 30-60 seconds of the crashes -
> and, in the case of the 
> second plane, the majority of that fuel
> exploded OUTSIDE the building, NOT 
> inside.  As well, in many video shots taken
> less than 30 minutes after the 
> crashes, people can be seen standing - in
> virtually washer-clean clothing - 
> at the windows of floors directly above and
> below the impact zones.  If the 
> fires were so "hot" - enough to melt steel
> trusses - how come these people 
> were standing there, and their clothes were not
> even soiled?
> 
> And the, of course, there is the mystery of WTC
> 7.  It had NOT been hit by a 
> plane, or even debris from the crashes. 
> However, for reasons still 
> unexplained, there WERE two SMALL fires in the
> building - a 
> steel-and-concrete building of over 50 stories.
>  The "official" story offers 
> the lame conclusion that the two fires - which
> took up less than quarter 
> floor each - caused the building to collapse. 
> Yet we have Larry 
> Silverstein's own testimony that the building
> was "pulled" - i.e., that it 
> was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
> 
> Given that the building was admittedly on fire,
> it would have been 
> impossible for the charges to be set that day;
> no company would enter a 
> burning building to install explosive charges. 
> In addition, it usually 
> takes 5-10 days to properly install such
> charges to take down a building of 
> that size.  This means that - no matter HOW one
> looks at it - the charges 
> HAD to be set days, possible weeks, prior to
> 9/11.  This begs the question: 
> WHY?  Why were those charges placed in the
> building days, possible weeks, 
> prior to 9/11?  Did someone have advance notice
> of the attack?  Was there 
> something in the building that needed to be
> "covered up" so badly that the 
> demolition of the entire building was required?
>  Keep in mind that WTC 7 
> housed the IRS, the DOD, the CIA and, most
> suspiciously, both the FEMA 
> office and Giuliani's infamous "bunker."
> 
> This, of course, leads to the final question:
> if charges were set at WTC 7 
> days or weeks prior to 9/11, and the collapse
> of the twin towers was also 
> the result of a "controlled demolition,"
> doesn't that mean that the charges 
> in the twin towers would ALSO have had to be
> set days or weeks prior to 
> 9/11?  And, if so, what does that say about the
> "surprise" nature of the 
> attack - and maybe even who was behind it?
> 
> There may be no "smoking gun" yet, but
> eventually the evidence for 
> demolition vs. the government's "official"
> story - which is already 
> growing - will so far surpass the "official"
> evidence that it will only be 
> because people cannot wrap their minds around
> the idea that their government 
> could murder 3,000 of its own citizens that
> they will not wake up and smell 
> the coffee...
> 
> Peace.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Blaxill" <mblaxill at yahoo.com>
> To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:29 AM
> Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries
> 
> 
> > To me there are so many holes in the official
> > story that you can just take your pick - i
> > started my 911 truth journey with wondering
> how
> > in the hell three hijacked planes could get
> past
> > our air defenses, with the one hitting the
> > pentagon an hour and a half after the first
> plane
> > hit the WTC!
> >
> >>From there it was to various events around
> NYC
> > where they presented all the anomolies from
> the
> > collapse of the WTC, especially WTC 7
> ("pulled"
> > according to Silverstein), to the lack of
> > concern/stonewalling of the Moussaui
> > investigation (Colleen Rowley's memo), to the
> > fact that they had a tape of the Pentagon
> crash
> > but only released a few (fuzzy) frames of the
> > film and confiscated all others..and that's
> just
> > the tip of the iceberg!!
> >
> > I went to an event where an engineer from MIT
> > explained the conditions in which a building
> like
> > the WTC would collapse, steel melt etc - fire
> > temp would have to be in the thousands of
> > degrees..way more than was possible at the
> scene.
> > Kerosene, or airplane fuel, is a relatively
> cool
> > burning fuel - and the heavy black smoke you
> saw
> > right before the towers collapsed was an
> > indication that the fire was cooling or
> burning
> > itself out, not getting hotter and melting
> the
> > steel!!
> >
> > I could go on and on - i think in the next 5
> > years or so there will be a growing consensus
> on
> > this, similar to opinion in the rest of the
> world
> >
> > PEACE
> > -M
> >
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:42:28 -0400
> > From: Michael Butler
> <michael at michaelbutler.com>
> > Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries
> > To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> > Message-ID:
> > <BF856274.25190%michael at michaelbutler.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > Ian and Mike have recently posted items
> > questioning the WTC destruction. I
> > held such ideas in doubt until I saw the
> > show"9/11Mysteries" at the Met in
> > Los Angeles. For sure there are some serious
> > questions.
> > However the WTC is more technical than the
> > questions about what actually hit
> > the Pentagon. If you saw the pictures and
> heard
> > the report you would
> > question as I do;
> > Do we have another 'Reichstag' fire?
> > Michael
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > Mb-civic mailing list
> > Mb-civic at islandlists.com