[Mb-civic] 911 mysteries

[Alexander Harper]

Supposing it were true that 9/11 was an 'auto-atentado' as they would call it here, how many of the people involved in its planning and execution will be around today to tell the tale? The circumstantial/forensic evidence looks pretty compelling and yes, I saw the french docu about it way back at the beginning too but I wonder if this will ever get beyond well informed and well (scientifically) supported conjecture.
AlB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Blaxill" <mblaxill at yahoo.com>
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Subject: [Mb-civic] 911 mysteries
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT)

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic


-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/