Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

mrtravel wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:


Truth,


What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.


So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?




They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11

No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.



I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
discussion, so it's hard to comment

mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:19:00 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Buchanan is the investigative journalist who found proof at the National
Arhives and Library of Congress that Bush's grandfather, senator
Presott, conspired to overthrow the constitution, assisisnate FDR, and
turn the US in a Nazi camp, as is explained in this video:

And as we all know, you're responsible for what your grandfather did before
you were even born. Oh, right, your not.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:52:12 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

You are the one who keeps claiming this as if it were a significant fact, it
is up to YOU to tell us why it is significant.

TRUTH wrote:


You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
see the WTC?




It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

No, it wouldn't.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
legality, but this site may help explain:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm

Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
out anyway.



WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.

What exactly were those reasons?

By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the company that
borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably going to have
to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who loaned them the money
because while Silverstein does have a large amount of money lying around, it
probably doesn't amount to what they still owed on the building.

It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the insurance
money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill 3,000
people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage, they either
foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell the property and pay
off the bank with the proceeds.

Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such
as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
their own
documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.

You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.

Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation you
offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the government's
involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy.

You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even started
telling us what this "more" is yet.

WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was
involved?
We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
portable trailer with a 10 man crew.


Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC
Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside
job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders.

If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder of 3,000
of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you are
without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire Internet. And
I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for an intact hymen after
their dates and that his masturbation caused his testicular cancer. I'm amazed
that someone so lacking in the capacity for rational thought can even operate a
computer well enough to post this idiocy.

The major
has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going
to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him
and not the firefighters in the buildings?

Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy elsewhere.

the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The
Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and
heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this
page for a collaboration:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being compared
to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few select
highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll select a few
passages you seem to have missed entirely.

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming
down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could
have been whatever." Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that."
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

"I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel
or something. Then the building started to come down"
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
government knew
in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20
inch water main ruptured by falling debris.


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if *NO DEBRIS
HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous reasons you say
exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens of thousands of
pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do know that you
have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition on it, right?

And the only reason those
fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.

The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there was no
water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water main in the
street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in the event of a fire.
The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did was fail to send an alert
signal to the monitoring company that a fire was detected. Given that there
were several thousand fire fighters on the site when it did catch on fire, that
signal would have been rather superfluous.

Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:

The two theories vying for contention are
Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
terrorize the US.

Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes), but instead our
own government covertly destroyed the WTC and other buildings,
presumably in order to motivate us to war.

Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings? Everything
would fit the conspiracy scenario, and none of the observations would
need to be in contention. It's far easier for trained government agents
to crash an airplane than it is for them to secretly wire the WTC for
collapse, no? And any government willing to sacrifice 3000 of its own
innocent citizens would be willing to sacrifice a few hundred more.

Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:EoxMf.25449$_S7.23208
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

TRUTH wrote:
How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
cloudy above NYC.
You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
see the WTC?



It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

Are you really that dense? Even a pilot with only minimal VFR
training or a child who has owned one knows how to read a magnetic
compass. Read FAA regulations, any IFR certified aircraft including 757
and 767 have mag compasses.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:


Truth,


What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?



They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11
No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.



I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
discussion, so it's hard to comment

Go back and look, genius.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:
Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?




The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Perhaps they had been getting false readings, perhaps it was an
accident, who knows. Not every thing done that day had nefarious intent.
I will give you an example from reality. In the mid 1980s the new fire
alarm system in my hangar had a tendency to go off on hot days for no
reason. We would all run and push the helicopters out to a safe distance
manually, the fire department would send equipment and there was no
fire. After a week of this the base fire chief had us turn the alarm off
whenever the hangar during the hotter times of the day. See? There are
valid reasons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired