Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:


TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
Was the WTC in WV?
The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?

No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
US, as I have pointed out earlier.
WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy




How bout stopping the childish insults already?

Will you stop also?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
Chad Irby wrote in
:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
know is what an aeronautical engineer has said
Yeah - one crazy ex-engineer who used to be active about thirty years
ago, but who now writes about UFOs and odd religious beliefs.



You need to take all the evidence in context

Taken in context Jones is full of it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. 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. This
information was furnished by the official NIST report

Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link, had
there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:

"khobar" wrote in
news:IQ_Lf.4565$Sp2.2612@fed1read02:

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have
never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned
that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my
visit in 2003."

Try again.

Paul Nixon

Everyone knows Bush is a born again christian. Besides this was also
covered on CNN. Bush has also said that he speaks to God

None of which actually proves your suggestion.

Graham

Dan wrote in news:qFoMf.53316$Ug4.17914@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:


TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West
Virginia?
Was the WTC in WV?
The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?

No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of
the US, as I have pointed out earlier.
WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy




How bout stopping the childish insults already?

Will you stop also?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Any insults from me are only in response to insults

Dan wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. 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.
This information was furnished by the official NIST report

Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




again, you must take everything in context

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. 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.
This information was furnished by the official NIST report
Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




again, you must take everything in context

As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qFoMf.53316$Ug4.17914@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
mrtravel wrote:


TRUTH wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West
Virginia?
Was the WTC in WV?
The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of
the US, as I have pointed out earlier.
WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy



How bout stopping the childish insults already?
Will you stop also?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Any insults from me are only in response to insults

Which makes them no less childish. Do you realize how immature it
sounds to say "he started it?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:B7vMf.53376$Ug4.29696@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. 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.
This information was furnished by the official NIST report
Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




again, you must take everything in context

As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




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*.

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:B7vMf.53376$Ug4.29696@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:

It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. 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.
This information was furnished by the official NIST report
Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



again, you must take everything in context
As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




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 what? There could be a myriad of reasons why. Perhaps it was an
accident. Perhaps someone was troubleshooting the system. The fact
remains YOU have no idea why it was done.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired