the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

(ZZBunker) wrote:

Exactly wrong. Since the US Taxpayers paid for well
over *5000* active military jets, including F-14, F-15,
F-16, F-18.

Hate to admit it, but you have a valid point there.

The Question is why where there *2* jets scrambled from *New England*
to intercept Jets that were hijacked in New Jersey
and Washington. When the FAA had already grounded all
Civilian traffic throughtout the country.

Another valid point.

Bush & Bush Inc. are not Nuclear WMD losers, they are MORONS.

Don't forget Clinton & Clinton Inc.

(E.G: terrorist attacks preceding 9/11 during the Billary
administration such as the first WTC bombing in 1993, the
Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 et cetera...)

--
Mike Marron
pegasus912 at tampabay dot rr dot com

This case needs few people, and positively motivated. It seems to me
you personally wouldn't mind being involved in such an operation,
quite possible even without material interest.

You would be wrong - because planting explosives in a building occupied by
people would be WRONG. What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives? If I were in the group of
mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person to
say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just done
their job FOR them!" So, no, please leave me out of the delusion.

Or imagine you learn by accident that such a thing is true for
hundreds of buildings that are still intact? They are mined, kinda. It
is a 'conspiracy'.And if bad guys learn about it they could try to use
the secret charges and blow the buildings even without an aircraft
attack? Would you consider it right to keep your mouth shut?

See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together and
screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into that
action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.


The question is whether it debunks or proves my theory. What if
charges were placed at various hights?


Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger. What we all
watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after being struck by a
gigantic airliner. You may require more of a cause, but the WTC didn't.


"Guys, here is your contract to murder thousands of Americans.

A strange conclusion. What is it based upon? Certainly not on my
theory.

Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based on
maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
building. Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds of
firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
involved to be content to do this, forever.

What murderous preparations? What weakened beams? See above.
Print it and read all of it.

No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the room,
projected onto the head of a pin. Shaped charges planted in many locations to
ensure the deed would require not one or two, but dozens of people working in
secrecy - if they didn't weaken the beams, there is no guarantee that the whole
idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass job
- something the demos guys DON'T do.

Thousands of Americans, all agreeing to participate in the most monsterous
single-event case of murder in history. How much you must hate us...

Thousands? Murder? Hate?

Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day leak
out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things 6)
anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that to
plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest commercial
centers is ok. Only one person along the way needs to have second thoughts or
share the plan with a person with a blabbermouth and every person involved ends
up in front of a grand jury. Murder? Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:
GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up with
such an idea.

snip slander against Controlled Demolition Inc.

Slander? What slander?

You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting explosives
under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other large
emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If I
was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address the
false claim you have made against them.

I don't see any.

Take a look at the definition of slander - the doer isn't required to 'see' it,
only the people/organization that got mud thrown on it. As you have done.

Maybe someone, a man, a woman,
or a kid who was not close enought to the WTC foot, but close enough
to be hit by its top floor(s) is alive now because of CDI? Or many of
them are?

Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

selectively weaken the structures at hundreds of
different points, while making every effort to not endanger a single human
life.

These are regular, 'safety first' conditions. With WTC it was a bit
different.

"We'll need to kill hundreds of firefighters this time guys - anyone have a
problem with that...? Ok, good."


That was
damage control, not the 'murderous things' you are boiling about.

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control? Remind me not
to have you around in an emergency.


You maybe were not supposed to see it.

If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts be
hidden?

The secret is not ugly. No one
lives forever. And it is a theory, again.

"A few" people, required to hold the secret that they, not the airline
hijackers, killed all of those firemen rushing into the building. That's a
secret that would not be kept.


Now repeat the scene with your wife in a bit modified form. Before the
moment you realise the buildings were to fall it is the same as you
described, but you have a button on your desk. You know what kind of
button it is.

Yes, I do.

Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

Now the events take a different course. You noticed what you noticed
but you have no time to discuss it with your wife. You have other
thing to do: to make a decision. The decision. You have had hopes
before the button won't be needed.

The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
directly into Cheney's face. Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

Same if I used the other mythical button.



I've imagined it for myself and shuddered.

I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
that the building 'might' topple to the side.

Gordon

"Steve Richter" wrote in message
om...


thinking a little bit about this ...

540 mph is the cruising speed of the F-15. Its top speed looks to be
well over 1000mph. But no one knew where the 2nd plane was going to
hit. It could have been NYC or any other city anywhere else in the
country. My guess would be that the F-15 pilots at Otis rarely fly
above cruising speed, so there would probably be some risk in doing
that.

-Steve

Besides shattering every piece of glass (and eardrums) between Otis an NYC?
The glass in the streets would have been knee-deep from an F-15 crossing
Manhattan at 1500 feet at 1000mph. (Still might not have kept them from
doing it anyway, given a confirmed target to go after.)

Fuel consumption would be the major concern, I would think.
--
Zamboni

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
(ZZBunker) wrote:

Exactly wrong. Since the US Taxpayers paid for well
over *5000* active military jets, including F-14, F-15,
F-16, F-18.

Hate to admit it, but you have a valid point there.

The Question is why where there *2* jets scrambled from *New England*
to intercept Jets that were hijacked in New Jersey
and Washington. When the FAA had already grounded all
Civilian traffic throughtout the country.

Another valid point.

Bush & Bush Inc. are not Nuclear WMD losers, they are MORONS.

Don't forget Clinton & Clinton Inc.

(E.G: terrorist attacks preceding 9/11 during the Billary
administration such as the first WTC bombing in 1993, the
Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 et cetera...)

But Clinton wasn't incorporated with Clinton.
It was Clinton and Gore Inc. Since Clinton
was too stupid to even take Jimmy Carter's
advice concerning Nuclear Power.

But NYC wasn't the only place being attacked.
If it was the FAA wouldn't have grounded *ALL*
civil air traffic throughout CONUS.

I think you need to do some research on this subject. Exactly how many ANG
Fighter Units do you think we have? One in every state? Two? One in every other
state?

So I guess the Air Force is obviously saying that
the whole plan in such situations is to have
two National Guard Jets from Mass. protect the entire
US in such situations.

First off, the USAF doesn't make those choices, NORAD does. Secondly, our air
defense posture had dropped significantly over the decade preceeding 9/11/01. I
can tell you're very unfamiliar with ANG Units and their locations or else you
would have complained about the lack of response of the NJANG Unit from
Stockton NJ (just north of Atlantic City - a mere 80 nm from the WTC). Where
were the "Jersey Devils"? They were not sitting NORAD Air Defense Alert, and if
I remember correctly, most were deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operation Southern
Watch.

Which is also why most of trust Abrams Tanks
more that we trust New York, Mass, Maine,
Texas, California, or George Bush in the General Election.


Thats funny, because the heart of your complaint is that there weren't more air
defense fighter units to respond to the hijackings. This was a direct result of
William Jefferson Clinton. Did you trust him?

If Andrews doesn't have jets on alert, then
no Airbase in the entire country has jets on alert.


Wrong. Andrews was not sitting NORAD air defense alert on 9/11/01, but did
manage to get 2 x F-16As airborne over DC just minutes after the Pentagon got
hit. Interestingly enough, these 2 jets had just returned from a training
sortie and had no weapons on board. According to articles I've read, their plan
was to divert any aircraft by flying close maneuvers or, in a last ditch, ram
them. But the bottom line, Andrews was not on NORAD Air Defense alert on
9/11/01. Why does that surprise you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

planting explosives in a building occupied by people would be WRONG.

Under regular circumstances it is. Keeping dangerous things where
people may get in a harm's way is wrong. For example, keeping guns,
matches, knives or pills in homes where kids can reach them is wrong.
Driving a car with gasoline in the tank is wrong because the gasoline
may catch fire in an accident and ETC, ETC, ETC.

What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

No attack -no demolition. Small fire? Maybe. Fires take place in many
places with lots of explosives and fuel, say, aircraft carriers, other
men-of-war. Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!

If I were in the group of
mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person to
say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just done their job FOR them!"

Don't let him find out, don't let them use it. That's why you are
supposed to keep silent. Whistle-blowing is not always a good thing.

See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together and
screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into that
action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.

Making a big noise may be detrimental to other people's interests
namely health and the life itself because bad guys may find out.

Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger.

Again, under normal conditions. You see people entering and leaving
their homes through the doors, under normal conditions. In an
emergency they may jump out of windows (No offence to Bill Gates).
What was going on inside and below the surface level?

What we all watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after
being struck by a gigantic airliner. You may require more of a
cause, but the WTC didn't.

After, but not immediately. Maybe it really didn't. I tend to think it
didn't. And I don't require more of a cause. Namely I'm so far in no
need of a huge conspiracy 'at the government level, Reichstag fire
style thing, with Black Hawk remote control technology' and all that.
I want some facts or what seems to be facts explained without
resorting to UFO-style invaders and Great-Great World Conspiracies.
If the so-called 'video footage' and seismic data' are crap then this
theory collapses like the two towers. It is not just needed. Bring the
razor here! Take it from Occam he can't use it anyway 'cause he's
dead.

Again, this theory is not what I cling to desperately, it's rather a
hypothesis to explain the footage and seismic data IF (once again, IF)
they are not false.

Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based on
maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
building.

Yes it does (Thank goodnes, not thousands). I'm not sure of dozens and
how many of them. And the building is not always occupied. And yes,
purporsely installing and not only purporsely, but skillfully. Add
construction engineers and maybe computer modelling specialists. The
data may be aquired through many ways including under the cover of
investigating the 1993 attack.

Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds of
firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
involved to be content to do this, forever.

Assisting the murder? No. It's perpetrators who did the murder. OK if
we discuss among other things the plane hijackng let's recall other
hijacking. I've already written that prior to 911 hijacking a plane
was hijacked in Ankara and it left three dead: a stewardess, a
passenger and one of the hijackers.

But the surviving hijackers could say they'd killed nobody! Their
hands were clean and they had meant no harm. The Saudi anti-terrorist
squad shot the victims! Yes, incidently, but the Saudis are to blame!
Would you agree? I doubt. The perpetratore as well as instigatots,
orginisers and financer are guilty, not those who tried to prevent
damage and loss of life.

No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the room,

I agree, it consists of them almost by 100%. Say if the buildings were
designed and built so that they were just to collapse the way the did,
malodionolike, without any charges, then this theory again is not
needed. There could be many 'ifs' that could make it just unnecessary.
But if placing charges could prevent greater damage it can be
considered.

I've found on my computer an image, a satellite shot of the site after
the event. I thought I'd deleted it and now it's been found. I've just
looked at it again. Looks like the towers were really surrounded by
other, lower towers and other buildings, pretty close. Some buildings
that are very close to the site show big holes in their roofs. Those a
bit more distant look to be in a better shape. I don't know if these
were within reach of the towers' fragments in case the towers fell
uncontrollably aside. Maybe yes, maybe not. Try some 3-d modelling
with your computer or with some solid things like mathcboxes or
something like that. Keep the distances and hights in proportion to
the real ones. When looking at this I recall the 'dominoes theory',
this time of steel and concrete. One dominoe falls and it goes on.

dozens of people working in secrecy

Secrecy is needed. Not sure of many dozens.

- if they didn't weaken the beams,

Imagine there are several of you. You'are supposed to blow a bridge
with several rucksacks of explosives. And the bridge is heavily
guarded. And you are supposed to do it without weakended beams or or
predrilled holes. And to do it quickly.

Why such limitations? Very simple. It's war and you with the guys are
commandoes parachuted to do it. Mission impossible? Maybe yes, maybe
not. It depends, depends on many things, planning included. But such
things have been done with success.

there is no guarantee that the whole
idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass job
- something the demos guys DON'T do.

If you want guarantees look for someone who can give them to you.
Nobody to be seen? This happens for many things, not only terrorist
attacks. Again, it could have been concluded, that though there were
no such positive guarantees you want, negative guarantees, namely
greater damage could be predicted, if nothing was done.

Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day leak
out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things 6)
anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that to
plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest commercial
centers is ok. Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above. Depends on
circumstances. It may form no corpus delicti. Using it to kill people
will.

GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up with
such an idea.
You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting explosives
under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other large
emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If I
was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address the
false claim you have made against them.

I don't want to offend anybody. My apologies if I have.

It was the terrorist attack that caused all the deaths here. The
firefighters didn't miss, they were 'people inside' and near the
buildings. Maybe someone blundered. Maybe it was because they were
just supposed to be where their duty told them to be without knowing
that this time it all was in vain.

Could the firemen be saved? How if the building started to collapse?

I once more state solemnly and even pompously I do no cling to this
theory. And I did not mean this particular company. But if the seismic
data and videos and other evidence are true (which is not a fact) then
they have to be explained. You just cannot overlook it.

{Legalistic considerations snipped as irrelevant here}

Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

Again, could they be saved?

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control?

'The truth sometimes looks quite implausable' (c) some French writer.

Remind me not to have you around in an emergency.

I hope none will come.

If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts be
hidden?

Watch out. The bad guys are continuing their business.

You know what kind of button it is.
Yes, I do.
Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

I hope you have no button like 'kill Cheney' one.

The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
directly into Cheney's face.

Don't say you don't understand the difference between pie-throwing and
a murder of someone you may dislike very much. It's just fundamentally
different and it is different not because of an electric chair or what
else is used for punishing that.

Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

OK, your wife was just not there. A big difference indeed. She'd gone
shopping (jogging, paying visits), anything.
I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
that the building 'might' topple to the side.

After the event you saw happened they were unsavable. They could be
given 1-2-3 seconds of life inside the building. The price of that
could be lives of those outside. You might then live up with the
knowledge you could save someone and did't.

=====CONCLUSION==========

You've rammed so many proofs into my theory, your arguments are
burning bright like jet fuel so the shaky building of my theory is
about to collapse like the towers.

Let's stop at this. To continue we need an input from outside, from
other people who know better, who know the facts.

You say you've seen many demolitions. Maybe you still have contacts
with these people. Maybe it is all just the waste of time. But maybe
you'll find a chance to steal a couple of minutes from them and ask
about things we've discussed.

If they say the idea of pre-planting explosives has no value and will
cause more harm than prevent, or it was just unapplicable in this
particular situation or or anything else - believe them.

And if they recommend you not to waste time on cranky theories by some
cranky guys - follow theit recommendations.


Best regards

VV

planting explosives in a building occupied by people would be WRONG.

Under regular circumstances it is. Keeping dangerous things where
people may get in a harm's way is wrong. For example, keeping guns,
matches, knives or pills in homes where kids can reach them is wrong.

Please re-read my sentence you quoted -

"Planting", i.e., installed where they will do the most damage and 'where the
kids can get to them' is wrong.

Driving a car with gasoline in the tank is wrong because the gasoline
may catch fire in an accident and ETC, ETC, ETC.

gas in a motor vehicle is a rather frickin' huge stretch from planting
explosives in an occupied building, by an order of magnitude.

What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

What "small fire" do you mean?

No attack -no demolition. Small fire? Maybe. Fires take place in many
places with lots of explosives and fuel, say, aircraft carriers, other
men-of-war.

To make your analogy fit, those men-of-war would need torpedos placed at the
waterline by the builders, on the assumption that one day in the future, the
ship will need to be scuttled.

Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!

Not in occupied skyscrapers they don't. Your *theory* is that they were. My
theory is that you are completely wrong.

If I were in the group of
mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person
to
say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just
done their job FOR them!"

Don't let him find out, don't let them use it. That's why you are
supposed to keep silent. Whistle-blowing is not always a good thing.

I'd love to know the method you would use to determine which people would keep
this secret, and which ones would have some reservation that ultimately would
trip up the entire game. ONE building inspector or janitor that was not wholly
behind the project and you'd have the mother of all grand juries, lawsuits, and
that company would be torn apart.

See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together
and
screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into
that
action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.

Making a big noise may be detrimental to other people's interests
namely health and the life itself because bad guys may find out.

"We're wiring the place with explosives, for their own good." - that makes
sense to you? And what if terrorists do strike, but instead of doing minor
damage, such as in 1993, they trip the demos? Congrats, here's your letter of
appreciation from Al qaida.

Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger.

Again, under normal conditions. You see people entering and leaving
their homes through the doors, under normal conditions. In an
emergency they may jump out of windows (No offence to Bill Gates).
What was going on inside and below the surface level?

I can tell you what wasn't happening - a bunch of guys all watching the
firefighters on tv, saying, "Well, sucks they all have to die, but, dammit,
can't be helped."

What we all watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after
being struck by a gigantic airliner. You may require more of a
cause, but the WTC didn't.

After, but not immediately. Maybe it really didn't. I tend to think it
didn't.

That's a guess, sir. What we _know_ happened was the largest "conventional"
bombs ever used against a structure were effectively driven into the buildings
at high speed.

And I don't require more of a cause. Namely I'm so far in no
need of a huge conspiracy 'at the government level, Reichstag fire
style thing, with Black Hawk remote control technology' and all that.
I want some facts or what seems to be facts explained without
resorting to UFO-style invaders and Great-Great World Conspiracies.

Your theory requires two groups of conspirators, one blue team, the other red,
that both combine to accomplish what the red team intended all along.

If the so-called 'video footage' and seismic data' are crap then this
theory collapses like the two towers. It is not just needed. Bring the
razor here! Take it from Occam he can't use it anyway 'cause he's
dead.

It doesn't surprise me that there are anomalies during this event - its not as
if we'd seen similar things on this scale to provide data to draw from, so
things like safes crashing through weakened floors or clusters of fire
extinguishers exploding in the fire, or any number of other things that would
be going "boom" in a conflagration like this should also be considered by your
theory.

Again, this theory is not what I cling to desperately, it's rather a
hypothesis to explain the footage and seismic data IF (once again, IF)
they are not false.

I think its more a matter of interpretation and understanding than faked data.

Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based
on
maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
building.

Yes it does (Thank goodnes, not thousands). I'm not sure of dozens and
how many of them. And the building is not always occupied.

False, VV. The towers were absolutely never empty; they lived and breathed
24/7 until the moment they died.

And yes,
purporsely installing and not only purporsely, but skillfully. Add
construction engineers and maybe computer modelling specialists.

....all agreeing to place thousands of people in danger that were not directly
threatened at that time?

The
data may be aquired through many ways including under the cover of
investigating the 1993 attack.

Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds
of
firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
involved to be content to do this, forever.

Assisting the murder? No. It's perpetrators who did the murder. OK if
we discuss among other things the plane hijackng let's recall other
hijacking. I've already written that prior to 911 hijacking a plane
was hijacked in Ankara and it left three dead: a stewardess, a
passenger and one of the hijackers.

But the surviving hijackers could say they'd killed nobody! Their
hands were clean and they had meant no harm. The Saudi anti-terrorist
squad shot the victims! Yes, incidently, but the Saudis are to blame!
Would you agree? I doubt.

Then lets suggest that all airliners should be wired with explosives to keep
them from falling into the hands of terrorists? That fits your model, but not
reality.

The perpetratore as well as instigatots,
orginisers and financer are guilty, not those who tried to prevent
damage and loss of life.

But at the time you suggest that explosives were planted by the blue team,
there was no red team attack in progress.

No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the
room,

I agree, it consists of them almost by 100%. Say if the buildings were
designed and built so that they were just to collapse the way the did,
malodionolike, without any charges, then this theory again is not
needed. There could be many 'ifs' that could make it just unnecessary.

I agree, such as if two enormous airliners drilled the structures.

But if placing charges could prevent greater damage it can be
considered.

Then space aliens and Martin Bormann must also be considered, because these are
every bit as likely as the owners of the WTC colluding with building
inspectors, fire marshals, and demolition experts to plant explosives in an
occupied building.

I've found on my computer an image, a satellite shot of the site after
the event. I thought I'd deleted it and now it's been found. I've just
looked at it again. Looks like the towers were really surrounded by
other, lower towers and other buildings, pretty close. Some buildings
that are very close to the site show big holes in their roofs. Those a
bit more distant look to be in a better shape. I don't know if these
were within reach of the towers' fragments in case the towers fell
uncontrollably aside. Maybe yes, maybe not. Try some 3-d modelling
with your computer or with some solid things like mathcboxes or
something like that. Keep the distances and hights in proportion to
the real ones. When looking at this I recall the 'dominoes theory',
this time of steel and concrete. One dominoe falls and it goes on.

Dominos are solid and transfer their falling energy to their neighbors in
manners wholly different than skyscrapers - there have been collapses in large
buildings in other areas of the world that did not lead to the type of damage
you are describing.

dozens of people working in secrecy

Secrecy is needed. Not sure of many dozens.

I am. Its not one building inspector and fire marshal, but a small army of
them that worked on the structure post-1993 attack. Then, the
owners/stockholders would also have to be willing participants, leading also to
insurance companies, and it branches out further: all participants in directly
placing people in danger from explosives planted not by the bad guys, but by
the "good guys".

- if they didn't weaken the beams,

Imagine there are several of you. You'are supposed to blow a bridge
with several rucksacks of explosives. And the bridge is heavily
guarded. And you are supposed to do it without weakended beams or or
predrilled holes. And to do it quickly.

So now you are switching theories to make it a military operation? Sir, I
don't have time to deal with every permutation you can dream up - besides, I
watched the events unfold. To recap, two airliners crashed into the
structures, causing damage that ultimately brought them down. We're right back
to our friend Occam's medicine chest.

Why such limitations? Very simple. It's war and you with the guys are
commandoes parachuted to do it.

Ok, now lets suggest that there is no bridge, no commandos, no guards, just two
large airliners, drilling the WTC. Why go off on tangents when we WATCHED this
happen?

Mission impossible? Maybe yes, maybe
not. It depends, depends on many things, planning included. But such
things have been done with success.

Apples and airliners, sir. Of course commando attacks have occurred. The fact
that we know of them points out how well such operations can be kept a secret,
even when only commandos are involved. Now, toss in the FBI, stockholders,
fire marshals, ETC ETC ETC and tell me how long your "bridge attack" could be
kept a secret.

there is no guarantee that the whole
idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass
job
- something the demos guys DON'T do.

If you want guarantees look for someone who can give them to you.

That would be the controlled demo guys - the only folks on the planet with the
corporate knowledge and experience at bringing down structures of this size.
Except they won't do it when there are innocent lives sitting in offices above
their demo charges! Geez.

Nobody to be seen? This happens for many things, not only terrorist
attacks. Again, it could have been concluded, that though there were
no such positive guarantees you want, negative guarantees, namely
greater damage could be predicted, if nothing was done.

That assumes that this mythical group knew that one day, the WTC would be so
damaged that a collapse was inevitable AND it would fall to the side, requiring
the demolition. Gi-frickin-gantic assumption there buddy.

Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day
leak
out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things
6)
anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that
to
plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest
commercial
centers is ok. Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above.

Those events occurred DURING a hostage event. Did the Saudis start shooting
into the a plane years before the hostage situation occurred?? GEEZ

Depends on
circumstances. It may form no corpus delicti. Using it to kill people
will.

NOT true - planting explosives in an occupied building IS a felony; attempting
to overwhelm hijackers IS NOT.

GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up
with
such an idea.
You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting
explosives
under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other
large
emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If
I
was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address
the
false claim you have made against them.

I don't want to offend anybody. My apologies if I have.



It was the terrorist attack that caused all the deaths here. The
firefighters didn't miss, they were 'people inside' and near the
buildings. Maybe someone blundered.

Maybe it was Martin Bormann. Every bit as likely.

Maybe it was because they were
just supposed to be where their duty told them to be without knowing
that this time it all was in vain.

Yes, exactly - and the people planting your mythical demo charges would have to
know that, just as in 1993, hundreds of FF would be on scene, in mortal danger
specifically from those non-existant charges.

Could the firemen be saved? How if the building started to collapse?

By... uhh... adding a few mythical explosives to the fire and general chaos?
Wait, that doesn't make any sense, does it.

I once more state solemnly and even pompously I do no cling to this
theory.

Then why take off on bizarre "bridge assault" tangents to try and make it work?

And I did not mean this particular company. But if the seismic
data and videos and other evidence are true (which is not a fact) then
they have to be explained. You just cannot overlook it.

After many more such events, perhaps we would understand all of the vagaries of
such terrible things. Until then, consider that the buildings were horribly
damaged by terrorists in hijacked airliners, trying to bring them down.

Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

Again, could they be saved?

or what, sacrificed? I take it you dont know any firefighters. I grew up
playing at Company 7 in Phoenix, living with Engineer Loren Long as my
surrogate dad. I can picture him rushing into the WTC, but what I cannot/ will
not accept is the mental image of -dozens- of people agreeing to plant
explosives in an occupied building, "JUST IN CASE".

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control?

According to your baseless theory, yes.

'The truth sometimes looks quite implausable' (c) some French writer.

So lets not rule out aliens and Marty just yet, huh?

Remind me not to have you around in an emergency.

I hope none will come.

If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts
be
hidden?

Watch out. The bad guys are continuing their business.

So we need to mine MORE skyscrapers, "just in case"???

You know what kind of button it is.
Yes, I do.
Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

I hope you have no button like 'kill Cheney' one.

shaking my head No. I dont murder people, and neither do the Controlled
Demo people.

The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
directly into Cheney's face.

Don't say you don't understand the difference between pie-throwing and
a murder of someone you may dislike very much. It's just fundamentally
different and it is different not because of an electric chair or what
else is used for punishing that.

whatever. You are the person that mentioned murdering our vice president - all
I did was toss an imaginary pie.

Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

OK, your wife was just not there. A big difference indeed. She'd gone
shopping (jogging, paying visits), anything.

She was off planting demo charges with Martin Bormann. That's my theory at
least.

I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
that the building 'might' topple to the side.

After the event you saw happened they were unsavable. They could be
given 1-2-3 seconds of life inside the building. The price of that
could be lives of those outside.

As long as we insert the massive assumption that such damage on the upper
floors would cause a building to become unstable at its base, allowing it to
fall sideways.

You might then live up with the
knowledge you could save someone and did't.

"Thank goodness we planted those explosives!" -Not-

=====CONCLUSION==========

You've rammed so many proofs into my theory, your arguments are
burning bright like jet fuel so the shaky building of my theory is
about to collapse like the towers.

Let's stop at this. To continue we need an input from outside, from
other people who know better, who know the facts.

You say you've seen many demolitions.

we call this new invention "t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n'. One of the things that Fox
loves to show is old, disused UNOCCUPIED structures such as forums and
delapidated apartment buildings being brought down. Its a part of modern life.
You have never seen such an event...?

Maybe you still have contacts
with these people.

Only if you count my wife and Marty.

Maybe it is all just the waste of time. But maybe
you'll find a chance to steal a couple of minutes from them and ask
about things we've discussed.

Why? You suggested above that your theory is already in flames.

If they say the idea of pre-planting explosives has no value and will
cause more harm than prevent, or it was just unapplicable in this
particular situation or or anything else - believe them.

And if they recommend you not to waste time on cranky theories by some
cranky guys - follow theit recommendations.

I won't ignore the cranky theories when remaining silent leaves the theorists
with the last word, however wrong I know it to be.

Best regards
..
/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

"Planting", i.e., installed where they will do the most damage and 'where the
kids can get to them' is wrong.

Oops, maybe it's a wrong word. English is still foreign to me. Let's
call it putting, placing whichever. As to the 'most damage' - no. They
must be put where they can do what they are supposed to do: to cut the
steel in different parts SIMULTANEOUSLY or otherwise in the way that
prevents the building or its huge parts from falling aside. And
prevents kids or the bad guys from getting hold of them.

gas in a motor vehicle is a rather frickin' huge stretch from planting
explosives in an occupied building, by an order of magnitude.

It is. Analogies help illustrate, but often fail to explain. I take
this one back.

What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

What "small fire" do you mean?

What small fire do YOU mean in your previous post of 2004-01-23
10:40:35 PST? I think we both mean a fire that is limited enough in
scale to put the whole building including its internal structure in
danger of collapse. If the big fire that really started could be
extuinguished or limited in scale before a certain moment it could all
end differently.

To make your analogy fit, those men-of-war would need torpedos placed at the
waterline by the builders, on the assumption that one day in the future, the
ship will need to be scuttled.

Usually no. But if there is a great probability of the least event
then maybe they need. For example if in 1993 there was a situation
that might lead to such a need. There are other ways to scuttle the
ships however.

Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!
Not in occupied skyscrapers they don't.

Maybe they used not to. MAybe not.

I'd love to know the method you would use to determine which people would keep
this secret, and which ones would have some reservation that ultimately would
trip up the entire game.

Nothing special. The same methods that are used when choosing spies,
lawyers, attorneys, BTW doctors, Army commanders etc. Reliability,
ability to work on the 'need-to-know' basis. Not boasters. Not drunks.
Not drug-addicts. Decent, rliable people. If I believe you no secret
can be kept because someone will talk outside.

ONE building inspector or janitor that was not wholly
behind the project and you'd have the mother of all grand juries, lawsuits, and
that company would be torn apart.

Of course such risks exist. But if you were a junitor and found some
still box with wires inside what then? There are lots of ducts, boxes
and other things in all buildings. And lots of wires. It can all be
hidden.

"We're wiring the place with explosives, for their own good." - that makes
sense to you? And what if terrorists do strike, but instead of doing minor
damage, such as in 1993, they trip the demos? Congrats, here's your letter of
appreciation from Al qaida.

That is another reason to keep it secret. Access to the demos must be
prevented. Access to the control system that initiates them is
prevented through many ways including codes. They may guess that
something like that is here but where exactly and how it is controlled
- they shouldn't know.

That's a guess, sir. What we _know_ happened was the largest "conventional"
bombs ever used against a structure were effectively driven into the buildings
at high speed.

Your theory requires two groups of conspirators, one blue team, the other red,
that both combine to accomplish what the red team intended all along.

No. The red team always wants more damage. The other team's goals are
the opposite.

It doesn't surprise me that there are anomalies during this event - its not as
if we'd seen similar things on this scale to provide data to draw from, so
things like safes crashing through weakened floors or clusters of fire
extinguishers exploding in the fire, or any number of other things that would
be going "boom" in a conflagration like this should also be considered by your
theory.

That's right as I see now. It could be a can of solvent/paint/varnish.
It could be a bottle of hair spray. It could be a bottle of French
parfume. It could be fuel vapors catching fire. Even without all this
during fires flames burst out of windows when glass is broken. Only
seismic data remains then.

I think its more a matter of interpretation and understanding than faked data.

Yes. If certain peaks of a seismogram can be explained rationally, of
course.

False, VV. The towers were absolutely never empty; they lived and breathed
24/7 until the moment they died.

But not that everybody saw everything. If you bring things in boxes
marked 'A new super-booper computers' say for the payment system that
was there others cannot find out what was inside the boxes.

...all agreeing to place thousands of people in danger that were not directly
threatened at that time?

They were threatened all the time. After 1993 probably that was
understood very clearly.

Then lets suggest that all airliners should be wired with explosives to keep
them from falling into the hands of terrorists? That fits your model, but not
reality.

Reality? True the planes are not wired this way. But shooting a
hijacked plane was considered. With passengers, BTW. To prevent
greater damage, BTW. Because it was believed the passengers and the
crews were not savable, BTW. How did the fourth plane fall?

Another option is to equip the planes with remote control systems. If
a plane is hijacked the terrorists cannot control it and it will be
controlled from the ground.

But at the time you suggest that explosives were planted by the blue team,
there was no red team attack in progress.

What is progress in this case? Recruiting, training, planning,
organising not included? It never stops. It is going on right now. And
you seldom know the time, the place and the manner of yet another
'progress' to take place.

I agree, such as if two enormous airliners drilled the structures.
Then space aliens and Martin Bormann must also be considered, because these are
every bit as likely as the owners of the WTC colluding with building
inspectors, fire marshals, and demolition experts to plant explosives in an
occupied building.

Who owned the WTC? I believe it was some public or municipal entity
who hires people you mention, except Bormann. And where is the razor?
Did Ockam take it from you to prevent Martin Bormann from coming to
the scene? Martin Bormann or Heinrich Mueller deserve a separate
theory.

Dominos are solid and transfer their falling energy to their neighbors in
manners wholly different than skyscrapers - there have been collapses in large
buildings in other areas of the world that did not lead to the type of damage
you are describing.

They are solid and there are many differencies with towers. Yet parts
of the towers could fall upon other towers and destroy them. What
about 3-d modelling I wrote about?

Its not one building inspector and fire marshal, but a small army of
them that worked on the structure post-1993 attack.

AFAIK some of them really found strange things but it never went
further. It didn't become part of the investigation. All steel sold as
scrap. No foreign rescue teams were admitted as it often takes place
after disasters of such a scale.

Then, the
owners/stockholders would also have to be willing participants, leading also to
insurance companies

Again, who were the owners? And these insurance companies were given a
huge financial assistance by the government almost immediately. The
airlines were given it too, BTW.

and it branches out further: all participants in directly
placing people in danger from explosives planted not by the bad guys, but by
the "good guys".

Bad guys did that. Period.

So now you are switching theories to make it a military operation? Sir, I
don't have time to deal with every permutation you can dream up - besides, I
watched the events unfold.

It all was NOT a peace operation. I just wanted to explain that some
stages of a peacetime demo job namely weakening the beams could and
must be omitted in this case.

Ok, now lets suggest that there is no bridge, no commandos, no guards, just two
large airliners, drilling the WTC. Why go off on tangents when we WATCHED this
happen?

Don't go off if seismic data are false. Keep strait.

Apples and airliners, sir. Of course commando attacks have occurred. The fact
that we know of them points out how well such operations can be kept a secret,

But one of them could talk it out!

even when only commandos are involved. Now, toss in the FBI, stockholders,
fire marshals, ETC ETC ETC and tell me how long your "bridge attack" could be
kept a secret.

That would be the controlled demo guys - the only folks on the planet with the
corporate knowledge and experience at bringing down structures of this size.
Except they won't do it when there are innocent lives sitting in offices above
their demo charges! Geez.


That assumes that this mythical group knew that one day, the WTC would be so
damaged that a collapse was inevitable AND it would fall to the side, requiring
the demolition. Gi-frickin-gantic assumption there buddy.

Not would but could. And has nearly been once.

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above.

Those events occurred DURING a hostage event. Did the Saudis start shooting
into the a plane years before the hostage situation occurred?? GEEZ

No. But they have been preparing for that for years. And did the
charges in question came off before 'the event' or about one hour
later?

NOT true - planting explosives in an occupied building IS a felony; attempting
to overwhelm hijackers IS NOT.

Yes, exactly - and the people planting your mythical demo charges would have to
know that, just as in 1993, hundreds of FF would be on scene, in mortal danger
specifically from those non-existant charges.

What if the FF were not in the know? Someone blundered.


After many more such events, perhaps we would understand all of the vagaries of
such terrible things. Until then, consider that the buildings were horribly
damaged by terrorists in hijacked airliners, trying to bring them down.

They were. And that where yhe differences might begin. The buildings
were doomed. The question is whether other towers with maybe hundreds
people inside were.

or what, sacrificed?

What way of avoiding can you offer?

I take it you dont know any firefighters. I grew up
playing at Company 7 in Phoenix, living with Engineer Loren Long as my
surrogate dad. I can picture him rushing into the WTC, but what I cannot/ will
not accept is the mental image of -dozens- of people agreeing to plant
explosives in an occupied building, "JUST IN CASE".

A highly probable one.

So we need to mine MORE skyscrapers, "just in case"???

A single tower in a desert - no. The towers like the WTC - maybe.
Though other ways of preventing it look better.

shaking my head No. I dont murder people.

We're discussing murdoroues things here. Cheney and the pie are
irrelevant here.

The pie must be thrown.

Out of this discussion? Yes.

whatever. You are the person that mentioned murdering our vice president
- all I did was toss an imaginary pie.

No need for him here, but who knows?

As long as we insert the massive assumption that such damage on the upper
floors would cause a building to become unstable at its base, allowing it to
fall sideways.

I do not mean a domino-style fall. If there were no or little risk of
events taking place this way all theory falls in flame of shame.

You say you've seen many demolitions.

we call this new invention "t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n'. One of the things that Fox
loves to show is old, disused UNOCCUPIED structures such as forums and
delapidated apartment buildings being brought down. Its a part of modern life.
You have never seen such an event...?

Live -no. On TV-yes. It's the cheapest way of demolition.

BR

VV