--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > >> <snip> > > They only fell > > down because the designers hadn't taken account of the > > vibrations a plane would cause if it collided > > I'm not sure this is correct, though. I've never > heard anything about vibrations having brought > the towers down. After all, quite some time > elapsed between the time each tower was hit and > when it collapsed (almost an hour and a half for > the north tower, a little under an hour for the > south tower). >
I saw a documentary about 9/11 and vibration was definately mentioned as a cause, the building may have rattled itself apart. But thinking more about it perhaps it was the collapse of the upper sections due to the infrastructure melting. My memory may not be so good on this. > Furthermore, as I understand it, the towers were > designed specifically to withstand the impact of > a plane--just not a plane as big as those that > hit them. > > > 9/11 took the world by surprise, even the Israeli secret service > > didn't have a contingency plan for people using hi-jacked aircraft > > as suicide bombs. > > There may not have been a contingency plan, but > the possibility of hijacked planes being used as > suicide bombs on tall buildings was most definitely > considered a possibility for quite some time before > 9/11. > I mentioned the Israelis because they have to deal with all sorts of possibilities and they were astonished as they hadn't even suspected this, maybe others thought otherwise I don't know. > There was no immediate response from the government > > because it was over before anyone had worked out (or could even > > believe)what was going on, not because they wanted or had planned > > it > > Then again, the infamous "Rebuilding America's > Defenses" paper put out in 2000 by the neocon > Project for a New American Century contains > this sentence: > > "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary > change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and > catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." > > "Wanted or planned it" is one thing; welcomed > it might be quite another. Refrained from taking > steps to stop it might be yet another. > > And there are bits and pieces of evidence that > some in the administration and elsewhere *did* > know something big was about to happen that day. > > Yeah I read that and it's the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists jump on, also the FBI agent following one of the hi-jackers reported that he was taking flying lessons but not landing lessons, and he feared that the guy would hi-jack a plane and fly it into a tall building. <snip> > > Of course the targets were symbolic, what greater experession of > > American global reach and power than the world trade centre. > > Remember that Al-queda's main goal is an end to American > > interference in Arab affairs? It's the most obvious target and > > designed for immediate dramatic effect. It worked too, some people > > can't accept the raw viciousness of it and have to start wildly > > theorising about govt plots, shape shifting reptiles ancient > > orders of atlantean monks who secretly rule the world. > > I'm with you in rejecting the notion that the > administration planned and carried it out. I > don't reject out of hand, however, the possibility > that there was some foreknowledge, or at least > some "benign neglect" in terms of taking measures > to protect the U.S. from *some* kind of major > terrorist attack. > "Benign neglect" I like that. I don't believe anyone is cynical enough to plan or allow something like that to happen, but they made the most of it by blaming Iraq, Rumsfeld seizing the opportunity. My sister lives in California and she was annoyed enough with CNN to ring up and complain that every time they talked about the upcoming Iraq invasion they showed a picture of the remains of the WTC as a backdrop, a subtle bit of manipulation. But a conspiracy? No, I don't think so either. > <snip> > > >>>> Books published in English especially will not be enough > > because especially in America there is no academic freedom to write > > and publish anything you like.>>>>> > > > > Damn right there is no freedom to publish anything you like, you > > have to provide evidence for a start, and demonstrate you're > > qualified to assess the evidence, it's called peer-review and it's > > a good way to start working out what is from what isn't. > > That's true in the academic/scholarly field, but > not the case at all in the area of popular > publishing, not to mention on the Web. > A's original statement was about academia I just edited that bit ;-) > > I've yet to read a conspiracy theory that didn't say more about > > the people writing it. > > As I've said here before, I strongly suspect that > there's a great deal of *disinformation* put out > by those with something to hide, for the express > purpose of sidetracking folks like Angela and Bronte > and Bhairitu into pursuing loony conspiracy theories > instead of the real dirt. > Disinformation by people with something to hide! sounds like a conspiracy, what real dirt do you have in mind? Still, it wouldn't surprise me, they say the CIA infiltrated UFO groups in the 50's and fed them rubbish to make the public think they were crazy because the less people believed that UFO's were real the less chance there was of mistaking incoming russian missiles for the space brothers. Is it true? I'm not sure if people need help believing crazy things but it's a good story.
