Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
I suspect the WTC towers were designed with a structural weakness
to make any future demolition easy.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! That would be insane. The WTC Towers were one of the
strongest structures made up to the 1970s. They withstood the effects
of the
On 2/21/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
That is my point. The building was designed to withstand
a severe _horizontal_ blow, but it was not designed to withstand
a severe _downward_ blow. The inability of the structure
to withstand a vertical
Jones Beene wrote:
There is no consensus among the so-called hundreds of the world's
best civil engineers and many excellent engineers on or associated
with the 9/11 commission had their contrary opinions eliminated from
the final report by direct order from Philip Zelikow.
Okay, where are
Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is no consensus among the so-called hundreds of the world's
best civil engineers and many excellent engineers on or associated
with the 9/11 commission had their contrary opinions eliminated from
the final report by direct order from Philip Zelikow.
Okay, where are
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Do you mean they bought 115,000 puts on American on 9/10
Yes. The day before.
or 115,000 shares on 9/10 (which is what you wrote)?
No, there was absolutely no hedge ! It was a straight short-sell from
the reports which have appeared in print, and they are not
Jones Beene wrote:
And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for
the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to continue to
work there, for the 3-4 years afterwards - in ignorance of this ! if
the buildings had already been fitted with the thermite - which is
Ok, then explain. Why did they get rid of the bomb sniffing dogs after the
mysterious powerdown?
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for
the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to
I wrote:
CDI also does forensic investigations of accidental explosions. The
chances that anyone could fool them while destroying the Twin Towers
are probably zero to five significant places.
Note that CDI experts were on site within hours, and they were a key
player in the expedient
Site worth reviewing wrt WTC7.
Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/introduction.html
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
You mean: the building was gutted
A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished.
The
John Berry wrote:
A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished.
The evidence? The twin towers and building 7.
So you say, but the people at Controlled Demolition say otherwise. I have read
books and seen documentaries from them. They make a very good case for that,
based on
Jed Rothwell wrote:
So you say, but the people at Controlled Demolition say otherwise. I have read
books and seen documentaries from them. They make a very good case for that,
based on straightforward classical physics. So forgive me if I give them a
little more credibility than I give you.
Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Do you mean they bought 115,000 puts on American on 9/10
Yes. The day before.
or 115,000 shares on 9/10 (which is what you wrote)?
No, there was absolutely no hedge ! It was a straight short-sell from
the reports which have appeared in
13 matches
Mail list logo
