Kirk McLoren wrote:
What nonsense!!! Wrap your mind around something written by an engineering firm: "DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY
DID THEY COLLAPSE? DID
THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE
THEIR DEMISE? HOW
DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? You won't likely be happy with this, but that's because you're looking for a conspiracy that is far better explained by ineptitude.
No, it's not incomprehensible at all. We were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Airplanes filled the sky over Pearl Harbor and dropped torpedos and bombs on our ships. Many of those ships were sunk in the attack. There's a lot of evidence suggesting a degree of threat awareness at the upper echelons of government, but it wasn't staged by covert American intelligence operatives, the Mossad, or even a bunch of anti-government loonies. There was no "conspiracy". There was a cause / effect relationship between Japanese torpedos, bombs and sunken ships. Likewise, we all witnessed airplanes being flown into buildings on September 11, 2001. Not long afterward, the buildings came down. The buildings did NOT come down until after the airplanes had flown into them. What's so hard for you to understand about this? Now, the question of who financed the operation and is ultimately responsible for the attack is one that has not been answered to my satisfaction. A lot of the facts don't add up, but in my mind, that's more of an indication of governmental blundering and butt-covering than a conspiracy. Did the current administration white wash facts and cover things up? Absolutely! Does that change the fact that two fully fueled 767s crashed into the WTC towers, set them on fire and ultimately resulted in their collapse? Absolutely not! So, if I'm going to swallow the big conspiracy idea, which one should I believe? I've read several of them, including: *There were no actual 767s flown into buildings that day. These were remotely piloted military aircraft packed with explosives. *The airframes that crashed into the WTC towers were later seen on the tarmacs of other airports. *Mossad agents were detained on that day, having been caught gleefully laughing about the "demolition" they'd supposedly pulled off. *The "demolition" was carried out covertly, by agents of the American government. *Cruise missiles with fake wings and tail sections destroyed the WTC towers. Now, which one of these do YOU approve?
Not so. The WTC towers didn't fall on their own footprints. Many of the surrounding buildings were also damaged as they came down. You're grasping at straws, Kirk!
Forget the conjecture and nonsense. Look at the evidence. robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ |
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
