From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 10:43:50 EDT
Paul C. I'm unsure myself on the demolition issue (I'm studying it), but I am clear that United Airlines flight 93, scheduled from Newark, could well have been a backup operation for either of the Boston flights going into the Towers. Even AA flight 77 from Dulles could have been there for the same purpose (at least partly), but the Newark flight was of course a few miles away from the Towers and thus the more obvious candidate for backup. I think this addresses the concern you expressed about what would have happened if one of the Boston flights had not made its target. Forget the Towers for a minute. Why did the 47-story WTC # 7 building collapse also, in a manner that really looks like a demolition? The Kean Commisssion doesn't even discuss WTC 7. Paul Z. Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > The idea that demolition caused the collapse requires an > amazingly cohesive conspiracy. The officially agreed conspiracy > theory, > that Al Qaeda co-ordinated 4 simultaneous attacks already requires > a great deal of co-ordination and one significant failure. > If this is to be co-ordinated with the secret planting and then > detonation of demolition charges, the co-ordination required becomes > implausible. What if one plane had missed, you would have had a > building > wired for demolition with the charges just waiting to be discovered? > > Anyone planning this would have to take into account failure of an > earlier part of the plot - the planes not hitting the building. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul > Zarembka > Sent: 16 June 2005 16:51 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Former Bush economist Speaks Out on 9/11 > > Note that this former Reagan administration official is saying > something important about 9-11, while his homepage is explicitly > pro- > market. This illustrates that libertarians are often ahead of the > left on what happened on 9-11. > > I've drafted something on this problem, sent it to an on-line > publication, which has not yet even acknowledged receipt (I asked). > > Paul Z. > > > Quoting glevy@PRATT.EDU: > > > Subject: Ex-Bush official: 9/11 was an inside job > > > > > > By John Daly > > UPI International Correspondent > > > > < > http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm > > > > > > > A former Bush team member during his first administration is now > > voicing > > serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on > 9-11. > > Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during > President > > George > > W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official > > story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more > > likely > > that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and > adjacent > > Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the > > Criminal > > Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in > Dallas > > and > > is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If > > demolition > > destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on > 9/11, > > then > > the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America > would > > be > > compelling." > > > > Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to > > exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of > > the > > collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom > > on > > the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on > > such > > erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. > > The > > government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own > terms. > > Only > > professional demolition appears to account for the full range of > > facts > > associated with the collapse of the three buildings." > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT