From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 16:55:40 EDT
Let us consider the maximal 911 hypothesis. It was a deception, a false flag operation, an inside job, designed to start wars. There were no Arab hijackers. (There might have been a plan to hit the White House) The flights AA11, UA175, AA77, UA93 hit no targets. They are still flying. The AA flights were not even registered with the Bureau of Transportation to accept passenger bookings on 911, though they were on days preceding and following. The North tower was hit by an remotely guided A3 Skywarrior, an obsolete military twin-engined jet. The first report said it was a commuter jet. It looks small on the fireman's video. The South Tower was hit by a 737, not a 767. The Pentagon was hit by an A3, not a 757. The remotely guided A3 fired a missile which penetrated three rings of the Pentagon and then blew itself to smithereens. Nothing crashed in Shanksville. Steel framed buildings do not collapse because of fire, even combined with an impact. The phone calls from the flights were faked. Todd Beamer is not a real person. ... and so on. I cannot, on the evidence, rule out this hypothesis. Of course, most of the evidence is locked away. I will supply links if demanded. One is http://www.physics911.net/ Cheers Quoting Paul Zarembka <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU>: > 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT