From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 11:01:21 EDT
Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > I have seen the sites discussing WT7, but I don't see that > controlled demolition is any more likely because of the failure > of this building. Why should the conspirators have wanted to > demolish this one in particular? Paul C. I'm trying to avoid speculations as to motives of whomever the conspirators were, but rather getting clear on the facts of the case first. > What seems more serious is the possibility that large buildings > like WT7 are just much more vulnerable to failure than was > recognized. If it were so easily explained, WHY did the Kean Commission completely avoid the issue? We are talking about a major building with major electrical transformers, CIA operations, Guilaini 'bunker', etc. No such building has ever before collapsed from a fire (no plane hit it), nor did WTC buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2. The building was intentionally completely evacuated, people on the street were told to stay away as the building was coming down, etc. Check out the videos of the collapse itself. It really does look like a demolition and everyone would also think so if they saw it (probably the reason you rarely see THAT video). One interpretation says that the WTC 7 had the command operations for the WTC attacks and thus needed to come down, but that is speculation not fact which has been my own focus. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul > Zarembka > Sent: 17 June 2005 15:44 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Former Bush economist Speaks Out on 9/11 > > 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 : Fri Jun 24 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT