Europe full of cowards
#401
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
Light Templar wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
>>>>>>> Washington D.C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
>>>> got into office.
>>>
>>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
>>>
>>
>> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
>> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
>
> Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
>
Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
understandable.
But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
undeniably there.
>> Of course being
>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>> advance.
>
> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> strike.
>
This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
direct hit by an airliner. I find it odd that the building went straight
down as if done by a skilled munitions expert. I find it even more strange
when both go down the same identical way.
They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
>>>>>>> Washington D.C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
>>>> got into office.
>>>
>>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
>>>
>>
>> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
>> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
>
> Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
>
Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
understandable.
But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
undeniably there.
>> Of course being
>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>> advance.
>
> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> strike.
>
This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
direct hit by an airliner. I find it odd that the building went straight
down as if done by a skilled munitions expert. I find it even more strange
when both go down the same identical way.
They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
#402
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
#403
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
#404
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
#405
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
>Light Templar wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> Light Templar wrote:
>>> Of course being
>>> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
>>> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
>> beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
>> already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
>> possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
>> However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
>> strike.
>
>This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
>architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
>direct hit by an airliner.
And they did.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
>down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Why would you find it odd? What would push it over?
> I find it even more strange
>when both go down the same identical way.
Since the buildings were built the same way I'd expect nothing less.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
#406
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
#407
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
#408
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
#409
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
The design assumptions didn't cater for a fully laden 747 flying at
400mph, but for aircraft arriving or departing Kennedy and flying at a
fraction of that speed.
There's also a reasonable assumption that a pilot, seeing the TTs
looming up would make some attempt to miss them avoiding a direct hit.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
Because the strength in the buildings was in the central core.
> I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
Probably because both were struck a direct hit rather than a glancing
blow, and because both buildings were identical, near enough.
Just be grateful they *did* collapse straight down.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
an effort in that department.
--
Peter
#410
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
In article <vTwic.1916$Wc4.7451@bcandid.telisphere.com>,
"GreyCloud" <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
He designed them to take a direct hit by an airliner of the types that
were flying around at the time. The airliners that hit them were quite a
lot larger than that and were fully loaded with fuel.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert. I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
No, they did not "go down the same identical way." Technical reports on
the exact cause of the collapses ("an airliner hit them" is not what I'm
thinking of here) have been issued, and they go into quite a lot of
detail about how the two towers collapsed, and why they collapsed in the
order they did.
The buildings did survive the impact of the airliners. The problem was
the impact blew away the fireproofing on the steel structure and the
heat from the massive fire softened it. Had the airliners been empty of
fuel, one of the towers would surely not have collapsed. The other one,
whose central core got hit, might have collapsed anyway.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
"GreyCloud" <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote:
> Light Templar wrote:
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> >> Light Templar wrote:
> >>> GreyCloud wrote:
> >>>> Light Templar wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tell them the complaint department is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
> >>>>>>> Washington D.C.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They planned 9/11 under clinton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The WTC was bombed in the basement parking area right after Clinton
> >>>> got into office.
> >>>
> >>> Which isn't proof that they planned 9/11 during that time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same bunch... and one of them is still being held for trial from the
> >> first bombing. I think it is good enough proof.
> >
> > Then I submit that your standards for proof is low.
> >
>
> Your need for hard proof as a usual 'standing on the outside looking in' is
> understandable.
> But after one has worked on the inside, it is rather clear that the proof is
> undeniably there.
>
> >> Of course being
> >> pedantic won't solve anything. I'd say that which ever
> >> administration was in control knew these things were going on in
> >> advance.
> >
> > Specifically? Probably not, that they knew there was a threat is
> > beyond a doubt. Even late in the Reagan administration they had
> > already done several studies specifically citing aircraft usage as a
> > possible threat. Clinton did nothing about it, and neither did Bush.
> > However, I'd need to see some evidence that they knew of a specific
> > strike.
> >
>
> This threat was taken seriously by the designer of the WTC buildings. The
> architect was on PBS before 9/11 and he did design the buildings to take a
> direct hit by an airliner.
He designed them to take a direct hit by an airliner of the types that
were flying around at the time. The airliners that hit them were quite a
lot larger than that and were fully loaded with fuel.
> I find it odd that the building went straight
> down as if done by a skilled munitions expert. I find it even more strange
> when both go down the same identical way.
No, they did not "go down the same identical way." Technical reports on
the exact cause of the collapses ("an airliner hit them" is not what I'm
thinking of here) have been issued, and they go into quite a lot of
detail about how the two towers collapsed, and why they collapsed in the
order they did.
The buildings did survive the impact of the airliners. The problem was
the impact blew away the fireproofing on the steel structure and the
heat from the massive fire softened it. Had the airliners been empty of
fuel, one of the towers would surely not have collapsed. The other one,
whose central core got hit, might have collapsed anyway.
> They didn't know that a specific kind of strike was going to occur, just
> that the same group was going to strike again but not when.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html