Europe full of cowards
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
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
> 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
> 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
> 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
GreyCloud 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
> 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.
The it is your burden to show the hard proof needed to undeniably prove 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.
In 1952 the architech of the Empire State Building made the same claim, and
it did withstand a strike from a large cargo plane, 1942 I think it was.
> I find it odd that the building
> went straight down as if done by a skilled munitions expert.
The experts have explained this numerous times. The strike from the
airliners did not take the buildings down, but the subsequent heat from the
fuel did the job. The steel girders could not handle the heat of the newer
grades of avionics fuel. Buildings of that nature are specifically
designed to go straight down, if they go down at all.
> I find
> it even more strange when both go down the same identical way.
That's the way skyscrapers are designed to go down. Did you think that they
would fall over like a big tree?
>
> 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.
or where.
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Steven Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
In article <1gcrjp3.6uggc3i56dmtN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk >,
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
In article <1gcrjp3.6uggc3i56dmtN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk >,
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Europe full of cowards
In article <1gcrjp3.6uggc3i56dmtN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk >,
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> US airport security was non-existent before 9/11. They might have made
> an effort in that department.
US airport security was nonexistent before a rash of hijackings in the
early 1970s. That's when the whole screening for weapons and knives was
started.
It's terribly easy to lock back with 20/20 hindsight and point out what
the problems were. But few people saw them at the time. It's as with any
disaster: an unexpected chain of small failures has a unexpectedly
severe result. The only thing we can do is learn from it and fix the
problems that lead not only to the end result but to the things that
caused the failures.
The biggest problem I see is that the US is, by and large, unwilling to
take a humble and unbiased look at itself from the point of view of the
rest of the world and from that information decide what it needs to
change. That's not anti-American. Anti-American would be to say that the
US is too stupid to recognize its arrogance or do anything about it.
Pro-American is this: The US has the potential to be smart and wise,
drop its arrogance, and fix the problems it has created for itself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
