911

riverman wrote:
snip
In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

I thought the claim was damage from the other buildings collapsing coupled
with a diesel tank that was from emergency generators?

Our data center had 3 15k gallon diesel tanks, the last one somewhat
haphazardly installed during a rush to have 3 months of fuel on site
to maintain operations in case of a power crisis due to y2k.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

riverman wrote:

I hear you, Joe. I'm not sure where the boundary is between 'rational
hypothesis' and 'conspiracy science"...

Surely you jest !

I'm not
going to take a stand on either of those, but if word got out that the
Secret Service had offices rigged with enough explosives to cause a
building in central NYC to collapse, the backlash would be
overwhelming. ...

They want you to think it was a Secret Service office, but it
was really the Martian Embassy. And answer me this, how many
Martians did they find in the rubble ? That's right, *NONE*.
The Martians had abandoned their Embassy right before the
WTC was hit with photon torpedoes. So what does *that* tell you ?

There is nothing that happened there which cannot be explained
by a Martian attack with photon torpedoes so logically the
only rational explanation is a Martian attack. QED

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Dec 14, 2:27*am, riverman wrote:
I hear you, Joe. I'm not sure where the boundary is between 'rational
hypothesis' and 'conspiracy science"

I'll take a stand and say it's somewhere between accepting the
possibility that explosives on site for other purposes may have
contributed to the collapse of WTC7..and..believing that it came down
as a result of explosives placed there for that purpose.

That said, and acknowledging my total lack of knowledge about spook
stuff, I have serious reservations that any fail safe detonation would
be of sufficient power or fortuitous placement to cause catastrophic
failure of a structure like WTC7. Absent conclusive evidence to the
contrary, I suppose it must remain in the set of possible outcomes,
but color me very skeptical.


My last point: you state that "The FEMA report presents a "probable"
failure mechanism that is substantiated by myriad known facts and
evidence" and I counter that FEMA itself says it is far from
substantiated.

The facts to which I referred were the known structural design of the
building, the severity and locations of the fires, the the effects of
fire on structural steel, the known damage to the structure, and the
known failure scenarios given various initiating events.

Think about that last sentence: they don't know. There's no other
conclusion possible, other than that they know and cannot (or will
not) tell.

There are more than one plausible scenario based on science and
engineering. I can't jump on the CT bandwagon just because we don't
know which one is correct. The probability of either specific
hypothesis may be low, but the probability that it's among the group
of hypotheses presented is considerably better.

Joe F.

On Dec 14, 6:22*pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
riverman wrote:

snip

In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

I thought the claim was damage from the other buildings collapsing coupled
with a diesel tank that was from emergency generators?


Read the FEMA report. That's one scenario that they propose, but they
state that their best models have an extremely low probability. They
admit that they don't really know what was the mechanism. They also
discount that the building acquired much damage as compared to other
buildings nearby. You state that claim with much more certainty than
the folks who propose it.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 6:22 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
riverman wrote:

snip

In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

I thought the claim was damage from the other buildings collapsing coupled
with a diesel tank that was from emergency generators?


Read the FEMA report. That's one scenario that they propose, but they
state that their best models have an extremely low probability. They
admit that they don't really know what was the mechanism. They also
discount that the building acquired much damage as compared to other
buildings nearby. You state that claim with much more certainty than
the folks who propose it.

well, i may be naive, or trusting, or just plain stupid, but surely to
*god*. myron, you are not suggesting that there is some rational possibility
that our own government had some conscious part in a nefarious scheme to
blow up buildings, kill citizens, or to cover up such activities, etc?

tell me that i am hopelessly confused and lamentably mistaken.

yfitons
wayno

--riverman

On Dec 16, 5:05*am, "Wayne Harrison" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Dec 14, 6:22 pm, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

riverman wrote:

snip

In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

I thought the claim was damage from the other buildings collapsing coupled
with a diesel tank that was from emergency generators?

Read the FEMA report. That's one scenario that they propose, but they
state that their best models have an extremely low probability. They
admit that they don't really know what was the mechanism. They also
discount that the building acquired much damage as compared to other
buildings nearby. You state that claim with much more certainty than
the folks who propose it.

well, i may be naive, or trusting, or just plain stupid, but surely to
*god*. myron, you are not suggesting that there is some rational possibility
that our own government had some conscious part in a nefarious scheme to
blow up buildings, kill citizens, or to cover up such activities, etc?

tell me that i am hopelessly confused and lamentably mistaken.

yfitons
wayno

--riverman

OK. You are hopelessly confused and lamentably mistaken.

But, FWIF, what I *am* saying is that people tend to state with
certainty things that are attributed to others who are considerably
less certain. After extensive investigation, FEMA is not certain what
brought down WTC7, and there are irregularities around the entire 911
incident that are unresolved. There are several options available to
the general public, but to state categorically that there is nothing
irregular or unresolved, and that all is at it appears, is not the
most rational one.

I'm not proposing any sort of itemized consipiracy, but I *will* claim
that it would be an extremely unusual situation if everything was as
it was packaged and sold. Did the US gubmint conspire to bring down
the WTCs? Almost certainly not. Did the Secret Service, FBI or CIA
have some role in the collapse of WTC7? Possibly, but its a reach.
(Remember NO ONE was hurt.) Did shadow ops plant evidence to help make
a case as to who and what caused 911, in the form of passports, IDs,
etc to sway public opinion? Possibly. Was the entire thing hatched and
executed without members of the US security services knowing anything
about it? Absolutely not. Would those same security folks have acted
in a manner whenever possible to CYA? I'd be astounded if not. And
most relevant: was the whole thing managed and spun in such a way as
to deflect ANY internal inquiry and to focus our entire national
reserves on an as yet, still elusive foe? You betcha.

Even the most innocuous things are seldom what they appear.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
Twilight Zone snipped
Even the most innocuous things are seldom what they appear.

Damn right, the innocuous things are almost always Martians.
With photon torpedoes. And incredibly brilliant press agents.

Myron, dude, you've got a screw loose pal. And more than one.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Dec 15, 7:23 pm, riverman wrote:

but to state categorically that there is nothing
irregular or unresolved

Any incident of this magnitude would have some things that look
irregular and remain unresolved.

That's called "normal".

Was the entire thing hatched and
executed without members of the US security services knowing anything
about it? Absolutely not.

What?!? You were holding to the reasonable side of skeptical, but that
went waaay overboard.

Even the most innocuous things are seldom what they appear.

Yeah, humans are fallible finite creatures; we can't figure everything
out all the time. Real life isn't CSI.

As Ken (I think) said earlier, sure it's probably true that the
official line "simplifies" and probably covers some minor things up,
but to suggest that our gov't had any role or even just knew about it
and let it happen is stepping into Martian territory...

Jon.

On Dec 15, 10:24*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
riverman wrote:
Twilight Zone snipped
Even the most innocuous things are seldom what they appear.

Damn right, the innocuous things are almost always Martians.
With photon torpedoes. And incredibly brilliant press agents.

Myron, dude, you've got a screw loose pal. And more than one.

--
Ken Fortenberry

i blame it on the time in the congo.

yfitons
wayno(myron, you got better sense; but, whatever, who loves ya?)

On Dec 16, 12:57 pm, wrote:
On Dec 15, 7:23 pm, riverman wrote:

but to state categorically that there is nothing
irregular or unresolved

Any incident of this magnitude would have some things that look
irregular and remain unresolved.

That's called "normal".

Was the entire thing hatched and
executed without members of the US security services knowing anything
about it? Absolutely not.

What?!? You were holding to the reasonable side of skeptical, but that
went waaay overboard.


Nonsense: I didn't say they hatched it. I said they had some prior
knowledge that something was brewing. They have openly admitted it.
The problem was that the different departments did not act in unison
with that information. Read the report from Homeland Security; you can
find many others like it, as its well-documented, and was the major
factor in the formation of the DHS.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002...i_ths0702.html


Even the most innocuous things are seldom what they appear.

Yeah, humans are fallible finite creatures; we can't figure everything
out all the time. Real life isn't CSI.

As Ken (I think) said earlier, sure it's probably true that the
official line "simplifies" and probably covers some minor things up,
but to suggest that our gov't had any role or even just knew about it
and let it happen is stepping into Martian territory...


Never said that either. But it would not be the first time our own, or
any other government, failed to act preactively in order to let an
event occur that served their purposes. Of course, if they had known
the magnitude of this event, it would be a different story. I don't
think they knew THAT. Even Bin Laden said he was surprised that the
buildings fell down.

FWIW, I think they (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and other PNAC
members in Bush's administration) were aware that something was
potentially hatching, and were watching and expecting that it would be
something that they could manage and spin to their benefit. They
possibly had information to plant and spin ready to employ if the
opportunity arose to push their well-documented agenda to destabilise
the region, but when it all came down at such a scale, they were
caught completely by surprise by the magnitude of the event.

From then on out, there was so much damage control and anti-Iraq spin
that the LAST thing an intelligent person would think is that the
simple truth reigned, with 'only some minor things covered up'. Power
politics, especially in DC, has never been about full disclosure. And
certainly not espionage.

--riverman