[Mb-civic] 911 mysteries
Alexander Harper
harperalexander at mail.com
Fri Oct 28 14:59:38 PDT 2005
Thanks, Ian - I have no problem with what you say nor do I have any insurmountable problem with the idea that your government might be capable of offing 3000 of your co citizens in an auto atentado. I mean it goes against everything one was brought up to believe about the US but 9/11, looked at from a more cynical /realistic world-point of view, clearly resulted in a massive dividend for the neo-cons and their ilk so if you judge the tree by its fruit, that taken on its own would be enough to convince any latin or slav or franc, nurtured within a legal system that presumes you guilty before you are found innocent, that there had to be sinister home grown forces at work here even without the very compelling circumstantial evidence that is inexorably being amassed by the 9/11 truth movement. Go for it. Good luck.
Al B
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian <ialterman at nyc.rr.com>
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] 911 mysteries
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:46:49 -0400
>
> AlB:
>
> Your response is actually quite ironic in that we, in the 9/11
> truth movement, usually get the exact opposite reaction: "C'mon -
> if it had really happened that way then there would have had to be
> SO MANY people 'in the know' that SOMEONE would have come forward
> by now."
>
> Of course, they conveniently forget that all "great" conspiracies -
> Pearl Harbor, JFK assassination, etc. - must have had dozens -
> maybe hundreds, possibly even thousands - of people "in the know"
> at various levels, and yet "no one ever came forward" with "smoking
> gun" evidence. The reason for this is threefold.
>
> First, as you note, many people are "silenced," whether via murder,
> threat or money. Second, the very nature of a "successful"
> conspiracy is that only a handful of people have "all" the facts,
> while everyone else only has the information necessary for them to
> carry out their role - a role which they may not even know (or only
> know minimally) is part of a conspiracy at all. Third, another
> aspect of a "successful" conspiracy is that, if and when anyone
> with any real info DOES come forward, rhey are quickly seen - and
> often deliberately "painted" - as a "crackpot."
>
> Re 9/11, the evidence is there. And it is growing every day. And
> the movement is also growing steadily, though admittedly slowly,
> for the reasons given by David Ray Griffin. However, when we are
> able to break through an individual's extreme fear - the inability
> to wrap one's mind around the idea that one's government could
> deliberately murder almost 3,000 of its own people - (and we do
> that occasionally), then we find that people finally see the
> evidence, and very much want to "do something."
>
> Will the movement get past the "evidence" stage, and become
> something more focused and active? From all I have seen in the
> past 18-24 months that I have been involved, I would give an
> unqualified "yes" - not because I am a hopeless optimist wearing
> rose-colored glasses, but because I have seen the slow but steady
> growth of the movement, and see its continued growth as a given.
>
> Peace.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Harper"
> <harperalexander at mail.com>
> To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] 911 mysteries
>
>
> > Supposing it were true that 9/11 was an 'auto-atentado' as they
> > would call it here, how many of the people involved in its
> > planning and execution will be around today to tell the tale? The
> > circumstantial/forensic evidence looks pretty compelling and yes,
> > I saw the french docu about it way back at the beginning too but
> > I wonder if this will ever get beyond well informed and well
> > (scientifically) supported conjecture.
> > AlB
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Blaxill" <mblaxill at yahoo.com>
> > To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
> > Subject: [Mb-civic] 911 mysteries
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >>
> >> as Bill O Reilly would say (or, um Steve
> >> Colbert..) "it's just common sense" :0)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Mike:
> >> >
> >> > Here, here! The two most salient FACTS (not
> >> > conjecture, for those who are wondering...) re the WTC that
> >> come to > mind for
> >> > me are:
> >> >
> >> > 1. If one had dropped a quarter from the 110th
> >> > floor, it would have landed in 8.6 (or so) seconds. This is
> >> called > "free
> >> > fall speed." When the towers fell, they fell at just under 9 seconds -
> >> > essentially "free fall speed." In order for this to occur, there
> >> > would have had
> >> > to be NOTHING in between the floors of the building; i.e., all the
> >> > structural supports, etc. would have had to "disappear." Thus,
> >> > even if we allow the
> >> > "pancake theory" - i.e., that the floors came down on top of one > another
> >> > "pancake" fashion - even THAT would have been slowed down to a minimal
> >> > degree by the time it took for each successive floor to "break
> >> through" > the
> >> > support trusses. Thus, the "pancake theory" cannot explain
> >> the "free > fall
> >> > speed" of the collapses. The ONLY thing that would have
> >> allowed the > towers
> >> > to collapse at "free fall speed" would have been if the internal > support
> >> > trusses and other structures - to say nothing of the 47-column
> >> > "center core" - had somehow "disappeared" instantaneously. And the > only
> >> > way THAT can happen is with explosives.
> >> >
> >> > 2. To further support one of your comments, if
> >> > you watch the videotape of the towers from the point at which the > second
> >> > plane hit, it took less than 15-20 minutes for the smoke to turn from
> >> > grey/white to black. As you note, black smoke indicates a
> >> > fuel-STARVED fire. This means that the fire could only have been
> >> > truly "hot" for less than 20
> >> > minutes. However, one must also consider that the vast majority
> >> > of the fuel in
> >> > both crashes was consumed within the first 30-60 seconds of
> >> the > crashes -
> >> > and, in the case of the second plane, the majority of that fuel
> >> > exploded OUTSIDE the building, NOT inside. As well, in many
> >> > video shots taken
> >> > less than 30 minutes after the crashes, people can be seen standing - > in
> >> > virtually washer-clean clothing - at the windows of floors
> >> directly > above and
> >> > below the impact zones. If the fires were so "hot" - enough
> >> to melt > steel
> >> > trusses - how come these people were standing there, and their
> >> > clothes were not
> >> > even soiled?
> >> >
> >> > And the, of course, there is the mystery of WTC
> >> > 7. It had NOT been hit by a plane, or even debris from the
> >> > crashes. However, for reasons still unexplained, there WERE two
> >> > SMALL fires in the
> >> > building - a steel-and-concrete building of over 50 stories.
> >> > The "official" story offers the lame conclusion that the two
> >> fires - > which
> >> > took up less than quarter floor each - caused the building to
> >> > collapse. Yet we have Larry Silverstein's own testimony that the
> >> > building
> >> > was "pulled" - i.e., that it was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
> >> >
> >> > Given that the building was admittedly on fire,
> >> > it would have been impossible for the charges to be set that day;
> >> > no company would enter a burning building to install explosive
> >> > charges. In addition, it usually takes 5-10 days to properly
> >> > install such
> >> > charges to take down a building of that size. This means that -
> >> > no matter HOW one
> >> > looks at it - the charges HAD to be set days, possible weeks, prior to
> >> > 9/11. This begs the question: WHY? Why were those charges
> >> placed in > the
> >> > building days, possible weeks, prior to 9/11? Did someone have
> >> > advance notice
> >> > of the attack? Was there something in the building that needed to be
> >> > "covered up" so badly that the demolition of the entire building
> >> > was required?
> >> > Keep in mind that WTC 7 housed the IRS, the DOD, the CIA and, most
> >> > suspiciously, both the FEMA office and Giuliani's infamous "bunker."
> >> >
> >> > This, of course, leads to the final question:
> >> > if charges were set at WTC 7 days or weeks prior to 9/11, and
> >> the > collapse
> >> > of the twin towers was also the result of a "controlled demolition,"
> >> > doesn't that mean that the charges in the twin towers would ALSO
> >> > have had to be
> >> > set days or weeks prior to 9/11? And, if so, what does that
> >> say about > the
> >> > "surprise" nature of the attack - and maybe even who was behind it?
> >> >
> >> > There may be no "smoking gun" yet, but
> >> > eventually the evidence for demolition vs. the government's "official"
> >> > story - which is already growing - will so far surpass the "official"
> >> > evidence that it will only be because people cannot wrap their
> >> minds > around
> >> > the idea that their government could murder 3,000 of its own
> >> citizens > that
> >> > they will not wake up and smell the coffee...
> >> >
> >> > Peace.
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Blaxill" <mblaxill at yahoo.com>
> >> > To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:29 AM
> >> > Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > To me there are so many holes in the official
> >> > > story that you can just take your pick - i
> >> > > started my 911 truth journey with wondering
> >> > how
> >> > > in the hell three hijacked planes could get
> >> > past
> >> > > our air defenses, with the one hitting the
> >> > > pentagon an hour and a half after the first
> >> > plane
> >> > > hit the WTC!
> >> > >
> >> > >>From there it was to various events around
> >> > NYC
> >> > > where they presented all the anomolies from
> >> > the
> >> > > collapse of the WTC, especially WTC 7
> >> > ("pulled"
> >> > > according to Silverstein), to the lack of
> >> > > concern/stonewalling of the Moussaui
> >> > > investigation (Colleen Rowley's memo), to the
> >> > > fact that they had a tape of the Pentagon
> >> > crash
> >> > > but only released a few (fuzzy) frames of the
> >> > > film and confiscated all others..and that's
> >> > just
> >> > > the tip of the iceberg!!
> >> > >
> >> > > I went to an event where an engineer from MIT
> >> > > explained the conditions in which a building
> >> > like
> >> > > the WTC would collapse, steel melt etc - fire
> >> > > temp would have to be in the thousands of
> >> > > degrees..way more than was possible at the
> >> > scene.
> >> > > Kerosene, or airplane fuel, is a relatively
> >> > cool
> >> > > burning fuel - and the heavy black smoke you
> >> > saw
> >> > > right before the towers collapsed was an
> >> > > indication that the fire was cooling or
> >> > burning
> >> > > itself out, not getting hotter and melting
> >> > the
> >> > > steel!!
> >> > >
> >> > > I could go on and on - i think in the next 5
> >> > > years or so there will be a growing consensus
> >> > on
> >> > > this, similar to opinion in the rest of the
> >> > world
> >> > >
> >> > > PEACE
> >> > > -M
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Message: 2
> >> > > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:42:28 -0400
> >> > > From: Michael Butler
> >> > <michael at michaelbutler.com>
> >> > > Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries
> >> > > To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> >> > > Message-ID:
> >> > > <BF856274.25190%michael at michaelbutler.com>
> >> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >> > >
> >> > > Ian and Mike have recently posted items
> >> > > questioning the WTC destruction. I
> >> > > held such ideas in doubt until I saw the
> >> > > show"9/11Mysteries" at the Met in
> >> > > Los Angeles. For sure there are some serious
> >> > > questions.
> >> > > However the WTC is more technical than the
> >> > > questions about what actually hit
> >> > > the Pentagon. If you saw the pictures and
> >> > heard
> >> > > the report you would
> >> > > question as I do;
> >> > > Do we have another 'Reichstag' fire?
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Mb-civic mailing list
> >> > > Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Mb-civic mailing list
> >> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> >> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
> >
> >
> > -- ___________________________________________________
> > Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mb-civic mailing list
> > Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> > http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list