[kj] Congrats Obama/(9/11)

Brendan bq at soundgardener.co.nz
Thu Jun 5 04:40:31 EDT 2008


The Wiki article on 9/11 conspiracy theories mentions that Popular
Mechanics article in particluar as being criticised itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_conspiracy_theories

"While not supporting theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by
pre-planted explosives, James Quintiere, Ph.D., the former Chief of the
Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and who was a Popular Mechanics panel member for their
debunking of 9/11 Truth article disagreed with their conclusions. Calling
for NIST's investigation to be peer reviewed and for researchers and
engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses he stated "The
official conclusion NIST arrived at is questionable
.I hope to convince
you to perhaps become Conspiracy Theorists, but in a proper way"

DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the Popular Mechanics article or the guy
debunking it, if someone else can and give me the Cliff notes I'd be much
obliged (and less exerted ;)

(Towards the bottom under the heading "Criticism"


> You might find this interesting.

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

>

> Have a glance in your spare time.

>

> Cheers,

> Me

>

> At 11:14 PM 6/4/2008, Devacor at aol.com wrote:

>>In a message dated 6/4/2008 6:55:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>>bq at soundgardener.co.nz writes:

>>

>>I am undecided on the whole idea of 9/11 conspiracy theories. One thing

>>that does seem strange is that the 9/11 and London train bombings both

>>apparently coincided with drills for those exact same scenarios.

>>

>>Also a bit strange that WTC7 collapsed, right down the middle when it

>>didn't even take a hit.

>>

>>I did read a better debunking of some of the conspiracy theories, esp the

>>one about the jet fuel not reaching the temperature required to destroy

>>the steel foundations of the WTC buildings. As the engineers explained,

>>the steel only needed to be heated to the point of structural

>> deformation,

>>not actual destruction.

>>

>>

>>As for the Pentagon hit. I was under the impression these "guys"

>>just half ass flew this plane and plopped it down on top of the

>>pentagon- come to find out, whatever hit the pentagon hit the very

>>front of it going top speed and parallel to the ground flying

>>parallel just a few feet off the ground. I live maybe 20 mins from

>>the Pentagon and know the terrain pretty well- there isnt anyone I

>>know who lives here and knows how the pent actually got hit who

>>believes that a plane of that size got parallel to the ground full

>>speed and hit it like it did- I know someone who worked at the

>>pentagon then and someone who works right next to it and the def

>>dont believe it. Not even with a highly trained pilot what to speak

>>of the hack "hijackers" who flew it- and if so, why would anyone go

>>about it like that, where that is beyond high risk flying at top

>>speed a few feet off the ground when you could much easier fly down

>>on it at an angle towards the middle of it. Also whatever hit it

>>proceeded to punch very neat tight holes into the inner rings which

>>is tons of concrete and steel..there wasn't any huge explosion or

>>big initial mess.

>> Now although no one believes it, no one also really wants to take

>> it to the next step and say "well then what was it and why"? -

>> That's a whole other can of worms.

>> Also first accounts of sightings (calls in) of whatever hit the

>> pentagon was that a small ,sleek couple passenger jet flying very

>> low to the ground at a very high speed was heading in that direction.

>> I knew of the Pentagon inconsistencies initially- it wasn't until

>> later that I heard of the WTC issues and inconsistencies (most

>> people only hear about the WTC part of it). The more common things

>> mentioned (jet fuel, puffs of smoke etc) are really just one part

>> of it- those could go either way if you really looked at it- if

>> those were the only things a little fishy then it could be a toss

>> up, but there is much more to it then that (red flag wise)- The

>> WTC7 of course very much is but there is much more then even that.

>> I personally would have thought that 9/11 people were over

>> reacting and looking into things that weren't there if I didn't

>> look into it some myself. In order to really do so you have to look

>> into it more then what "Penn and Teller" have to say and also get

>> past our own cognitive dissonance.

>> I've known totally "nonbelievers" who went on to read the accounts

>> and saw the docs and totally changed their minds...never met a non

>> believer who went and did all of that and still remained a non believer.

>>I definitely am not one who wants to or has to believe my government

>>has hidden agendas and/or is corrupt. It doesn't do me any good to

>>have that be the fact if it is the case...

>> Though if something smells like a rat right in front of my face, I

>> cant discount it just because it doesn't do me any good or not fit

>> into my present belief system...

>>

>>

>>Adam Helfer

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>----------

>>Get trade secrets for amazing burgers.

>><http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002>Watch

>>"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

>>_______________________________________________

>>Gathering mailing list

>>Gathering at misera.net

>>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>

> Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

> Darwinism.

> We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone

> else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers

> contribute

> to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is

> unethical, while

> a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the

> spirit of diversity,

> inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.

> Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team

> player.

> _______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>





More information about the Gathering mailing list