From: you@somehost.somedomain.aus   
      
   In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >   
   >On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:44:53 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >>   
   >> Anyone reading into the whys and wherefores of 9-11 just want to get to the   
   >> bottom of it, to know what really happened.   
   >> It would be nice if the black boxes were found, and the proper investigators   
   >> allowed access to it.   
   >   
   >Yes, it would have been nice.   
   >   
   >> There is a site that claims all the footage of the Twin Towers were   
   doctored,   
   >> such that those planes shown could not have flown into the twin towers -   
   >   
   >"Could not".  Ridiculous.   
   >   
   >> of course, that is rather unbelievable, but plausible to a degree.   
   >> That site goes into enormous detail to prove it's point.   
   >   
   >Yep, and it's all made up.   
   >   
   >> Even a summary of the timeline of 9-11 show that with the US having   
   >> spent billions of taxpayers money on National Security, no airforce jet   
   >> was shadowing these airliners before the 3 strikes against the USA.   
   >> You have a masterly hijacking team, but they only caused minor casualities   
   >> of only 3,000 people? Come on, get real - they flew past nucleur power   
   >> stations and didn't consider them prime targets?   
   >> Maybe they didn't know what a nucleur power station looked like?   
   >> Maybe you won't even consider this simple logic - they went for the   
   >> least amount of damage, and not maximum damage possible - at both the   
   >> Twin Towers and Pentagon strike. Doesn't that strike you as being very odd?   
   >> Maybe you'll put this down to luck, and not pre-planning down to the   
   >> last detail.   
   >   
   >No, as I said before, they were /symbolic/ targets, and, guess what, /it   
   >worked/.   
      
   I don't think that attacking symbolic targets would have been the best   
   use of such precision terrorism. It is non-sensible - illogical.   
      
   Nor the story of them, going to Flight training schools in Florida,   
   whereby you go from flying Cessnas to knowing how a commercial jetliner   
   works. To go from one to the other, and using the later to such precision,   
   is too much to believe. Like someone getting their license to driving a   
   standard car, and then able to drive a 10 or whatever ton truck and able   
   to drive it like an old pro.   
   And when you hear comments from the actual instructor, commenting on his   
   former student - how the guy still couldn't fly, afterwards...   
      
   Will you stop and just think about the impact of the crashes? for just   
   one moment?   
   You have 'hard' targets - Twin Towers and Pentagon buildings - particularly   
   note that the Pentagon had that precise area strengthened, and picture huge   
   Boeing 757s flying into them - how could they penetrate the Twin Towers   
   buildings? How can a building swallow a plane? How can it precisely   
   miss the floor/ceiling - the main structural strength in the building?   
   To swallow up the plane...   
   The plane would have disintegrated upon impact with the building, and   
   make such a big mess --- that is why that site, makes more sense than   
   the images screened by the mass media. Also why the point made by   
   "In Plane Site" has some relevance - pointing out, that a light briefly   
   appeared before impact with the building, saying that a missle could have   
   been used such that the plane could then go into the building, instead of   
   breaking up on the outside of the building.   
   The building was designed to withstand an impact from a plane. It did have   
   structural integrity.   
   And the Pentagon strike is even harder to believe - if you looked at the   
   earliest stills that were taken at the scene, you will note that the   
   impact is clean and sharply defined. Such that there were windows nearby   
   still intact. The sheer mass of a large object would have caused those   
   windows to be damaged by the shock wave - therefore a much smaller object   
   must have hit the Pentagon.   
   The government authorities can put an end to all the speculation, simply   
   by showing the public all the wreckage that was recovered at the Pentagon   
   and Twin Towers, that was left behind. Parts should be able to be positively   
   IDs as to what it came off?   
   But of course, the authorities haven't done this at all - showed us the   
   wreckage, or assembled wreckage of what was collected?   
   It's much the same as to what happened to the 9-11 Twin Towers rubble --   
   they disposed of it, and it was never heard of again, nor anyone allowed   
   access to it. It's as if the murderer disposed of the evidence.   
      
   >   
   >Here we are years later still talking about it, not to mention the fact   
   >that it was used (falsely, of course, although 75% of Americans are too   
   >stupid to realise this) as partial justification for illegally invading   
   >Iraq, destabilising the whole Middle East, and "radicalising" tens of   
   >thousands of muslims.   
   >   
   >From their standpoint, that's a _result_.   
   >   
   >Besides, as I pointed out to you, it's not known whether even a direct   
   >strike on a nuclear facility would have destroyed it, and what effect that   
   >would have had.   
   >   
   >(And I can't take /too/ seriously, anyone who can't spell nuclear ;-)   
   >   
   >> The whole 9-11 thing doesn't make any kind of real sense. It all seems   
   >> to be a 'shock and awe' tactic, more than anything else.   
   >   
   >Precisely.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> There is a claim that Bin Laden said he had nothing to do with 9-11, but   
   >> of course, this comment would get panned by the mainstream media, that   
   >> is fed information only via Washington. Oh that tape in which he is   
   >> shown happy with 9-11 - that is an example of a hoaxed tape, planted to   
   >> confirm the official story.   
   >   
   >Do you have any good reason to believe that the tape is fake, or is   
   >paranoia and distrust of your government enough for you?   
   >   
      
   There has been critical comments that the man shown, was a bad stand in   
   for Bin Laden, and the guy was wearing a watch, which Bin Laden wouldn't do.   
      
   Perhaps the whole 9-11 thing would only be cleared up, when actual terrorists   
   do crash a large jetliner into a building, and it will be nothing like that   
   of 9-11. ie. There will be a huge fireball outside of the building, where   
   the impact happened, and the mass of the plane would remain outside and   
   fall down where the impact happened.   
   Or it will remain stuck? in the building, plain to see.   
   And the accompanying fire of the   
   building will not bring the building collapsing down as that of 9-11.   
   The structure will remain upright and intact, as the fire is slowly put out.   
      
   Harvey   
      
   >--   
   >=======================================================================   
   >= David    --- No, not that one.   
   >= Mitchell ---   
   >=======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)