Re: Remembering 9/11

"DrSMITH" <drsmith.mex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158177332.328833.168650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
josephmouhanna wrote:
[...]
Not true. Do you want me to remind you of all the topics you waxed
philosophic on on things that have nothing to do with Lebanon?

This would be within culture: sCl.

Several Lebanese and American-Lebanese died on the planes and in the towers.
It makes it a legitiamte SCL topic. That would be the L in scL.

[...]
Lack of identifiable plane wreckage, among other anomalies,

So there are anomalies...

Yeah, of course there are anomalies. Why wouldn't there be? Nothing like
this has ever happened before, so those who there will be thousands of holes
you can poke your fingers in. This is why it's so easy for just about every
crack pot to create a conspiracy theory. The framework though does not
change, and your insinuation here is quite laughable. Anomalies though do
not distort the bigger picture, and are basically a product of wishful
thinking, or those with the same type of inquisite minds as the academics
who continue to present bigfoot evidence. Occam's razor is the key term
here.

[...]
So no identifiable plane wreck but the DNA of 64 people has been
identified...

Anomalies aside, how do you think the remains of the 64 people who boarded
the flight in Washington, D.C., ended up in the Pentagon? Did they get them
off the plane, kill them, and then transport the remains to the Pentagon?
[..........]
The point is not crashing, but totally disappearing without enough
recognizable pieces.

No, the point is that someone treats their theory of what should remain
behind as the holy Gospel, when in fact there is no point of reference. The
truth is simpler than conspiracies, and eye witness accounts, including the
reporter who was misquoted, all point to a large plane crashing into the
Pentagon.

[...]
I have no idea what you teach, but you're now ignoring basic laws of
motion
and energy unleashed by an airplane traveling at 600 miles per hour,
coming
to a dead stop.

You claim somewhere else that it hit the ground first and a wing was
torn off. So which is it?

How does the first point negate the other? Besides, this is not what I said,
this is what the eye witnesses said. I was not there, but I understand how a
plane with a wingspan of 125 feet, hitting a short-rise building, can have
one of its wings hit the floor first, especially given its chaotic approach.

[...]
Not what I was talking about, not what the MIT professor was talking
about.
You should start by discussing what I post, and regurgitate the
conspiracy
stuff you're inundated with. You should also get your propaganda right,
what
you're referencing is WTC building 7, and that report is due in early
2007.

I'm not interested in this subject. The propaganda is out there
opposing the official version. I'm not subject to media brainwash to be
inundated. :-)

What is the *official* version? video footage and thousands of eye witnesses
saw airplanes hitting the WTC and the Pentagon. This eventually caused the
collapse of the WTC and a lot of damage to the Pentagon. more than 100 years
after the Automobile was invented, we're still trying to figure out how to
design a safe car, and what happens during a crash. How it exactly happened
will be the topic of many disserations, but the overall pictuer is pretty
clear. The kind of conspiracy required to have the WTC blown up, and to
cause a chain of events to take place leading up to the invasion of Iraq is
beyond the mental capacity of the current President, or anyone working for
him, not to mention the thousands of people who would have to be involved to
carefully coreograph it. So, it seems as if you're falsely accusing me of
buying some official story (it's becoming a habit for you), because you
cannot differentiate between defending what's clear and logical, and what's
out of this world.

I was referencing to the WTC twin towers. Why was the evidence shipped
away before investigating anyway ... Yeah right... There's an official
version for it I suppose.

What evidence? What are you implying with the official version? You seem to
be under the impression that I read from some official manual. I am not like
you, I like to examine what's put in front of me, and I decided what's
believable and what's not. In order for things to have happened differently
than the most obvious (plane hitting building, building fails and
collapses), the following would need to happen:

1. Careful drilling would have to be done inside the structure, in places
where engineering and maintenance crews frequent.
2. Hundreds of people would have to work on this.
3. Hundreds more people would have to fill holes with explosives in
strategic places.
4. More people would have to go around and set up the electronics.
5. There would have to be priror knowledge of the details of the plot.
6. All branches of the government and the military and civil aviation would
have to be in agreement on how the response is to be conducted.
7. The pilots of the hijacked planes would have to hit the towers in a
specific spot.
8. The explosives and sophisticated electronics that go with it have to not
only survive the airplanes hitting the towers, but also be programmed to
detonate in a sequence to match the actual collisions.

Some of these obstacles can be overcome by claiming that missiles, not
airplanes, hit the towers, but even the most skeptical cannot deny the
photographic and eye witness evidence of actual large commercial aircraft
slamming into the WTC. If you don't have any footage, simply google WTC.

So, no matter how many incosistincies exist, the bigger picture remains
clear. This is unless I dreamt having signed the condolensce web site of the
Lebanese passenger on flight 11, and himself and parents are an invention of
the Bush administration.

[...]
Facts: the impact damaged support columns and steel floor trusses,
coupled
with uneven warping caused by the intense fire caused inward collapse of
peripheral columns, which pulled the floors straight down. Further proof
of
this analysis is that the building that was hit lower collapsed first due
to
the added weight of the floors above the point of critical failure

The pancaking theory has been debunked.

This is laughable. Debunked? you make it sound as if it's an open and shut
case, when no one has been really able to prove anything. I can witness a
volcano exploding, but it will take thousands of man-years and some pretty
sophisticated computer modeling (not within our reach yet) to explain the
aftermath.

You're free to believe what you
want. The fact is, the evidence wasn't kept enough time to be studied.

What evidence?

[...]
I'm familiar with this site. You're confusing furor over an attempt to
cover
up incompetency in responding to the hijackings and the US response with
official complicity. Also, this is the first time ever that an event such
as
this one occurs, so conclusions based on dust patterns are not
convincing.

Again, to each his beliefs.

This is not about some belief. If you believe something like this happened
before, then please name the place and time. This is not even open to
debate.

[...]
I [....] could care less about what the truth is.

Clearly!

[...]
but there's a huge difference between incompetency and
complicity, something you don't seem to get.

The line between the 2 in this case is so thin that it can be
dismissed. Why should I believe any of your defenses of the official
version when the accumulated lies after that event are even worse?
WMDs? Axis of evil? Imposing democracy? The truth is that the president
of the US is wreaking havoc all around the world. Incompetent,
definitely; accomplice? Where's the difference between what terrorists
do and what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon? Oh I forgot,
let's blame Bin Laden, Saddam and Nasrallah...

Notice that you're regurgitating propaganda and conspiracy theory that has
nothing to do with airplanes hitting the WTC and people dying. This was my
whole point about the movie and critics. Take aways conjectures and
innuendo, you're left with false statements in this movie.

[...]
BTW, it's interesting that you classify US
media sources as propaganda, and your web sites as the holy truth.

Holy truth? Lol! It's a propaganda war and we're in the middle of it.

I am not in the middle of it, but judging from your anti-US tirade above,
you seem to be.

You can choose a side or simply not care. Concerning this topic, I
really don't care. I only feel that those opposing the official version
are making more sense with their version. Why are you so adamant on
preaching the official version? All I did was to post a link to a video
that I received by email.

What official version am I preaching? can you separate the political stuff
from facts in this movie?

[..............]
Truth is worthless when you can't do a thing about it. Bush was
re-elected despite everything he did. It can't be more ironic.

Ironic or not, it's not the point. You claimed that powerful people have the
ability to hide the truth, and in relation to the US, where this whole
conspiracy took place, I provided proof to the contrary.

[...........]
Really? what other subjects? I can't think of any in the US, can you?

I did say elsewhere.

Then what does it have to do with the US?

[...]
There is no such thing as falsified facts. There are facts and there are
falsifications. In this article I critique some of the points, a bunch of
other stuff is irrelevant (such as the 1962 memo by a chief of staff who
was
fired by the President).

And the rest?

Where do you want to start?

1. The very opening of this film is irrelevant. Not only that, it showed
that the system works, where the Chief of Staff's plan was not only
rejected, but he was fired.

2. We switch to some story about flying a 707 remotely. Big news. This has
been possible since 1945. In fact, President Kennedy's older brother was
killed on a mission toward the end of WWII when the plane he was flying blew
up before he could jump and turn over control to flying it by remote
control. In fact, all modern commercial airlines have a feature called
fly-by-wire (complete remote control with no intervention from crew), and
they must use it on scheduled basis for landings and takeoffs. This is how
we landed on the last flight back to Seattle from Amsterdam. Is this
supposed to be news to anyone? (or relevant).

3. Raytheon demonstrates a flying drone. OK, so what? the Israelis had been
using drones for a few years, and they've used them to deliver bombs and
missiles. Is this proof that a drone hit the WTC?

4. Various government agencies conduct terrorism drills with the WTC as part
of the scenario. Gee, where would they get that idea? who would have thought
that America's biggest symbol can be a target? Certainly not those who saw
it get hit with a car bomb.

5. The neocons write a memo detailing their fantasy and analysis. Hmm, what
does that prove? Neocons have been writing memos for years.

6. The Pentagon looked at a scenario involving a plane hitting the Pentagon.
This is one of thousands of scenarios that disaster planners at the Pentagon
do for a living, 8 hours per day, five days per week, three shifts per day,
around the clock.

So far, it's all about innuendo, using normal disaster planning scenarios to
convince the ill-informed viewer that somehow these events are connected to
9/11

7. First big lie: The narrator claims that Charles Burlingame, was involved
in the exercise mentioned in #6 above before retiring from the Navy and
starting his career flying for American Airlines. Fact: Captain Burlingame,
like a good percentage of commercial pilots in the US, received his flight
training while flying for Uncle Sam. He did work at the Pentagon, but he
retired in 1996 and started flying for American Airlines. Nice touch: the
announcer uses the word "alleged" when referring to the AA flight that
crashed into the Pentagon.

8. Norad conducts a drill in April of 2000 where a plane is flown into the
Pentagon (in the scenario) and they conclude it's not a realistic scenario.
OK, what does that mean? How is this relevant?

9. DOD (Department of Defense) initiates a policy requiring the Secretary of
Defense's OK before action is taken against an airplane in the case of a
hijacking. OK, how's that part of a conspiracy. It's a policy clarification
in an age of new threats. FYI: Rumsfeld missed being a victim by sheer
coincidence. Following the plane hit, he could not be located, but reporters
shooting footage saw him in the midst of the rubble helping trying to pull
some of the injured to safety.

10. Attorney General is told he cannot fly commercial for the remainder of
his term due to a threat assessment by the FBI. What does that prove? that
the government finally wizened up to the fact that the nation's top legal
enforcer needs to have special protection? It's about time and proves
absolutely nothing. In other countries, even small time judges get major
protection details.

11. Summer of 2001: Bin Laden receives treatment at the American University
hospital in Dubai and he receives a visit from a US intelligence agent (I
noticed that the narrator does not say allegedly, even though he does not
offer proof of this). OK, this may be a big deal for the average American
who may think that receiving treatment at the American University Hospital
is officially sanctioned by the US, but for a Lebanese, you should know that
this means nothing more than being admitted to the AUB Hospital in Beirut.
It means absolutely nothing. What the narrator does not say is that he was
repeating a claim made by a British Paper (the Guardian), as reported by a
French paper (le Figaro), although the Guardian did say that the le Figaro
"claimed" but did not offer proof of the CIA official visit, or the hospital
stay. Nevertheless, the narrator of this movie presents it as proof.

OK, this was the first five minutes of the movie. 11 irrelevancies, among
them one big fat lie, one misrepresentation of a rumor as the truth (Bin
Laden visited by the CIA in Dubai in July of 2001), and 9 innuendos designed
to point the misguided viewer into a particular direction (that of the
narrator). I think this about sums up this movie.

As I said earlier, people confuse an attempt to cover the Bush
adminstrations' behind with complicity.

No confusion at all. It depends on how much you're willing to risk your
credibility...

Whose credibility? you should about yours when your proof is the movie you
referenced. You're starting to remind me of our friend Refugee Developer,
who stops little old ladies on the streets of London, gets their opinion on
the government, and presents it as proof that the British Government, the
Austrians, the Germans, the French, Italians and Dutch are after him.

DrSMITH.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey, You Foreigners (OT)
    ... especially one where by all the logic in the world the plane would ... given that the Pentagon was made of much thicker and more ... that turned the WTC into a fireball. ... The WTC fire ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Hey, You Foreigners (OT)
    ... especially one where by all the logic in the world the plane would ... given that the Pentagon was made of much thicker and more ... that turned the WTC into a fireball. ... The WTC fire ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Hey, You Foreigners (OT)
    ... have had to lose it's wings on entry into that reinforced building. ... I'm surprised that a plane, ... that turned the WTC into a fireball. ... Pentagon) but after that, there was just a lot of black smoke for quite ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Hey, You Foreigners (OT)
    ... have had to lose it's wings on entry into that reinforced building. ... given that the Pentagon was made of much thicker and more strengthened material than the WTC. ... I'm surprised that a plane, that has no significant designed-in crashworthyness for that type of impact, can hit a fairly solid building at 300+mph, and you expect there to be anything recognisable left bigger than about 1ft by 1ft. ... The WTC fire didn't look that serious to begin with - sure, there was a bloody big fireball at initial impact (which you don't have a photo of, for the Pentagon) but after that, there was just a lot of black smoke for quite a while. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: UN calls for New world Currency
    ... They watched it hit the ... then they called about the second plane, ... Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. ... Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)