[A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Moderator's Note

[Suzanne de Kuyper]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark E. Smith <mymark at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [R-G] Moderator's Note
To: Suzanne  de Kuyper <suzannedk at gmail.com>


Strange that a fire containing less combustible fuel that could only have
burned in less time and in a smaller area than other fires which did not
collapse smaller, less structurally sound buildings, could, even though
breaking out in asymmetric locations, simultaneously and symmetrically
weaken all the steel supports in the world trade towers.

Those arguments are discussed here:

http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf

<http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf>Damaging support columns
will not cause a building to collapse the way the towers and building 7 did.
Demolition experts have to carefully set their demolitions in order to
ensure that not even one vital support column remains intact, or the
building will not fall into its own footprint in a symmetrical manner. But
even destroying a building with normal controlled demolition won't melt
steel, pulverize concrete, and cause 3000 degree fires to burn for months
afterward.

As you can see from the pictures at the above link, which show people
standing unharmed in the places where NIST says there was a burning inferno,
and black smoke, the fires in the WTC were cool, not hot, and as the
firefighters inside the building reported, small, not large and widespread.

In order to support their otherwise implausible theory, NIST simply lied
about the facts while the perpetrators attempted to destroy the evidence as
quickly as they could. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't hide 3000
degree fires that burned for months afterwards, from infrared satellite
images, as shown here:

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html

--Mark


On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Gregory Meyerson <gmeyerson at triad.rr.com>wrote:

> here's a little snippet from the NIST report:
>
>
>
> 3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled
> demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before
> or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire
> don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
>
> The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a
> conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-
> floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers
> collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged
> support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel
> floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over
> multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel
> ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural
> steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to
> the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that
> the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
>
>
>
>
>
> The reason this is important is that the 9-11 skeptics set up a straw
> man, a man I myself initially failed to question.  That the temps
> were not high enough to melt steel is immaterial, as you can see from
> the explanation.  The rest of the report is worth looking at.  Many
> skeptics cite the fact that the building was designed to withstand a
> Boeing 707 collision.  This report suggests that the particular study
> undertaken in the sixties was inadequate and that at any rate, this
> was a bigger plane.
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>
>
>
> I have read a lot of the skeptic stuff:  several books by Griffin,
> Ruppert's long book, Chossudovsky.  I have read other material that
> avoids the full blown conspiracy theories but which are nonetheless
> quite critical of the 9-11 commission, like James Ridgeway's Five
> Unanswered Questions.
>
>
> Ridgeway's book is important for a careful reading of it allows one
> to see how people like Chossudovsky cherry picked the evidence to
> support the Al Quaeda asset theory instead of the Chalmers Johnson
> blowback view.
>
>
> I realize this material is different from the question of the melting
> steel, but what you have in both cases is that the skeptics cherry
> pick the evidence.  For a pre NIST 2008 rebuttal to the "it couldn't
> have happened without a demolition," see Manuel Garcia's articles in
> Counterpunch.
>
>
>
> You all realize that the left has no chance if we behave like this?
> right?
> On Sep 12, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Macdonald Stainsby wrote:
>
> > It is, in fact, high time that we save words like "scum" for those who
> > perpetrated the acts of September 11, both 2001 and 1973, whoever
> > we think
> > they are, but not those are seeking a world where such crimes do
> > not take
> > place.
> >
> > Let this be a friendly rejoinder.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Macdonald Stainsby
> > Co-ordinator,
> > http://oilsandstruth.org
> > --
> > moderated radical discussion list:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
> > --
> > In the contradiction lies the hope.
> > -Bertholt Brecht.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rad-Green mailing list
> > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>
_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green