[R-G] Moderator's Note

[aaron doncaster]

Hey guys I want to you know that I am not that I am not ignoring you on
purpose, I am in banff and am just assesing the needs and desires of the
workers and oppressed her and trying to create a rouch idea in my head how
to be an effective revolutionary in the bow valley.I need to balance the
needs of my community today with mine and our hopes for the future. Marx
onvce said start where your at. and IO am at a place where the majority are
more concerned about getting good weed rather then how 911 happened

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:01 PM, dean tuckerman <deanosor at mailup.net> wrote:

> debunk of course.
> On Sep 12, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Mark E. Smith wrote:
>
> > Bad link, dean. Could you have meant debunk, or perhaps dybbuk?  ;)
> >
> > --Mark
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:13 PM, dean tuckerman
> > <deanosor at mailup.net> wrote:
> >
> >> People should look at www.debbuking911.com before stating that
> >> everything they believe is the only science out there.
> >> On Sep 12, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Gregory Meyerson 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>