On 27 May 2007 17:57:06 -0700, Joe wrote:

On May 27, 7:38 pm, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.boats KLC Lewis wrote:

:Not for nothing, but the central support columnS (multiple) were not even
:touched by the planes.

The towers fell down due to fire damage, not because of the impacts.

You are wasting your breath David.

Such retards think a demolition team wired the twin towers, flew
planes into them and tried to trick them into thinking it was a
terriorist attack so George Bush could invade Iraq. They think there
are 100's of Americans (that's how many it would take to plan and pull
off such a demolition) all keeping quiet about the mass murder of over
3000 fellow Americans. Not to mention the supposed missle flying into
the Pentagon and the crash in PA.

They are pathetic and discrace the murder victims who died at the
hands of Ossama Bin Ladens AlQueida terriorists. They would rather
blame thier fellow Americans.

Joe

I wonder whether the Conspiracy Theorists have any concept of the size
and cost of the conspiracy they envision.

Example: Disregard for a moment the hundreds of actual participants in
the actual mining of the towers projected by the theorists.

I was in somebody's office waiting to make a presentation about two
years after the disaster, and glanced through an issue of one of the
Civil Engineering trade magazines that had a rather detailed account
of the study done on the towers to establish exactly why they fell
down. the study was made with the idea that possibly engineering codes
might need to be changed.

As I say, I only glanced through the issue but the findings seemed to
be that fires fueled by the airplanes being nearly full of fuel and at
least one of the towers had a large diesel tank for back-up generators
that also ruptured were the cause of failure to the steel and concrete
structure.

My point is that in addition to covering up the actual sabotage of the
towers envisioned by the Theorists the people responsible would have
to be controlling peer reviewed publications for years after the
event.

Given that the cover up of the "My Lai incident", which caused the
death of a relatively few people when viewed in the context of 9/11,
didn't work it is unrealistic to believe that the theorists
explanation is logical.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeatgmaildotcom)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:22:39 +0700, Bruce
wrote:


Given that the cover up of the "My Lai incident", which caused the
death of a relatively few people when viewed in the context of 9/11,
didn't work it is unrealistic to believe that the theorists
explanation is logical.

That's basically what makes all these conspiracy theories fall apart:
Not one credible conspirator ever comes to light.
Same with all the JFK conspiracy crap.
At least on that one lots of con men made some money selling books,
docus and movies to the dupes.
Remember that character who claimed to be Howard Hughes heir?
Said he gave Hughes a ride once, or lent him a dime for a phone call
when Howard's car had broke down, so old Howard left him his fortune.
When I saw that first pop up in the newspapers, I thought what a load
of bs. Visited my Dad that night and damned if he wasn't talking
about how lucky that guy was, and wishing he'd been the one to give
old Howard a ride or lend him a dime that night. LOL.
The 9/11 conspiracy bs is such bs I don't think much money can be
made.
No way Larry is gonna spend a dime on this stuff.
But anybody who would even bother downloading a movie taped
from under the shirt of somebody in the audience is suspect.
Imagine watching that crap, seeing a grainy movie that includes people
returning with their popcorn in the frame, and the occasional chest
hair flashing across the screen. Jesus H. Christ!
So you never know.

--Vic