[Peace-discuss] Makes me want to see "Loose Change"

Thu Feb 22 14:51:14 CST 2007

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chuck Minne 
  To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
  Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Makes me want to see "Loose Change"

  "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote: 

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Chuck Minne 
      To: Chas. 'Mark' Bee ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
      Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Makes me want to see "Loose Change"

      Right, all these renowned chemists and physicists like Chomsky et.al. are above trying to explain:

        1.. The colossal clouds of concrete dust which literally explode from the TOPS of WCT1 and WTC2 and signal the collapse of the buildings. 
        2.. 
        3..   Well, result from it, certainly.  Air has to go somewhere. 
      But what made the dust? The collapses were many minutes after the aircraft hit and burning occurred.

        Breaking, grinding concrete.

        1.. 
        2..  That there were no chunks of concrete on the ground, 
        3.. 
        4..   Cite?  They sure needed that heavy construction equipment at ground zero to move something. 
      Send me your address and I'll send you a DVD showing the governor explaining how there was no concrete but only dust that went all the way to New Jersey - he is on site when saying this. Immediately as cleanup began, trucks saying "Controlled Demolition" on their sides, removed all the steel (which was evidence,) which was in convenient 30-foot lengths to ships where it was taken to Asia and melted. However some steel was found which had been vaporized, which requires temps of about 5,000 degrees. And then there were pools of molten steel at the bottom of the wreckage SIX weeks later. The DVD will show all of this.

        I don't really need your propaganda DVD.

        1.. 
        2.. but only dust, is impossible to explain without explosives 
        3.. 
        4.. lie - and explosives wouldn't explain it either, if it were true.  A pocket nuke, maybe, but I doubt it. I think we'd notice that. 
      You are just not creditable, sorry.

        Fine, show me any controlled demo concrete building photo with no chunks of concrete. From anywhere.   lol

        1.. 
        2..  - the massive amounts of dust on the ground give no other explanation. But on a building that supposedly collapsed from heat exposure, you don't need to be a scientist to figure out where the massive clouds of dust came from at the tops when the collapse started. 
        3.. Jet fuel, kerosene, under ideal combustion conditions won't come close to burning hot enough to soften steel. 
        4.. 
        5.. lie 
      OK, get out your kerosene heater and tune it up to burn as hot as you can, and then melt it or some other steel. When you achieve that, let me know.

        Melt?  lol  This is the true indicator of a gullible person.  All I have to do is make it bend enough so it won't hold a half million tons or so for an hour.  And I get to use everything that would have been in that building, and a rapid air flow up the core.

        1.. 
        2..  When a fuel is deprived of oxygen and is burning near or at its lower temperature limit, it makes black smoke. 
        3.. 
        4..   So does plastic. 
      Exactly, but only when burning at a cool temperature.

        Of course, I don't have to prove that the entire building from top to bottom was burning at the same temperature.

        1.. 
        2..  The smoke coming out of WTC1 and WTC2 is always black. Paint tests indicated that it burned at about 500°F, which is about as hot as a steel kitchen oven. 
        3.. 
        4.. lie 
      No. NIST reported the paint tests. It's all on the DVD.
      Also read Kevin Ryan's comments and correspondence with NIST here (Kevin Ryan was later fired, BTW.): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00177.htm

         Again, I don't nedd your propaganda DVD.

      http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

        1.. 
        2..  They don't collapse too often do they? 
        3.. The hole in the Pentagon was too small for an airliner to fit through. 
        4.. 
        5.. lie 
      Go here:http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html

        1.. 
        2..  There was no wreckage from the wings or tail outside the building. 
        3.. 
        4.. lie 
      Cite?

        Look at any photo from before the cleanup.

      Also check on the turbine wheel found, which could not have come from a airliner, 

      same site:

      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

      No. There was one piece of aluminum that had some red white and blue paint on it. It was about 15' long and maybe 2-3 feet wide.
        1.. 
        2..  There were no airliner seats or luggage in the wreckage. Cockburn says photos exist showing an airliner hitting the building. Anybody ever seen one of those? 
        3.. 
        4..   Nope - saw one of a plane over the parking lot at an altitude of about 10' though. 
      Cite?
      Photos?

        I'll do you one better.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIQYDIuakyQ

        1.. 
        2..  One of those would certainly squelch the cruise missle/F-15 theory in a hurry. 
        So would the fact that it penetrated three rings of the building.

        1.. In WTC7 there was minor fire damage on two floors, and there is no smoke visible in the videos of it collapsing. Silverstein said on PBS that he was told it was going to be "pulled." It is a textbook picture of a controlled demolition. 
        No, but of a contained fire, certainly.

      You're dreaming. It was a contained fire all right. Never in history has a steel skyscraper been brought down by fire. The steel has always remained more or less intact. Yet on this day it happened not only the first time, but second and third also.

        1.. All three WTC buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed, 
        2.. 
        3.. lie
      Cite?

      They were all under 10 seconds. Initially the government subscribed to the pancake theory, which would have taken way too long, but they abandoned that theory and really came up without nothing at all, except it was due to a lack of imagination.  

        Look at any video of the full collapse.  The floors banging into each other settle into a predictable rythm - you could dance to it.  No free fall works like that, ever.

        1.. 
        2..  an impossibility if it happened the way that the offical report describes. The only way you can achieve free-fall speed is to destroy the supports simultaneously - which is exactly what controlled demolition does. 
        3.. 
        4.. These buildings fell in their footprints. Again, that is impossible unless all of the vertical supports are destroyed simultaneously. 
        5.. 
        6.. lie - see central concrete elevator pillar. 
      You just don't know what you are talking about, There were around 217 steel columns in the three buildings and they all had to be destroyed simultaneously in layers to cause the buildings to fall the way that they did. Fire has never done that and could not do it. It was impossible for those buildings to drop the way that they did without destroying the supporting columns in many places simultaneously, and it this case it appeared that they were destroyed every 30 feet in length, which made them very easy to truck away.

        Please don't lie to me, and then pretend I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Those buildings contained massive central columns for the elevators.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.jpg

      The real conspiracy nuts are the government and its controlled, fawning media.

        Big talk, zero proof.

        1.. 
        2..  Fire could not have done that. Do you think the relatively tiny fires in WTC7 could have destroyed every vertical support simultaneously? 
        Unneeded.

        1.. There's lots more.
        Yep - and none of it stands.  You should be careful where you get your info, you have been lied to.

      There are laws of chemistry and physics that can't be broken - even by Chomsky. Just ignored.

      "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote: 

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
        And I've never 
        seen even one bit of 'evidence' from the 9/11-truthers that stood up to real 
        inspection.

      NOTICE: George W. Bush has issued Executive Orders allowing the National Security Agency to read this message and all other e-mail you receive or send---without warning, warrant or notice. Bush has ordered this to be done without any legislative or judicial oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of President Bush and other government officials who are involved in this illegal and unconstitutional activity. from: Information Clearing House

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
      Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. 
    _______________________________________________
    Peace-discuss mailing list
    Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
    http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

  NOTICE: George W. Bush has issued Executive Orders allowing the National Security Agency to read this message and all other e-mail you receive or send---without warning, warrant or notice. Bush has ordered this to be done without any legislative or judicial oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of President Bush and other government officials who are involved in this illegal and unconstitutional activity. from: Information Clearing House

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
  Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070222/4389f4e1/attachment-0001.html