| |
Main
Date: 30 Jun 2007 19:18:10
From:
Subject: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
See the video here: http://Muvy.org
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2007 15:14:21
From:
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 2, 5:46 pm, "Jim Dubya" <jimdu...@nospam.com > wrote:
> What does this have to do with amateur astronomy? This is conspiracy theory
> BS and is for kooks!
>
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183410814.284633.183770@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 11:57 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> >> The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the
> >> floors
> >> to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a traditional
> >> post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
> >> properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked down
> >> to
> >> the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
>
> >> Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these
> >> buildings
> >> vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
> >> electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut
> >> off,
> >> there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors
> >> and
> >> above.
>
> >> Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that
> >> denile.
> >> They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the conspiracy
> >> and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
> >> sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to take
> >> any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
> >> insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
>
> >> It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the
> >> early
> >> months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
> >> Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
> >> professions.
>
> > The World Trade Center withstood the immediate effects of a 700 ton
> > jeliner loaded with 300 tons of jet fuel exploding across one corner
> > of building at 500 mph until steel weakened by intense heat gave way.
> > Then the building held together as it pancacked floor by floor. To
> > say the World Trade Center was improperly designed is an especially
> > foolish remark. What was improper was the hijacking and flying a
> > fully loaded airliner into the building at full speed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Point taken - I'm accessing via sci.energy - don't know why its in
sci.astro - sorry.
As best I can tell is that the person who posted this (in sci.energy)
felt that our energy situation was manufactured by the energy
companies and that the energy companies as part of this process caused
the attack on the WTC to further their secret goals. Its all madness
of course. I don't know why they posted to sci.astro. haha..
The best way to deal with this sort of thing I think is to post
something on-topic right after you see an off-topic entry.
Um, I used to work i the astronomy department at the Ohio State
University when I was a grad student there. I worked in the
Planetarium, and also at the observatory. Adaptive optics was a big
thing there - are there any amateur adaptive optics systems
available? Just wondering - I always thought that a GBO film
stretched across microactuators - similar to a DLP chip - but with a
continuous deformable surface - combined with a solid state laser/
detector setup would find great application to sharpen amateur
systems. Is there anything like that out there yet? If not, what
size do you think the market would be? And how much would people pay?
I know a HDTV DLP projector costs less than $2,000 - I figure you
could do an adaptive optics setup for about that using a laser source
to interrogate the upper atmosphere and produce 'clear seeing'
continuously for the amateur astronomer.
How's that? Sort of payback for my earlier transgression.
haha.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 21:13:34
From:
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 2, 11:57 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the floors
> to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a traditional
> post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
> properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked down to
> the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
>
> Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these buildings
> vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
> electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut off,
> there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors and
> above.
>
> Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that denile.
> They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the conspiracy
> and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
> sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to take
> any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
> insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
>
> It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the early
> months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
> Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
> professions.
The World Trade Center withstood the immediate effects of a 700 ton
jeliner loaded with 300 tons of jet fuel exploding across one corner
of building at 500 mph until steel weakened by intense heat gave way.
Then the building held together as it pancacked floor by floor. To
say the World Trade Center was improperly designed is an especially
foolish remark. What was improper was the hijacking and flying a
fully loaded airliner into the building at full speed.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2007 07:47:14
From: Bob Eld
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
<Willie.Mookie@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183410814.284633.183770@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 11:57 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
> >
> > The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the
floors
> > to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a traditional
> > post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
> > properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked down
to
> > the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
> >
> > Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these
buildings
> > vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
> > electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut
off,
> > there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors
and
> > above.
> >
> > Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that
denile.
> > They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the
conspiracy
> > and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
> > sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to
take
> > any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
> > insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
> >
> > It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the
early
> > months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
> > Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
> > professions.
>
> The World Trade Center withstood the immediate effects of a 700 ton
> jeliner loaded with 300 tons of jet fuel exploding across one corner
> of building at 500 mph until steel weakened by intense heat gave way.
> Then the building held together as it pancacked floor by floor. To
> say the World Trade Center was improperly designed is an especially
> foolish remark. What was improper was the hijacking and flying a
> fully loaded airliner into the building at full speed.
It's a design that failed in fire, not airplane impact. Without redundancy,
all of the services and fire escape routes were cut off by the impact and
fire. Heat insulation was not completely placed on the steel columns as
required by code. Floor hanging brackets were riveted onto the outer support
columns such that when sheared, the floor would break loose. A proper design
would put floor supports in compression not tension thus preventing shear
off and collapse. The design maximized floor space free of columns which was
the achillies heel. Don't be an apologist for faulty design. We Engineers
can do better and can make buildings that will withstand the conditions of
9/11.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jul 2007 17:46:27
From: daestrom
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Ogtii.23929$C96.7093@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <Willie.Mookie@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183410814.284633.183770@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 2, 11:57 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>> >
>> > The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the
> floors
>> > to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a
>> > traditional
>> > post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
>> > properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked
>> > down
> to
>> > the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
>> >
>> > Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these
> buildings
>> > vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
>> > electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut
> off,
>> > there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors
> and
>> > above.
>> >
>> > Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that
> denile.
>> > They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the
> conspiracy
>> > and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
>> > sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to
> take
>> > any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
>> > insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
>> >
>> > It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the
> early
>> > months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
>> > Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
>> > professions.
>>
>> The World Trade Center withstood the immediate effects of a 700 ton
>> jeliner loaded with 300 tons of jet fuel exploding across one corner
>> of building at 500 mph until steel weakened by intense heat gave way.
>> Then the building held together as it pancacked floor by floor. To
>> say the World Trade Center was improperly designed is an especially
>> foolish remark. What was improper was the hijacking and flying a
>> fully loaded airliner into the building at full speed.
>
> It's a design that failed in fire, not airplane impact. Without
> redundancy,
> all of the services and fire escape routes were cut off by the impact and
> fire. Heat insulation was not completely placed on the steel columns as
> required by code. Floor hanging brackets were riveted onto the outer
> support
> columns such that when sheared, the floor would break loose. A proper
> design
> would put floor supports in compression not tension thus preventing shear
> off and collapse. The design maximized floor space free of columns which
> was
> the achillies heel. Don't be an apologist for faulty design. We Engineers
> can do better and can make buildings that will withstand the conditions of
> 9/11.
The arrangement of floor trusses to their supports on the outer shell is not
what caused failure. The hanging brackets riveted to the outer columns
could have stayed attached to the columns and not changed the result. When
the trusses bowed and foreshortened due to the bending, they pulled inward
away from the brackets. The only way to avoid that failure would have been
to make the bracket 'shelf' inordinately large for the truss 'foot' to slide
on or find a way to avoid the trusses from bowing. If the attachment
between truss and outer columns was stronger, then the tension in the floor
trusses due to their bending would have either a) parted the truss in the
middle allowing the load to drop to the floor below leading to collapse or
b) pulled the outer columns out of their vertical alignment and still caused
building collapse.
One tower's trusses were insulated to the (then) new code requirement. Much
of the first tower was not insulated because the insulation code was not yet
required. In both cases, the insulation was not designed to withstand blast
forces. Even today, keeping insulation in place when subject to near sonic
blast waves is troublesome (ask NASA about their ET insulation program).
The combustible material loading allowed on each floor was considered but
not compounded by the blast forces. Is there any building design currently
out there that assumes *both* hi blast forces and the near instant addition
of many tons of additional combustible material?
As to redundancy, four separate staircases aren't enough redundancy? How
many buildings have more then that for evacuation? Perhaps the inner core
could have been 'hardened' against the blast and fire damage. But in the
1970's, who would have foreseen the need to protect against both severe
blast and burning fuel oil?
As with all design engineering, there has to be a trade-off of robustness
versus the 'credible threat'. The WTC was designed for impact from the
largest impact of aircraft at the time. How much 'larger' of an aircraft
should they have speculated in their [the engineer's] crystal ball? Even
nuclear plants, whose risk of failure carries a large consequence do *not*
design against every conceivable scenario (for example, no reactor design
can tolerate a complete circumferential cracking of the vessel that lets the
bottom fall off). So prevention of 'incredible' events is one cornerstone
while survivability of 'credible' events is another. That's why tall
buildings have aircraft warning lights and air-traffice control doesn't
route plans too close to them.
daestrom
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Jul 2007 23:08:55
From: L.A.T.
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
My dentist says the Earth is flat.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 14:46:33
From: Jim Dubya
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
What does this have to do with amateur astronomy? This is conspiracy theory
BS and is for kooks!
<Willie.Mookie@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183410814.284633.183770@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 11:57 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>>
>> The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the
>> floors
>> to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a traditional
>> post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
>> properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked down
>> to
>> the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
>>
>> Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these
>> buildings
>> vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
>> electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut
>> off,
>> there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors
>> and
>> above.
>>
>> Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that
>> denile.
>> They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the conspiracy
>> and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
>> sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to take
>> any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
>> insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
>>
>> It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the
>> early
>> months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
>> Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
>> professions.
>
> The World Trade Center withstood the immediate effects of a 700 ton
> jeliner loaded with 300 tons of jet fuel exploding across one corner
> of building at 500 mph until steel weakened by intense heat gave way.
> Then the building held together as it pancacked floor by floor. To
> say the World Trade Center was improperly designed is an especially
> foolish remark. What was improper was the hijacking and flying a
> fully loaded airliner into the building at full speed.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 07:57:02
From: Bob Eld
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
<funnybunnyfive@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> See the video here: http://Muvy.org
The WTC came down because fire weakened critical supports holding the floors
to the outer columns. There were no internal columns as in a traditional
post and column structure like the Empire State Building and most other
properly designed buildings. Once one floor broke loose it pancaked down to
the next breaking it loose and so on binging the buildings down.
Clear and simple it was BAD design and engineering that made these buildings
vulnerable to fire damage. They also had a critical flaw in that water,
electricity and elevators, etc. were centralised so that when once cut off,
there were no alternate paths to continue servicing the damaged floors and
above.
Many Engineers have denied this and the MIT individual adds to that denile.
They are trying to protect their profession. Thus was born the conspiracy
and explosive theories as well as other claims that the engineering was
sound. No one in the Architectual and Engineering community wants to take
any responsibility for their massive scew up. This is only natural for
insurance and liability reasons as well as their own prestege.
It's interesting that faulty design was discussed and examined in the early
months after 9/11 but then was hushed up as the Lawyers, Engineers and
Architects began to close ranks to limit liability and to protect their
professions.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2007 07:21:08
From:
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 1, 7:34 pm, Frank <frank.logu...@dol.net > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 10:16 am, mommycal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:39 am, "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
> > > MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
> > > leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
> > > and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
> > > expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
> > > we listen to him?
>
> > > Next ....
>
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Director, Green-Trusthttp://www.green-trust.org"Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>
> > >news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > > > ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>
> > > > --
> > > > Steve Spence
> > > > Director, Green-Trust
> > > >http://www.green-trust.org
> > > > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> > Turns out he isn't an engineer after all. Seems that he got a degree
> > in engineering,but become a physician and spent the last 25 years as a
> > medical doctor.
>
> Howard Dean was a physician too. Now he's also a fruitcake like this
> guy ;)
> Frank- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, this sort of thing isn't surprising given that the LAST time
the US suffered an overwhelming surprise attack, people THEN thought
it was a conspiracy to get us into THAT war
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
And despite mis-givings about World War 2 before we got involved, it
turned out to be the greatest thing this nation ever did, bringing an
unprecedented period of peace and prosperity after, and making the US
for a short period a friend to all and an enemy to none and we still
benefit from the way we handled outselves in that war.
I am certain that as we progress in our current war on terror, we will
dispatch ourselves admirably and our efforts will not go unrewarded in
the future when our grandchildren and their grandchildren will have
forgotten that there was such a thing as oil, as many today are
unaware of the dominance of coal and stam at one point prior to today.
This is an old tired song. I guess there is a feeling that major
catastrophies cannot happen to the United States without the
connivance of some sort of government project to lead the American
public into war and other acts they wouldn't normally undertake.
Now, this doesn't let the administration or even the powers that be
that support the administration and our way of government off the
hook. We gave up a lot of freedomes at the end of the 2nd world war
in order to avoid a surprise attack just like the one we suffered iat
Pearl Harbo, and just like the one we suffered on 9/11 nearly 59 years
later.
The success of the attackers spelled the failure of the control regime
designed to protect us from surprise attacks. Our immediate response
was to retaliate, much as the previous President wanted to retaliate,
but was stopped by a congress more interested in his private sex life
than in the safety of the nation. Perhaps the two are related, I
don't know.
But someone saying that this president was guilty of not heeding early
warnings and taking indicators of an attack presented to the
Administration seriously enough prior to 9/11 would have a sympathetic
ear. Could this president, or any president avoid such an attack? I
think so, if Hart Rudman Hollings had been listend to. If
Presidential order 13129 would have been taken a little more seriously
by this president's party.
So someone who said that this administration might actually have
REASONABLY done things to avoid the attack, they might have something
to say. Especially if they point out that this was the second attack
on the WTC and we knew it was a targer - following the one in 1993.
And they might even show culpability given that previous president
successfully avoided the loss of several airliners targeted over the
Pacific from these SAME attackers in 1995.
And that the previous president authorized attacks against these SAME
attackers in 1999 IN AFGHANISTAN!
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/063000-presidential-letter-to-congress-on-the-taliban.htm
Which a Republican Congress fascinated with the Presidents ability to
get a blow job, made it very difficult for him to prosecute an
effective campaign against these terrorists and keep terror below the
threshold of war so as not to embolden and attract new armies of
terrorists to the cause of terror. But the current President along
with his party, showed no interest then in doing the things needed to
keep this nation secure, AND FREE - and prosperous.
So, now we are in a war on terror and the path we have been forced
down is not the one ALL previous administrations would have taken.
The failure of the security paradigms is not being questioned, our
liberties are. This is not a conspiracy, its a knee jerk reaction to
fear and the success of our adversaires against our overwhelming
complancency and stupidity.
The thing that amzes me is that the public does not view this
president as the man who LOST New York to the terrorists as he LOST
New Orleans to Katrina, and for much the same reasons, stupidity and
complacency. He had all the warning signs, a careful and prudent man
in his position taking more care would have taken the advice of
experts. Might have avoided a successful attack, might have operated
without a mass invasion, may have cut a deal with Saddam to allow him
to pump oil at $30 per barrel without an invasion, but with a military
base at his border with Kuwait (much as we have a base in Cuba today)
Finding that Saddam is our friend, as we are finding Kaddaffi is our
friend. haha..
But things didn't happen that way. The FBI reports about the students
learning to fly an airliner accurately from point to point but not
worrying about take off and landing particularly (simulator time is
expsnsive) was not acted on, as in 1995 earlier FBI reports were acted
on and avoided Usama bin Laden from taking out a handful of airliners
over the Pacific.
Someone who thinkks that a 700 ton jetliner moving at 500 mph and
carrying 300 tons of highly explosive jet fuel slamming into a
skyscraper whose primary support structure is the outside shell of the
building would NOT collapse the building is nuts. Those buildings
didn't collapse right away. It took an extensive fire to weaken the
high strength steels, and then the collapse of the weakest floor at
the weaked point - pancaking they called it. With the floor above
slamming into the floor below - the weight of the whole building
above! The pilots knew what they were doing. They hit mid building
so the weight of the entire building above was being supported by the
weakend floor. They cut diagonally through one of the corners,
because they knew that structurally this would create the greatest
stress on the structure. And the building still held! Until the fire
weakened the steel. And then, one floor collapsed, and the weight of
the building above slammed into the floor below, collapsing that
floor. And when that happened, the process repeated, again and
again. Until all the floors below collapsed. And by that time, the
ENTIRE BUILDING ABOVE was moving at a high rate of speed, and it
slammed into the ground. and then, the those floors collapsed into one
another one by one.
It was a sad day. And a failure of our security regime. And spelled
major changes for the US in the world.. And it had nothing to do with
explosives, (other then jet fuel) or with conspriacties (other than
the taliban) -
We could have avoided it. But being president, like any highly
responsible job is tough. And pointing fingers doesn't help at this
stage. When it could have helped, we weren't interested. And after
the fact, bitching about it just shifts the blame from where it
belongs - with each and every one of us,who were not the intelligent
and informed citizenry that Eisenhower hoped we would be by this time
in our national development.
Sure, there will be profiteers who will try to make a buck on any
catastrphe. Just like there are child molesters who will take
advantage of unprotected kids, or just like there are thugs who will
beat up little old ladies for their social security check. And there
will be Preisidents that are better then some and worse thanothers,
just like there are doctors that are good and some that are not so
good. But people get sick and die eventually. Its not the doctors
fault. And even if the doctor might not have taken care as well as
another doctor, it would be stupid in our grief at the death of a
loved one, to say the doctor planned their death. Its stupid, and
takes away from a fair impartial yet critical inquiry of what really
did happen.
And if there's any conspiracy maybe that's the pont? haha.. These
sorts of things detract from real critical inquiry based on real
understandingj - and for that reason maybe the administration supports
this sort of thing, just as it supported an ivestigatioon of the
President's alleged cocaine use = by a reporter who himself used
cocaine - which then became the story. lol.
But plausible as that might be, I don't even believe that. We're all
in grief over the losses of 9/11 - and we all want to do something
about it. We are now engaged on a long and difficult path - this
President is not the enemy. Sure, he's friends with the bin Laden
family through the Carlysle Group. Sure he helped mahy bin Laden's
leave the country to return to Saudi Arabia, following 9/11 at the
behest the Saudi ambassadors in the days immediately following 9/11.
Sure he hasn't raised a stink about the lack of help from Saudi Arabia
in finding Usama. Sure he hasn't followed up on reports that Usama
may be in Saudi Arabia with those very same family members he helped
escape. But is this a conpsiracy? The presdient has said bin laden
doesn't interest him. He's right, the geopolitical conditions that
led to 9/11 and all the attacks previously from the attacks on the
cole, our embassies in beruit under Reagan, to the first attacks on
the wtc. Were not caused exclusively by bin laden. But he should do
what he can. And maybe that's the hardest thing to swallow. That he
actually is doing all he can. And you've got to respect him for
that. Even if others might have done a better job.
In the end, it is up to us the American public to know what's really
going on in the world, and to hold our leaders accountable. I am
always amazed when someone can tell me the batter line up of a team
they support but don't know who is running for local office or what
the issues are. They can talk about supporting our troops but don't
know who's in command and where, and what the issues are for our
fighting men and women on the ground around the world. We have teh
capacity intellectually, we have the means, if we tell those in the
media we are seriously interested - to have the public record produced
by congress, and local and state governments every day, become the
central ffeature of our news, instead of house fires, muggings, sports
or fashion.
Funny bunny if he is not the tool of a jaded administration reflects a
deep seated frustration with our government. But rather than take
responsibility he'd rather accuse someone else for the problem. This
gets him off the hook, even if its crazy. But go to any country club,
or fine restaurant where the business elite and other good citizens of
this country gather on a daily basis, and listen to the
conversations. These people are more interested in their kids, their
mortgages, and businesses, their life drma, and when they want to get
their freak on, drink, sex, drugs, and when they're bored,scandal, and
sports. Very few have hobbies. Fewer still have any knowledge
whatever of what's really going on in the world, or even any
fundamental appreciation of geography. Though google earth is single
handedly changing that. haha..
The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. The same
can be said of us. We get the government we deserve, and we haven't
done enough to deserve better. Perhaps one day America wlll wake from
its long sleep. But actually it has been waking a long time.
The past wasn't any better than today. A true recounting of history
shows that. Things are getting better, not worse.
Just read of two small snippets in American history - and compare and
contrast that to what you believed prior to getting the truth;
Here's one from a period of the gogo 20s that American's fantasize
about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
Here's anothe rfrom the wild west - which paints the Marshal in his
true light, which was repeated throughout the West;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jennings_Fountain
Read these stories and appreciate the REALITY of what actually
happened in America in the past and we begin to understand why all the
counties have the property rules they do, and why rugged individualism
has been looked upon as the refuge of thugs.
The Patriot Act was passed in good faith by congress on behalf of the
american people to bring greater security to america. Hopefully it
will not lead to new abuses and crimes and even organize crime in a
new way - as prohibition did - and hopefully if there are excesses,
they will be addressed, as prohbition was repealed.
But one thing is certain. those who are unaware of their history,
unaware of the reality of the present situation, those thow throw up
their hands and shout conspiracy, are playing into the hands of the
profiteers, the terrorists, and everyone else who truly is jealous of
what we have and see no better way to go than take what we have
created and earned ourselves away from us for their own personal
gain.
We have much to be proud and thankful for in this country, and we must
honor that not through acts of contrition, but by doing the yard work
of being a good citizen - and taking the time and trouble and effort
to really and truly understand what the hell is really going on past
all the bullshit and propaganda - and take our own role in shaping the
future of our nation in our hands and do what we can to make this
world the place we want it to be.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 16:34:36
From: Frank
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 1, 10:16 am, mommycal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:39 am, "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
> > MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
> > leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
> > and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
> > expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
> > we listen to him?
>
> > Next ....
>
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Director, Green-Trusthttp://www.green-trust.org"Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > > ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Director, Green-Trust
> > >http://www.green-trust.org
> > > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >> See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> Turns out he isn't an engineer after all. Seems that he got a degree
> in engineering,but become a physician and spent the last 25 years as a
> medical doctor.
Howard Dean was a physician too. Now he's also a fruitcake like this
guy ;)
Frank
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 11:20:17
From: zzbunker@netscape.net
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 1, 10:16 am, mommycal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:39 am, "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
> > MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
> > leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
> > and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
> > expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
> > we listen to him?
>
> > Next ....
>
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Director, Green-Trusthttp://www.green-trust.org"Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > > ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>
> > > --
> > > Steve Spence
> > > Director, Green-Trust
> > >http://www.green-trust.org
> > > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >> See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
> Turns out he isn't an engineer after all. Seems that he got a degree
> in engineering,but become a physician and spent the last 25 years as a
> medical doctor.- Hide quoted text -
You'll find that happens to most people with MIT enginnering
degrees.
Since the only thing they teach idiot MIT engineers is how
bending moments work.
But not how missiles, lasers, welding, and yesterday's glass works.
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 07:16:50
From:
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
On Jul 1, 7:39 am, "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org > wrote:
> Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
> MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
> leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
> and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
> expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
> we listen to him?
>
> Next ....
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Director, Green-Trusthttp://www.green-trust.org"Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>
> news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> > ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Director, Green-Trust
> >http://www.green-trust.org
> > <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> See the video here:http://Muvy.org
Turns out he isn't an engineer after all. Seems that he got a degree
in engineering,but become a physician and spent the last 25 years as a
medical doctor.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 20:01:12
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
mommycalled@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:39 am, "Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>> Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
>> MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
>> leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
>> and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
>> expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
>> we listen to him?
>>
>> Next ....
>>
>> --
>> Steve Spence
>> Director, Green-Trusthttp://www.green-trust.org"Steve Spence" <sspe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>>> ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>>> --
>>> Steve Spence
>>> Director, Green-Trust
>>> http://www.green-trust.org
>>> <funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> See the video here:http://Muvy.org
>
>
>
> Turns out he isn't an engineer after all. Seems that he got a degree
> in engineering,but become a physician and spent the last 25 years as a
> medical doctor.
>
Strange how flashing a degree you never used, if you got it at all, will
do for your credibility . . . . until the truth comes out.
Everyone's entitled to a position, but misrepresenting your credentials
labels you as a fraud, no exceptions.
--- Dave
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 08:31:04
From: Steve Spence
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
--
Steve Spence
Director, Green-Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
<funnybunnyfive@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> See the video here: http://Muvy.org
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2007 08:39:59
From: Steve Spence
Subject: Re: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished with Explosives
|
Interesting, he says he studied engineering at MIT, he did not say he's a
MIT engineer. I've seen some ex MIT grads. Nice school, but no one who
leaves there is an expert in anything. That comes from practical application
and years of experience in a particular field, which might make you an
expert in that field. This guy is not an expert in demolition, so why should
we listen to him?
Next ....
--
Steve Spence
Director, Green-Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org > wrote in message
news:46876c6d$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> ROFLMAO. Yup, two large fuel bombs ......
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Director, Green-Trust
> http://www.green-trust.org
> <funnybunnyfive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1183256290.921728.186910@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> See the video here: http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>
|
|
