Thursday, June 22, 2006

Another World Trade Center Argument

"First if WTC towers were in fact “blown up” then explain
to me how “they” found the time and the stealth to plant and rig
the bombs."

If you'd bother to pay attention, you'd already know the following:

1. Securacom (WTC and Dulles Airport) was headed by the president's BROTHER,
Marvin Bush, as well as a cousin, Walker.

2. Multiple unprecedented "power downs" went on in the weeks before

3. Possibly related: Zinn Israeli/American Shipping moved out of the towers
a week before the attack (connections to Israeli gov't.) They broke their lease.
Boxes were moving in and out.

"Steel looses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees. Jet fuel burns
at 800-1500 degrees."

1. Steel loses 50% strength at over 1200 deg. F. It also conducts heat, so
it takes hours of intense and concentrated heat to raise it to such temperatures.
These conditions were not present in the towers. Jet fuel can only reach such
temperatures with a controlled reaction that feeds it air in proper proportions.

2. Where is evidence that the stteel in the towers ever got close to that temperature?
(Hint: NIST report shoots you down)

3. The fuel in the impact on the second tower exploded instantaneously over
NY. It's pretty hard to miss that fact. Have you seen pictures of this event?

" Not to mention everything else in the towers that were burning."

Standard office equipment does not melt steel columns that were rated to take
2000 deg. F for 6 hours. See Kevin Ryan's letter.

" So lets review thousands and thousands of pounds of a building
supported a steel frame that is sagging and buckling from the 50%plus of strength
its lost."

Nonsense. For starters you 'framed' it backwards. The building did not support
the frame! The frame supports the building! This whole fraud can only stand
because the ignorant public believes that floors support the weight, when in
fact the floors were supported by the columns. The collapse of a portion of
floor is irrelevant to the functioning of the steel frame. That is why these
buildings are built and why fires NEVER lead to total collapse.

Where's the evidence of all this alleged "sagging and buckling?"
You're arguing from thin air and ignorance.

"Hello shit will fall."

Fire has never, ever, ever brought down a steel framed building, except ALLEGEDLY
the three in New York on September 11 2001. THIS is the historical anomaly.
Telling us "shit will fall" may sound witty in your mind. It's not.

"I have to give you credit though about a building of that size never
fallen that quickly, But you forgot to mention there has never been a building
in history hit by a Boeing 767 you dumb ass."

The Empire State Building was hit by a large bomber, and did not collapse.
It wasn't built with the strength and redundancy of those towers.

The designer of the WTC made it so a Boeing 707 could hit it (pretty much the
same size as a 767) and "It would be like a pencil poking through a mosquito
net." The government has not explained how 47 internal columns and 236
exterior columns could fail in a perfectly symmetrical vertical collapse. (This
is physically impossible. See physics Prof. Steven

I'll take you at your word that you're a firefighter. If so, shouldn't you
at least listen to the DOZENS of firefighters on the scene who heard explosions
and described "demolition charges?"

A firefighter made it to the impact floor and reported that he could knock
the fire out with two hoses. That's the trigger that the perpetrators used to
begin the detonations, shredding 110 floors of concrete into a fine dust powder
that blanketed lower Manhattan.

You need to look a lot more deeply. And lose the condescending bluster. You
don't have the IQ for it.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at: