[ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
dmasten at piratelabs.org
Sat Oct 6 21:25:48 UTC 2007
On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 10:50 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Yes. Here is a small sampling of some of the official story things
> requiring much better explanation.
Actually they don't require better explanation, but better understanding
of thermal dynamics and structural design is required of the Truthers.
> 1) No steel framed buildings in history before this have ever fallen
> due to heat softening the infrastructure;
And how many modern high-rise structures have been struck by modern wide
body airliners? Or putting it another way - how many buildings with
modern elevator shafts and modern HVAC systems have had thousands of
gallons of kerosene burning inside them?
> 2) The buildings fell is free fall time which is inconsistent with
> pancake collapse theories;
What is "free fall" time? Please show accelerations and terminal
velocity, please. Also please show the assumptions for determining
coefficient of drag of debris.
Despite that, typical demolitions practice for tall buildings is to cut
the structure at key points and allow the upper stories to bring down
the stories below it, i.e. the collapse should be nearly identical
whether it was a demolition job or weakening from a kerosene fire.
> 3) 6 of the claimed terrorists are very much alive and were not
> anywhere near these events;
What does this have to do with the building collapse? My understanding
was that the six were found to not be involved, but were "persons of
interest" for other reasons.
> 4) normal hijacking handling policy on the militaries part was totally
> suspended on that day which requires complicity from the top;
When did the aircraft involved start squawking the hijack signal on the
transponders? I'll give you the answer - they didn't. No one realized
that there were 4 hijackings until it was too late for the first three.
Then there is the problem of what exactly is the military's hijack
procedure? The standard law enforcement procedure prior to 9/11 was to
do nothing to upset the hijackers, which would imply little for the
military to do.
> 5) The Pentagon is designed to withstand most non-nuclear attacks
> including heavy anti-aircraft batteries that will fire on any non
> military-id craft aggressively approaching it. Yet well after we
> knew we were under attack it was allowed to be hit by a hijacked
> craft. This also required a stand down order;
This is a truly extraordinary claim. Buildings "designed to withstand
attacks" are not invincible, but rather allow the occupants a defensible
position with reduced (not zero) casualties from an attack. The damage
seen from the airliner is perfectly consistent with this. Also, what AAA
unit(s) was assigned to the Pentagon? IIRC, there have not been AAA
batteries at the pentagon for decades. The only defense at the Pentagon
was a security scheme to prevent unauthorized personnel from wandering
Incompetence and surprise explains 4 and 5 far better than malice.
> 6) Building 7 was on the air admitted to being "pulled" which means
> it must have been rigged with explosives well beforehand.
Cite? I suspect being "pulled" referred to ordering firefighters out of
> A question:
> If you knew beyond reasonable doubt that your government set-up 911 to
> stampede the country in the direction they wanted, what would you do
> differently? How would you look at current events and and the "war
> or terror"?
More information about the extropy-chat