[ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Wed Oct 10 18:25:06 UTC 2007

On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:25 PM, David Masten wrote:

> 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.

Sorry. Please show me where you get the requisite heat to soften steel  
sufficiently and why molten metal has been reported at the site  
afterwards by many observers.  Also please show me how softened steel  
and a purported pancaking of floors can result in nearly free fall  
collapse time.

>> 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?

Irrelevant as many have burned at much higher temperatures for a  
substantially longer time without collapse.

>> 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.

Both buildings fell in approximately 10s.  Do the math yourself.

> 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.

The cutting is the critical aspect that should have been absent in WTC  
by the official story.  Without it you would not see the same behavior.

>> 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.

It has to do with the official story being full of holes of course.

>> 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.

The FAA observes all transponder signals and squawks within minutes.    
The policy for decades has been to scramble fighters as soon as there  
is a report.  Go back and look at the footage on the tube that day.   
We knew as many as four planes were hijacked much earlier than you are  
claiming.  You are making this stuff up.

>> 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  
> 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
> around inside.

The central point is that the plane would not have normally been  
allowed anywhere near the Pentagon and certainly not when we knew an  
attack was in progress.   Again you are mistaken about the facts.

> Incompetence and surprise explains 4 and 5 far better than malice.

Incompetence on this scale would have brought down major repercussions  
especially on those charged with defending this nation.

>> 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
> the building.

Look it up yourself.

>> 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"?
> Mu.

Clever.  NOT.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list