[ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
Sergio M.L. Tarrero
sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com
Tue Oct 23 07:08:20 UTC 2007
Although I'm sure you probably know about all this, I'll forward you
a couple of things I found yesterday. I only feel sorry (and somewhat
disgusted) for (by) those too biased to even look at evidence and
resort to insult.
I raised the issue in the WTA discussion list some time back (I'll
forward you some emails) only to be quieted by a few people, and I
decided not to push it, since the point of my original post was
"freedom of thought" and not conspiracy per se.
Who cares what a hundred transhumanists think about the issue, anyway
(although, probably a good number of people watching these lists stay
quiet but doubt when they read this stuff).
On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 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
>> of thermal dynamics and structural design is required of the
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>>> suspended on that day which requires complicity from the top;
>> When did the aircraft involved start squawking the hijack signal on
>> 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
>> 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
>> position with reduced (not zero) casualties from an attack. The
>> 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
>> was a security scheme to prevent unauthorized personnel from
>> 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
>> the building.
> Look it up yourself.
>>> A question:
>>> If you knew beyond reasonable doubt that your government set-up 911
>>> 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"?
> Clever. NOT.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat