There you go, Adam. Bringing common sense into this :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "M. Adam Davis" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report. >I suppose I could point to various websites debunking the > conspiracies, and then others would respond with websites debunking > the debunkers, ad infinitum. > > I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but since you already > have, perhaps you could help me by answering a few questions: > > If it was physically impossible, then why do some structural engineers > claim that it is plausible for the collapse to happen due to gravity? > You state in the subject that physics itself denies the possibility, > yet there seem to be some dissension among those that study physics. > Perhaps someone has a list of those that support one theory, and those > that support another theory, along with the credentials of each. > > I'm in much the same boat as David. I find it much less likely that > such a plan could have been carried out than I find it to believe that > the building fell due to gravity. > > Oh, and I love the statements to the effect that since a building > built like this has never before fallen like this, then it _must_ be > impossible. What a joke! I do appreciate the solid physics analysis, > though. Very interesting. > > What's the half life of a nearly political thread, again? > > -Adam > > On 12/1/06, James Newtons Massmind wrote: >> Sonoma State University's "Project Censored" has an EXECELLET summary of >> what is wrong with the official 9/11 WTC reports. The wild conspiracy >> theories do a lot of damage to the credibility of people who question the >> official findings, but this write-up, summarizing a Brigham Young >> University >> physics professor, points out the specific physical issues that don't >> make >> sense. >> >> http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#18 >> >> E.g. ok, the towers had only a steel exoskeleton and perhaps that melted >> enough for them to collapse, (perfectly straight down) but how did the >> fully >> steel framed Building 7 fall in 6.6 seconds after NOT being hit by >> ANYTHING? >> >> >> If the fire in that building caused one part of the steel to fail, at >> best >> one floor would have collapsed on to the next. The impact of that floor >> on >> the next would, must, slow the fall. You can clearly see this effect as >> the >> twin towers collapse. >> >> Yet an object dropped from a 7 story building will hit the ground in 6 >> seconds. So are we saying that each of the 7 floors, hitting the floor >> next >> to it, only slowed the fall by .6 seconds? That is patently impossible. >> >> The only thing that accounts for that building hitting the ground in 6.6 >> seconds is demolition charges being set to cut apart each of the steel >> beams >> on ALL the floors at the same time as is commonly done in controlled >> building demolition. The owner of the WTC center is on video saying that >> the >> fire department "pulled" building 7 because it could not fight the fire >> in >> it. He later recanted that testimony. >> >> If it was demo'd, how could the charges have been set from inside the >> building, on every beam, on every floor, during a raging fire? >> >> The only explanation is that building 7 was rigged for demolition PRIOR >> to >> 9/11. >> >> WTC 7 housed offices of the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of >> Defense, >> the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and >> Exchange >> Commission, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal >> Revenue >> Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of >> the >> records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the >> building >> came down. >> >> The official findings of the 9/11 commission address building 7 only by >> saying that they have no idea what happened to it. >> >> And yet, during all the massive media coverage of 9/11, Building 7 was >> mentioned only in passing. The repeated attempts to raise these questions >> has resulted in no reasonable response from any supporters of the >> official >> record. >> >> But the 9/11 "attack" did move the nation to support the invasion of Iraq >> by >> the USA, preventing Iraq from effectively selling oil below OPEC rates to >> European countries and, of course, precipitating the subsequent >> Halliburton >> profits. >> >> http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#17 "Iraq Invasion >> Promotes OPEC Agenda" >> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war4oil.htm >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml >> "Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain" >> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/911profit.htm "Someone sold >> short >> on the 9/11 airlines" >> >> "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the >> leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple >> matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist >> dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no >> voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. >> This >> is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and >> denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to >> danger. It works the same in every country" >> -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII. >> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm >> >> Now, everything in this email is a verifiable, unarguable fact. The >> conclusions drawn are obvious (to me) based on the data presented, and I >> admit that I pulled in only select data, but I will be happy to recant >> them >> in the face of some new data to the contrary. Therefore, this is not a >> religious or a political post. >> >> --- >> James. >> >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > > -- > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/ > > Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com > > Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/561 - Release Date: 12/1/2006 > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist