That is a VERY good point and quite the plausible explanation. It would also
account for the "official" record not including the complete explanation.

I also think it is a more credible explanation, and it also support my basis
for raising these questions in the first place: The public has NOT been told
everything about the incident. Perhaps we have been told MOST things, and
perhaps what we have been told is by and large accurate. Perhaps our
response, and the support of the people for that response is mostly
justified. 

But since we do not know everything, are not being told everything, we
should not feel completely comfortable that our support of the violent
response is fully justified. There should be some doubt, some question, some
small tickle of logic that resists the blind rage of retaliation.

As per Super Nanny: Don't slap; step back. 

---
James.
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of William Chops Westfield
> Sent: 2006 Dec 04, Mon 19:57
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> On Dec 1, 2006, at 12:02 PM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You know, it stretches my credibility less to believe that a 
> building with tenants like that was equipped with "self 
> destruct" measures from WAY BACK than to believe that it was 
> specifically rigged to be destroyed as part of the 911 stuff. 
>  From there, it's a simple matter to believe that the self 
> destruct was activated either unintentionally or on purpose 
> (the complex WAS under attack, of course.)
> 
> But I'd still lean toward "natural causes" of an unobserved 
> and perhaps not well understood nature.  There were, of 
> course, lots of distractions.
> 
> BillW
> 
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change 
> your membership options at 
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist