🚀 go-pugleaf

Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
fuck running a government or running a war...


On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:34:10 -0700, Tracey12
<tracey12_12_12@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dear Fellow Americans,
>
>To those of you from New York who were there at the time of 9/11/01
>and who assisted and helped and died trying, I cannot tell you how
>much you are respected, loved, and cherished.
>
>You are the epitome of an American.  You are the ultimate, the most
>incredible special people.  For in this video is pictured only a tiny
>portion of the incredible efforts put forth by every day people in New
>York as the tried to help each other.  See this link:
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c78_1189407227
>
>It is absolutely amazing to see how you worked to save each others
>lives.  No where else in America do I ever witness the kind of unity I
>see among New Yorkers during the 9/11 crises.
>
>The pain to this day must be horrid.  The emotional heartbreak of
>death and the mental trauma that results from being exposed to such
>devastation surely never leaves you, but my hat is off to you.  My
>heart is filled with sadness and anger that we all had to go through
>this.  But to watch how you performed, how the NYFD and NYPD worked to
>help and how the normal American in the streets of New York did what
>he could to help, it was simply amazing, and wonderful to behold.
>
>Thank you for being who you are, and what you are.  Thank you , thank
>you, thank you.  You are very amazing people and very unusual in the
>most profound way. Thank you dear fellow American for all you did in
>those horrible moments to save each other thinking not of yourself,
>but so willing to give to another person in distress.  You are the
>ultimate American.  May God Bless you and keep you and give you a very
>long life.

David Agnew wrote:

> Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
> fuck running a government or running a war...
> 
> 


It is amazing on how short the memory is with liberals.

If only;

� They could recall that the first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's watch.

� They could recall that all of the planning for 9/11 including flight 
training occurred on Clinton's watch.

� They could remember the policy of appeasement practiced by *that* 
administration.

Regarding the "running a government" or "running a war," the writer does 
have a point. OTOH, what would "green acres" Gore or "traitor" Kerry 
have done differently that would have been more effective?

JT

On Sep 11, 10:06 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> David Agnew wrote:
> > Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
> > fuck running a government or running a war...
>
> It is amazing on how short the memory is with liberals.
>
> If only;
>
> · They could recall that the first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's watch.
>
> · They could recall that all of the planning for 9/11 including flight
> training occurred on Clinton's watch.
>
> · They could remember the policy of appeasement practiced by *that*
> administration.
>
> Regarding the "running a government" or "running a war," the writer does
> have a point. OTOH, what would "green acres" Gore or "traitor" Kerry
> have done differently that would have been more effective?
>
> JT

What is even more amazing is how gullible most Americans have
been in buying the whole 19 Arabs Hijack Hoax.

1. Air controllers were dealing with multiple anti-terror drills
running
concurrently, some of which followed the exact same script as the
actual events.  (This required access to classified information, which
must have come from an insider.)

2. The shoot down policy was changed a few months before 9/11 so
that the authorization *had* to come from senior administration
officials and not the field commander as it had been for decades
prior.
After 9/11, the policy was quietly restored to its previous state.
(Again, insider/administration tampering.)

3. According to Norman Mineta, on 9/11 Cheney refused to authorize
the shooting down of the aircraft that struck the pentagon.

4. The manner in which the Twin Towers collapsed suggests
controlled demolition.  And the later collapse of WTC-7, which did
not suffer a hit from the plane, or have jet fuel to set it on fire -
collapsed in a manner strongly similar to controlled demolition.
(Coincidentally, that building housed offices for CIA, FBI, and
other agencies which investigated and housed evidence for
multiple cases of multi-billion dollar financial crimes.

5. The WTC complex was leased by Larry Silverstein a few months
prior to 9/11, who attempted to profit (~$4B) from the disaster by
first massively insuring the buildings against terrorist attacks, then
claiming each hit was as separate attack.  He later suggested that
the "smartest thing to do is to *pull* Building 7" - a reference to
controlled demolition of WTC7.

6. The Pentagon hit is equally dubious, and was almost certainly
not a hijacked jumbo jet.  The large turbine engines were never
found and should have made separate holes in the structure.  The
entrance hole was much too small, and several pentagon workers
claimed they smelled Cordite (a military explosive, possibly used
in missiles) just after the explosion.

7. The Jar Jar Bush administration went to great lengths to prevent
investigation, destroy evidence, and control public awareness of
any story other than what they wanted the American public to know.
All of the metal that was removed from Ground Zero was hurriedly
sold for scrap, and shipped to overseas dealers, before it could be
critically examined.  Tapes from surveillance cameras near the
Pentagon were quickly confiscated by the FBI, only a few frames
of which have been released to the public.  And the Official 9/11
Commission was headed by a friend of the Bush Administration.
The resulting document ignored hundreds of hours of testimony,
omitted crucial evidence, and was little more than a public spectacle
to give the appearance of due diligence.

Anyone, who believes the official (Arab) conspiracy theory is a fool
Anyone who looks at all the evidence available and continues to
believe official (Arab) conspiracy theory is an absolute imbecile!

Which one are you, Jet?

Cheers,
Larry G.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:16:59 -0500, David Agnew
<DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:

>Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
>fuck running a government or running a war...

I don't buy your story.

Osama didn't act alone.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:03:45 -0500, Zeno wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:16:59 -0500, David Agnew
> <DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:
> 
>>Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
>>fuck running a government or running a war...
> 
> I don't buy your story.
> 
> Osama didn't act alone.

Hear hear!  Damn Chicoms are behind the whole thing, IMO.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:06 -0700, LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:
> 
> Which one are you, Jet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Insufficient time to debunk/deconstruct the remainder of your paranoid
fantasies, but suffice to say that if you are willing to believe the
foil-beanie crowd over engineering analyses, you likely have many
surprises waiting for you in life.

God Bless Texas wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:06 -0700, LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:
> 
>>Which one are you, Jet?
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
> 
> Insufficient time to debunk/deconstruct the remainder of your paranoid
> fantasies, but suffice to say that if you are willing to believe the
> foil-beanie crowd over engineering analyses, you likely have many
> surprises waiting for you in life.


I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that 
day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit 
at a much lower level than the north tower.

The south tower did topple (from the point of impact) to some extent 
until gravity took over. This building collapsed in less than one hour 
from the initial impact.  OTOH, the north tower being hit much higher 
lasted well over an hour.  When the failure occurred, it was very 
similar to a roof collapsing on a burning building where the collapse 
pushes smoke and debris out of the compromised area.  Once this 
occurred, the top of the building settled downward destroying itself and 
succeeding floors below one by one.

No conspiracy here...

JT

In news:x4GFi.87547$ax1.52938@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com>spewed forth:
> LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 11, 10:06 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David Agnew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't
>>>> worth a fuck running a government or running a war...
>>>
>>> It is amazing on how short the memory is with liberals.
>>>
>>> If only;
>>>
>>> � They could recall that the first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's
>>> watch. � They could recall that all of the planning for 9/11 including
>>> flight training occurred on Clinton's watch.
>>>
>>> � They could remember the policy of appeasement practiced by *that*
>>> administration.
>>>
>>> Regarding the "running a government" or "running a war," the writer
>>> does have a point. OTOH, what would "green acres" Gore or "traitor"
>>> Kerry have done differently that would have been more effective?
>>>
>>> JT
>>
>>
>> What is even more amazing is how gullible most Americans have
>> been in buying the whole 19 Arabs Hijack Hoax.
>>
>
> Tin foil hat time!
>
> Geeeeeeeez....
>
> JT

Fuck that, he's using the heavyduty no stick stuff<G> 

In news:5gGFi.87573$ax1.31790@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com>spewed forth:
> God Bless Texas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:06 -0700, LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:
>>
>>> Which one are you, Jet?
>>
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
>>
>> Insufficient time to debunk/deconstruct the remainder of your
>> paranoid fantasies, but suffice to say that if you are willing to
>> believe the foil-beanie crowd over engineering analyses, you likely
>> have many surprises waiting for you in life.
>
>
> I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV)
> that day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had
> been hit at a much lower level than the north tower.
>
> The south tower did topple (from the point of impact) to some extent
> until gravity took over. This building collapsed in less than one hour
> from the initial impact.  OTOH, the north tower being hit much higher
> lasted well over an hour.  When the failure occurred, it was very
> similar to a roof collapsing on a burning building where the collapse
> pushes smoke and debris out of the compromised area.  Once this
> occurred, the top of the building settled downward destroying itself
> and succeeding floors below one by one.
>
> No conspiracy here...
>
> JT

but, but....that's how ALL buildings are imploded, from the top down<eg> 

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:06:20 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:

>
>
>David Agnew wrote:
>
>> Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
>> fuck running a government or running a war...
>> 
>> 
>
>
>It is amazing on how short the memory is with liberals.
>
>If only;
>
>� They could recall that the first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's watch.


And Bush learned nothing from it.

On Sep 11, 3:31 pm, God Bless Texas <no.one.no....@no.where.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:06 -0700, Lar...@Yahuu.com wrote:
>
> > Which one are you, Jet?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
>
> Insufficient time to debunk/deconstruct the remainder of your paranoid
> fantasies, but suffice to say that if you are willing to believe the
> foil-beanie crowd over engineering analyses, you likely have many
> surprises waiting for you in life.

Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.

Keep deluding yourself that we are no longer in a constitutional
republic, you'll be much happier for a while.

Cheers,
Larry G.

On Sep 11, 7:19 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> God Bless Texas wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:06 -0700, Lar...@Yahuu.com wrote:
>
> >>Which one are you, Jet?
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
>
> > Insufficient time to debunk/deconstruct the remainder of your paranoid
> > fantasies, but suffice to say that if you are willing to believe the
> > foil-beanie crowd over engineering analyses, you likely have many
> > surprises waiting for you in life.
>
> I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that
> day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit
> at a much lower level than the north tower.
>
> The south tower did topple (from the point of impact) to some extent
> until gravity took over. This building collapsed in less than one hour
> from the initial impact.  OTOH, the north tower being hit much higher
> lasted well over an hour.  When the failure occurred, it was very
> similar to a roof collapsing on a burning building where the collapse
> pushes smoke and debris out of the compromised area.  Once this
> occurred, the top of the building settled downward destroying itself and
> succeeding floors below one by one.
>
> No conspiracy here...
>
> JT

No intelligence either.

Cheers, and thanks for playing.

On 9/12/07 1:28 AM, in article hm1fe3pgsc8af0nkvq9sqe3i610vutebg4@4ax.com,
"David Agnew" <DavidAgnew@nospam.nul> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:06:20 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> David Agnew wrote:
>> 
>>> Bush let 9/11 happen and won't stop Osama.  Republicans aren't worth a
>>> fuck running a government or running a war...
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is amazing on how short the memory is with liberals.
>> 
>> If only;
>> 
>> � They could recall that the first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's watch.
> 
> 
> And Bush learned nothing from it.
And you haven't learned anything since birth except to suck a tit. The tit
changed from yer momma to the government of democraps. Parasite.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:23:21 -0700, LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:
> 
> Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.

You want to compare training or profession, when it comes to discerning
opinion vs. fact?  I didn't think so . . . 
 
You'll take absurd rumor and pseudo-scientific paranoia over engineering
facts?

This is the pot calling the sponge black, or something equally unusual.

> Keep deluding yourself that we are no longer in a constitutional
> republic, you'll be much happier for a while.

Um, I'm not "deluding myself that we are no longer in a constitutional
republic".  You seem to be, though.

And yes, I prefer "happy" to "moon-barking insane", which seems to be the
path you have chosen.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
> I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that 
> day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit 
> at a much lower level than the north tower.

You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to see -
the grim reality was much different.
 
> The south tower did topple (from the point of impact) to some extent
> until gravity took over. This building collapsed in less than one hour
> from the initial impact.  OTOH, the north tower being hit much higher
> lasted well over an hour.  When the failure occurred, it was very
> similar to a roof collapsing on a burning building where the collapse
> pushes smoke and debris out of the compromised area.  Once this
> occurred, the top of the building settled downward destroying itself and
> succeeding floors below one by one.

Ah, again, that's just what you *expected* to see, and thus what you are
deluding yourself into thinking you actually saw.

In reality, GWB and his band of cronies flew down from the skies spraying
noxious green radioactive acidic foam on the towers, which dissolved in
such a way that there was no trace left of their horrendous deeds.

Then tens of thousands of co-conspirators worked diligently to convince
all Americans that the film clips shown on all of the major networks were
indeed "reality" - and that none of the "facts" discovered by reclusive
psychotics and other cave-dwellers were actually true.
 
> No conspiracy here...

It's massive, I'm tellin' ya TJ - millions and millions of people were in
on it - and now they're all plotting something worse!  It's up to us to
get the word out, except that the fools in the public, government, the
media, this newsgroup, and the mall refuse to see or believe the TRUTH!

In article <46ed4123$0$32470$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
God Bless Texas  <no.one.no.how@no.where.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> 
>> I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that 
>> day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit 
>> at a much lower level than the north tower.
>
>You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to see -
>the grim reality was much different.



Maybe a thousands people saw the first impact (it was caught by three
people on their video cameras).  Mabybe a million saw the second plane
hit.

They went home that night and saw the same images on Tv news that
night that they were eyewitnesses to.

Those images are still being shown.

When could they have been faked?




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC. 


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts 
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC 
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video 
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
  http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad. 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo





-- 
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m 
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

God Bless Texas wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
>>I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that 
>>day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit 
>>at a much lower level than the north tower.
> 
> 
> You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to see -
> the grim reality was much different.
>  

Um no...  I was watching the Today show with Matt Lauer yaking away and 
the burning towers were clearly seen in the background when the South 
tower collapsed. He did not acknoledge that fact until nearly a minute 
later.



> 
>>The south tower did topple (from the point of impact) to some extent
>>until gravity took over. This building collapsed in less than one hour
>>from the initial impact.  OTOH, the north tower being hit much higher
>>lasted well over an hour.  When the failure occurred, it was very
>>similar to a roof collapsing on a burning building where the collapse
>>pushes smoke and debris out of the compromised area.  Once this
>>occurred, the top of the building settled downward destroying itself and
>>succeeding floors below one by one.
> 
> 
> Ah, again, that's just what you *expected* to see, and thus what you are
> deluding yourself into thinking you actually saw.
> 
> In reality, GWB and his band of cronies flew down from the skies spraying
> noxious green radioactive acidic foam on the towers, which dissolved in
> such a way that there was no trace left of their horrendous deeds.
> 
> Then tens of thousands of co-conspirators worked diligently to convince
> all Americans that the film clips shown on all of the major networks were
> indeed "reality" - and that none of the "facts" discovered by reclusive
> psychotics and other cave-dwellers were actually true.
>  
> 
>>No conspiracy here...
> 


Awright, I'm catchin' on now. You're a sly one at that..


> 
> It's massive, I'm tellin' ya TJ - millions and millions of people were in
> on it - and now they're all plotting something worse!  It's up to us to
> get the word out, except that the fools in the public, government, the
> media, this newsgroup, and the mall refuse to see or believe the TRUTH!

<giggle>

Naw, let Larry do the heavy lifting even though the load is imaginary...

<G>


JT

In news:fcjfmj$671$1@panix5.panix.com,
Al Dykes <adykes@panix.com>spewed forth:
> In article <46ed4123$0$32470$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> God Bless Texas  <no.one.no.how@no.where.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>> I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV)
>>> that day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had
>>> been hit at a much lower level than the north tower.
>>
>> You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to
>> see - the grim reality was much different.
>
>
>
> Maybe a thousands people saw the first impact (it was caught by three
> people on their video cameras).  Mabybe a million saw the second plane
> hit.
>
> They went home that night and saw the same images on Tv news that
> night that they were eyewitnesses to.
>
> Those images are still being shown.
>
> When could they have been faked?
>
>
>
>
> On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
> that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
> should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
> and WTC.
>
>
> Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
>  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113
>
> The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
>  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en
>
> The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
>  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet
>
> Marks's collapse video
>  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en
>
> "The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
>  http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
>
> WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad.
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

LOL
I think I see Larry G there. 

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <46ed4123$0$32470$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> God Bless Texas  <no.one.no.how@no.where.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>>I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that 
>>>day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit 
>>>at a much lower level than the north tower.
>>
>>You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to see -
>>the grim reality was much different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a thousands people saw the first impact (it was caught by three
> people on their video cameras).  Mabybe a million saw the second plane
> hit.
> 
> They went home that night and saw the same images on Tv news that
> night that they were eyewitnesses to.
> 
> Those images are still being shown.
> 
> When could they have been faked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
> that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
> should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
> and WTC. 
> 
> 
> Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
>   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113
> 
> The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts 
>   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en
> 
> The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC 
>   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet
> 
> Marks's collapse video 
>   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en
> 
> "The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
>   http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
> 
> WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad. 
>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo
> 
> 


The NOVA documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," provided a good engineering 
viewpoint on the collapses.  It's clear to me that we are not building 
structures that have a lot of redundancy for major impacts/fires as 
compared to older style post 'n beam steel and steel/concrete stuctures.

OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.

JT

(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
structures to be compromised)

In article <TwdHi.555003$p47.300199@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Grumpy AuContraire  <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>The NOVA documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," provided a good engineering 
>viewpoint on the collapses.  It's clear to me that we are not building 
>structures that have a lot of redundancy for major impacts/fires as 
>compared to older style post 'n beam steel and steel/concrete stuctures.
>
>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>
>JT
>
>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>structures to be compromised)



For all the claims that the office towers that are going to be
replaced WTC have tenants waiting to move in, IMO, the next atttack on
any tower in the world will make them unrentable.  From first-hand
experience I've seen office staff in big buildings get "spooked" from
rumors of asbestos or odors that everone believes exist but can't be
proven.

If the Human Resource dept of a big tenant decides that they will have
problems recruiting or have to pay 10% more, it's all over as rentable
space. Residential space is even worse.






-- 
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m 
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <TwdHi.555003$p47.300199@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Grumpy AuContraire  <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>The NOVA documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," provided a good engineering 
>>viewpoint on the collapses.  It's clear to me that we are not building 
>>structures that have a lot of redundancy for major impacts/fires as 
>>compared to older style post 'n beam steel and steel/concrete stuctures.
>>
>>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>>
>>JT
>>
>>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>>structures to be compromised)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the claims that the office towers that are going to be
> replaced WTC have tenants waiting to move in, IMO, the next atttack on
> any tower in the world will make them unrentable.  From first-hand
> experience I've seen office staff in big buildings get "spooked" from
> rumors of asbestos or odors that everone believes exist but can't be
> proven.
> 
> If the Human Resource dept of a big tenant decides that they will have
> problems recruiting or have to pay 10% more, it's all over as rentable
> space. Residential space is even worse.
> 


I agree. Sad state of affairs though...

JT

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:07:52 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 
> Naw, let Larry do the heavy lifting even though the load is imaginary...

Anyone who tries to shave against the grain with Occam's razor has their
work cut out for them . . .

In article <fcjtch$2op$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) 
wrote:

> In article <TwdHi.555003$p47.300199@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Grumpy AuContraire  <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >The NOVA documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," provided a good engineering 
> >viewpoint on the collapses.  It's clear to me that we are not building 
> >structures that have a lot of redundancy for major impacts/fires as 
> >compared to older style post 'n beam steel and steel/concrete stuctures.
> >
> >OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
> >the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
> >
> >JT
> >
> >(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
> >structures to be compromised)
> 
> 
> 
> For all the claims that the office towers that are going to be
> replaced WTC have tenants waiting to move in, IMO, the next atttack on
> any tower in the world will make them unrentable.  From first-hand
> experience I've seen office staff in big buildings get "spooked" from
> rumors of asbestos or odors that everone believes exist but can't be
> proven.

So, if we don't build another skyscraper, they won't attack it. Building 
codes are being updated as we speak, no doubt.

Large penile capitalist erections insult Mohammed. Surely, it would be 
foolish to erect that which excites the sensitive Islamist.
 
> If the Human Resource dept of a big tenant decides that they will have
> problems recruiting or have to pay 10% more, it's all over as rentable
> space. Residential space is even worse.

You really believe the remote chance of terror attack would keep someone 
in NYC from taking a job in a hi-rise? Sounds like an Osama wet dream.

On 16 Sep 2007 14:43:47 GMT, God Bless Texas
<no.one.no.how@no.where.org> wrote:

>> No conspiracy here...
>
>It's massive, I'm tellin' ya TJ - millions and millions of people were in
>on it - and now they're all plotting something worse!  It's up to us to
>get the word out, except that the fools in the public, government, the
>media, this newsgroup, and the mall refuse to see or believe the TRUTH!

Actually 1/2 of ALL the people in the U.S. are "in on it".  Most of
them are CATHOLICKS!  Operating on orders from the POPE and the
"illuminati", in league with the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!  alecjones had it
on his last tape, which you can get from wwww.barkingmoonbat.org for
only $49.95.

And it's still a secret because U.S. citizens are known the world over
for keeping their mouths shut.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:15:31 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:

>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>
>JT
>
>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>structures to be compromised)

I heard the new 1500 ft tall tower in Dubai had a big red X placed on
about the 200th floor so the next hijacker will have something to aim
at.

BTW, WHAT "helicopter fire fighting capability" are you talking about?
X-men doesn't count.  And it doesn't really matter.  Structural
engineer Rosie said "fire won't burn steel"so it must have been the
JOOOOOOOOOZE!

On Sep 16, 9:37 am, God Bless Texas <no.one.no....@no.where.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:23:21 -0700, Lar...@Yahuu.com wrote:
>
> > Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
>
> You want to compare training or profession, when it comes to discerning
> opinion vs. fact?  I didn't think so . . .

What is this?  You issue a challenge and conclude that I will
not respond BEFORE you even post the thing?  Not very
honest or ethical.



> You'll take absurd rumor and pseudo-scientific paranoia over engineering
> facts?

You assume that the entire case implicating government involvement
in 9/11 rests on the collapse of the Twin Towers.  Even without
this issue, no realistic explaination has been given for the
demomlition of WTC7, the confiscation of all videos of the pentagon
attack, the destruction of crime scene evidence, and Dick Cheney's
no shoot down order, to name just a few omissions of the official
conspiracy theory.

Come back when you actually have an informed and substantiate
response.

Cheers,
Larry G.

In article <1190000561.158836.43870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
LarryG@Yahuu.com <larryg_uu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 9:37 am, God Bless Texas <no.one.no....@no.where.org>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:23:21 -0700, Lar...@Yahuu.com wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
>>
>> You want to compare training or profession, when it comes to discerning
>> opinion vs. fact?  I didn't think so . . .
>
>What is this?  You issue a challenge and conclude that I will
>not respond BEFORE you even post the thing?  Not very
>honest or ethical.
>
>
>
>> You'll take absurd rumor and pseudo-scientific paranoia over engineering
>> facts?
>
>You assume that the entire case implicating government involvement
>in 9/11 rests on the collapse of the Twin Towers.  Even without
>this issue, no realistic explaination has been given for the
>demomlition of WTC7, 




WTC7 fell because of some combination of falling debris, exposure to
fire from adjacent buildings, time, poor fireproofing, thousands of
gallons of stored diesel fuel, lack of water for sprinklers and
firefighters and the strange steel framework that was kludged over a
pre-existing electric utility substation.  There may be other
factors. If there are, they will be published in the next NIST report.


Experts differ on the exact mechanism but none of them propose
man-made explosives are needed to explain how the tower collapsed.


-- 
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m 
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:42:41 -0700, LarryG@Yahuu.com wrote:

> On Sep 16, 9:37 am, God Bless Texas <no.one.no....@no.where.org>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:23:21 -0700, Lar...@Yahuu.com wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
>>
>> You want to compare training or profession, when it comes to discerning
>> opinion vs. fact?  I didn't think so . . .
> 
> What is this?  You issue a challenge and conclude that I will
> not respond BEFORE you even post the thing?  Not very
> honest or ethical.

Well, since I know your training and profession, I supposed I could make
that leap - not very polite, but probably accurate.  Would you like to
compare education and training in the scientific field?
 
>> You'll take absurd rumor and pseudo-scientific paranoia over
>> engineering facts?
> 
> You assume that the entire case implicating government involvement in
> 9/11 rests on the collapse of the Twin Towers.  Even without this issue,
> no realistic explaination has been given for the demomlition of WTC7,
> the confiscation of all videos of the pentagon attack, the destruction
> of crime scene evidence, and Dick Cheney's no shoot down order, to name
> just a few omissions of the official conspiracy theory.

You insist on believing rumors and speculation, then weave them together
to form a pattern.  Have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful
Mind"? Your thought processes seem similar to those of Dr. Nash as depicted
in that movie - classic schizophrenic paranoia, IIRC.

> Come back when you actually have an informed and
substantiate response.

Response to what?  I have not the time to fill my mind with insanity - the
fundament is absurd, and thus the trappings are meaningless.

nc@gntbcr.com wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:15:31 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>>
>>JT
>>
>>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>>structures to be compromised)
> 
> 
> I heard the new 1500 ft tall tower in Dubai had a big red X placed on
> about the 200th floor so the next hijacker will have something to aim
> at.
> 
> BTW, WHAT "helicopter fire fighting capability" are you talking about?
> X-men doesn't count.  And it doesn't really matter.  Structural
> engineer Rosie said "fire won't burn steel"so it must have been the
> JOOOOOOOOOZE!


Kaman did some experiments with a high pressure fine mist suspended from 
its K-Max.  They have a lot of experience from the Air Force H-43B days 
where one of those choppers could suppress an aircraft fire within seconds.

JT

Je Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:32:31 -0500, "nc@gntbcr.com" <Not PC> skribis:

>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:15:31 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
><Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
>>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>>
>>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>>structures to be compromised)
>
>I heard the new 1500 ft tall tower in Dubai had a big red X placed on
>about the 200th floor so the next hijacker will have something to aim
>at.

The new Dubai tower didn't stop when it passed 1500 ft some time in
May or June.  It's now over 1800 ft.

Officially the builders admit that it will reach a minimum of 2,297
ft.  Unofficially, it might go to 2,684 ft.

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/burj_dubai


-- 
Steven M - spam_no@hal-pc.orgwax.invalid
(remove wax and invalid to reply)

 "The fellow that agrees with everything you say is either a fool
  or he is getting ready to skin you."  -- Kin Hubbard

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:17:41 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:

>
>
>nc@gntbcr.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:15:31 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
>> <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>OTOH, if lagre cities had aerial helicoptor fire fighting capabilities, 
>>>the main culprit, heat could have been negated in relatively short order.
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
>>>(Who's waiting for one of them thar' new fangled half mile high 
>>>structures to be compromised)
>> 
>> 
>> I heard the new 1500 ft tall tower in Dubai had a big red X placed on
>> about the 200th floor so the next hijacker will have something to aim
>> at.
>> 
>> BTW, WHAT "helicopter fire fighting capability" are you talking about?
>> X-men doesn't count.  And it doesn't really matter.  Structural
>> engineer Rosie said "fire won't burn steel"so it must have been the
>> JOOOOOOOOOZE!
>
>
>Kaman did some experiments with a high pressure fine mist suspended from 
>its K-Max.  They have a lot of experience from the Air Force H-43B days 
>where one of those choppers could suppress an aircraft fire within seconds.

I don't think it would work too well when the aircraft has transsected
a building at 600 MPH and the flaming wreckage is surrounded by
burning building.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:32:31 -0500, nc@gntbcr.com wrote:
 
> BTW, WHAT "helicopter fire fighting capability" are you talking about?
> X-men doesn't count.  And it doesn't really matter.  Structural
> engineer Rosie said "fire won't burn steel"so it must have been the
> JOOOOOOOOOZE!

I thought he was in Vegas trying to get his trophies back or sumpin.

On Sep 16, 12:15 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote:
> Al Dykes wrote:
> > In article <46ed4123$0$32470$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > God Bless Texas  <no.one.no....@no.where.org> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:19:13 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> >>>I saw the failure of both; the south and north towers live (on TV) that
> >>>day. The one with the most impact was the south tower that had been hit
> >>>at a much lower level than the north tower.
>
> >>You only saw the pre-recorded film clips that you were allowed to see -
> >>the grim reality was much different.
>
> > Maybe a thousands people saw the first impact (it was caught by three
> > people on their video cameras).  Mabybe a million saw the second plane
> > hit.
>
> > They went home that night and saw the same images on Tv news that
> > night that they were eyewitnesses to.
>
> > Those images are still being shown.
>
> > When could they have been faked?
>
> > On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
> > that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
> > should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
> > and WTC.
>
> > Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
> >  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113
>
> > The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
> >  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en
>
> > The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
> >  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet
>
> > Marks's collapse video
> >  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en
>
> > "The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
> >  http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
>
> > WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad.
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo
>
> The NOVA documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," provided a good engineering
> viewpoint on the collapses.  It's clear to me that we are not building
> structures that have a lot of redundancy for major impacts/fires as
> compared to older style post 'n beam steel and steel/concrete stuctures.


Nonsense.  The Nova and TLC "documentaries" were cobbled
together hand-waving explanations of the sort used to tell gullible
children why they can see Santa Claus at every mall across the
nation at the same time.  Such bullshit is easily swallowed by
people with poor critical thinking skills, and those who simply
don't want to believe that our government is capable of commiting
such crimes, when both history, physical evidence and compelling
motive indicates they are.

Next time you see Santa, go sit on his lap and ask him to tell you
the story of 19 arabs defeating the entire American military defence
aparatus.  I'm sure it will help you sleep better, than staying up
wondering what new evil Darth Cheney and the Puppet Emperor
are planning next.

Cheers,
Larry G.

On 9/18/07 8:35 PM, in article 46f07cd3$0$18996$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
"God Bless Texas" <no.one.no.how@no.where.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:32:31 -0500, nc@gntbcr.com wrote:
>  
>> BTW, WHAT "helicopter fire fighting capability" are you talking about?
>> X-men doesn't count.  And it doesn't really matter.  Structural
>> engineer Rosie said "fire won't burn steel"so it must have been the
>> JOOOOOOOOOZE!
> 
> I thought he was in Vegas trying to get his trophies back or sumpin.
<snort>

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:52:07 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
 
> Negative.  High pressure mist is very effective with most types of fires 
> and is relatively new technology, (last ten years), is expensive as is 
> the K-Max but nothing can match it.  Two K'Max 'copters so equipped 
> probably would have the fires extinguished within a few minutes.

Possibly, but cooling the building cores by spraying from the outside
would have been difficult.  The best approach (20/20 hindsight) would have
been to knock off the roof and flood the elevator shaft vertically.