Thanks . I can't wait to get back to work on a regular schedule . I will never complain about going to work again

__________________
"If that's what it takes to keep the peace , then thank God for the bomb" Ozzy Osbourne Sat Cong !

I'm still reading okham, I will put out my thoughts on this one... very interesting... I like the theories you put here.

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government"
- Edward Abbey

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill

"Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong."
- Richard Armour

We are all behind you rdnr ,,,,,I am sorry you are going through this

Strong Spirit
Strong Life

Thanks . I do not have it as bad as a lot of people . A trip to the cancer hospital is a sure fire cure for self pity .

__________________
"If that's what it takes to keep the peace , then thank God for the bomb" Ozzy Osbourne Sat Cong !

Now let's take a look at WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 for a little contrast to the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7

All of the buildings at the WTC site were steel frame construction. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were heavily damaged by falling debris from the towers which fell on them from a maximum height of almost 1300 feet. That's 30-60 ton girders falling from 80 stories or higher, together with tons of pulverised building material. Yet NONE of these buildings suffered complete collapse.

Why? Because of their steel frame construction designed to withstand at least five times the load they were required to bear.

Both building 5 and 6 endured hours of raging fires that were easily more involved than anything seen in the towers, and significantly more than building 7, in addition to substantial structural damage. Yet despite being shorter buildings (8-9 stories, and thus of much lighter construction) none of these buildings suffered catastrophic failures. Portions of building five did indeed fail, but nowhere near complete and sudden "global" catastrophic failure.

The FEMA report ignores most of these aspects but does point to building five's engulfing fires, tower damage and subsequent partial collapse.

Another interesting fact is that all of these buildings were either completely or mostly evacuated within minutes of the first attack. By contrast, the folks in the as yet undamaged tower 2, were told to stay put. Then the second plane hit tower 2.

These buildings, on a normal business day, these seven buildings housed 50,000 people. Yet the death toll was only about 5% of that, including the passengers of the planes.

I guess my point here, and I'm a little loathe to make it this early on, is that if you were trying to sell this to (assuming government involvement), it would be a much, much easier sell if you could assure the potential conspirators that there would be minimal loss of life. Which "miraculously" was indeed the case.

If you were a terrorist, and wanted to cause maximum loss of life, had months or years to plan this, and three airports full of planes and flight times to choose from, why on earth would you choose two early morning flights? The only thing less effective would be to have attacked during the night.

Now add to all of this that aside from some minor damage, not one building outside of the WTC campus was significantly damaged. Contrasting the nearly complete destruction of every building on campus. How fortunate that Silverstein (lease holder of the WTC site) had taken out billions in insurance covering terrorism on the site for the first time in it's 30+ year history. How incredibly fortunate that each building largely fell within it's own footprint and didn't damage those buildings not covered by terrorist insurance, thus circumventing some very noisy lawsuits and independent investigations.

Silverstien has paid $200 million for the lease rights for the WTC complex. The value of the insurance policy was $4 BILLION ! In addition, he tried to sue for $8 billion arguing that each plane constituted separate attacks. His bid failed. But he netted 3.8 billion for a few months "work". Think he's gonna have an attack of conscience and come forward to tell what he knows?

Still much more to come....

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Keep it coming...I am examining it and trying to make sense of it.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

World Trade Center #7 falling is the smoking gun. Honestly, who here has watched it fall? If you answered yes, do you really believe a building would fall that perfectly after burning for a few hours? Silverstein stood to gain from an event like 9/11. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he knew about what would happen. If a serious investigation, not 9/11 commission cover up, ever occurs I think Silverstein should be a person of interest for sure.

I believe that Popular Mechanics, a non-political magazine, has a great article that I will let speak for itself. I am a computer guy not an engineer, explosives expert, or much of anything else. I am an indepenant thinker though.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

__________________
HuffDawg
Independant Thinker
Patriotic American

I would rather hunt with Cheney than drive with a Kennedy !!!

Ok look at page 5 of that article, it deals with WTC 7 collapse. Their "FACT"- their evidence to the contrary of an implosion- is in fact...not a fact...at all.

"With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated."

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research."

"But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse,"

"There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation:"

This is hardly concrete evidence that debunks anything. The NIST have no 100% proven conclusions, just theories like everyone else. But we're supposed to blindly accept this "science" because it is in a Popular Mechanics magazine? Don't think so. I think there is evidence somewhere that the author of this article has ties to the Bush administration, I want to say Chertoff for some reason, but I'm not sure. Draw your own conclusions but also use common sense, that building falling looks an awful lot like the old Vegas casinos coming straight down very neatly.