West Virginia Candidate Jeff Becker Questions WTC 7 Collapse in Senate Debate

[immune]

carried nationally on C-SPAN

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/west-virginia-candidate-jeff?xg_source=shorten_twitter

Becker, who noted himself as an engineer, went on to give an extended explanation concerning the impossibility of WTC 7′s collapse, as well as the contradiction between the laws of physics and the government’s official account :

“Building 7 was two blocks away from the twin towers– and that’s important to consider because it was not rained on by any debris. It was just a 40-story building. And at 5 p.m. on 9/11, Jane Standley, reporter from the BBC was standing right in front, at Ground Zero, and reported that Building 7 had collapsed, when in fact you could see it over her shoulder. And then, 20 minutes later, it did collapse. This is foreknowledge, and it needs to be investigated.”

[hack89]

1. He's a right wing wack job

he is a Constitution Party candidate - have you seen their platform?

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

According to their press release, he is a substitute school teacher.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=1278

[immune]

3. All that goes to show

is rejection of the OCT transcends party politics.

And, of course, that all politicians, from far left to far right, USE the US Constitution to support their contentions, regardless of whether or not they stick to those stated principles once they're in office. I guess that's because its only after they swear an oath to uphold that document that they are introduced to the fact that they are at the mercy of the people who REALLY run the show. And, of course, that would be the same people who gained the world on 911 ... which also explains why you have to pose naked for their goons if you want to get on a plane anywhere in America today, among other indignities.

Cause and effect.

[hack89]

4. Or that 911 Truth migrates to the fringe. nt

[SDuderstadt]

5. I wonder who "immune" believes...

"really runs the show".

[LARED]

2. How much effort does it take to remain as uninformed as you

are?

Building 7 did get hit by debris and it was a 47 story building.

[immune]

6. Was it or wasn't it?

That argument has been raging since building 7 was "pulled".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97490

Remember the Empire State building?

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

I guess they just don't build things like they used to.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Jesus...

"immune" does not understand the difference between the design and construction of the ESB and the WTC, not to mention the role that speed played in the results.

He is truly hopeless to try to reason with.

[LARED]

8. And the answer is; it takes you no effort at all.. nt

[hack89]

9. Lets count the flaws in your logic, shall we?

1. Equating a 10 ton plane with a 250 ton plane.

2. Equating a plane flying at 200 knots with a plane flying at 600 knots.

3. Equating a plane carrying 300 gallons of gas with a plane carrying 10,000 gallons of gas (I assumed a 50 percent fuel load).

4. Equating a building with thick masonry walls with a building with thin steel walls.

You do understand, don't you, that equating the two crashes defies both science and common sense? The KE associated with the WTC crash is at least several orders of magnitude greater. And isn't it reasonable to assume that a crash with 30 times more aviation gas just might create somewhat larger fires?

[immune]

10. There is no substantial proof that a

plane such as you describe crashed into the towers ... or as D&P would put it, sliced through the steel like a hot knife through butter (paraphrasing).

[SDuderstadt]

11. How much fucking proof do you need...

dude?

The very fact that you would cite D&P as a "source" for anything, is astounding.

[immune]

12. LOL @ you being astounded

since you've compared me to her a few times.

What proof? More than they've given us.

[SDuderstadt]

13. What, specifically...

would convince you?

How many witnesses do you need? How many plane parts? Where are the passengers?

Are you a "no-planer"?

[zappaman]

14. maybe he's a

no braner?

[immune]

15. Am I a no planer?

I haven't decided yet, but I am from Missouri and nobody from your side of the fence has yet shown me anything close to proof (or even compelling evidence) for their pet "theory".

We've already had the "where are the passengers" conversation.

[LARED]

16. Missouri huh

Well I'm from NJ and actually know a few people that saw and heard the second plane fly overhead and watched it impact the WTC. I also know people that were in towers.

[immune]

19. Key words:

no one has "shown me". Missouri being the Show Me state, of course.

Did something hit the towers, yes, without a doubt. What that was is up for debate. Your friends heard planes which is probably fairly common in Manhatten. The firemen heard explosions and no one knows what caused them. Or cares.

Have I denied people died? Not likely. I'd sure like to know who murdered them all and see whomever is responsible, whether by LIHOP or MIHOP, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to the legal limits of the law, though.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Dude...

there are multiple accounts from first responders who saw the second plane. They have been posted here many times before.

This is getting beyond stupid.

[immune]

23. Did they see pilots?

Did they see passengers?

It isn't the paint job that counts, its what's under the "hood".

[SDuderstadt]

28. Let me make sure I get this straight...

because no one can see the passengers or pilots from hundreds of feet below, that contravenes the accounts of multiple people who saw the jet hit the WTC???

[defendandprotect]

35. Many have speculated that ONE plane was used to fly towards the WTC towers ....

and then above them --

and then down to DC to do the same thing with Pentagon --

Keep in mind that at the Pentagon, this "hijacked" plane had been flying around for

an hour or more with no interference from either NORAD nor any military base!!

Guess they were too busy with other things?

But at Pentagon, CNN reporter who was there before reports of a plane hitting, tells

us clearly -- until he is forced to retreat hours later -- that "NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon.

A NORAD general also immediately sent up a pilot to flying over to the Pentagon and found

out what hit it -- report came back "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON."


Meanwhile, no alarms went off in Pentagon -- and evidently they've never thought of having

to defend the Pentagon cause there was no defense!

Yet, night before in Florida, they put anti-missile system on the top of the hotel where

W Bush was staying!!

Presumably we cared more about W than we care about the Pentagon!


:evilgrin:

[SDuderstadt]

17. Dude...

now you are being disengenuous. I'd love to know what you consider "close to proof".

[immune]

24. Oh,

maybe some jumbo jet engines. Or maybe the black boxes.

Dunno, Atta's passport just doesn't do it for me.

[SDuderstadt]

26. More of your absolute bullshit...

dude.

It's pretty clear why the black boxes weren't found.



There were also multiple pictures of aircraft parts. Why you would think that an entire jet engine would be found defies belief, especially given the picture I posted above.



It is extremely disengenuous of you to pretend the only evidence found was Atta's passport.

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

[immune]

29. You guys keep leading me to the most fascinating stuff. Thanks!

Kurt Sonnenfeld : Exclusive interview
9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public

He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Emergency Response Team.

Interview
Voltaire Network: Your autobiographical book titled "El Perseguido" (Persecuted) was recently published in Argentina where you live in exile since 2003. Tell us who is persecuting you.

Kurt Sonnenfeld: Although it is autobiographical, it is not my life story. Rather it is a history of the extraordinary events that have happened to me and my family at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years, spanning two hemispheres, after my tour of duty at Ground Zero and becoming an inconvenient witness.

....

"We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!"

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html

[zappaman]

30. LOL

you are funny!
seriously, hilarious!
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

36. Thank you -- hadn't seen that info before re Kurt Sonnenfeld/FEMA videographer--!!

And those black boxes do have a way of not surviving everything they're evidently

produced to survive!! :evilgrin:


Important all of this gets into the records here!

[immune]

40. That whole Sonnenfeld

interview is pretty interesting. I hadn't seen it before either and really appreciate Sduderstadt putting me onto it. He's real helpful that way. :fistbump:

[SDuderstadt]

38. "Truther logic"

"We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!"

Conclusion: All the damage in a plane crash is "uniform".

[immune]

42. All the damage in a plane crash is uniform.

Is that part of the Uniform Commercial Code? :shrug:

[Theobald]

18. Substantial?

Video, pictures and tens of thousands of eye witnesses are not substantial? They are by definition substantial. You can claim they are faked, you can claim the people are misled, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence proffered that planes crashed into the towers is the very essence of substantial proof. You are the one making extraordinary unsubstantiated claims.

[immune]

21. Again,

something crashed into the towers. And yes, I've seen the photos. Thousands of them. The holes don't scream jumbo jet to me or to millions of others and that's just the first point. But if it works for you, don't let me stop you.

[SDuderstadt]

22. What do the "holes"...

"scream" to you?

This is fucking unbelievable.

[immune]

25. Hmmm, I guess they screamed

Man, that Bin Laden dude is one clever bastard.

And then I came to my senses.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "And then I came to my senses"

If that were the case, you wouldn't post the bullshit you post.

[defendandprotect]

37. Hardly ... you have a CNN witness at the Pentagon ... "NO PLANE HIT PENTAGON" ...

yet, presumably, you want to dismiss him?

Since not everyone near WTC towers was interviewed, impossible to say how many thought

they saw a plane hit -- how many THOUGHT a plane hit, but it actually flew over the towers --

or how many were told that a plane hit, but actually it was simply explosiions going off in

the building as other witnesses have made clear.

Meanwhile, there is also the possibility of missiles --

[SDuderstadt]

39. More of D&P's bullshit

http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html

[immune]

41. Meanwhile, there is also the possibility of missiles --

maybe all gussied up as pretty Boeings? Little tuck here an uplift there, a little pancake, a new hairdo and they're all set for some steel and concrete lap dances?

Sorry, didn't mean to be flip about it. I do lean in that direction.

[SDuderstadt]

43. What "missile" do you know of that is...

anywhere near the size of a commecial airliner, dude? How would a "missile" leave a large jetliner shaped hole in the buildings"?

Do you think about the stupid things you post before ypu post them?

[immune]

44. Well, it'd probably be

a little rough to fit a commercial airliner inside a missile, but it might work out pretty good the other way around.

[SDuderstadt]

45. What would be the purpose of...

putting a missile inside a commercial jetliner.

Again, do you think about the stupid things you post before you post them?

[immune]

47. Oh, I don't know ...

like maybe to make witnesses think they'd seen a plane crash instead of a missile strike? Maybe to insure the extent of damage needed to make it plausible for the towers to fall as a result of the hit?

Far as I can tell, all it'd take is a little nose job on the planes and maybe some robotics upgrades. That'd probably be easier (and surer) than trying to coerce a gaggle of hung-over, strung-out fanatics into flying planes into buildings. What if they changed their minds at the last minute? All that planning for nothing.

[LARED]

48. Wow, how did you come up with this

"than trying to coerce a gaggle of hung-over, strung-out fanatics "

[immune]

53. Carousing Jihadists

Devout Muslim Hijackers Partied at Strip Bars Before Suicide Mission for Allah.

The hijackers, we were told, were extreme Islamic fundamentalists, driven by their religious fervor to make the ultimate sacrifice. Their religious extremism was also used, if mostly subconsciously, to help explain their improbable string of successes in first taking over four aircraft with primitive weapons, and then piloting three of them to their intended targets with astonishing precision, (precision all the more surprising given their inexperience as pilots). We know that athletes can achieve incredible feats through discipline, practice, and endurance. In a similar way, it's easy to imagine that the hijackers suceeded against nearly impossible odds through rigorous discipline borne of their religious conviction.

Yet some of these hijackers had used credit cards to pay for drinks and lap dances at a topless bar the night before, according to the FBI. 1 There are also reports of hijackers leaving copies of the Koran behind, once at a bar, and once in a rental car -- surprising behavior for devout Muslims.

http://www.911research.com/disinfo/deceptions/carousers.html

Emphasis on "according to the FBI", since you wondered where I came up with that idea. Google is your friend.

[zappaman]

54. so?

tell us more about the missiles rigged up to look like passenger planes.
there must be alot of evidence out there....show us!

[SDuderstadt]

55. "truther logic"

Terrorists about to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands of people would not want to fool people into thinking they are not devout Muslims.

[immune]

58. You've got a lot to learn about Islam, dude.

Question: Why is alcohol forbidden in Islam?

Answer: Intoxicants were forbidden in the Qur'an through several separate verses revealed at different times over a period of years. At first, it was forbidden for Muslims to attend to prayers while intoxicated (4:43). Then a later verse was revealed which said that alcohol contains some good and some evil, but the evil is greater than the good (2 : 219). This was the next step in turning people away from consumption of it. Finally, "intoxicants and games of chance" were called "abominations of Satan's handiwork," intended to turn people away from God and forget about prayer, and Muslims were ordered to abstain (5 : 90-91). (Note - the Qur'an is not arranged chronologically, so later verses of the book were not necessarily revealed after earlier verses.)

http://islam.about.com/od/health/f/alcohol.htm

Devout Muslims wouldn't go near the stuff, particularly if they were expecting to meet Allah the next day. But that was the meme planted into ignorant people's heads ... people who don't know diddly squat about Islam ... except that they're terrorists who need to be exterminated.

[SDuderstadt]

59. No, you do, dude...

It's called Taqiyya.

The Doctrine of Taqiyya
According to Shari'a--the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances--deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,<2> based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.<3>
This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi'i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.<4> Taqiyya allowed the Shi'a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/how-taqiyya-alters-islams-rules-of-war.html

This is what you get for letting your confirmation bias interfere with your "research skills". Do you just identify the first source you can find that appears to support your pre-conclusion, then just blurt out the first stupid thing that comes into your head? How many times do you have to be embarrassed with the actual facts before you stop this silly behavior?

I am inclined to nominate your post as the winner of the most unintentionally ironic post of the millenium, dude. Please, don't EVER change.

[immune]

62. Maybe we should make a distinction

between what's in the Holy Qur'an and what the Wahhabiests have done to Islam. Ya know, like raadical Wahhabi Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from? Our good friends, the Saudis? Can't be bombing the snot out of our good friends, now can we ... so lets go hit Afghanistan instead.

Make sense?

[SDuderstadt]

63. No, but...

then again, very little of what you jabber about makes sense.

Nice deflection, dude.

[immune]

65. No deflection.

Wahhabis and Sharia are to Islam what Pat Robertson and the Crystal Cathedral are to Christianity. Nuff said.

[SDuderstadt]

67. No, dude...

it IS deflection. Nuff said.

[zappaman]

68. Hmmm...

maybe IMMUNE does not know the meaning of "deflection"?

[immune]

69. So getting back to Sharia law ....

Within Sharia law, there are a group of "Haram" offenses which carry severe punishments. These include pre-marital sexual intercourse, sex by divorced persons, post-marital sex, adultery, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. Haram sexual offenses can carry a sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm

So if these wild eyed hijackers were sharia jihadists, I suppose they might just as well kill themselves and forget all those virgins since they broke damn near ALL the rules in one fell swoop.

[zappaman]

70. so getting back to your reading comprehension skills..

did you read the post about Taqiyya?
Do you understand what it means?

[immune]

72. Hmmmm Taqiyya

Okay, I'll play your little game.

I think it might explain what the 911 commission did.

[zappaman]

73. what?

seriously, you just post here to be a wiseass, right?
no one can possibly be as uniformed and, quite frankly, as deluded as you are.
So congrats on being as funny as Andy Kaufman!
:rofl:

[zappaman]

66. no

like everything you post, it does not make sense.
I wonder if you will ever be right about ANYTHING?

[defendandprotect]

49. Well, from some of the sounds -- speeds -- and odd appearance of the "planes" ...

don't think it is impossible.


Meanwhile, re my original post -- I was referring, of course, to the CNN JOURNALIST

who was had been at the Pentagon because of reports of the "hijacked" plane being

headed that way. That journalist later retracted his entire story, but obviously

we're heard that enough times before to understand cover-ups. I'm also sure that

CNN didn't send some newbie to cover the 9/11 story at the Pentagon!

[immune]

56. And isn't it interesting

that reporters found out about it and made it to the scenes of the crimes through rush hour traffic before interceptors could get there as the crow flies?

It took awhile, though, to get everyone on the same page, so some un-vetted reports made it into the news before they could intercept the news crews and witnesses. Unfortunately for them, most of those reports and witness statements haven't gotten flushed far enough down the memory hole, so all they're left with at this point in time is ridicule.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Dude...

Jamie McIntyre, at the time, was CNN's Pentagon reporter. Where do you think he would have been anyhow if he was the Pentagon reporter? Duh.

For the record, you are uncritically buying the bullshit of one of the few posters who is arguably less informed than you, although Larry Burks is in hot pursuit.

You guys are incredibly embarrassing to liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU.

[immune]

60. Right.

Toe the mark and march to the drumbeat if you don't want to embarass yourself or the "group". Throw your brains into the community pot and let them all simmer together until well blended. You really think that's how it should be in the democratic party or at DU? If so, you'll have a long wait.

As for where Jamie might have been at that hour of the morning on that particular day ... dunno, it wasn't my day to watch him. Was it yours?

[defendandprotect]

61. Great point .... unfortunately, CNN jorunalist didn't alert Pentagon ...!!!

You probably also know that one of the Pentagon employees -- April Gallop? --

was suing because NO ALARM went off in the Pentagon warning them to evacuate --

though they had very regular testing of the alarm system at the Pentagon --

frequently!!

She was in the area behind where the "plane" hit -- didn't see any plane!!

And she walked out of the hole!!

[immune]

64. Was any alarm really needed? Or wanted?

From what I remember, all the top brass was on the other end of the compound anyway and only the folks attempting to ferret out the 2 + trillion dollar snafu were right where the "plane" hit. Those kinds of coincidences trip my BS meter and I'm pretty sure all those flashing red alarms don't indicate a drill.

[defendandprotect]

74. Agree ... but people like April and her son were counting on an "alarm" ...

should there be a need for it -- like 9/11!!

And I'm sure you recall Minetta's testimony re Cheney and reports of "incoming" to him ....

and his adamant "no change in orders."


How long have you been questioning 9/11? :)

[immune]

76. I agree that many people

counted on that alarm. They were, like those in the towers, betrayed by their own people.

And yes, I recall the countdown to Cheney and his response to the young guy doing the "miles out" reports, which went something like "has anyone told you otherwise". :grr:

I've been questioning 911 since a few days after it happened, but there was so much sound and fury going on over Bin Laden at that time that no one would listen to reason. Lots of people still won't.

But even though its taken way too long, its good to see so much cooperation going on among architects, engineers, pilots, firemen, families of victims independent research groups and so many others who are demanding the truth.

It'll happen.

[defendandprotect]

77. Trust you're right and that eventually "it will happen" ... because unless we break

up this racket the right wing have going, we're open for more of it!!

Just as the coup on JFK and our people's government has led to so much more

fascism in America!


:)

[defendandprotect]

51. EDIT: The "witness" is of course CNN JOURNALIST .....and film crew ... !!

Unfortunately, I didn't make that clear in the original comment --

[zappaman]

52. as if you make anything clear...n/t

[defendandprotect]

33. You do understand that the WTC were built to withstand a commercial airliner ....

flying into the towers?

Not only ONE commercial airliner -- but many.

Additionally, fully loaded jets -- fuel was insignificant -- burned off in 10 minutes --

[zappaman]

34. more bullshit

just never stops

[hack89]

46. Except they didn't model the fires.

the towers did survive the impacts - it was the fires that, in combination with the impact damage, that doomed the towers.

The fuel was significant in that it started massive phase 3 fires almost instantaneously in a large portion of the towers.

Here is a MIT white paper on the fires.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfilesChapter%20II%20Inferno%20@%20WTC.pdf

[defendandprotect]

50. No -- Kerosene was so inconsequential that it was meaningless -- burned off in 10 mins.....

The fuel and a fully loaded planes were considered -- but, again,

the jet fuel burns off quickly and doesn't have sufficient heat to harm a steel tower.


Fires did not on 9/11 -- nor any time before 9/11 -- nor any time after 9/11 --

bring down steel towers.

PLUS fires were NOT on every floor -- they were contained --

as firemen have clearly told us.

What you're discussing was NOT widespread throughout the towers -- and certainly

NOT hot enough --

UNTIL THERMITE is considered --

and DEMOLITION --





MIT -- ? Could now now be known as Military Mass. Institute of Technology!

[hack89]

71. You don't get it, do you?

the jet fuel ignited all the consumables in the impact zone - it was a fire starter. Yes, it burned off quickly - but not before starting massive and very hot fires.

As to your other points:

Who said there were fires on every floor? They only need to be in the impact zone - the place where the collapse started.

Fire melted the steel portions of the Madrid tower - only the concrete core kept it from total collapse.

Steel loses half of its strength at 600 degrees C - house fires easily reach that temperature. You don't need Thermate to weaken steel until it collapses under load - especially if damage to other structural members has increased the load it is holding. And it only takes one member to fail for the entire structure to collapse.

I will assume that your attack on MIT simply reflects your inability to understand or rebut the paper.

[defendandprotect]

75. And you're saying the builders didn't consider "consumables" in erecting a steel tower???

Further, no matter how many "consumables" -- the fires would not burn hot enough

to bring down a steel tower -- never happened before -- and never happened since.

Only way this happened is with DEMOLITION and THERMITE --


Again, the impact floors were HIGH up in the buildings and contained --

possibly only two or three floors impacted and

they were going out as can be seen from the change in color of the smoke --

and from reports of firefighters.


If you or anyone else wants to argue that fires brought down the towers ... YOU

need to have fires throughout the building -- not simply at area of impact!!!


And, again, the STEEL CORE of these buildings could only also be brought down by

DEMOLITION and THERMITE -- or something even more powerful.


And, the "licorice" theory is also long dead --


As far as MIT is concerned, huge interest by Pentagon and government in MIT and

its research.

[defendandprotect]

31. The OCT asks that we all suspend belief in reality ....

aluminum planes cut thru steel like butter -- NO

confined fires bring down steel towers -- NO

NORAD AWOL on purpose -- YES

[zappaman]

32. D & P checking in!

let's get this party started!