Ming the Mechanic:
Remember the WTC

The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Remember the WTC2004-05-04 17:00
picture by Flemming Funch

It needs to be said once in a while, so that it doesn't stay swept under the carpet. The 9-11 WTC catastrophe wasn't properly investigated, and the reasons given for what happened do not particularly match the given facts, or for that matter, the laws of physics. A telling title of one of the many exposées on the net is "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!", which pretty much says it.
  • Burning jet fuel can not melt the kind of steel the WTC was made of. It isn't remotely hot enough, even if there's a lot of it. Nobody's been able to demonstrate anything different.
  • More than a month after the incident, while the debris was being removed, pools of molten steel were found in the basement of the two towers, where they connected with the bedrock. As well as under the collapsed WTC7 building. Again, burning jet fluid and office papers and collapsing buildings can not have caused that. At least not according to any currently known natural law.
  • Certain high-powered military incendiaries can do that. Thermite, it is called. It would have to have been placed in those basements, though.
  • Three buildings collapsed, despite that the two of them got hit in very different ways by planes, and the last one wasn't hit. Doesn't match anything that is known about the structure and stability of such buildings. For that matter, the two buildings hit did what they were expected to do, without structural damage. Until they suddenly collapsed.
  • Various engineers and demolition experts stated that it had all the signs of being controlled demolitions. Most of them withdrew their statements later, without much explanation for their change of mind.
  • Ironically, a company called "Controlled Demolition, Inc." was given the contract ...of cleaning up, presumably. They were the same people contracted for the Oklahoma federal building.
  • The recovered steel was shipped to China, very quickly, before any analysis was completed, of how the buildings might have collapsed.
  • The owner of the buildings prepared to cash in on his six weeks old insurance policy. (Although he just realized that he can only cash in the $3.5 billion policy once, rather than the twice he expected)
  • Somebody made a killing in the stock market on predicting the whole event, and you're asked to believe that it wasn't possible to find out who.
Just a bunch of wacky conspiracy theories? Who would benefit from such an incident? Who has the means? Osama bin Laden? Quite the planner he must be. To inspire the U.S. to turn itself into a paranoid police state that is making a mess out of the middle east and destabilizing the world? Doesn't add up.

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]



4 May 2004 @ 19:23 by bushman : It adds up.
They the hidden cabal/group of world leaders, thier agenda is to make a reason to cull the human herd, just like before during hitlers time, it's no different, and they won't be happy till they only have to control 500 million people world wide, get rid of the usless eaters, means more resorces for them and thier evil machine. No doubt in my mind at all, that, thats the plan, and if your not part of thie plan you will go to jail or be lead into the millitary to fight a war for some groups personal profit. It's all a lie, they creat the terror just like before, they control most the main media, and you can tell.  

4 May 2004 @ 19:40 by taranga @ : flight path monitoring
I read that there was an automatic scrambling of fighter planes if a civilian airliner deviated from their correct flight path and that for a couple of days prior to 7/11 this had been discontinued - has anyone any evidence of this?

Also how did a few knife wielding loonies manage to completely overpower several hundred passengers?  

4 May 2004 @ 21:12 by Mike Hunsaker @ : Same ol' same ol'
See "Gods of Eden"

Hi Flemming. :-)  

4 May 2004 @ 21:44 by koravya : There's a lot of reading in here
That needs to be read.
From "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith, c. 1943.p. 369.
"April 6, 1917.
The one word headline was six inches high. The three letters were
smudged at the edges and the word WAR, seemed to waver.
. . .
She decided to fix this time in her life exactly the way it was this instant.
Perhaps that way she could hold on to it as a living thing and not have it
become something she called a memory."
(From the book and the page I am currently passing some evening time with.
A synchronistic event in reading between this kitchen light and the world at
large. Thanks for the links, and the things we need to think about.)  

5 May 2004 @ 01:26 by shawa : In other times...
...the people would be up in arms and running the streets towards Versailles with pitchforks!...Or is that a very naive view of History ?  

5 May 2004 @ 02:29 by b : I don't think so
I know the French are upset, all those Rodin's destroyed. I know some French people think that Dick Chaney's got them locked up somewhere. There is no doubt there are unknowns but Arabs bombed WTC the first time and Arabs bombed it again. China and some Saudi princelings did make a killing in the stock market. Arafat got some major payoffs from U.S.,Arab League, EU, Russia and some lip service from PRC that they would back him up. So he got his intifada financed after he betrayed Clinton. Those stateless Arabs squatting in the disputed terrortories continualy waiting for their next hand out.  

5 May 2004 @ 07:15 by jstarrs : Burrough's definition...
...of 'paranoia' was 'being in possession of all the facts.'  

5 May 2004 @ 12:18 by jmarc : all of that above may not add up
yet the planes WERE flown into the buildings now were'nt they? I'll also remind you that it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly, yet they do. Now stop reading that infernal french press, it's filling your well endowed head with the wrong crap.  

5 May 2004 @ 14:18 by ming : Stories
Well, that's the problem there - how easy it is to paint a picture for people who learn their truths from watching TV. We saw some planes fly into some buildings, and later they collapsed. A simple cause-effect relationship is easy to comprehend. And we don't have to worry about the details. Like how it actually happened. Or like how a building collapsed that didn't have any planes flying it it. Too complicated to think about, so easier to just believe some good people who say that they're now doing something about it. And ignore that what they're doing really has nothing to do with what happened.  

6 May 2004 @ 10:53 by E_Johnson @ : Fahrenheit 911
(The Temperature at Which Freedom Burns...)

Contributed by Working Assets:

In a blatant act of commercial censorship, the Walt Disney Company has forbidden its Miramax division from making Michael Moore's new documentary on 9/11 available to the American people.

The film, which is critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror both before and after September 11, also investigates the Bush family's financial ties to key Saudi figures including the bin Ladens.

Disney's Miramax owns the rights to distribute the film, titled "Fahrenheit 911," in North America. The move is aimed at keeping American audiences from seeing Moore's independent investigation of the 9/11 and its aftermath, including anti-war statements from troops on the ground in Iraq.

The New York Times reports that conservative groups have been pressuring Disney since it was made public that Miramax helped finance the Michael Moore production.

According to the New York Times, Moore's agent says embattled Disney chief Michael Eisner feared the documentary could endanger the company's tax breaks in Florida, where Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

Michael Moore, who will present the film at the {link:http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-21|Cannes film festival} this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, 'Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Disney's move is only the latest example of decisions by leading media corporations to block the distribution of material that might be deemed controversial or progressive, such as the Sinclair Corporation's censorship of Ted Koppel's special on the war dead in Iraq and CBS/Viacom's refusal to air its own special on Ronald Reagan.  

Other stories in
2011-11-24 00:54: Blind and Automatic Punishment
2011-11-19 22:50: Corruption
2007-03-16 01:50: Logic and the Autobahn
2007-01-22 21:14: The Century of the Self
2006-12-12 21:43: Le Web 3
2006-12-11 00:14: Software and Community in the Early 21st Century
2006-12-04 21:42: Troubadours and the Singable Earth Charter
2006-10-26 18:11: A message from DHS
2006-02-09 21:41: Mohammed cartoons in Egypt
2006-02-09 20:46: Instigators of the Mohammed controversy

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 

Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001233.htm
Main Page: ming.tv