Text 27319, 113 rader
Skriven 2009-02-07 18:18:16 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 27268 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Re: Love that sand! (was
================================
Hello Ward,

>LL>Passports are very flammable.  And the airplane, along with all
>LL>occupants, were consumed in a very big fireball.

WD>No it was not.

Sure looked like it to most folks.

WD>An engine was recovered from the debris for example.

So?

WD>And what is flammable? Paper can burn ... so try to put a
WD>lighted match to a phonebook and see what happens ...
WD>"nothing" ... won't burn.

A passport is only a handful of pages, and very flammable.  However,
the pages are thicker than the pages of most books.  In any event, the
thought is still absurd.  We are asked to believe a very small "book"
is found on the ground, virtually unscathed, of one of the terrorists,
within hours of the planes being incinerated and the WTC twin towers
being a massive pile of rubble.

WD>From the depth of the oceans suitcases and other objects have been
WD>recovered from the Titanic wrecksite. In on specific trunk was a
WD>newspaper from the day the vessel sailed from Southampton ...
WD>perfectly readable.

The Titanic did not go down in a giant ball of flame.

WD>So why would a passport have to burn if e.g. no oxygen could get to it?

When plane hit building, plane erupt in giant flame.  Everything
inside of plane burn, including people, paper, passports, etc.

WD>Seems quite plausible to me.

Hold passport over open flame.  See what happens.

>JB>They were very safe. They were built to take mulptiple
>JB>impacts from aircraft as stated in a video with the design
>JB>engineers of the towers.

>LL>What size aircraft?

WD>1960-ies era 707, DC8 and CV880 flying at low speed in a
WD>landing- or departing-configuration.

The planes were flying at top speed, almost to the point of
disintegration.

WD>These planes were the same size as the 757's and not that
WD>much smaller as the 767's. The 707 BTW on an overland
WD>flight needed more fuel than a 2001-vintage 767.

The planes were commuter aircraft, intended for short trips.
Not for going cross country.

WD>The only thing that made any difference was the very high impact-velocity.

Throw an egg hard enough it can go through a wall without breaking.

>LL>An aircraft hitting a 110-story building will leave a very large
>LL>gash.  But nothing much more than that.  Aside from destroying the
>LL>aircraft, that is.

WD>Not "any" building.

Not everybody believes the cock and bull story about aircraft
being used as guided missiles to bring down two skyscrapers.

WD>It is perfectly known and understood that crucial support-
WD>beams were damaged, fire-insulation damaged by the impact
WD>and made useless so that fuel-fires could seep-through and
WD>soften the metal structure.

Oh, a very nice-sounding theory that may be.  But is it true?
How do we know what really happened?

>LL>With commuter aircraft?  Or with C-4?  Let's not forget about
>LL>the Pentagon.  And that other aircraft, which flew perilously
>LL>close to a very sensitive radar installation...

WD>What about the Pentagon?

Only the strongest side was hit.  The other four sides were
left with virtually no damage.  The top brass wanted to test
the strength of the one side that had been completed before
putting any more dollars into repairing the other four sides.

WD>There's still no explanation what is on the rooftop camera
WD>of the nearby Sheraton National Hotel of which the tapes
WD>were lifted within minutes by US government agents.

That camera belonged to Mossad.

WD>What is there we are no allowed to see?

I dunno.  You'll have to ask Israeli intelligence.

WD>Was it really an F16 firing missiles at the Pentagon?

More like a cross between a French Mirage and a modified F16.
You gotta give them Jews credit.  They are a very ingenious people.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)