you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

In article <6phmg.34699$1Z2.27328@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says... 

In news:Xns97E964C3FBCECthathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,
John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well I do have some difficulties with some of the
conspiracy theories for example how did they got they get
tonnes and tones of explosives into the WTCs without being
noticed and without it being subsequently noticed by the
thousands of people working there considering one would
think conventional explosives in the sort of quantities
required would be somewhat bulky.

Do you have a difficulty with the concept of planting all
that shit and then detonating it by flying an airplane into
the building?  For your information, fuses were invented
centuries ago.

But there weren't supposed to be any explosives planted in the
building at all and if there were it would have been quite an
undertaking to rig a building of that size and one imagines
requiring access to restricted areas which means it would have
had to have been done by people who could gain access to such
areas. 

There was suppose to have been some peculiar things going on,
with the Twin Towers before 9/11, which strongly hint that,
yes explosives could have been rigged up there, because users
were not allowed to know what was exactly going on, then...
And strangely - Bush's brother is responsible for the security
of the Twin Towers, and also for the clean up afterwards.

It would be good to get definite confirmations on this
information, to verify that this is indeed the case.
Just to show that these are facts..

It should be so noted, that the collapse of the Twin Towers
does exactly look like a controlled demolition, did take
place. Now how peculiar is that?

I do know there has been attempts to make the public believe
that fire was the cause of the collapse, even going as far as
there being a documentary presented, which says, Oh, the fire
weakened the steel, and once it started going, nothing could
stop it. 

But would this also say, that because the topmost floors
weren't subject to the gravity of floors above them, so that
the top of the rubble should be more intact? And does the
photographs of the rubble show that this is the case, at all?
No, I don't think so, that we should see topmost floors with
less damage, at the top of the rubble... 

Harvey

Good one! A good spoof of what we could expect from a novice 
nutcase.
 

Note also this video about Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OotM5Z4ZHRc
Actually it is quite entertaining especially the second
half with the French car LOL

Holy shit...the thermite story resurfaces.  ROTMFFLMMFAO!

Well Wikipedia gives quite a bit of information on Thermite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Basically its a powdered
mixture of Iron Oxide and Aluminium. Neither of those
materials are difficult to acquire, after all Iron Oxide is
basically rust and there are numerous sources of aluminium
including beer cans and baking foil. Of course the other thing
about it is thermite can't be detected by sniffer dogs because 
Iron oxide and aluminium are common in the urban environment.

It is a substance that could have been planted in someway even
as a coating without arousing suspicion. According to
Wikipedia it needs a fair amount of heat to ignite but
obviously there was no shortage of sufficient heat. -- 
Amanda