Comments on: Flight 93 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/ Everyone has a right to my opinions Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:21:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Clarice http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/#comment-2446 Clarice Mon, 08 May 2006 20:56:17 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=174#comment-2446 Well, that clears that up. Thanks Tim. Well, that clears that up. Thanks Tim.

]]> By: Tim Newman http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/#comment-2014 Tim Newman Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:29:49 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=174#comment-2014 Being an engineer and all that, and having watched a very good geeky documentary detailing the failure mechanisms which led to the towers' collapse with several civil engineer colleagues, I have no doubt whatsoever that the cause of the collapse was fire resulting from the planes crashing into the buildings. I have yet to come across any self-respecting engineer who believes otherwise, and believe me, my company was party to all the industry talk on the subject (our NY office was in one of the towers, and the crash was witnessed by two of our staff, who both escaped in time). Clarice's facts listed above are in some instances not facts at all, and can be dismissed by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil and mechanical engineering. If anyone wants, I will meticulously explain how and why each tower collapsed, but it's not an exercise I would take on a whim given the time and effort involved. Being an engineer and all that, and having watched a very good geeky documentary detailing the failure mechanisms which led to the towers’ collapse with several civil engineer colleagues, I have no doubt whatsoever that the cause of the collapse was fire resulting from the planes crashing into the buildings.

I have yet to come across any self-respecting engineer who believes otherwise, and believe me, my company was party to all the industry talk on the subject (our NY office was in one of the towers, and the crash was witnessed by two of our staff, who both escaped in time). Clarice’s facts listed above are in some instances not facts at all, and can be dismissed by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil and mechanical engineering.

If anyone wants, I will meticulously explain how and why each tower collapsed, but it’s not an exercise I would take on a whim given the time and effort involved.

]]> By: Clarice http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/#comment-1962 Clarice Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:51:41 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=174#comment-1962 Well. There is the fact that mobile phones demonstrably do not work at 30,000 feet. There is the fact that no skyscraper has collapsed because of fire before or since, yet three collapsed all the same day. The twin towers fell faster than the max. speed possible without deliberate demolition. The position and timing of explosions throughout the buildings are consistent with deliberate demolition and not with the aircraft impact. The fact that certain people stood to benefit from the collapse of building seven (which was the only other building in the vicinity destroyed). The fact that anomalous share-dealing activity took place immediately prior. The fact that ground zero was destroyed before it could be independently investigated and vital evidence was destroyed. The fact that the hole in the pentagon is not consistent with the alleged impact, and the "wreckage" is the wrong kind of engine for that kind of plane. The fact that it is not chemically possible for an entire aircraft to be vaporised as is claimed. The fact that there is a precedent for such a deception. I could go on, but it just seems like rather a lot of coincidences if you ask me. Well. There is the fact that mobile phones demonstrably do not work at 30,000 feet. There is the fact that no skyscraper has collapsed because of fire before or since, yet three collapsed all the same day. The twin towers fell faster than the max. speed possible without deliberate demolition. The position and timing of explosions throughout the buildings are consistent with deliberate demolition and not with the aircraft impact. The fact that certain people stood to benefit from the collapse of building seven (which was the only other building in the vicinity destroyed). The fact that anomalous share-dealing activity took place immediately prior. The fact that ground zero was destroyed before it could be independently investigated and vital evidence was destroyed. The fact that the hole in the pentagon is not consistent with the alleged impact, and the “wreckage” is the wrong kind of engine for that kind of plane. The fact that it is not chemically possible for an entire aircraft to be vaporised as is claimed. The fact that there is a precedent for such a deception. I could go on, but it just seems like rather a lot of coincidences if you ask me.

]]> By: Robert http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/#comment-1876 Robert Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:46:38 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=174#comment-1876 Yes, there are a lot of conspiracies around. Part of the reason they flourish is that there is a lot of secrecy surrounding the investigation into 9/11. I would suggest this secrecy is covering up governmental blunders rather than conspiracy, however. Yes, there are a lot of conspiracies around. Part of the reason they flourish is that there is a lot of secrecy surrounding the investigation into 9/11. I would suggest this secrecy is covering up governmental blunders rather than conspiracy, however.

]]> By: Clarice http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2006/04/26/flight-93/#comment-1864 Clarice Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:22:40 +0000 http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/?p=174#comment-1864 I recently saw a very convincing documentary investigating the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were not acts of islamic terrorism but a war-mongering pr stunt staged by the us government. Some of the evidence was circumstantial, but a lot of it was quite convincing. I recently saw a very convincing documentary investigating the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were not acts of islamic terrorism but a war-mongering pr stunt staged by the us government. Some of the evidence was circumstantial, but a lot of it was quite convincing.

]]>