Dear Mr. McKee, Thank you for that nice tribute to Mr. Roland Angle.
You wrote: '[Roland Angle] explained that some 500 engineers were involved in the official investigations into the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, and about two dozen decisions were “deliberately made to derail the investigations’ ability to reach an accurate conclusion.” Among these, he included: “destroying the evidence, refusing to test for incendiaries, refusing to release their analysis and their computer models, and fabricating stories about the fireproofing removal.”'
My point, as you well know, is that if 500 engineers can deliberately derail the official investigation to reach an accurate conclusion, what did (active) engineers do when they infiltrated AE911Truth? Clearly, it would be most out of character for corrupt members of government who worked diligently to control the message for them to allow any organized 9/11 truth group to be left to their own devices and whims.
A new investigation is called for. Indeed. But expect few of the findings of AE911Truth to hold true.
Want to know why those engineers "refused to test for incendiaries"?
(a) Because incendiaries by themselves lack the brisance to achieve the sudden pulverization observed.
(b) Because mixing incendiaries with chemical-based explosives, like RDX, which they (with the government) also did not test for, and neither did Dr. Jones or AE911Truth with their own dust samples, would have been debunked by other evidence starting with the audio signature and ending with the lengthy duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
(c) The real reason: Because they (government engineers) knew that incendiaries, if used at all, were not the primary mechanisms of destruction. They might have even had it told to them with grave threats that incendiaries weren't used and strong omissive hints something else (like my nuclear hobby-horse) was. Why look for something in the dust that you know isn't there -- unlike Uranium and its decay elements that were there in the dust.
FAQ #13/#15 (depending on URL or PDF) from AE911Truth that tries to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement by framing the discussion around "nuclear blasts" and not even mentioning neutron bombs in its consideration or anything exotic?
This work from ae911truth is just as fraudulent, if not more so, than the government's analysis, because MORE was expected of them. Did they do any work into WTC-4 or WTC-6? Huge gap, but also hugely obvious when an honest and objective engineer studies that something unique was in play within those buildings, that they'd both have clouds of content-rich dust rising from those structures while the wall assemblies were still in the air.
May the new CEO of ae911truth be more objective, honest, and complete in the task, because as long as ae911truth can consistently get it wrong (with the nanothermite limited hang-out), the government doesn't have to worry about its wannabe-gadfly efforts at truth.
Dear Mr. McKee, Thank you for that nice tribute to Mr. Roland Angle.
You wrote: '[Roland Angle] explained that some 500 engineers were involved in the official investigations into the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, and about two dozen decisions were “deliberately made to derail the investigations’ ability to reach an accurate conclusion.” Among these, he included: “destroying the evidence, refusing to test for incendiaries, refusing to release their analysis and their computer models, and fabricating stories about the fireproofing removal.”'
My point, as you well know, is that if 500 engineers can deliberately derail the official investigation to reach an accurate conclusion, what did (active) engineers do when they infiltrated AE911Truth? Clearly, it would be most out of character for corrupt members of government who worked diligently to control the message for them to allow any organized 9/11 truth group to be left to their own devices and whims.
A new investigation is called for. Indeed. But expect few of the findings of AE911Truth to hold true.
Want to know why those engineers "refused to test for incendiaries"?
(a) Because incendiaries by themselves lack the brisance to achieve the sudden pulverization observed.
(b) Because mixing incendiaries with chemical-based explosives, like RDX, which they (with the government) also did not test for, and neither did Dr. Jones or AE911Truth with their own dust samples, would have been debunked by other evidence starting with the audio signature and ending with the lengthy duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
(c) The real reason: Because they (government engineers) knew that incendiaries, if used at all, were not the primary mechanisms of destruction. They might have even had it told to them with grave threats that incendiaries weren't used and strong omissive hints something else (like my nuclear hobby-horse) was. Why look for something in the dust that you know isn't there -- unlike Uranium and its decay elements that were there in the dust.
FAQ #13/#15 (depending on URL or PDF) from AE911Truth that tries to debunk all forms of nuclear involvement by framing the discussion around "nuclear blasts" and not even mentioning neutron bombs in its consideration or anything exotic?
This work from ae911truth is just as fraudulent, if not more so, than the government's analysis, because MORE was expected of them. Did they do any work into WTC-4 or WTC-6? Huge gap, but also hugely obvious when an honest and objective engineer studies that something unique was in play within those buildings, that they'd both have clouds of content-rich dust rising from those structures while the wall assemblies were still in the air.
May the new CEO of ae911truth be more objective, honest, and complete in the task, because as long as ae911truth can consistently get it wrong (with the nanothermite limited hang-out), the government doesn't have to worry about its wannabe-gadfly efforts at truth.
//