Vicky reply "turning to dust"
- From: Vicky Davis
To: Dick Eastman
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Reply to David R Griffin & Steven Jones -- on the folly of "unity" reconciliation w. James Fetzer> I know the demolition progressed downward, but how do we account for
testified that there were> most everything turning to dust? People have
structural> explosions in the basement which would of course weaken the> support, but the explosion up top was a mushroom cloud.
heat on concrete, heat on the beams -- from thermate -- if a nuclear explosion was enough to pulverize the building and make it fall rather than the building pulverizing in the fall then the destructive force would not have been in two neat vertical rectangles -- the building did not implode or explode, it collapsed -- beams were weakened, not blown apart.
Seems obvious to me -- but if you think this reasoning wrong and everybody else thinks its its wrong -- and I have been telling people my views for years and even my closest associates go on like I never sent them any letters -- then I must be wrong -- so you must be right
and therefore I must agreeA mushroom cloud?Hamlet: Do you see that cloud, that's almost in shape like a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and 't is like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks, it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or, like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale."Oh heat dry up my brains! Tears seven times saltBurn out the sense and virtue of mine eye!By heaven thy madness shall be paid by weightTill our scale turn the beam. Oh rose of May!"From: Dick Eastman <olfriend@...>
Subject: Re: Reply to David R Griffin & Steven Jones -- onthe folly of "unity" reconciliation w. James Fetzer
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008, 3:32 PMVicky,This is a day when every post I open explodes in my face -- even this one from you (which I am just getting around to opening.The problem with the mini-nuke is that the locus of destruction progressed downward -- definitely not one big explosion with one focal point.I therefore reject your theory, much as your credibility lends stature to any theory I can't go along with this one.Two possibilities are in competition in my mind right now. The first is the theory that feels right to me -- that thermate was only used on a few floors to start the pancaking of the floors which pulled down the structure including the core as the floors were held to the core by very strong braces that ripped the core at each floor as the collapse proceeded. The second is that the thermate was brought in over time and planted up and down the core -- and there were suspicious periods when security cams were turned off for repairs and management of Silverstein's building with security by Bush, replaced afterwards by the guy who investigated who Osamma really was.But simple direct inspection of the each building as it collapsed rules out a (single) mini-nuke device. Having mini-nukes on each floor or every few floors is another possibility -- but the thermate seems more plausible to me. Big stuff is brought into skyscrapers every day -- up the freight elevators.Glad to see we don't agree on everything -- otherwise one of us would not be necessary (and with all of your areas of expertise that would probably be me).---------------------From: Vicky Davis
To: Dick Eastman
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:19 PM
I don't think any honest researchers are with the "in crowd" of 9-11 research. If a person does honest research, they are driven off.
I've always thought that the towers were destroyed with a mini-nuke. Steven Jones theory of thermate on the columns doesn't hold up. They couldn't get that much thermate in the buildings to turn them to dust. I do think that probably they used thermate for WTC 7. So while Steven Jones is a very credible person to speak on the issue of 9-11, I think his "job" was to lead people away from the idea of a mini-nuke because that would definitely limit the possibilities of the perps. And if you recall, Jones has said many times, "you can buy this stuff on the Internet". Unsaid, was the fact that if anybody was to buy the ton of it that you would need, it would raise red flags.
It may be that the break between Fetzer and Jones was to split the movement - cull the herd and then join up again. Any group that includes Judy Wood has to be insurgent because even if Judy Wood is smart as hell, she can't carry off a credible presentation - and they only lose credibility by putting her out there.