RE: Could 9/11 Be A Conspiracy?

[Stephen Villano <stephen.villano () us army mil>]

The forward momentum isn't being considered as to the wings and fuel. Slipstream effect also will carry a fair amount 
of debris, in this case fuel into the breach of the ancient walls (World War II building that was cosmetically 
renovated. 
I inspected a fair amount of that age mortar, it's fairly friable. Put a 2 foot wall with that mortar holding limestone 
together, send a jumbo jet at it with me on the other side and you'll seem me running FASTER than the jet!

Also consider the fact that the company repeatedly and emphatically suggested following the field agents who trained 
the current stinkers of the week during the Afghan-Russia war (aka: Russia's Vietnam) to eliminate their protégés 
IMMEDIATELY following a cessation of hostilities. It was the opinion of those field agents and their immediate 
superiors that "While they hate Russia with a passion, they only hate them slightly less than us."
This has never been publicly confirmed, but as I heard it from one of the retired agents and heard it since from 
another many YEARS before 9-11 I tend to give it credence.
The response to the recommended "hit" was "We don't do business that way". The pat response to an executive order 
generated by president Jimmy Carter, the great appeaser.

As for the hint of unlimited budget, this is the ONLY conflict I have ever reviewed (and I've reviewed more than a few, 
including the not so cold war) where budgets were CUT during it. Of course this isn't really a war as Congress has yet 
to declare war on anyone...
Frankly this isn't quite a cluster-fuck, it's more like a gaggle-fuck on ice... Only with lots and lots of guns. The 
Peacetime mentality is heavily in place WITH wartime security and planning.

The *REAL* question is: Are we doing the right thing? My vote is emphatically YES! Is it possible we could be doing the 
right thing for the wrong reason, hence the wrong way? Again yes. Can we do better? Probably, but at this point the 
matter is a moot discussion for future historians. Too many missteps have been made before, during and after 9-11 to 
"correct" for. 
I lost 5 men to this conflict (god, I hate that word, but war has not been declared). Two were close personal friends. 
One is dead, the other is f'd up for life and disabled. They believed in what they were doing, not for brainwashed 
reasons, but for personal experience reasons that they saw in the faces of mothers, fathers and children every day 
during their service. 

Have we f'd up in ways that demand a crown and royal title? Yes, we've royally f'd up. We've f'd up before long before 
any of us have been born, we've f'd up since, we'll f-up again. It's called being human. Get used to it, this isn't 
some science fiction book where we're all perfect. 
What we are exceptionally good at is making up for the f-up and making things better in the future (at least for a 
time, until the next f-up).
Don't come crying to me about what we are doing or have done wrong. Suggest a solution that is rational, not a retreat 
because you are too morally corrupt to find a proper solution to our debacle of the week.

Better yet, don't come bitching to me about *ANYTHING* military until *YOU* have looked into a mans eyes that you have 
just killed, all not for king and country, only so you and your team can go home to family. Because, no matter what the 
parades and press may say, that is what it really comes down to. I still have some nightmares over an "incident". I 
wouldn't trade it away though as it prevented some possibility that would've been far worse. There are unpleasant 
things done to keep life pleasant for you. Don't be uncomfortable, be thankful. It's a little thing called life. 
Running away from a situation that you helped cause, whether by commission or omission is NOT a solution, it's being 
childish. Standing up and correcting the situation and accepting blame is a solution that is adult and worthy of 
respect.

Oh, by the way, regarding commercial aircraft fueling habits:
If fuel is cheaper at the origination flight than at any destinations, the additional fuel is purchased according to 
formulae that determine the cost of carrying the additional fuel as freight. If it is still cheaper to carry the 
additional fuel for a few more flights the fuel is bought at the origination point, regardless of the point in flight 
of the day.
So, if it's cheaper to buy fuel in DC than in LA it is bought in DC and the extra is held for the next flight. If it's 
cheaper in LA a minimal amount is bought in DC and the extra is bought in LA. It's called business economics, not 
physics and aerospace engineering. I know about the model because I once worked for an airline company.

Now if you will excuse me, I will go to bed to better prepare for another day in the Middle East...
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On
> Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:33 AM
> To: Dude VanWinkle
> Cc: funsec () linuxbox org; Don Kennedy
> Subject: Re: [funsec] Could 9/11 Be A Conspiracy?
>
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:12:00 MST, Dude VanWinkle said:
>
> > Take a look at some post 9/11 pentagon photos, look at the lawn, and
> > tell me a fully fueled 747 flown by someone who had never even been in
>
> Actually, unless it was set for a *long* flight, it wouldn't be fully
> fueled
> at takeoff.  If you're flying 3,000 miles cross country, you don't take
> off
> with 12,000 miles worth of fuel, just to haul 9,000 of it around.  You
> take
> off with 4,000 miles worth of fuel just in case you get stuck in a holding
> pattern at the destination.
>
> Also, Flight 77 was a 757-200:
>
> http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing-2/B757-5.jpg
>
> a *much* smaller plane than a 747:
>
> http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/747-2.jpg (model 100)
> http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/747-400%20LINE-2.jpg (model
> 400)
>
> A 757-200 maxes out at 255K pounds, compared to max 738K pounds for a 747-
> 100
> and  875K pounds for a -400.
>
> Most notably, a 757-200 can take a *maximum* of 11,489 gallons of
> fuel, much less than the 47,000+ gallons that even a 747-100 can carry
> or the 67K gallons of a 747-400.
>
> Although I'll grant you that since Flight 77 was going Dulles-LAX,
> it was probably a bit over 2/3 full of fuel at takeoff (figuring the
> Dulles-LAX being about 3,000 miles and a 757-200's max range of about
> 4500,
> but it was probably flying light (only 58 passengers out of a capacity of
> 239).
>
> http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm
>
> Or phrased differently:
>
> http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/BOEING-5.jpg
>
> A 747 is the one on the top.  What hit the Pentagon is 6th from the
> bottom.
>
> > €ven if it wasnt a conspiracy, it worked out really well for the
> > powers that be. Unlimited support for six years, billions of dollars
>
> I didn't say it wasn't a conspiracy.  Even before we invaded Afghanistan,
> and passed the Patriot Act, I told a co-worker:
>
> "George II owed his dad for Iraq War I, he owed Cheney something to give
> Halliburton, and he owed Ashcroft an excuse to pass the Patriot Act.  And
> isn't
> it odd how the same names crop up in Al Quaeda as the CIA-financed
> 'Afghani freedom
> fighters' from a decade ago?  Now what if they never left the CIA
> payroll....".
>
> It's just an application of Occam's Razor - it's cheaper to hire somebody
> to fly a *real* plane into the Pentagon than fake an attack.
>
> Incidentally, if you look at footage of *any* major airliner crash, it's
> totally
> amazing how much those things disintegrate on impact, because there
> *isn't* that
> much structural integrity on them.  More integrity would mean more weight,
> and
> more cost to fly - and the only time integrity *matters*, conditions are
> so
> extreme that you couldn't make a plane that would survive it.  I am told
> that when they did threat models of "jet plane impacts nuclear reactor
> containment
> building", the impact could easily be treated as "impeller shaft of engine
> hits building", because everything else would just flatten and crumple on
> impact with any sizeable amount of concrete.
>
> (And before you you say "but the planes got deep inside the WTC and
> Pentagon",
> I'm going to point out that both of those buildings have *windows* - and
> outside
> walls less than 2 foot thick...)




_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.