"Too few people understand a really good sandwich."  - James Beard

User login

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 46 guests online.

Welcome to iBrattleboro!

Welcome to iBrattleboro!
It's a local news source by and for the people of Brattleboro, Vermont, published continually. You can get involved in this experiment in citizen journalism by submitting meeting results, news, events, stories, reviews, how-to's, recipes, places to go, things to do, or anything else important to Brattleboro. Or, just drop by to see what others have contributed.

Find iBrattleboro on:

 Twitter YouTube

Search the Archives

Ye Olde iBrattleboro Archive

Use the pulldown to choose desired number of results.


Search the first decade
of iBrattleboro archives
at Archive-It.org
Feb 20, 2003 to Feb 6, 2013

Thoughts on 9-11


When playing serious poker, they say that if you can’t figure who the “patsy” is within 3 hands, the patsy is you.

Oswald thought he was doing something patriotic when he took the (CIA) job in the Book Depository.  No one was more surprised than he when he realized JFK had been shot. “Holy Sh*t” he said. “I’m the patsy”. “I better GTF out of here”. He didn’t succeed.

The “Official Story” of 9/11 has NEVER BEEN PROVEN!! Constant repetition IS NOT PROOF. The Warren Commission examined and reported on the facts and causes relating to the attacks, but came up with no proof that would stand up in court.

(BTW, the “Official Story” is itself a conspiracy theory: Atta et al CONSPIRED with bin Laden to commit the atrocity. Since there is no proof, it’s still a THEORY! – and the amazing indestructible passport is its capstone)

I have no trouble thinking Atta and gang stole the planes. I don’t know who flew them into the buildings, but it wasn’t them.  None of them had the aviation skills.

When they saw the buildings looming in front of them and realized they were going to crash, their thoughts must have been very similar to Oswald’s, but they had nowhere to go.

(Another alternative theory has Atta et al sitting on a beach at an undisclosed location, sipping cocktails with Timothy McVeigh).

Interesting coincidence:  Dov Zakheim, defense contractor executive and a respected and established voice in the intelligence community went from his position of Vice President of System Planning Corporation International (SPC) to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001.

SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS. This is a system used to remotely destroy aircraft in the event of malfunction. This highly sophisticated technology allows the control of several craft from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets. 

The buildings didn’t fall down, they were demolished. The exact means remain unknown, but Bldg. 7 appears to be a classic example of common Controlled Demolition by means of previously placed explosive charges. Google “controlled demolition”. You will find numerous video examples of intentional controlled demolition.

The Pentagon was hit by something other than an airliner. That something, whatever it was, didn’t have airliner wings.

When we find out what really happened, the whole world will change.

(Don’t hold your breath – we still don’t know the whole truth about the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.)


Comments | 6

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Aircraft are made of

Aircraft are made of lightweight materials. Lightweight materials when slammed into heavy materials at high speed generally lose.

Here is a video of a military aircraft being slammed into a block of concrete.

Your notion of a plane-shaped hole is ridiculous.


Please learn some physics and engineering so you can stop spewing so much factually absurd nonsense.


Bears closer examination

The problems that abounded in handling the unsecured and contaminated forensic crime site around the Trade Towers has never been fully resolved. There are enough reasons to doubt the official report, but the visual evidence of three massive tower being pulverized neatly into their footprints in what can only be a controlled expert demolition, bears closer forensic examination.


I have not yet heard a

I have not yet heard a *credible* reason to doubt the NIST report.

"There are enough reasons to doubt the official report, but the visual evidence of three massive tower being pulverized neatly into their footprints in what can only be a controlled expert demolition, bears closer forensic examination."

Nonsense, this is what happens when lay folks without the relevant knowledge draw conclusions based solely on their ignorance and intuitions.

The NIST report explained very thoroughly why this happened and why the towers didn't fall over sideways as some would seem to expect.

It would have been far more bizarre if the towers had NOT fallen into their footprints, once you understanding the physics and engineering behind what was going on.

Please read the NIST report's explanation as to why the buildings collapsed into their footprints. Once you wrap your head around the forces involved and the properties of steel and how it behaves in structural applications, it should click and make complete sense.

Besides, I'd love to know how you think sufficient quantities of explosives were secretly installed in the 3 buildings. The accusation of a controlled demolition creates FAR more problems than it could ever answer.


Second cup

It's time for my second cup, my injection and meal, and I shall return.


And a follow up, for the

And a follow up, for the debris from the towers to have left their footprints, a sideways force must be applied somewhere during the collapse.

Given the immense weight and inertia of the collapsing upper floors, the only thing that could have generated sufficient sideways force to push significant amounts of debris outside the tower's footprint would be deflection. In other words if the falling debris hit something that didn't immediately collapse itself, and thus deflected the debris towards a path of lesser resistance *around* the obstacle rather than through it. At that point there would be lateral inertia rather than just downward inertia.

And again, when you look at the math of how much the collapsing upper floors weighed, how much energy they took on once they began FALLING (jumping on your bathroom scale vs. just standing on it produces MUCH higher numbers) and compare that with what the lower floors which were up until that point intact could have borne, it will make sense that they simply buckled and collapsed almost instantly.

Thus, no significant deflection took place. Thats also why the collapse is nearly at free fall (except for WTC 7 which was significantly slower than free fall). The lower structure simply offered minimal resistance to the enormous energy hitting it.

Have someone drop a car on your head and you'll understand what I mean, you aren't going to do much to deflect it, its going to just squish you and you aren't gonna slow it down much.

Thus there would no sideways momentum, thus no reason for the debris to fall outside its footprint.

Its like dropping a brick onto a straw you stuck in the ground and being confused as to why the brick didn't land *next* to the straw.

The instant a steel column buckles, it loses its structural strength and collapses.


Here, a


iBrattleboro Poll

The amount of confidence I have in local (not national, not state) media to get the facts right...