Why wasn't Bin Laden captured and tried for 911?
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
joeturn
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
He has been dead for years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg&feature=player_embedded
Ron
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
.
Re: Why wasn't Bin Laden captured and tried for 911?
No evidence? No, no, Buford. Look at this FBI Web site:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
Notice that bin Laden is on the list (Deceased). He was put on the
list for the actions listed under his photo on the right side of the
page. The charges state:
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998,
bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
and Nairobi, Kenya."
The FBI does not put suspects on this list without a COURT
INDICTMENT. The indictments were just given to you. Also notice the
fine print at the bottom of the page which state:
"The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting
Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for
the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered
and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged.
The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be
arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down
as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist
incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
Return to your crib and quit manufacturing ridiculous and unfounded
conspiracies, plots and subterfuges.
RO
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>
> criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> > Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
>
> He has been dead for years!
I realize that. I don't think obama killed him over the weekend, but
he says he did and now he has to explain why he destroyed the evidence.
Ray Fischer
>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
promote Obama.
Kook.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Diana Burgess
WOW! I still have that link open from yesterday when I was looking at
it....I can tell you now that there is NO mention of 9/11 in the fine
print from yesterdays BEFORE they placed deceased over his photo.......
interesting.....off to do a screenshot.
GOD LLC
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
History is a liar. Do you believe the church? Jesus was the son of
caesar.
Exterminate the christian jew cop government.
Luke Nichols
"GOD LLC" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:900cd041-f3c1-47ce...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales
I just hope it doesn't get Obama re elected. :(
Anthony
"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
news:1c268d8f-4966-464c...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
He did explain. You just didn't like his answer.
John Smith
Yeah, I don't remember the words exactly, so I paraphrase here, "THE
DAMN DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!"
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
DogDiesel
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4dbfa09c$0$10533$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
> promote Obama.
>
>
>
No they didnt, All those troops didnt see who was killed. like the gullible
Obama worshippers , they believe lies. They are paid to believe gubment
lies. The few that did see who was killed were part of the plan. And told
the troops they killed Osama.
Who has been dead for years.
Its also part of the plot to get America to believe a war goal was attained.
Its Obamas political base . stupid gullible kids. And little kids. Who he
tried to get to worship him.
DogDiesel
"Luke Nichols" <lu...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:KOSvp.46202$J36....@newsfe08.iad...
Nothing can do that.
The core issues are so powerful , No stunt or mild victory can help him
now. .
joeturn
Sure he was and spent his early years in India learning Budhism for
this the Romans impailed him for teaching his new found religon!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8385928943445813330&hl=en#
Futher search on "Isus Chrestos" will tell you how the J came about.
joeturn
Sure he was and spent his early years in India learning Budhism for
this the Romans impailed him for teaching his new found religon!
The Romans were devout Sun-worshippers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8385928943445813330&hl=en#
Futher search on "Isus Chrestos" and "Cleopatra/Isis" will tell you
how the J came about and that SUS means from Zeus and the I is from
ISIS
joeturn
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4dbfa09c$0$10533$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> > All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
> > promote Obama.
>
> No they didnt, All those troops didnt see who was killed. like the gullible
> Obama worshippers , they believe lies. They are paid to believe gubment
> lies. The few that did see who was killed were part of the plan. And told
> the troops they killed Osama.
>
> Who has been dead for years.
>
> Its also part of the plot to get America to believe a war goal was attained.
>
> Its Obamas political base . stupid gullible kids. And little kids. Who he
> tried to get to worship him.
I dont think there was a secret raid at all and the Navy Seal team was
pun poked at Jesse Ventura
joeturn
Oh yes he was created at the Nazi/NASA Mind control Lab and groomed by
the Iluminati to be their mouthpiece.
The vote is a joke! ACORN was another farse to create a fictional
reason for his Election.The illuminti controled NIST rigged the voting
machines to favor their man made Manchurian Candidate!
The next MKUltra to replace him will be Gabriel Guilford,when they
finish programming her!
george
Decoding ring any-one?
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bi-georges new biogography book
"The Evergrowing BS of a Government Shill"
Reference.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=oaMxYQ8AAADrXyBMzs_gl089VzGsyT6b&scoring=d
Tag Heuer
GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
"No evidence," coupled "all the evidence?" Cite. Are you just
medicated, and or delusional? And of course it was an 'inside job.'
That what the U.S. military special forces is all about, and in this
case a particular US Navy Seal team; clandestine, swift, and to the
point. In other words, 'got 'er dun.' Oh, but no! You want nothing
more than to have Osama bin Laden 'Mirandized,' if not idolized even
more. However, that sort of procedure doesn't apply in WAR! bin
Laden was "fair game," as he was a combantant. Remember? George W.
Bush's words with regard to the Executive branch of the U.S.
government?
" ...I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval
Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." --- George W.
Bush, Meet The Press, February 7, 2004
It is presumed that bin Laden had the chance to be captured alive,
however he chose his destiny in having his body guards engage in a
fire fight with one of America's most deadliest fighting units, the
Seals. Shucks, not one was killed or injured in all this. In fact, I
don't think he wanted to be taken alive. Furthermore, I believe that
the moment the Blackhawks landed, and up to when the gunfire erupted
he was already making peace with Allah, and ready to martyr himself to
the sturgeons ... I mean virgins.
Live with it. There is no death certificate; but according to
preliminary reports a lot of -evidence- and electronic data was
seized, witnesses to the burial-at-sea on the Vinson, and digital
photos of a dead Osama bin Laden.
All it's gonna take now is not to submit to the media, and for them to
plaster these alleged gruesome pictures all over the air, and on to
Internet, to embolden Al Qaeda and to satisfy whatever morbid and
macabre desire you and others possess to see such images. But to take
these pictures, to Congress and before the appropriate representatives
and committees, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike to see for
themselves the documentation of this historic highly classified
operation by the military - It would be un-precedented, and it would
prevent dignifying bin Laden's martyrdom, but most of all, it will at
least get you blithering Birther, Deather conspiracist bat-sh%t
nut-bags to STFU for a little while. But of course, even such a
review by Congress including, certain high-level law enforcement
officials, or even the USSC would not satisfy your vomitous, and
seething, blood-pissing hate for President Barack Obama.
>Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
"Osama bin Laden sleeps with the fishes," but in your delirious and
psychotic state of strict denial and detachment from reality, this
subject is simply atmospheres above you.
--
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com
BDK
@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
Smoke came out of mine. Back it goes for more warranty work, thanks to
Wrong Turn Joe.
--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 20:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
> GM loves highway criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> "No evidence," coupled "all the evidence?" Cite. Are you just
> medicated, and or delusional? And of course it was an 'inside job.'
> That what the U.S. military special forces is all about,
You stupid jackass. You don't even know what we're talking about here.
Tag Heuer
GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 17:13:27 -0700, Tag Heuer <tagheu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 May 2011 20:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
>>GM loves highway criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>>"No evidence," coupled "all the evidence?" Cite. Are you just
>>medicated, and or delusional? And of course it was an 'inside job.'
>You stupid jackass. You don't even know what we're talking about here.
How in the F%K would *you* know? You ignorantly dimissed, failed to
rebut my points, and went into a Cranial-Rectal inversion (farting
just to suck air) with a two sentenced retarded reply ... Betcha' you
don't even comprehend just what you yourself posted, right, you
dickhead?
--
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com
Ray Fischer
>>>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>> All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
>> promote Obama.
>
>No they didnt,
"sarcasm"
> All those troops didnt see who was killed.
Kook.
GOD LLC
IT all came from the same book, er scrolls his daddy, Julius Caesar
stole when he sacked the Library of Alexandria. God, the drug dealer
of Abraham controls all knowledge. Do you trust the Church that is
allowing all the illegal aliens into our country?
Beard Shaving Day is on Mothers day!
NoBody
>criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
>All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
>promote Obama.
>
>Kook.
The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
conspiracy theories. Let's get the stuff out and be done with it.
GOD LLC
> On 03 May 2011 06:28:44 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> >All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
> >promote Obama.
>
> >Kook.
>
> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
> conspiracy theories. Let's get the stuff out and be done with it.
I agree. I want the monitoring device out of my back before the
government bankrupts me.
Iarnrod
Because he's been shot dead. ou can't put a dead man on trial.
> No evidence.
BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
You mean other than his confession?
> All the evidence points to inside job.
"Inside job" claims have all been proven to be physically impossible.
You'll just have to find something else to be stupid about.
Iarnrod
> On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>
> criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> > Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
>
How come he was alive on Sunday when they shot him then? Was he
resurrected?
Iarnrod
> "GOD LLC" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:900cd041-f3c1-47ce...@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> > Now it's - Dead men tell no tales
>
> I believe he was killed in Pakistan.
>
> I just hope it doesn't get Obama re elected. :(
Why do you hate America?
Iarnrod
Please stop sniffing glue.
John Smith
We can never be sure now. The fake videos and all however, it really
doesn't matter, this is going to have zero effect on your life, or
anyone elses ...
As always, there are real problems, and there are non-problems. A real
problem is getting obama to show a real birth certificate, 9/11 inside
job, etc.
Regards,
JS
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
>>
> "Inside job" claims have all been proven to be physically impossible.
> You'll just have to find something else to be stupid about.
HAHAHA. You govt shills are so pathetic. And so obvious. What's
physically impossible is three skyscrapers (only two of which were hit
by planes) undergoing straight down collapse without explosives.
*us*
>... he was alive on Sunday ...
Prove it.
John Smith
Yeah. That is one thing, amongst others, which stands out like a sore
thumb! Asks the question, "What looks like controlled demolitions which
the government is claiming isn't ... "
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
joeturn
There was no seal raid!
Noone was shot Sunday!
Its another LUNAR LANDING HOAX.
joeturn
> On 03 May 2011 06:28:44 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> >All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
> >promote Obama.
>
> >Kook.
>
> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
> conspiracy theories. Let's get the stuff out and be done with it.
All those troops lied? I think the troops were simply fed lies by the
National Socialist Government of The Uniteds States of America.
Releasing photos will be photo shopped like these they took a previous
pic of Osama and photoshopped an image of some other dead guy!
Nothing happened in Pakistan Sunday its a farce!
http://letsrollforums.com/osama-bin-laden-t25191.html?t=25191
BDK
35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net says...
So how were they supposed to collapse? Tip over like Tokyo skyscrapers
do when Godzilla crashes into them?
Scout
"Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:07c5f596-a62e-4203...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
So which direction should they have fallen when subjected to catastrophic
structural failure?
John Smith
catastrophic structural failure = controlled demolition
It went just as it should have. However, it was a crime, we just need
the criminals brought to justice now ...
Regards,
JS
r_c_...@hushmail.com
wrote:
> "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Up?
John Smith
No, it was a rather nice controlled demolition, about as good as they
get! They all make a mess in their own footprint, yanno'?
Regards,
JS
Scout
"GOD LLC" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd108c51-8e59-4c34...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The procedure is quite simple.
Take a .45ACP pistol loaded with Silvertip hollow points and put the muzzle
just to the left of your sternum between the 4th and 5th rids and then fire
a round. The resultant shot will effectively remove the monitoring device in
your back.
If you can't follow these directions, then I suggest you STFU and learn to
live with your monitoring device since you clearly are unwilling to see to
it's removal.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsdv2$abd$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 1:32 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
>> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:07c5f596-a62e-4203...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 4, 6:30 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> "Inside job" claims have all been proven to be physically impossible.
>>>> You'll just have to find something else to be stupid about.
>>>
>>> HAHAHA. You govt shills are so pathetic. And so obvious. What's
>>> physically impossible is three skyscrapers (only two of which were hit
>>> by planes) undergoing straight down collapse without explosives.
>>
>> So which direction should they have fallen when subjected to
>> catastrophic structural failure?
>>
>>
>
> catastrophic structural failure = controlled demolition
Actually you have that backwards, controlled demolition results in
catastrophic structural failure, but not all catastrophic structural
failures result from controlled demolition.
IOW, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Which still does not answer my question. If it wasn't suppose to fall down,
in what direction was it suppose to fall?
>
> It went just as it should have. However, it was a crime, we just need the
> criminals brought to justice now ...
Which criminals would those be?
Jack Bruce
The laws of physics are a wee tad different on her planet.
John Smith
>
> Actually you have that backwards, controlled demolition results in
> catastrophic structural failure, but not all catastrophic structural
> failures result from controlled demolition.
>
> IOW, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
>
> Which still does not answer my question. If it wasn't suppose to fall
> down, in what direction was it suppose to fall?
>
>
No. But, you do.
A building doesn't fall through itself. You can't find another example
of such a fine example of controlled demolitions.
Any other method resulting in a collapse would have large sections
falling to one side or another, even multiple sides ...
If you can't realize that, take a few physics and engineering classes
and the realization of what kind of idiots spout such tripe as yours
will suddenly force an epiphany on you!
As, right now, when you speak to those educated in the sciences and
engineering you sound like a complete buffoon! Go post your fantasy
crap in a physics NG and have them explain it to you ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> The laws of physics are a wee tad different on her planet.
Must be, as a greatly intensified gravitational field, such as you would
find on a planet with much more mass than earth, would make such "earth
free falls speeds" rather common place non-controlled-demolition
collapses, on her planet.
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipseot$abd$5...@dont-email.me...
Really? You think this is going to land in "their own footprint"?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c230/Scout_tpg/wtc_collapse2a.jpg
One would think that if you are here to "debunk" the evidence, you would at
least know what the facts are.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsfid$abd$7...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 2:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually you have that backwards, controlled demolition results in
>> catastrophic structural failure, but not all catastrophic structural
>> failures result from controlled demolition.
>>
>> IOW, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
>>
>> Which still does not answer my question. If it wasn't suppose to fall
>> down, in what direction was it suppose to fall?
>>
>>
>
> No. But, you do.
>
> A building doesn't fall through itself.
Let's see. An object will move based on the forces acting upon it. Simple
physics.
In any building the largest force typically acting upon it is gravity.
Gravity acts downwards.
So why exactly shouldn't it's primary direct of movement be downwards as a
result of the largest force acting upon it?
> You can't find another example of such a fine example of controlled
> demolitions.
I can find any number of them. However, what is interesting about them, is
the rather distinctive audio signature which is missing from the events of
9/11.
> Any other method resulting in a collapse would have large sections falling
> to one side or another, even multiple sides ...
Catastrophic structural failure.
You do know what that is, right?
> If you can't realize that, take a few physics and engineering classes and
> the realization of what kind of idiots spout such tripe as yours will
> suddenly force an epiphany on you!
Well given I have, and the engineering classes were structural engineering,
and by trade I am involved in steel fabrication. I have a pretty solid
grounding in steel structures, their design, fabrication, erection and
failure modes.
So once again, I ask if it wasn't controlled demolition then what direction
were the buildings suppose to collapse in?
What makes downwards an unreasonable direction of structural failure?
Scout
John Smith
> ...
> So once again, I ask if it wasn't controlled demolition then what
> direction were the buildings suppose to collapse in?
>
> What makes downwards an unreasonable direction of structural failure?
>
>
All uneducated people end up asking me that same question, "Why can't
you explain to me in five-minutes what it took you twelve-years?"
I think the answer is obvious.
Here is a guy with the patience, software and education which has taken
pity on the less educated and is willing to expend his time education
others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiwEGPMxBDI
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Really? You think this is going to land in "their own footprint"?
>
> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c230/Scout_tpg/wtc_collapse2a.jpg
>
> One would think that if you are here to "debunk" the evidence, you would
> at least know what the facts are.
>
>
You must be attempting to compare controlled demolitions to laser surgery.
Yes, that is a controlled demolition into the buildings own footprint.
Problem is, so much mass existing in so many floors is a LOT OF JUNK!
Go on the web and look at the remains of other controlled demolitions
... indeed, view the experts here and in other countries who will
explain why wtc is controlled demolitions.
Your confusion, while quite meaningful to yourself, means nothing to us.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Apparently.
Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
For more, visit your local jr college and have a chat with a physics
instructor ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsfoo$abd$8...@dont-email.me...
Actually most reasonably dense objects will fall at near free fall speeds,
and a catastrophic structural failure will tend to result in a collapse at
near free fall speeds.
See, it's sort of like building a house of cards with a heavy weight on top.
When that house of cards collapses that weight is going to reach the table
at near free fall speeds.
Now you say, that's not realistic a skyscraper isn't a house of cards.
However, structurally it is. It is designed and built JUST strong enough to
allow for any expected loads and a small bit extra for unexpected loads. As
such it is very much a house of cards once a large enough collapse occurs
because the allowable live (ie dynamic) load is a fraction of the dead (ie
static) load and as such will simply crush the structure like a house of
cards. So once you get large loads in motion.....they tend to remain in
motion. Inertia is a killer. I think some 15-20 stories in motion would
tend to qualify as a extremely massive live load which is not going to be
offered any significant resistance by the remaining structure.
That's why you can snap a chain rated at 10,000 pounds pulling a 2,000 pound
car out of a ditch, and that failure doesn't occur gradually either.
So, no, there is nothing about the direction or rate of collapse which is
contrary to physics or what could reasonably be expected given a
catastrophic failure. Indeed shortly after 9/11 a structural engineering
trade journal did a complete analysis of the collapse, failure modes, etc.
and oddly enough despite the bulk of their readership being structural
engineers and so on, there was no massive outcry from the readership that
this was contrary to physics, structural design, normal failure modes, or
anything other than an expected result of the known damage done.
However, as I tell those who claim they have the "truth", I'm willing to
look at your evidence. So pick your best piece of proof that proves the
collapse was another other than ordinary, back it up with all known facts,
along with a complete analysis that proves it couldn't have occurred
naturally and I'll look it over and see if it holds up. If you can't do this
with a single detail that conclusively proves your claims, then there is no
need to bother with the rest of it, since if your best piece of 'proof'
can't hold up, then neither can the rest.
The balls in your court. Pick your best piece of evidence and make your
case. No one else has been able to do so despite claiming to know all but
it, but maybe you will be the first to make a conclusive case on some
detail.
John Smith
> ...
> The balls in your court. Pick your best piece of evidence and make your
> case. No one else has been able to do so despite claiming to know all
> but it, but maybe you will be the first to make a conclusive case on
> some detail.
>
>
There are no credible scientists who will argue ...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
The comments and thoughts of those without firm educations in the fields
involved are just babbling morons ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsikt$nsq$2...@dont-email.me...
Sorry, I fail to see anything in the video that indicates a normal natural
catastrophic structural failure did not occur. By his own numbers there is
some resistance, and that resistance is consistent within the realm of a
catastrophic structural collapse of this magnitude. When enough of the
building obtains a velocity, it will simply crush the structure under the
shear force of inertia and the counter resistance will be minor. As such,
there is nothing in the video that contradicts physics nor what one would
expect to observe given a catastrophic structural failure.
If this is your best evidence, then you don't have much of a case.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Apparently.
>
> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsiuu$nsq$3...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 2:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Really? You think this is going to land in "their own footprint"?
>>
>> http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c230/Scout_tpg/wtc_collapse2a.jpg
>>
>> One would think that if you are here to "debunk" the evidence, you would
>> at least know what the facts are.
>>
>>
>
> You must be attempting to compare controlled demolitions to laser surgery.
No, you told me it fell in it's own footprint, not you're trying to change
the subject.
Looks like the facts aren't what you claimed them to be, and you're
attempted to evade any admission of your error and/or ignorance.
> Yes, that is a controlled demolition into the buildings own footprint.
> Problem is, so much mass existing in so many floors is a LOT OF JUNK!
Yep, which still doesn't alter the fact it did NOT fall in it's own
footprint as claimed.
> Go on the web and look at the remains of other controlled demolitions ...
> indeed, view the experts here and in other countries who will explain why
> wtc is controlled demolitions.
Sorry, but just because something falls down....doesn't make it controlled
demolition.
Your problem is you are asserting appearances with facts. There are a LOT of
ways to get a building to fall in the manner observed....but only a few
involved artificial means.
Indeed, the entire process of controlled demolition is to induce a
particular catastrophic structural failure, anything else that would
produced a similar catastrophic structural failure would appear basically
the same since the failure mode in both cases is the same and only the
manner by which they were induced would have altered.
It's like watching a tree fall, and claiming that because the tree looked
like it was cut down with an axe, that proves it was cut down with an axe.
Of course, a chainsaw, cutting shears or even simply the tree being uprooted
would appear the same to our observer, but according to you, if it looks
like a tree being cut down with an axe, then that is the ONLY possibility
for why that tree isn't still standing.
I will simply remain you of the saying "appearances can be deceiving".
You're going to need something better than appearances to prove your case.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsj9d$nsr$1...@dont-email.me...
I accept you can't support your claim as called for and instead produce a
website that relies upon appearances and unsupported assertions.
And another debunker shows he has no proof for his claims.
John Smith
Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions. Now and then
such accidents occur, under much more controlled conditions than where a
planes damage is a variance factor.
Like I say, check it out, find credible scientists and engineers. Post
their conclusions here, it will dawn upon you what is what ...
Regards,
JS
joeturn
wrote:
> "Jack Bruce" <B...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>
> news:4dc1c16d$0$5307$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scout wrote:
>
> >> "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> >>news:07c5f596-a62e-4203...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On May 4, 6:30 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Inside job" claims have all been proven to be physically impossible.
> >>>> You'll just have to find something else to be stupid about.
>
> >>> HAHAHA. You govt shills are so pathetic. And so obvious. What's
> >>> physically impossible is three skyscrapers (only two of which were hit
> >>> by planes) undergoing straight down collapse without explosives.
>
> >> So which direction should they have fallen when subjected to catastrophic
> >> structural failure?
>
> > The laws of physics are a wee tad different on her planet.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your in denile!The confiscated videos had the sound dubbed by the
feds.All media (this includes Youtube)is edited by the CIA and they
allow what they want the public to hear but they did a shitty job as
usual.
Listen closely to this video!
GovShill
> Your in denile!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Shill #2
John Smith
>
>
ROFLOL!!!
It embarasses me to have to point this out to you. But, I offer you
credible people and materials, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage (a REAL
architect), etc.
For example, here is a partial list of some:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
You, in turn, offer me such notable minds as:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson
Really, you can't recognize shoddy logic, evidence, proof, fabrications,
etc. when you see them?
Come back with some of notable mention and their papers ... please don't
embarrass me for you, again!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
It embarasses me to have to point this out to you. But, I offer you
credible people and materials, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage (a REAL
architect), etc.
For example, here is a partial list of some:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
You, in turn, offer me such notable minds as:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson
Really, you can't recognize shoddy logic, evidence, proof, fabrications,
etc. when you see them?
Come back with some of notable mention and their papers ... please don't
embarrass me for you, again!
Again, a credible site, real scientists, engineers, architects:
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 5/3/2011 6:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> > <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > On May 2, 9:51 pm, joeturn<joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>
> >> criminals<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
>
> >> He has been dead for years!
>
> > I realize that. I don't think obama killed him over the weekend, but
> > he says he did and now he has to explain why he destroyed the evidence.
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> > He did explain. You just didn't like his answer.
>
> Yeah, I don't remember the words exactly, so I paraphrase here, "THE
> DAMN DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!"
>
> ROFLOL
>
> Regards,
> JS
-wrt- Why wasn't Bin Laden captured and tried for 911?
Cause... Dead Men Do Not Tell All !
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Early Years 'pre' Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Fighting the Afghanistan War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Mujahideen in Afghanistan
and the CIA Connection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the founding of al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Post 9/11 Years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
If 'Captured Osama Was Ready To Tell All : About
His Many Western Friends : The US Connection !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-stop-him-!-says-obama- -stop-him-!-says-obama-
Dead Islam-O-Fascists Do Not Talk and Tell All !
-bush-says-yeah-do-it-!- -bush-says-yeah-do-it-!-
The Dirty 'Big' Nasty Secrets Die With Osama [.]
-cheney-says-shotgun-!-shoot-him-right-up...-
and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF
.
-corrected-history- Will Talk About Osama cia-Laden
-revised-history- Will Talk About al-Cia-da
.
.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsobi$da3$2...@dont-email.me...
Yea, and I'm a real structural engineer, which BTW counts for a hell of a
lot more than doesn't an architect. See, and architect makes pretty
buildings....a structural engineer figures out how to actually build that
pretty design.
> For example, here is a partial list of some:
>
> http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Logical fallacy, appeal to numbers.
Sorry, but just because others believe it, doesn't make it true.
Now, I'm offering you a chance to make your case. Pick your best specific
piece of evidence and prove your case for it. If you can't....then there is
no point in proceeding because if you can't prove you have a case with your
best piece of evidence, then your case is doomed to fail no matter how much
crap you try to drag out.
Now, I will admit you brought this out before I indicated you should use
your best evidence with a specific issue, so I'm willing to consider the
possibility this wasn't your best evidence. However, if you can't make your
case with your next one, then you will have failed to prove there is any
basis in fact at all for your case.
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
I have been had! By a child most likely ... the shame of it ... an
imaginary engineer gives me evidence and proofs developed by:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson.
ROFLOL!!!
... plonk ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsmfq$7nj$3...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 3:25 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>> news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Apparently.
>>>
>>> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>>>
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
>>
>> http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
>
> Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions
Sorry, I've looked before and see no reason to do YOUR homework for you.
It's up to you to present any proof to prove your case. So far your best
proof has been assertions of appearances and unsupported assertions.
Scout
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4f8af67-55ca-4a0d...@l30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Listening isn't going to change the laws of physics or alter the fact that
the collapse occurred in a reasonable period of time consistent with the
failure mode.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsq9d$kde$1...@dont-email.me...
So much for another 9/11 conspiracy theory wackjob, when asked to prove his
case with FACTS...he runs away.
John Smith
>
>
> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:ipsmfq$7nj$3...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/4/2011 3:25 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>>>>
>>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
>>>
>>> http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
>>
>> Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions
>
> Sorry, I've looked before and see no reason to do YOUR homework for you.
> It's up to you to present any proof to prove your case. So far your best
> proof has been assertions of appearances and unsupported assertions.
>
>
Translation: You can't find any so you PUNT!
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Yeah, pay close attention to him and the proof and data he offered which
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson
compiled up for him!
ROFLOL
GESUS that makes me laugh!
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsqrt$kde$4...@dont-email.me...
Nope, simply how it works. You make claims, it's up to you to prove them.
You were given the chance to do so, and you told me I should do your work
for you.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. It's not up to me to prove your claims
are true....that's your job.
joeturn
wrote:
> "joeturn" <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You idiot you were concerned aboud the sound of explosives.Now you
have them Why would you continue talking bullshit when you can see and
hear the controled demolitions taking all three WTC buildings!
How fast it happened does not matter but the way it was done is
evidence enough for me to SAY NIST AND THE USA GOVERNMENT LIED!
*us*
>In article <07c5f596-a62e-4203-a5b8-20d553bdde51@
>35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, bet...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>> On May 4, 6:30 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> > "Inside job" claims have all been proven to be physically impossible.
>> > You'll just have to find something else to be stupid about.
>>
>> HAHAHA. You govt shills are so pathetic. And so obvious. What's
>> physically impossible is three skyscrapers (only two of which were hit
>> by planes) undergoing straight down collapse without explosives.
>
>So how were they supposed to collapse?
The designers and builders said they would not collapse at all.
Scout
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15c845ae-269b-46b6...@35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Nope, just the video didn't support it's claims.
Now, let's take an example of your "conclusive" evidence.
Time mark 2 minutes.
Interview where the reporter and the reportee are suppose to have a "startle
experience".
Except, despite claims the "setting of the mic" can NOT be set for a
distance, but only a recording level. Now even at a recording level that
would tend to cut most background noise, the sound of an explosion of any
magnitude would clearly be heard, but even when the sound is turned WAY up
no explosion is heard. Indeed even after playing with the filters he can
barely come up with any sound and NONE sound like explosions.
Indeed, watch the response. They are NOT at the same time. An explosion
would cause them to turn at almost identical times since they would both be
"startled" at the exact same moment in time. Except the reporter turns, and
then the woman....as a response to the reporter's action.
Second, none of the bystanders exhibit a similar "startle response" which
would be expected if an actual explosion was heard. Instead looking in the
background we see a massive plume of dust showing up down the street just
prior to the response. Now was it this and some comment made into the
earpiece of the reporter that caused first her and then the other woman to
suddenly look around? I bet it is.
Now they say you can hear the explosion as "a low rumble". Except an
explosion isn't a low rumble, a collapse which might cause a plume of dust
might cause a low rumble. The fact that NONE of the bystanders reacted
indicate that this noise was NOT such that it caused them to react in any
manner. Clearly the sound they are hearing is quite low unlike the sharp
extremely loud sound an explosion makes. The commentator even describes the
sound as "a train on a bumpy track". Is he suggesting that a train was
running by the WTC complex at this time? So much for all those that
described various noises as "explosions", the terms used to describe a sound
doesn't mean they were caused by what they were described to sound like. In
fact the so called explosions don't even occur until quite some time AFTER
the dust plume appears. Clearly, it would seem to indicate a collapse of
some kind occurred, resulting in a dust plume and then a bit of time later
further collapses started to occur resulting in the low rumble the
commentator is attempting to show as his PROOF of an explosion.
Sorry, but if high explosives were going off in Manhattan, there wouldn't
have been any question that they occurred and every microphone in the area
would have picked it up.
Now with this as an example of the extensive proof, is there any reason to
continue watching the rest?
I don't think so.
End watching at 3:20 second.
> How fast it happened does not matter but the way it was done is
> evidence enough for me to SAY NIST AND THE USA GOVERNMENT LIED!
The only evidence is you clearly don't know what sound explosives actually
make.
Maybe you should found out.
Free hint: it's not a low rumble unless you are a LONG ways away.
*us*
airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people
would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the
collapse of the WTC is "inadequate.” They note that the current team of 20 or so
investigators has inadequate financial and staff support, has been prevented from
interviewing witnesses and from examining the disaster site. They couldn’t even get
detailed blueprints of the World Trade Center. The decision to rapidly recycle the steel
beams from the WTC means definitive answers may never be known."
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
"An editorial in the respected trade magazine Fire Engineering states that there is good
reason to believe that the "official investigation," blessed by FEMA, into the WTC
collapse is a "half-baked farce" that may already have been commandeered by political
forces whose primary interests are clearly not full disclosure. "Respected members of the
fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating
theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of
jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." [Fire Engineering,
1/02]"
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
"Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to
determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies
concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the
attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example,
Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he
"designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the
attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but
also of ensuing fires."
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>criminals <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>>promote Obama.
>>
>>Kook.
>
>The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
>conspiracy theories.
Everything feeds conspiracy theories because conspiracy kooks are
crazy and immune to reality.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Iarnrod
> On 03 May 2011 06:28:44 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> >All those US troops lied. There's a vast government conspiracy to
> >promote Obama.
>
> >Kook.
>
> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
You apparently don't understand how the kookers' "minds" work. ALL is
evidence of the conspiracy. Obama's not one but TWO birth
certificates-- all of Hawaii officialdom, all of the Republican Party
even, are in on the conspiracy. The sheer physical impossibility of
the kookers' klaims about 9/11 cartoon-magic "controlled demolition"
doesn't even deter them and the stronger the proof against them, the
more that only serves to confirm their delusions.
Best to just make fun of them.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mention should also be made that sounds they try to claim are
explosives are all heard _AFTER_ the collapse begins. Time travel
anyone? We already know about the 'new improved hushaboom' and "cloak
of invisibility"
Harry K
John Smith
>> ...
>> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
>> conspiracy theories.
>
> Everything feeds conspiracy theories because conspiracy kooks are
> crazy and immune to reality.
>
Yeah, the damn crazy fools think you can prove something without a body,
without pictures, without evidence, etc.
I am telling you, loonies like that are dangerous, that is only
self-evident!
Regards,
JS
BDK
LOL, they never dreamed they would be deliberately hit by planes.
So how were they supposed to collapse?
--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!
BDK
>
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the
> airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people
> would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
>
> "Leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the
> investigators has inadequate financial and staff support, has been prevented from
> detailed blueprints of the World Trade Center. The decision to rapidly recycle the steel
> beams from the WTC means definitive answers may never be known."
>
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
>
> "An editorial in the respected trade magazine Fire Engineering states that there is good
> reason to believe that the "official investigation," blessed by FEMA, into the WTC
> collapse is a "half-baked farce" that may already have been commandeered by political
> forces whose primary interests are clearly not full disclosure. "Respected members of the
> fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating
> theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of
> jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." [Fire Engineering,
> 1/02]"
>
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
>
> "Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to
> determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies
> concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
>
> "Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the
> attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example,
> Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he
> "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the
> attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but
> also of ensuing fires."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Yes, we've seen those kookpages before. Got anything SANE?
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
criminals <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We all know why.
Because 911 is our emergency phone service....
Ray Fischer
>On 5/4/2011 11:27 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
>>> conspiracy theories.
>>
>> Everything feeds conspiracy theories because conspiracy kooks are
>> crazy and immune to reality.
>>
>
>Yeah, the damn crazy fools think you can prove something without a body,
>without pictures, without evidence, etc.
Just another conspiracy bigot.
joeturn
> In article <MPG.282ca639d5176ad698a...@news.giganews.com>, BDK
>
> <Cont...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> >Yes, we've seen those kookpages before. Got anything SANE?
>
> plane in Pennsylvania (no other choice really). It may be declassified in
> about 100 years when 9/11 seems as quaint as invisible ink in World War I.
Yes the US Government did blow up the towers and flight 175 and flight
93 are still flying our friendly skys.
Flight 11 and flight 77 were fictional charaters!
The Plane that hit the south tower was a hologramed image and its
sound was created by a gasoline jet turbin engine!
The missile attack at the pentagram set the stage for that side of the
fisade!
It was launched from the generater trailor area on the pentagram
property their was not even a fly over!
RD Sandman
news:dennism3-ya0240800...@news.datemas.de:
> In article <MPG.282ca639d...@news.giganews.com>, BDK
> <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, we've seen those kookpages before. Got anything SANE?
>
> The US government didn't blow up the towers but they did shoot down
> the plane in Pennsylvania (no other choice really). It may be
> declassified in about 100 years when 9/11 seems as quaint as invisible
> ink in World War I.
>
Snorkkkk. That paragraph got Pepsi up my nose. Oh, well, back to lurking.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)
If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.
joeturn
Uno Hu
RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EDC7B7F7...@216.196.121.131
> denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M) wrote in
> news:dennism3-ya0240800...@news.datemas.de:
>
> > In article <MPG.282ca639d...@news.giganews.com>, BDK
> > <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, we've seen those kookpages before. Got anything SANE?
> >
> > The US government didn't blow up the towers but they did shoot down
> > the plane in Pennsylvania (no other choice really). It may be
> > declassified in about 100 years when 9/11 seems as quaint as
invisible
> > ink in World War I.
> >
>
> Snorkkkk. That paragraph got Pepsi up my nose. Oh, well, back to
lurking.
>
> --
The Shanksville shootdown is proved by a two mile debris trail.
(airplanes that supposedly do a nose down into the ground do not leave
two mile debris trails)
george
> The Shanksville shootdown is proved by a two mile debris trail.
> (airplanes that supposedly do a nose down into the ground do not leave
> two mile debris trails)
Wrong.
RD Sandman
news:PYWdndNXNbbSkl7Q...@giganews.com:
I don't see a cite from a credible source. Do you have one?
*us*
>On May 5, 4:00 pm, * US * wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2011 13:26:37 -0700 (PDT), george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> >On May 5, 4:41 am, * US * wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 4 May 2011 05:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Idiotod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >... he was alive on Sunday ...
>>
>> >> Prove it.
>>
>> >Well, he's certainly dead now. A good result
>>
>> No, he should have been tried.
>>
>> Too bad for you that you don't understand civilized behavior.
>
>Oh I understand
As with the claim of WMD in Iraq, there's no evidence for that.
>the murders of nearly 3000 innocents on 911 only to [sic]
Those were only to make Bush and Cheney a lot of money.
>And the uncivilised...
You sure are.
Do you suppose that capturing 'bin Laden' unarmed and then
murdering him in front of his daughter will let the fascists use
her as their next Emmanuel Goldstein?
Wexford
Nothing would satisfy this collection of Kooks, anyway. If Osama's
body had been delivered, then pickled and put on public display,
they'd all deny it was Osama (after all, probably half his head was
shot away -- a bullet can do a lot of damage to a man's head) and
claim it was some other pood sod sacrificed to look like Osama. Hell,
if he'd been brough home in chains, they'd claim he was ringer. They'd
demand DNA evidence, and when that was done, they'd claim the results
were faked. These people are kooks, racists, hard-core rightards with
no connection to reality. Arguing with them is like arguing with your
pet cat. They don't listen, deny anything you'd claim to be true, and
would rather accept fantasies that conform with their prejudices and
confirm their muddled ideas than listen to anything that might make
sense and be true.
*us*
>How many innocent bystanders were killed on 9/11?
As many as Bush and Cheney needed to launch their war crime spree.
*us*
>On May 4, 10:00 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> On May 5, 4:00 pm, * US * wrote:
>> > On Wed, 4 May 2011 13:26:37 -0700 (PDT), george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> > >On May 5, 4:41 am, * US * wrote:
>> > >> On Wed, 4 May 2011 05:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Idiotod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> >... he was alive on Sunday ...
>>
>> > >> Prove it.
>>
>> > >Well, he's certainly dead now. A good result
>>
>> > No, he should have been tried.
>>
>> > Too bad for you that you don't understand civilized behavior.
>>
>> ... the murders of nearly 3000 innocents on 911 ...who caused it all.
That was Bush and Cheney.
>> Nowhere to run nowhere to hide..
>
>Unfortunately, two innocent bystander were murdered by US Navy Seal
>team.
>Where is the justice on that?
Good point.
Scout
"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e964f9d6-e30e-4116...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
I made mention of it. What is amazing is that the people who present this as
their proof don't even bother to do a basic analysis of what is being
claimed, and see if the evidence actually proves the claims. Nope, all they
need are some cuts and a voice over telling them what is suppose to have
been proven and suddenly it's *PROOF*
Scout
"Dennis M" <denn...@dennism3.invalid> wrote in message
news:dennism3-ya0240800...@news.datemas.de...
> In article <MPG.282ca639d...@news.giganews.com>, BDK
> <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, we've seen those kookpages before. Got anything SANE?
>
> The US government didn't blow up the towers but they did shoot down the
> plane in Pennsylvania (no other choice really). It may be declassified in
> about 100 years when 9/11 seems as quaint as invisible ink in World War I.
Do you have any proof of that or are you just pulling it out of your ass.
Further I fail to see where it would have mattered if they did shoot it
down. They clearly would have been justified in doing so to protect lives
and since that is policy that would be carried out now, I don't see how
doing so then would have been an issue necessary for a "cover-up"
However I look forward to your production of evidence for this claim, or
even a need a such a cover-up.
*us*
>... conspiracy kooks are
>crazy and immune to reality.
So you believe all the Bush/Cheney lies about 9/11.
*us*
<iar...@yahoo.com> failed, flailed and foamed in impotent bushkultie kooker rage:
>... the kookers' ...
You must be a kook, at best, to support murders in lieu of trials.
On Thu, 5 May 2011 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT), "Craves Fascist Iarnrod Up Gaping Ass"
<iar...@yahoo.com> failed, flailed and foamed in impotent bushkultie kooker rage:
>On May 5, 1:30 am, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, two innocent bystander were murdered by US Navy Seal
>> team.
>
>No they weren't.
You lie.
Nobody there had been found guilty of anything in any court.
Your ilk doesn't insist on real justice.
The real perps were 'incompetent' all the way to their
offshore accounts.
The claim of "incompetence" is ludicrous.
"...incompetence cannot explain the suppression of efforts to prevent the attacks."
http://www.oilempire.us/911.html
See also:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/links.htm
"Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect
in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role"
The bushkultie hasn't contacted CNN to demand a retraction.
See also:
Huge problems with the NIST report:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html
See also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm
And:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/NIST_911_Cover-Up/