About this BBC “hit piece” story about WTC 7… THERE IS A HUGE CONTRADICTION HERE!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://www.prisonplanet.com/about-this-bbc-hit-piece-story-about-wtc-7-
there-is-a-huge-contradiction-here.html
Infowar Wednesday, July 9, 2008
There are BIG mistakes everywhere in this story. Probably the biggest
mistake
is the way the documentary argued that the NYFD firefighters could not
fight the fires in
the burning WTC 7 because the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged water
lines,
and the documentary even stated that THERE WAS NO WATER to put out the WTC
7
fires!!!
But then they argued that Larry Silverstein’s comment: ‘ They decided to
pull it ‘ was
referring to ‘pulling out firefighting operations’…. but there were no
firefighting operations
going on in WTC 7, because they previously said that THERE WAS NO WATER !!!
Even the firefighters said that they were not allowed to enter WTC 7 …
They cannot have it both ways… was there a firefighting operation in WTC 7,
or not,
because they said there was no water, since the water lines were supposedly
damaged.
Vandar
The water lines were damaged, which meant there was too little pressure
to fight the fires.
Because of the lack of *water pressure*, there was NO WATER to fight the
fire.
AJ needs to find another line of bullshit to sell you gullible fools.
BDK
@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/about-this-bbc-hit-piece-story-about-wtc-7-
> there-is-a-huge-contradiction-here.html
>
>
> Infowar Wednesday, July 9, 2008
>
> There are BIG mistakes everywhere in this story. Probably the biggest
> mistake
> is the way the documentary argued that the NYFD firefighters could not
> fight the fires in
> the burning WTC 7 because the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged water
> lines,
> and the documentary even stated that THERE WAS NO WATER to put out the WTC
> 7
> fires!!!
>
> pull it =3F was
> referring to =3Fpulling out firefighting operations=3F=3F. but there were no
> going on in WTC 7, because they previously said that THERE WAS NO WATER !!!
>
> They cannot have it both ways=3F was there a firefighting operation in WTC 7,
> because they said there was no water, since the water lines were supposedly
> damaged.
>
You must be drunk...There were firefighters outside the building.
The building was going to come down!
Understand now?
--
BDK
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Al Dykes
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>http://www.prisonplanet.com/about-this-bbc-hit-piece-story-about-wtc-7-
>there-is-a-huge-contradiction-here.html
>
>
> Infowar Wednesday, July 9, 2008
>
>There are BIG mistakes everywhere in this story. Probably the biggest
>mistake
>is the way the documentary argued that the NYFD firefighters could not
>fight the fires in
>the burning WTC 7 because the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged water
>lines,
>and the documentary even stated that THERE WAS NO WATER to put out the WTC
>7
>fires!!!
>
>But then they argued that Larry Silverstein’s comment: ‘ They decided to
>pull it ‘ was
>referring to ‘pulling out firefighting operations’…. but there were no
>firefighting operations
>going on in WTC 7, because they previously said that THERE WAS NO WATER !!!
The "Half Truth Movement" speaks from ignorance and the lack of
general knowledge of the events at WTC, yet again.
The firemen were doing search and rescue on "the pile", which was in
the immediate area of WTC7. As of about 5PM when the collapse was
imminent, the FDNY commander on the spot pulled all the firemen away
from the probable collapse zone.
See the statement of the commander, ChieF Nigro, in [9], below.
1. Statement of FDNY Chief Hayden
2. FDNY Chief Scheuerman on why and how WTC7 collapsed
3. High School Physics for fall time of WTC7 with video of WTC7 to establish time.
4. Four Demolition experts say WTC collapse was caused by fire
5. Frame of WTC7 was unlike any other building & probably contributed to collapse
6. Evidence of no man-made demolition,
7. TV News showing WTC7 on fire and close to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11
7.1 Video of WTC7 on fire
8. Transcripts of all firemen and others. 100+ firemen say WTC7 collapse was caused by fire.
9. FDNY Chief Nigro explains the collapse of WTC7
10. Richard Gage and Prof. Jones have no relevant expertise for what tehy say about WTC.
11. No all-steel building was ever doused with gas, set on fire and allowed to burn.
12. Why some buildings near WTC collapsed and some didn't
13. Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures
14. BUILDING FIRE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE (Steel buildings DO collapse because of fire)
15. WTC7 Interim report & other links
16. Fireproofing on WTC7 was sub-standard
17. FDNY Training - Including building collapse.
18. Participation of members of Structural Engineers Assoc of NY from early on 9/11.
19. Fire Dept training for Explosions in a steel bulding fire (Not WTC)
20. Video: BBC Early Report on WTC7 Collapse Explained (3 minutes)
21. FEMA Report
[1] ----------------------------
FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.
FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we
were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and
13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible
bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
[2] --------------------------------------------------
The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8/06
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
(good diagrams and pictures. )
Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy
Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise
Fire Safety Director
Also see Garcia: http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
[3] ----------------------------
The WTC7 "fast as free-fall" crap is wrong by huge amounts. Free fall
for WTC7 (610 ft.) would be 6.17 seconds. WTC7 could be 2,000 ft high
for 11 seconds to be "free fall".
WTC7 was 610 ft tall.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
Equations: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
[4]----------------------------
We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.
There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.
In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
http://jowenko.nl/
[5] ----------------------------
Nobody that is familiar with the structural frame of WTC7 thinks there
is anything about the collapse that requires man-made explosives,
Diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/
Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png/180px-Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2aftg3
Article on the difficulties of construction from 1985.
http://whywtc7fell.info/pdf/ENR112885.pdf
[6]--------------------------
There is a massive amount of evidence that there was no man-made
demolition at WTC. WTC 1 and 2 were videotaped from all angles from
the moment of the first impact to the point of collapse. No video
shows any man-made demolition.
This video is all about man-made demolition. All sources and
documentation for the video is in the second link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme
No video exists that shows what every known man-made demolition shows.
[7] -----------------------------------
NBC TV news report showing WTC7 on fire and at risk of collapse.
This was broadcast at 4:48PM.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
[7.1]
9/11/01 LIVE! News/Amateur Video World Trade Center Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
WTC7 on fire at 0:44
1:10
[7.2] More WTC7 fire vidoes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=related
[7.3] Even more WTC7 fire vidoes.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
[8]----------------------------
About 100 firemen state clearly that WTC7 was damages by on fire and
about to collapse beginning at about 2PM. Their names and full text
transcripts are online via the following links.
41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building
Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Lookup for a few non-fireman transcripts:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
[9] ----------------------------
FDNY Chief Nigro was in command at WTC on the afternoon of 9/11.
This is a message Chief Nigro addresses the conspiracy theories
surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Source:
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses Conspiracy Theories
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
& 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the
owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that
decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone
surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that
zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7
collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
[10] ----------------------------
NOBODY with relevant structural engineering or demolition expertise
thinks that there is anything strange about how WTC7 collapsed. None
of the people in AE911 that speak about WTC7 have this expertise.
That includes Jones and Gage.
Gage's Resume: http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
Jones' resume http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm
Professor Jones nas vener released teh full lab results for his
claims.
[11] ----------------------------
No all-steel building in history was ever doused with thousands of
fuel, set afire and allowed to burn without any firefighting. WTC1,
2, and 7 were unique in that each was hit by tons of something, had
structural damage and had minimal fire-proofing, and had no
firefighting.
[12] -----------------------------------------------------------
Wounded Buildings Offer Survival Lessons (Dec 4, 2001)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E4DF1F3DF937A35751C1A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
Illustration from article. http://tinyurl.com/ynjre3
Also: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108006
When the south tower collapsed, said Mr. Trelstad, the engineer,
some of its huge columns fell and ripped out many of the steel
spandrels, or cross beams between windows, on the north facade of
90 West Street. One series of spandrels, from the 11th down to the
3rd floors on the east part of the facade, was destroyed as if a
giant claw had run down the front of the building.
...
He was first struck by the scale of the devastation and the
eeriness of the setting. Fires set by the south tower's debris had
gutted the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 23rd floors, and much of the northern
portions of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 21st floors. At least two people
are believed to have died in the building, trapped in an elevator.
[13] ---------------------------------------------------
NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures
All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The
mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that
determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater
resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length
because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb
heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a
lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated
to its failure temperature much faster. ...
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/
(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )
[14] ------------
Title: A BUILDING FIRE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE (Steel buildings DO collapse because of fire)
URL Source: http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_fire_and_structural_f.htm
Published: Jul 6, 2006
When you enter a lightweight steel bar joist building on fire and you
hear popping, cracking, creaking and metal to metal rubbing together,
get out, the trusses are failing. It is not safe to enter for any
reason. At 205 West Jefferson Street Captain Patterson, Engine 108,
the first engine on the scene reported hearing popping sounds,
cracking sounds and things that just did not sound right. After moving
in about twenty feet attacking the fire, he wisely evacuated the
building. The roof collapsed shortly after they evacuated. All of
these sounds were steel I beams and trusses failing. At a recent
warehouse fire in Prince George.s County MD companies were operating
on the interior of the lightweight steel bar joist building. When
Volunteer Chief 33, Ricky Riley, arrived on the scene and radioed his
engine crew, he asked them, "what do you hear, do you hear anything",
the response from the company officer was "yes, there are popping
sounds" He ordered all interior companies to evacuate the
building. The roof collapsed approximetley ten minutes after
evacuation. Again, the sounds were the roof trusses failing.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148816
---
[15] --------------------------------------------------
Interim Report on WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Links to other WTC7 reports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
---
[16] -----------------------------------------
Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed A Fire Chief's Assessment
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
---
[17] ----------------------------------
John Jay College teaches about stuture fires for NY firemen.
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~firesci/fire_science_faculty.htm
Glenn Corbett, professor of fire science at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice says the CD people are k00ks and explains why in this
20 minute interview.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14
FDNY Training - Including building collapse.
http://www.fdtraining.com/NewCourses.html
[18] --------------------------------
Many members of Structural Engineers Assoc of NY
reported to WTC early on 9/11 to supertvice investigation.
http://www.seaony.org/
Source: Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_ By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
[19] -----------------------------
Explosions in a steel bulding fire (Not WTC)
"As Engine 15 turned up Liberty street Captain John Kahl could see
light smoke from the top floor of the Hurst Building. Captain Kahl
did not think he had much of a fire so he went to check the
automatic alarm box. The box indicated that there was fire in the
basement, so Captain Kahl had his crew force entry threw a glass
door on the German street side and entered the building with a 3/4
inch chemical line and 2 1/2 hand line. As the crew was standing
on the stairs to the basement they could see the fire rolling
across the ceiling towards the elevator shaft. It was not long
after Captain Kahl entered the building when a smoke explosion
occurred in the elevator shaft. The explosion was powerful enough
to blow off the roof , break several windows and also throw large
embers across the street into the broken windows of several
buildings. All the firefighters escaped with out injury"
What you have just read describeds what firemen call a smoke
explosion at a fire in Boston. This phenomenon occurs when a fire
creates a pocket of hot explosive gas in an enclosed area. The gas
comes from material in the area of the fire that is heated to the
point of giving off gas, but the area is not hot enough for
spontaneous combustion to occure. All it takes is a spark or the
inrush of oxygen rich air to make the gas ignite. Its similar to a
backdraft but in a backdraft the gas has space to expand and burn,
in a smoke explosion the enclosed space make the effect more
explosive in nature.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2819408&postcount=477
[20] ----
BBC Early Report on WTC7 Collapse Explained
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zZrlNw-31R8
[21] ---
FEMA Report on WTC7
http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch5.pdf
---
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Fievel J Mousekewitz
news:g5ahp3$mnh$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <Xns9AD67F03DB271r...@216.168.3.70>,
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >http://www.prisonplanet.com/about-this-bbc-hit-piece-story-about-wtc-7-
> >there-is-a-huge-contradiction-here.html
> >
> >
> > Infowar Wednesday, July 9, 2008
> >
> >There are BIG mistakes everywhere in this story. Probably the biggest
> >mistake
> >is the way the documentary argued that the NYFD firefighters could not
> >fight the fires in
> >the burning WTC 7 because the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged water
> >lines,
> >and the documentary even stated that THERE WAS NO WATER to put out the
WTC
> >7
> >fires!!!
> >
> >But then they argued that Larry Silverstein's comment: ' They decided to
> >pull it ' was
I must say, very nice. Very well done in research.
But, someone will still argue.
You could actually put it more simply.
Loose Change makes the claim that no building has failed do to fire.
The problem with this claim, is those other fires weren't totally out of
control, with only very
few people noticing. By your reply, it was burning out of control for four
hours before
anyone even noticed.
What was in WTC7? Tons, and tons of paper. And last time I checked, paper
burns.
Not only does paper burn, but with the way paper burns, it burns fast, and
ultra hot.
That building had over enough paper in it to keep burning for a long time.
You want some simple facts? Paper, plus just a small spark=fire. Ever build
a camp fire?
You don't need a lot of Paper to start a good fire, because of how hot paper
burns.
Fievel.
Iarnrod
> I must say, very nice. Very well done in research.
> But, someone will still argue.
> You could actually put it more simply.
> Loose Change makes the claim that no building has failed do to fire.
> The problem with this claim...
The problem with that claim is that it is a lie. And they know it when
they say it. Many steel framed structures have failed due *only* to
fire (Windsor Tower in Madrid the prime example) let alone the WTC
structures which first were massively damaged structurally prior to
the fires.
This is no mystery.
Disneygeek
Actually, they can. The firefighters remained in the area even with
damaged waterlines untill they were "pulled" out to avoid injuries
when the building finally fell. See? No problems.
Al Dykes
Well so what? Three did, even no other building in the world did.
WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were unique in the world.
No other building was of all-steel construction, built with minimal
fire-proofing, doused with thousands of gallons of fuel, and set afire
and allowed to burn for hours without any firefighting or sprinklers.
WTC1, 2, and 7 were unique in that way.
Fievel J Mousekewitz
news:MPG.22df60e2a...@news.buckeye-express.com...
BDK
dlwstr...@comcast.net says...
I know, but it's fun playing with them. My one dog has 100 times the
sense a kooktard does and she isn't too smart, even for a dog.
Fievel J Mousekewitz
but her heart was almost gold.
One of the kindest hearts considering the odd mix of smaller dogs.
The wtc? Weights, that's it, & that's all. They still won't get it.
Did you see, one of them has actually replied to something I didn't say,
then
said I did.
LOL....
Fievel.
BDK
They do all kinds of kooky shit, all the time, and when it gets pointed
out to them, they switch tracks, like the little choo-choo toy or car
that bumps into something, and then changes direction and bumps into
something else, again and again. Some of them can't seem to use a
newsreader that works worth a shit, so Outlook Express it is.
Then there is the "Wheel of Kooktardery", where they make a claim, it
gets shot down, they spin the wheel, spout another whacky claim, then
repeat, over and over again, almost seven years now. The same nonsense
gets posted again and again, and they seem to forget about the last time
the same claim was made. Makes for some funny shit, but sometimes, if
the wheel lands on a recent claim, it's just annoying.
Fievel J Mousekewitz
It's still entertaining to read, unless I've read it too many times.
Then I try to only pay attention to the rants, raving, and name calling.
It's funny.
TY for the reminder, I like Thunderbird better then outlook express...
Fievel.
Government Shill #2
Try Agent.
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php
--
Shill #2
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
Fievel J Mousekewitz
news:gj7c84h2r2hp0tfgg...@4ax.com...
less then half of the binary groups,,,, .. OK, don'e crying..
Fievel.
Government Shill #2
<dlwstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
Forte have a news server too:
http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php
--
Shill #2
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.
Fievel J Mousekewitz
BTW, which side are you on, the side that believes the CT's
or the other side?
Fievel.
Government Shill #2
<dlwstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>BTW, which side are you on, the side that believes the CT's
>or the other side?
>
>Fievel.
I'm a shill. For *the* government. Have been since 1996. Risen through the
ranks from Shill #312 to #2. I run the pay section at Shill Central.
--
Shill #2
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
European Division
Fievel J Mousekewitz
:-)
Cool.
Fievel.
Government Shill #2
<dlwstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm *for* reality.
>:-)
>Cool.
>
>Fievel.
--
Shill #2
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.
Isaac Asimov - The Roving Mind (1983)
george
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:48:52 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
>
>
> >"BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.22ec5d10f...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> In article <UPKdna-cVs5l2x_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPin...@comcast.com>,
> >> dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> >> > "BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:MPG.22eb4caca...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> > > In article <bZadnRYcPN5vuBzVnZ2dnUVZ_ozin...@comcast.com>,
> >> > > dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> >> > > > "BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:MPG.22df60e2a...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> > > > > In article <Xns9AD67F03DB271riemann1850yahoo...@216.168.3.70>,
Went off Agent years ago
Although nowadays its probably 100% better.
I use Thunderbird
george
wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:oo9c84lltv101uv22...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:27:57 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
> > >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ka9c84580ifve7aif...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:20:03 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
> > >> >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:gj7c84h2r2hp0tfgg...@4ax.com...
> > >> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:48:52 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
> > >> >> >"BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >news:MPG.22ec5d10f...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > >> >> >> In article <UPKdna-cVs5l2x_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPin...@comcast.com>,
> > >> >> >> dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> > >> >> >> >news:MPG.22eb4caca...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > >> >> >> > > In article <bZadnRYcPN5vuBzVnZ2dnUVZ_ozin...@comcast.com>,
> > >> >> >> > > dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> > >> >> >> > > >news:MPG.22df60e2a...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > >> >> >> > > > > In article
> > ><Xns9AD67F03DB271riemann1850yahoo...@216.168.3.70>,
Welcome to them as listened and learned at school.
That makes you (and us) among the 99.9999999999999999999999999
% of the population who live in the real world !
Government Shill #2
Forte lost their way with Agent a while back. I stopped upgrading at
version 3.3/32. Still it would have to be better than Outhouse.
--
Shill #2
I am so smart...S.M.R.T.
Homer J. Simpson
Fievel J Mousekewitz
I do believe in at least some corruption in Government.
But if there was none, it would be like living in a world of
fantasy.
Which of our founding fathers said, "There's no such thing as
a perfect government."?
Would've it been Thomas Jefferson or
Benjamin Franklin?
Fievel.. :-) btw, these look better when using Thunderbird.. ;-)
george
wrote:
> What's wrong with reality, I quite like living in the 'real' world.
>
> I do believe in at least some corruption in Government.
> But if there was none, it would be like living in a world of
> fantasy.
All governments have a degree of corruption.
With mine its around 40%
> Which of our founding fathers said, "There's no such thing as
> a perfect government."?
> Would've it been Thomas Jefferson or
> Benjamin Franklin?
Not being American I'd say all or any :-)
> Fievel.. :-) btw, these look better when using Thunderbird.. ;-)
Neat toys eh
BDK
My personal favorite is when they threaten, that when the "truth comes
out", we "shills" would be facing charges. Only a kooktard's feeble mind
would make someone spout such nonsense seriously.
> TY for the reminder, I like Thunderbird better then outlook express...
>
I use Gravity, I keep trying others, and go back.
>
> Fievel.
>
>
>
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
Fievel J Mousekewitz
Think any of these CT'ers will ever get it??
Fievel.
0...@embarqmail.com
> [4]----------------------------
>
> We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
> not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
> Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.
>
> There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
> demolition.
>
> In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> http://jowenko.nl/
Did you really mean to put these links up? I couldn't get 3 of them
to work and in the 1 that worked, Danny Jowenko repeated his belief
that building 7 didn't come down due to its fires.
Iarnrod
That's true; it didn't collapse due to fires; it collapsed due to
fires *and* massive structural damage inflicted by tens of thousands
of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it from
the collapse of neighboring WTC1.
Fievel J Mousekewitz
news:1273a081-1e6f-4e82...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Lets not forget, it was burning for hours before anyone even noticed.
When someone did notice, it was already almost too late.
If it would've been noticed, and fought like any other fire, it might still
be standing today.
Fievel.
Iarnrod
Nor correct. It was noticed immediately.
> When someone did notice, it was already almost too late.
> If it would've been noticed, and fought like any other fire, it might still
> be standing today.
No true. The internal water supply was affected and the firefighting
effort had to be pulled because of that and due to the fact that it
was going to collapse.
Disneygeek
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:27:57 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ka9c84580ifve7aif...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:20:03 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
> >> >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:gj7c84h2r2hp0tfgg...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:48:52 -0400, "Fievel J Mousekewitz"
>
> >> >> >"BDK" <Shillk...@silentexplosions.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:MPG.22ec5d10f...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> >> >> In article <UPKdna-cVs5l2x_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPin...@comcast.com>,
> >> >> >> dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> >> >> >> >news:MPG.22eb4caca...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> >> >> > > In article <bZadnRYcPN5vuBzVnZ2dnUVZ_ozin...@comcast.com>,
> >> >> >> > > dlwstraus...@comcast.net says...
> >> >> >> > > >news:MPG.22df60e2a...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> >> >> > > > > In article
> ><Xns9AD67F03DB271riemann1850yahoo...@216.168.3.70>,
Yeah, I'm still looking for my checks there, Shill! Let's get on the
ball, OK?
Fievel J Mousekewitz
So I got that wrong.
It was still burning out of control.
And the CT people ignore that point.
Fievel..
Disneygeek
> Went off Agent years ago
> Although nowadays its probably 100% better.
> I use Thunderbird- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agent or Thunderbird, is it going to use my Verizon account to access
the newsgroups? In which case, I'm screwed because the problem is not
the news server, it's Verizon.
george
Update.
I'm running Ubuntu 7 and they have Evolution Mail.
a nice Email and everything else program.
Disneygeek
Is Ubuntu a package program or is it an internet server? If it's a
package program, does it use your current server to access the
internet? Since my current server is Verizon, that wouldn't help. I'll
just have to get alone without it.
Larz
> demolition.
>
> In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> http://jowenko.nl/
>
Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/911-dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-on-wtc-7/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm
>
> Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
> Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
> WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
> has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
> conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
> cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
> afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
> & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
>
> The reasons are as follows:
>
> 1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
> collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
> high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
> from fire will collapse.
>
> 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
>
> 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
> providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
>
> 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
> sufficient water supply to attack them.
>
building 7 didn't even have hardly a single broken window on 3 sides
when it came down, why would slight damage to the back corner cause
the whole building to pancake into itself in a matter of seconds
except that a government agency says so ?
george
> building 7 didn't even have hardly a single broken window on 3 sides
> when it came down, why would slight damage to the back corner cause
> the whole building to pancake into itself in a matter of seconds
> except that a government agency says so ?
It (WTC7) was on fire for hours not minutes ..
And all the buildings on the Plaza were either destroyed by falling
burning debris from the towers.
I notice that you are unaware of the damage done to, say, the Customs
Building..
BDK
9c15d8...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, wbsu...@gmail.com says...
Slight damage?
Please put down the crack pipe..
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
007
In the link that you gave that worked, Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
controlled demolition?
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 8, 7:39=A0am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 7:18=A0pm, 0...@embarqmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 12, 8:14=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>> > > [4]----------------------------
>>
>s
>> > > not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
>> > > Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.
>>
>> > > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
>> > > demolition.
>>
>> > > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
>> > > were NOT demolition jobs.
>>
>arch=3D
>> > > =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEkZMQAC95kI&mode=3Drelated&se=
>arch=3D
>> > > =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQajDxF9uEf4&mode=3Drelated&se=
>arch=3D
>> > > =A0 =A0http://jowenko.nl/
>>
>> > Did you really mean to put these links up? =A0I couldn't get 3 of them
>> > to work and in the 1 that worked, Danny Jowenko repeated his belief
>> > that building 7 didn't come down due to its fires.
>>
>> That's true; it didn't collapse due to fires; it collapsed due to
>> fires *and* massive structural damage inflicted by tens of thousands
>> of tons of free-falling steel and flaming debris crashing into it from
>> the collapse of neighboring WTC1.
>
>In the link that you gave that worked, Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
>of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
>controlled demolition?
In every statement I've heard, Jowenko says WTC7 could be a CD if it
were "prepared" and to a demolition expert, "preparation" is weeks of
work for a large building.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Iarnrod
> > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
> > demolition.
>
> > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> > were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> > http://jowenko.nl/
>
> Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
> this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
> > Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
> > WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
> > has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
> > conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
> > cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
> > afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
> > & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
>
> > The reasons are as follows:
>
> > 1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
> > collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
> > high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
> > from fire will collapse.
>
> > 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
>
> > 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
> > providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
>
> > 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
> > sufficient water supply to attack them.
>
> building 7 didn't even have hardly a single broken window on 3 sides
> when it came down,
So what? Windows don't hold up buildings.
> why would slight damage to the back corner cause
> the whole building to pancake into itself in a matter of seconds
> except that a government agency says so ?
No government agency has said that. Besides, the damage was MASSIVE,
no slight. FDNY, the experts, have. They knew it was goign to collapse
from the damage and raging uncontrolled fires. It was announced well
beforehand that the building was expected to collapse; one network,
BBC, even misread this news and reported it already had when it hadn't
yet.
Yeesh.
Iarnrod
I didn't give any links at all. Do you know anything that you are
talking about?
> Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
> controlled demolition?
No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
*failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
a statement.
Controlled demolition of any of those buildings is a complete physical
impossibility. No CD explosives went off. Therefore, it could not
possibly have been a CD.
St Georges Day April 23rd
by the long suffering people's of Judea.
Disneygeek
> > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
> > demolition.
>
> > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> > were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> > http://jowenko.nl/
>
> Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
> this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
> > Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
> > WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
> > has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
> > conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
> > cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
> > afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
> > & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
>
> > The reasons are as follows:
>
> > 1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
> > collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
> > high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
> > from fire will collapse.
>
> > 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
>
> > 3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
> > providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
>
> > 4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
> > sufficient water supply to attack them.
>
> building 7 didn't even have hardly a single broken window on 3 sides
> when it came down, why would slight damage to the back corner cause
> the whole building to pancake into itself in a matter of seconds
> except that a government agency says so ?
Two points, as you've been told the damage was hardly "sleight." 30%
of the wall was destroyed by debris.
Also, the building began tilting and bulging for about three hours
before finally collapsing. That tilting and bulging was interior
supports giving way. So, while the actual colla[se was fairly quick,
it was building up for awhile.
Al Dykes
St Georges Day April 23rd <bbbbbdfg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Have you see the credits for the BBC hit pieces? It was brought to you
>by the long suffering people's of Judea.
And even if true, what does that have to do with the facts that show
WTC7 was on fire for hours and the collapse starting at 2PM when the
south side was noticeably bulging?
The imminent collapse of WTC7 was announced. That's why we have such
good video from a safe distance from the north. The news crews
monitor the police radio and heard about it in time to set up.
007
Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
that he would have considered those possibilities? It's not in the
nature of an expert to make such a definitive statement before he has
ruled out possibilities like that. And I don't see the relevance of
his having "no connection with this case" except that if anything, I'd
expect that it would leave him more free to give an honest opinion.
Do you believe NIST is politically free to declare the collapse of
building 7 a controlled demolition?
> Controlled demolition of any of those buildings is a complete physical
> impossibility. No CD explosives went off. Therefore, it could not
> possibly have been a CD.
I don't see how the fact that you're not aware of "CD explosives"
going off means they didn't and I don't see how you can rule out the
possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly. Maybe
building 7's collapse was due to a combination of the damage that the
collapse of building 1 did to it, fire, gravity, and as few deliberate
explosives as were necessary, which were as surreptitious as possible.
What kind of explosives it normally takes to cut steel columns may not
have been necessary. If fire can make the building collapse, why
can't explosives other than what you call "CD explosives?" A
controlled demolition would have been aided by the damage that the
collapse of building 1 did and gravity, too.
007
> > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
> > demolition.
>
> > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> > were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> > http://jowenko.nl/
>
> Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
> this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
>
Apparently, he isn't too concerned about the problem of not hearing
the right kinds of explosions, assuming he didn't. I just don't see
why a controlled demolition can't be done more gradually than it
normally is for the sake of deception. I don't know that a controlled
demolition can't be done with less obvious explosions, timed further
apart, than it normally is. For all I know, there's redundancy in
normal demolitions. If a normal demolition takes, say, 100
explosions, maybe that means it can be done with, say, 25. If a
collapse from asymmetric damage can be symmetric, then a controlled
demolition, resulting in a symmetric collapse, can be asymmetric. If
building 7 was a controlled demolition, it would have been done in the
way that is least likely to look like one, all else being equal.
> > Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
> > Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
> > WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
> > has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
> > conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
> > cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.
That will be a tremendous improvement over its report about the
towers, which didn't go into any detail about why they completely
collapsed after they started collapsing, as if it were obvious that
the intact lower floors wouldn't provide any significant resistance to
the collapsing upper floors, and didn't consider the possibility of
controlled demolition, for political purposes, I assume. Or will this
report, too, just stop at the point building 7 starts to collapse?
> > Early on the
> > afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
> > & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
Did you expect it to collapse like a house of cards or were you
surprised how quickly it collapsed?
Maybe there's a certain threshold of height for a building, past which
enough damage will make it completely collapse. Might that explain
why buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 (and the Pentagon and the Murrah
Building, for that matter) didn't completely collapse? If the
Pentagon had been 150 stories high and hit with a plane at its 100th
floor, might it have completely collapsed? Due to its greater width,
I'd be even more surprised than I was with the buildings at the WTC.
Symmetrical collapses seem inconsistent with asymmetrical damage. Why
didn't building 7 fall towards the area of its most damage?
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 9, 10:26=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:>> > of that. =A0Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
>> > controlled demolition?
>>
>> No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
>> no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
>> *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
>> fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
>> damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
>> a statement.
>
>Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
>that he would have considered those possibilities? It's not in the
>nature of an expert to make such a definitive statement before he has
>ruled out possibilities like that. And I don't see the relevance of
>his having "no connection with this case" except that if anything, I'd
>expect that it would leave him more free to give an honest opinion.
>Do you believe NIST is politically free to declare the collapse of
>building 7 a controlled demolition?
>
>> Controlled demolition of any of those buildings is a complete physical
>> impossibility. No CD explosives went off. Therefore, it could not
>> possibly have been a CD.
>
>I don't see how the fact that you're not aware of "CD explosives"
>going off means they didn't and I don't see how you can rule out the
>possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly. Maybe
No explosions consistent with man-made demolitiotn were reported or
caught on the audio tape of any of the countless video cameras in
operation.
WTC on 9/11 was video-recorded by many people from all angles. No
tape shows audio consistent with the video that would indicate
man-made demolition.
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 9, 2:26=A0pm, Larz <wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
>> > demolition.
>>
>> > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
>> > were NOT demolition jobs.
>>
>ch=3D
>> > =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEkZMQAC95kI&mode=3Drelated&sear=
>ch=3D
>> > =A0 =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DQajDxF9uEf4&mode=3Drelated&sear=
>ch=3D
>> > =A0 =A0http://jowenko.nl/
>>
>> =A0Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
>> this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
>>
>ttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm
>
>Apparently, he isn't too concerned about the problem of not hearing
>the right kinds of explosions, assuming he didn't. I just don't see
>why a controlled demolition can't be done more gradually than it
>normally is for the sake of deception. I don't know that a controlled
>demolition can't be done with less obvious explosions, timed further
>apart, than it normally is. For all I know, there's redundancy in
>normal demolitions. If a normal demolition takes, say, 100
>explosions, maybe that means it can be done with, say, 25. If a
>collapse from asymmetric damage can be symmetric, then a controlled
>demolition, resulting in a symmetric collapse, can be asymmetric. If
>building 7 was a controlled demolition, it would have been done in the
>way that is least likely to look like one, all else being equal.
>
>al
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collaps=
>e of
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (althou=
>gh it
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain th=
>e
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.
>
>That will be a tremendous improvement over its report about the
>towers, which didn't go into any detail about why they completely
>collapsed after they started collapsing, as if it were obvious that
>the intact lower floors wouldn't provide any significant resistance to
Who says they didn't "provide any significant resistance"?
Momentum is a powerful thing.
Nobody that claims relevant expertise and says that the collapse of
any of the towers requires the existence of man-made explosives will
speak in public with people with relevant expertise.
Why should I believe them?
Dennis E Strausser Jr
BTW, what's gravity?? (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Fievel,,.. Denny,. :-) ;-)
Just go look it up!
Ubuntu is a Linux distro, like Red Hat or Fedora. Evolution Mail is
the software which will read from whatever server you point it at.
You really should think about just signing up for Giganews or
something if Verizon's servers are that crappy. It's dirt cheap if
you want text-only transfer volumes.
Disneygeek
I don't have a problem with Verizon's server's per se. It's just that
they've decided not to carry the "alt." hierarchy. And Xnews was using
my server to access the newsgroups, so Xnews couldn't access the
"alt." heirarchy either.
So my question is; what reader stands along and won't use the Verizon
system on my computer to access usenet?
Tim Miller
> So my question is; what reader stands along and won't use the Verizon
> system on my computer to access usenet?
You DO realize that "readers" are NOT connected to
"servers"... except in the way YOU configure them?
YOU can use http://www.motzarella.org/ (for example) no
matter WHAT your ISP or newsreader is...
Just go look it up!
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't have a problem with Verizon's server's per se. It's just that
>they've decided not to carry the "alt." hierarchy. And Xnews was using
>my server to access the newsgroups, so Xnews couldn't access the
>"alt." heirarchy either.
>
>So my question is; what reader stands along and won't use the Verizon
>system on my computer to access usenet?
Assuming the email is valid, go check it.
Patrick Keenan
"Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:535372a9-d38b-4686...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
==================
I think you are asking about "standalone" newsreaders and usenet accounts.
But I think you do not really understand what "standalone" means; in this
context it means that you have to tell the reader what the name of the
server is, and give it a username and password as needed. There is no
requirement to use any specific server.
You are probably using a Windows version, so you already have a "standalone"
Newsreader. It's called Outlook Express or, in Vista, Windows Mal.
Windows Live Mail and Mozilla Thunderbird are also easily available, and
there are, of course, other newsreaders. Google will show you them.
And you mention that you have xNews, which is basically the same thing.
*None* of these rely on Verizon, they rely on how you set them up and what
servers you point them to. I have at times set up OE to access six or
seven different usenet servers.
xNews can't access the alt heirarchy because you have it pointed to servers
where it doesn't exist anymore. You just need to point it elsewhere.
All of these both do and do not "use the Verizon system on your computer",
which is as an answer only slightly less unclear than your request. You
rely on Verizon only to provide you network access. If you move your
system to another location that has a different provider, the situation is
the same. Verizon servers don't carry the Alt groups anymore, but Verizon
does not block your access to other servers that do. To use those servers,
you only have to adjust your newsreader, after creating an account there.
As to not having "a problem with Verizon's server's per se", you do have a
problem with them, and it is that the groups you want aren't on them
anymore. You have to find another server that does carry them, and you may
have to pay a small amount for this if you want reasonable performance and
the ability to post.
Hope this helps.
-pk
Patrick Keenan
On Aug 8, 4:25 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 6:40 am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 3:55 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > Went off Agent years ago
> > > Although nowadays its probably 100% better.
> > > I use Thunderbird- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Agent or Thunderbird, is it going to use my Verizon account to access
> > the newsgroups? In which case, I'm screwed because the problem is not
> > the news server, it's Verizon.
>
> Update.
> I'm running Ubuntu 7 and they have Evolution Mail.
> a nice Email and everything else program.
Is Ubuntu a package program or is it an internet server?
============
Neither. It's an operating system. It's a version of Linux, which means
it is closely related to Unix.
============
If it's a
package program, does it use your current server to access the
internet? Since my current server is Verizon, that wouldn't help. I'll
just have to get alone without it.
===============
I think that you do not understand that your problem is that you just need a
Usenet account on another server, and then just need to point your
newsreader to that server.
The solution is quick and easy, but might cost you a few dollars a month.
Probably less than many people pay for a day's worth of coffee.
When you have that account, Verizon will not block you from using it.
HTH
-pk
Dennis E Strausser Jr
Here's a small handfull.
http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.911truthseekers.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.ny911truth.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
A forum....
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread375667/pg1
There's still only one truth, one fact.
And you CT people ignore what's right in front of your faces.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
It's not really hard to pick out where the plane hit the Pentagon building.
You can even pick it out on the (Loose Change) video clips.
I could waste a whole day listing CT sites, but I'm not going to..........
Fievel..
Denny,. ;-)
"007" <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:418d1d60-7bbb-4c90...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Iarnrod
> On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> > > of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
> > > controlled demolition?
>
> > No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
> > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
> > *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
> > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
> > damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
> > a statement.
>
> Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
> that he would have considered those possibilities?
You miss the point. He assumed it was a CD when kookers showed hi the
video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
been told of the massive structural damage and the raging uncontrolled
fires, he would not have offered such an opinion. In fact, as is
painfully obvious to anyone with a brain, it is a complete physical
impossibility for the collapse of WTC7 to have been a controlled
demolition.
There were no controlled demolition devices going off at all. None.
You can’t do a controlled demolition without a controlled demolition.
> It's not in the
> nature of an expert to make such a definitive statement before he has
> ruled out possibilities like that.
Then you apparently believe Jowenko is not an expert, because he
offered an immediate off the cuff opinion based on an edited video
about which crucial information was not only not disclosed to him but
was intentionally withheld.
So Jowenko did make a definitive statement before he had ruled out not
only any possibilities, but the actual events that were withheld from
him.
> And I don't see the relevance of
> his having "no connection with this case" except that if anything, I'd
> expect that it would leave him more free to give an honest opinion.
No, but I’d expect such a position from a CTer. His having no
connection to the case doesn’t make him able to give an honest
opinion, it makes him *incapable* of giving an *informed opinion* as
an expert. As we know, the CT kooks who showed him the video
deliberately withheld factual information that completely explains the
collapse. CD is impossible in this case because there was no final
sequenced and synchronized detonation of any CD explosives. Case
closed. Can’t be a CD without them.
> Do you believe NIST is politically free to declare the collapse of
> building 7 a controlled demolition?
Of course. NIST would do so it if was, and so would any number of
actual experts. But such an opinion defies the reality of the
situation. There were no CD explosions. This could not possible have
been a CD.
> > Controlled demolition of any of those buildings is a complete physical
> > impossibility. No CD explosives went off. Therefore, it could not
> > possibly have been a CD.
>
> I don't see how the fact that you're not aware of "CD explosives"
> going off means they didn't
It makes it completely impossible. CD explosives are unmistakable and
very loud and very visible. There were none that day, not on WTC7 and
not on the towers. None.
> and I don't see how you can rule out the
> possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly.
Nope. I’m defining them as what they are. You would have to fabricate
a false definition of an explosive to make the cartoon magic silent
and invisible “controlled demolition” theory work.
> Maybe
> building 7's collapse was due to a combination of the damage that the
> collapse of building 1 did to it, fire, gravity, and as few deliberate
> explosives as were necessary, which were as surreptitious as possible.
Nope. Not possible.
And why? The building was going to collapse from the damage and fire.
No explosives would be needed.
> What kind of explosives it normally takes to cut steel columns may not
> have been necessary. If fire can make the building collapse, why
> can't explosives other than what you call "CD explosives?"
There were no explosives *at all.*
> A
> controlled demolition would have been aided by the damage that the
> collapse of building 1 did and gravity, too.
Not needed. How could one account for the unpredictable damage
patterns and fire damage? How could one know where to put those final
few silent and invisible explosives?
It’s utter nonsense and complete fabrication.
Iarnrod
> On Aug 9, 2:26 pm, Larz <wbsurf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
> > > demolition.
>
> > > In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
> > > were NOT demolition jobs.
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
> > > http://jowenko.nl/
>
> > Those links are not valid, but I google searched here, and it appears
> > this guy Jowenko is saying that it was controlled demolition:
>
> >http://eldib.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/911-dutch-demolition-expert-dan...
>
> the right kinds of explosions, assuming he didn't. I just don't see
> why a controlled demolition can't be done more gradually than it
> normally is for the sake of deception.
Gradually? Can’t be done. Deception for what? To what end? This is
simply crazy. The building wall was bulging for several hours, and
collapse was known to be imminent. There is simply no need at all for
any CD in a case like that, and indeed, the undeniable proof is that
none occurred.
> I don't know that a controlled
> demolition can't be done with less obvious explosions, timed further
> apart, than it normally is.
It relies on gravity. It is done in quick sequence. It isn’t done over
five hours. This is just utter nonsense.
> For all I know, there's redundancy in
> normal demolitions. If a normal demolition takes, say, 100
> explosions, maybe that means it can be done with, say, 25.
Nope, and besides, there weren’t 25 either. There were none.
> If a
> collapse from asymmetric damage can be symmetric, then a controlled
> demolition, resulting in a symmetric collapse, can be asymmetric.
Both premises are nonsense. There was nothing symmetrical about the
collapses of the towers. They were utterly chaotic. They only look
symmetrical to the uninformed form far away. Up close they are
completely asymmetrical. Look at WTC2’s collapse initiation, for
heaven’s sake. The entire top block tilted.
> building 7 was a controlled demolition, it would have been done in the
> way that is least likely to look like one, all else being equal.
Indeed, now you argue it didn’t look like one while most other CTers
insist it looks like one. In fact, it looks nothing like one, and it
was not one.
If the building is already collapsing due to damage, why bother to CD
it on top of that? It’s totaled. Your position makes absolutely no
sense.
>
> > > Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
> > > Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
> > > WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
> > > has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
> > > conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
> > > cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.
>
> That will be a tremendous improvement over its report about the
> towers, which didn't go into any detail about why they completely
> collapsed after they started collapsing,
A super computer found it impossible to reconstruct. Too many millions
of variables. That doesn’t mean NIST didn’t explain the collapse just
because it didn’t explain why Girder A ended up on Sidewalk B instead
of Sidewalk C.
The cause of the collapse is very very obvious.
> as if it were obvious that
> the intact lower floors wouldn't provide any significant resistance to
> the collapsing upper floors, and didn't consider the possibility of
> controlled demolition, for political purposes, I assume.
No political purpose at all. It was the complete lack of any evidence
that it was controlled demolition, which was a physical impossibility.
The lower floors did provide resistance. You should study physics. Why
would you expect the collapse to stop at each floor briefly before
continuing? That’s not at all what laws of physics demand. Force
equals mass times acceleration.
> Or will this
> report, too, just stop at the point building 7 starts to collapse?
The collapse of WTC7 is quite obvious. The entire southeast portion of
the structure gave way, asymmetrically, well ahead of the most visible
north façade collapse. It was chaotic and lasted over 16 seconds.
No CD explosives helped it along.
Disneygeek
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It gives me the information I want, but doesn't really help. I have no
intention of changing servers. I'll manage to get along without the
"alt." hierarchy except here on Google (which I guess is the closest
thing to a "standalone" server in that it's not using Verizion for
usenet access.
Thank you for trying to help.
Disneygeek
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks, but not going to happen. I'd rather just do without.
BDK
It's free, and it's a hidden feature:
Godzilla mode:
Options:
"Destroy WTC buildings".
The kooks would buy it, after all, they buy just about anything crazy,
don't they?
BDK
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
It seems like you're kind of confused about news servers.
Maybe not.
Disneygeek
> In article <82048a37-c382-480e-b20c-1f2b5fc3a0f9
> > It gives me the information I want, but doesn't really help. I have no
> > intention of changing servers. I'll manage to get along without the
> > "alt." hierarchy except here on Google (which I guess is the closest
> > thing to a "standalone" server in that it's not using Verizion for
> > usenet access.
>
> > Thank you for trying to help.
>
> It seems like you're kind of confused about news servers.
>
> Maybe not.
>
> --
> BDK
Oh yeah, I'm a major neophyte on computer matters. If I'm
understanding everyone here, ANY newsreader I get is going to utilize
my Internet provider for access to usenet. Since my Internet provider
is no longer providing the "alt." hierarchy, then no newsread I
download is going to provide it either. Since I'm not in a position to
change Internet providers, I'll just have to do without (except for
Google here.)
It's not really that important. I was just wondering.
Thanks.
BDK
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
No, you're still confused. You can get an account with, and use ANY
server with any newsreader, the ISP doesn't even have to offer
newsgroups at all. I use giganews, AND my ISP's newsservers. The
giganews account is for binaries, and the ISP acct. is for the
discussion forums.
A giganews account is very cheap.
Dennis E Strausser Jr
This 007 guy will never get it.
You're just wasting you're time.
007 just cant grasp the fact, that our government
always has our backs.
They tried on that day back in 2001, they failed.
How bout this 007, try and handle just one of the threats
our government has to deal with every single day.
Which is over 100. It takes anywhere from one day, and up to
weeks to investigate just one.
Our Government knew it was coming, but unfortunately, they didn't know
where.
That's one of the things that you CT kooks like to pick on.
They had the right side of the country, putting extra guard on our weapons,
but our
government isn't perfect. They had the wrong place.
Are you God 007? If not, then your as imperfect as the rest of us.
We strive to have great security, but no matter how hard we try, something
will
still slip thru.
We'd have to close this countries borders all together, before 50% less gets
through.
But they cant do that, we're a free country.
Fievel...
Denny.
007
> On Aug 10, 9:32 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> > > > of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
> > > > controlled demolition?
>
> > > No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
> > > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
> > > *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
> > > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
> > > damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
> > > a statement.
>
> > Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
> > that he would have considered those possibilities?
>
> You miss the point. He assumed it was a CD when kookers showed hi the
> video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
> been told of the massive structural damage and the raging uncontrolled
> fires, he would not have offered such an opinion.
Do you have a link to him saying that he changed his mind once he
learned more? And did he ever comment on how sneaky the kooks were in
tricking him? When I see that, I'll believe that he's not an expert.
> In fact, as is
> painfully obvious to anyone with a brain, it is a complete physical
> impossibility for the collapse of WTC7 to have been a controlled
> demolition.
Is that as painfully obvious as that the collapse was "completely
asymmetrical?"
> There were no controlled demolition devices going off at all. None.
How do you know that what witnesses described as explosions weren't
"controlled demolition devices?" If you knew nothing about controlled
demolitions and heard a controlled demolition device that had been set
by someone who wanted it to seem as little like a controlled
demolition as possible, would you describe it as a "controlled
demolition device?"
I still don't understand why, if asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical
fire can gradually bring a building to the point of a quick, complete,
symmetrical collapse, explosives can't, either. Is fire that much
more powerul than the explosions that were heard?
> > and I don't see how you can rule out the
> > possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly.
>
> Nope. I’m defining them as what they are. You would have to fabricate
> a false definition of an explosive to make the cartoon magic silent
> and invisible “controlled demolition” theory work.
>
> > Maybe
> > building 7's collapse was due to a combination of the damage that the
> > collapse of building 1 did to it, fire, gravity, and as few deliberate
> > explosives as were necessary, which were as surreptitious as possible.
>
> Nope. Not possible.
>
> And why? The building was going to collapse from the damage and fire.
> No explosives would be needed.
How do you know that it did that without there being explosives? What
did the many witnesses to explosions hear, see, and feel?
> > What kind of explosives it normally takes to cut steel columns may not
> > have been necessary. If fire can make the building collapse, why
> > can't explosives other than what you call "CD explosives?"
>
> There were no explosives *at all.*
>
> > A
> > controlled demolition would have been aided by the damage that the
> > collapse of building 1 did and gravity, too.
>
> Not needed. How could one account for the unpredictable damage
> patterns and fire damage? How could one know where to put those final
> few silent and invisible explosives?
The witnesses who heard, saw, and felt the ones that were visible and
loud must have missed the ones you're talking about.
> It’s utter nonsense and complete fabrication.
There's definitely some fabricating going on.
BDK
34dea6...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, 0...@embarqmail.com says...
> >
> > > It's not in the
> >
> > > nature of an expert to make such a definitive statement before he has
> > > ruled out possibilities like that.
> >
> > Then you apparently believe Jowenko is not an expert, because he
> > offered an immediate off the cuff opinion based on an edited video
> > about which crucial information was not only not disclosed to him but
> > was intentionally withheld.
> >
> > So Jowenko did make a definitive statement before he had ruled out not
> > only any possibilities, but the actual events that were withheld from
> > him.
> >
> > > And I don't see the relevance of
> > > his having "no connection with this case" except that if anything, I'd
> > > expect that it would leave him more free to give an honest opinion.
> >
> > connection to the case doesn=3Ft make him able to give an honest
> > opinion, it makes him *incapable* of giving an *informed opinion* as
> > an expert. As we know, the CT kooks who showed him the video
> > deliberately withheld factual information that completely explains the
> > collapse. CD is impossible in this case because there was no final
> > sequenced and synchronized detonation of any CD explosives. Case
> >
> > > Do you believe NIST is politically free to declare the collapse of
> > > building 7 a controlled demolition?
> >
> > Of course. NIST would do so it if was, and so would any number of
> > actual experts. But such an opinion defies the reality of the
> > situation. There were no CD explosions. This could not possible have
> > been a CD.
> >
> > > > Controlled demolition of any of those buildings is a complete physical
> > > > impossibility. No CD explosives went off. Therefore, it could not
> > > > possibly have been a CD.
> >
> > > I don't see how the fact that you're not aware of "CD explosives"
> > > going off means they didn't
> >
> > It makes it completely impossible. CD explosives are unmistakable and
> > very loud and very visible. There were none that day, not on WTC7 and
> > not on the towers. None.
>
> I still don't understand why, if asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical
> fire can gradually bring a building to the point of a quick, complete,
> symmetrical collapse, explosives can't, either. Is fire that much
> more powerul than the explosions that were heard?
>
> > > and I don't see how you can rule out the
> > > possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly.
> >
> > a false definition of an explosive to make the cartoon magic silent
> >
> > > Maybe
> > > building 7's collapse was due to a combination of the damage that the
> > > collapse of building 1 did to it, fire, gravity, and as few deliberate
> > > explosives as were necessary, which were as surreptitious as possible.
> >
> > Nope. Not possible.
> >
> > And why? The building was going to collapse from the damage and fire.
> > No explosives would be needed.
>
> How do you know that it did that without there being explosives? What
> did the many witnesses to explosions hear, see, and feel?
>
> > > What kind of explosives it normally takes to cut steel columns may not
> > > have been necessary. If fire can make the building collapse, why
> > > can't explosives other than what you call "CD explosives?"
> >
> > There were no explosives *at all.*
> >
> > > A
> > > controlled demolition would have been aided by the damage that the
> > > collapse of building 1 did and gravity, too.
> >
> > Not needed. How could one account for the unpredictable damage
> > patterns and fire damage? How could one know where to put those final
> > few silent and invisible explosives?
>
> The witnesses who heard, saw, and felt the ones that were visible and
> loud must have missed the ones you're talking about.
>
>
> There's definitely some fabricating going on.
>
In your head, yes indeed, there is "fabrication" going on.
Iarnrod
> On Aug 10, 6:09�pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> > > > > of that. �Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
> > > > > controlled demolition?
> >
> > > > No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
> > > > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
> > > > *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
> > > > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
> > > > damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
> > > > a statement.
> >
> > > Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
> > > that he would have considered those possibilities?
> >
> > You miss the point. He assumed it was a CD when kookers showed hi the
> > video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
> > been told of the massive structural damage and the raging uncontrolled
> > fires, he would not have offered such an opinion.
>
> Do you have a link to him saying that he changed his mind once he
> learned more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
Read the “9/11 attacks” section. He had it right the first time. He
changed his story in 2005, not after he learned more but as he decided
to throw in with the kook side.
Read his original story. Before he changed it. The man in the elevator
had been burned by the jet fuel that poured down the shafts. That’s
the truth. Other witnesses in the lobby experienced the same thing.
Suddenly the story shifts and the guy is burned by some mysterious
explosion before the plane hits. That’s not possible.
> And did he ever comment on how sneaky the kooks were in
> tricking him?
You are now confusing two people here. No one said the kooks were
tricking Rodriguez; the kooks tricked Jowenko, the Dutch guy who had
nothing to do with the investigation.
> When I see that, I'll believe that he's not an expert.
Rodriguez is a janitor; he is not an expert in anything but
janitoring.
> > In fact, as is
> > painfully obvious to anyone with a brain, it is a complete physical
> > impossibility for the collapse of WTC7 to have been a controlled
> > demolition.
>
> Is that as painfully obvious as that the collapse was "completely
> asymmetrical?"
Yes, of course. Are you unfamiliar with the debris field of WTC7? Are
you imagining the collapse was symmetrical when it obviously was not?
Have you not seen the east penthouse collapse? Are you new to this
kookery stuff? I was assuming you were that Jude Outta Your Mind guy
with a nymshift. Are you not?
> > There were no controlled demolition devices going off at all. None.
>
> How do you know that what witnesses described as explosions weren't
> "controlled demolition devices?"
Because what witnesses described are patently and unequivocally NOT
controlled demolition explosions going off. The descriptions are
nothing like a controlled demolition. Those are highly and tightly and
unmistakably sequenced and synchronized high explosive charges. There
would be no possibility of mistaking them. Witnesses describe nothing
of the sort.
In addition, all the video and audio evidence as well contradicts
controlled demolition. There are no visible or audible explosions at
all at the times of the collapses. Such things cannot be hidden; they
are not silent nor invisible.
> If you knew nothing about controlled
> demolitions and heard a controlled demolition device that had been set
> by someone who wanted it to seem as little like a controlled
> demolition as possible, would you describe it as a "controlled
> demolition device?"
What you are attempting to fabricate here is not physically possible.
You seem to want to imagine that a building already deemed to be
imminently collapsing needed to be prodded along with just a few,
minimal, charges. Where to place them? When were they placed? There
were no pre-planted charges, we know, because they can only be placed
by very intrusive pre-demolition work involving removal of walls and
so forth. That did not happen.
You are imagining the need for something that is completely
superfluous and physically impossible.
There were no explosives. That kinds trumps your point right there.
You can imagine it all you like but there simply weren’t any at all.
In addition, the collapses were NOT symmetrical. You keep saying that
but that doesn’t make it true. You only need look at the pattern of
debris and the tilting of the south tower top to rule out your
“symmetrical collapse” idea.
> Is fire that much
> more powerul than the explosions that were heard?
Loud noises were heard, some explosions such as cars at street level,
etc. There is no evidence of explosives however.
You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
> > > and I don't see how you can rule out the
> > > possibility that you're defining "CD explosives" too narrowly.
> >
> > Nope. I�m defining them as what they are. You would have to fabricate
> > a false definition of an explosive to make the cartoon magic silent
> > and invisible �controlled demolition� theory work.
> >
> > > �Maybe
> > > building 7's collapse was due to a combination of the damage that the
> > > collapse of building 1 did to it, fire, gravity, and as few deliberate
> > > explosives as were necessary, which were as surreptitious as possible.
> >
> > Nope. Not possible.
> >
> > And why? The building was going to collapse from the damage and fire.
> > No explosives would be needed.
>
> How do you know that it did that without there being explosives?
Because, obviously and irrefutably, no explosives detonated. There
were no explosives, therefore the building fell from the damage and
fire. It would be physically impossible for there to have been
controlled demolition on any of those buildings because no explosives
went off. We know this from the complete absence of any evidence that
there were any explosives – failure to find any sign of it while
painstakingly sifting the rubble piles, and the obvious video/audio
evidence showing there were no CD explosives going off. Cant do a CD
without them little suckers.
> What
> did the many witnesses to explosions hear, see, and feel?
A lot of loud noises and crashes, but not a single one reported CD
explosives going off. A lot of heavy things went boom that day. Why is
this so mysterious to you? It just seems so elementary to me.
> > > What kind of explosives it normally takes to cut steel columns may not
> > > have been necessary. �If fire can make the building collapse, why
> > > can't explosives other than what you call "CD explosives?"
> >
> > There were no explosives *at all.*
> >
> > > A
> > > controlled demolition would have been aided by the damage that the
> > > collapse of building 1 did and gravity, too.
> >
> > Not needed. How could one account for the unpredictable damage
> > patterns and fire damage? How could one know where to put those final
> > few silent and invisible explosives?
>
> The witnesses who heard, saw, and felt the ones that were visible and
> loud must have missed the ones you're talking about.
Witnesses did not hear, see or feel any controlled demolition
explosives. Those are specific things, and no one heard any. If you
disagree, produce a witness. A boom going off an hour, or three hours,
or even a minute, before the collapse cannot possibly be a controlled
demolition explosive.
> > It�s utter nonsense and complete fabrication.
>
> There's definitely some fabricating going on.
Yes. Kooks must do it all the time in order to maintain their fragile
web of fantasies.
My account has the distinct advantage of being fully supported by
every bit of physics, facts, evidence, logic, video, audio,
eyewitnesses and science. Kooker accounts, on the other hand, are
contradicted by all of that. Game over. They just refuse to leave the
field, so we enjoy laughing at them, rubbing the loss in their noses.
007
No, you are.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
explosives caused after the impacts.
> Witnesses did not hear, see or feel any controlled demolition
> explosives.
zzzzzz
007
As long as he keeps repeating that no one testified to sequenced
explosions just before the buildings fell, that the collapse of
building 7 was "completely asymmetrical," and that the towers fell at
1/3 times free fall speed, I'll definitely "never get it." Are those
who say that no plane hit the south tower kookier than that?
> You're just wasting you're time.
> 007 just cant grasp the fact, that our government
> always has our backs.
> They tried on that day back in 2001, they failed.
The problem I have with the "incompetence theory" is that no one was
disciplined. If the FAA was as incompetent in reporting problems with
the planes as the 9/11 Commission, after hearing at least 3 different
stories from NORAD, said they were, someone should have gotten fired
and/or charged with manslaughter.
> How bout this 007, try and handle just one of the threats
> our government has to deal with every single day.
> Which is over 100. It takes anywhere from one day, and up to
> weeks to investigate just one.
> Our Government knew it was coming, but unfortunately, they didn't know
> where.
> That's one of the things that you CT kooks like to pick on.
> They had the right side of the country, putting extra guard on our weapons,
> but our
> government isn't perfect. They had the wrong place.
> Are you God 007? If not, then your as imperfect as the rest of us.
> We strive to have great security, but no matter how hard we try, something
> will
> still slip thru.
I'm still trying to figure out what should have happened that day with
NORAD. I've read, I believe by an air force pilot, before 9/11, that
any plane which either goes significantly off course, turns its
transponder off, or stops communicating, can expect 2 fighter jets at
its side within 10 minutes. Do you think that's way off base? I
believe that presidential authority would have been necessary for
planes to have been shot down. Don't you find it odd that after both
towers had been hit and air traffic control knew of other hijackings,
the president was still reading in that classroom, neither concerned
about his safety, somehow seeming to know that he wasn't a target,
even though his schedule had been made public, nor prepared to issue
an order to shoot down the other planes?
Disneygeek
> In article <a2dd81d1-1d34-4a35-95ea-826cf3fbdd03
> @l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
So i could run giganews and get binaries even though I'm using
Verizon? I'll think about it. Thanks.
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 12:13=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 007 wrote:
>> > On Aug 10, 6:09 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
>> > > > > > of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
>> > > > > > controlled demolition?
>>
>e has
>> > > > > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
>g
>> > > > > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
> such
>> > > > > a statement.
>>
>> > > > Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believ=
>e
>> > > > that he would have considered those possibilities?
>>
>> > > You miss the point. He assumed it was a CD when kookers showed hi the
>> > > video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
>d
>> > > fires, he would not have offered such an opinion.
>>
>> > Do you have a link to him saying that he changed his mind once he
>> > learned more?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
>>
>> changed his story in 2005, not after he learned more but as he decided
>> to throw in with the kook side.
>>
>> Read his original story. Before he changed it. The man in the elevator
>> the truth. Other witnesses in the lobby experienced the same thing.
>> Suddenly the story shifts and the guy is burned by some mysterious
>>
>> > =A0And did he ever comment on how sneaky the kooks were in
>> > tricking him?
>>
>> You are now confusing two people here.
>
>No, you are.
>
>Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
>
>> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
>> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
>> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>
>Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
>explosives caused after the impacts.
How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
Here's what the chief said:
----------------------------------------
FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.
FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: ... we
were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and
13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible
bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 10:40=A0am, "Dennis E Strausser Jr"
><dlwstraus...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Give it up Iarnrod.
>> This 007 guy will never get it.
>
>As long as he keeps repeating that no one testified to sequenced
>explosions just before the buildings fell, that the collapse of
>building 7 was "completely asymmetrical," and that the towers fell at
>1/3 times free fall speed, I'll definitely "never get it." Are those
>who say that no plane hit the south tower kookier than that?
>
>> You're just wasting you're time.
>> 007 just cant grasp the fact, that our government
>> always has our backs.
>> They tried on that day back in 2001, they failed.
>
>The problem I have with the "incompetence theory" is that no one was
>disciplined. If the FAA was as incompetent in reporting problems with
>the planes as the 9/11 Commission, after hearing at least 3 different
>stories from NORAD, said they were, someone should have gotten fired
>and/or charged with manslaughter.
>
>> How bout this 007, try and handle just one of the threats
>> our government has to deal with every single day.
>> Which is over 100. It takes anywhere from one day, and up to
>> weeks to investigate just one.
>> Our Government knew it was coming, but unfortunately, they didn't know
>> where.
>> That's one of the things that you CT kooks like to pick on.
>s,
>> but our
>> government isn't perfect. They had the wrong place.
>> Are you God 007? If not, then your as imperfect as the rest of us.
>g
>> will
>> still slip thru.
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what should have happened that day with
>NORAD. I've read, I believe by an air force pilot, before 9/11, that
BEEP BEEP BEEP k00k changes topics instead of addressing point BEEP BEEP BEEP
animal02
Yes, The only other "intercept" that took place was Payne Stewart's
plane, and that took almost an hour.
>I
> believe that presidential authority would have been necessary for
> planes to have been shot down.
>Don't you find it odd that after both
> towers had been hit and air traffic control knew of other hijackings,
> the president was still reading in that classroom,
No
> neither concerned
> about his safety,
a false speculation
> somehow seeming to know that he wasn't a target,
> even though his schedule had been made public, nor prepared to issue
> an order to shoot down the other planes?
more false speculations.
Iarnrod
No, c’mon here. You confused Rodriguez and Jowenko. You can’t run from
that. It’s archived. I never said any kooks tricked Rodriguez. And the
fact that you seemed unaware of the widely known fact that Rodriguez
didn’t say anything about his phony “explosions before the plane
impact” story for several YEARS afterward is very interesting to me. I
mean, everyone knew this.
> Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
>
> > You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
> > structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
> > you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>
> Yes, I can, …
No you can’t. It’s an integral part of the cause of the collapses. You
cannot view every cause in isolation and then rule one out because it
alone couldn’t have caused the collapse. I *agree* fire alone or
impact alone might not have collapsed the buildings. It’s the impact
damage that permitted the enormous dynamic load, when the upper block
moved, to destroy the structures.
> in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
> explosives caused after the impacts.
Compare away, but you must always marry them and assess the integrated
damage of both together, because THAT’S what caused the collapse.
Even though, of course, fire alone without any structural impact
damage WAS sufficient to collapse the entire steel frame of the Madrid
Windsor Tower.
> > Witnesses did not hear, see or feel any controlled demolition
> > explosives.
>
> zzzzzz.
Oddly fitting that you would be sleeping through the proof that your
argument is physically impossible. It does explain a lot! <chuckle>
Al Dykes
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 3:18 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 12:13 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 007 wrote:
>> > > On Aug 10, 6:09 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> a
>> > > > > > > controlled demolition?
>>
>> > > > > > No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands.=
> He has
>> > > > > > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the vid=
>eo
>> > > > > > *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and rag=
>ing
>> > > > > > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about t=
>he
>> > > > > > damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would ma=
>ke such
>> > > > > > a statement.
>>
>> > > > > Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you beli=
>eve
>> > > > > that he would have considered those possibilities?
>>
>he
>> > > > video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
>led
>> > > > fires, he would not have offered such an opinion.
>>
>> > > Do you have a link to him saying that he changed his mind once he
>> > > learned more?
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
>>
>> > changed his story in 2005, not after he learned more but as he decided
>> > to throw in with the kook side.
>>
>> > Read his original story. Before he changed it. The man in the elevator
>> > the truth. Other witnesses in the lobby experienced the same thing.
>> > Suddenly the story shifts and the guy is burned by some mysterious
>>
>> > > And did he ever comment on how sneaky the kooks were in
>> > > tricking him?
>>
>> > You are now confusing two people here.
>>
>> No, you are.
>
>that. It=92s archived. I never said any kooks tricked Rodriguez. And the
>fact that you seemed unaware of the widely known fact that Rodriguez
>impact=94 story for several YEARS afterward is very interesting to me. I
>mean, everyone knew this.
>
>> Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
>>
>> > You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
>> > structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
>> > you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>>
>
>No you can=92t. It=92s an integral part of the cause of the collapses. You
>cannot view every cause in isolation and then rule one out because it
>impact alone might not have collapsed the buildings. It=92s the impact
>damage that permitted the enormous dynamic load, when the upper block
>moved, to destroy the structures.
>
The 1974 (year from memory) office floor fire in WTC1 or WTC2 was
sufficient to do local structural damage to the truss system. This
fire was small enough to be contained by the sprinkler system and
since there was no general loss of firefighting water, was able to be
suppressed by NYFD when they showed up.
Source: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn p.67.
On 9/11, the fire was orders of magnitude larger, the sprinkler system
was overwhealmed and disabled by the airplane crash and the firemen
never had a chance to fight the fire.
The truss failure in 1974 is consistant with the videos we have of the
beginning of the collapse in 2001. Here's one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en
Starting at 5:18 - Lots of flame prior to collapse
Lots of pics of beams bending innward
3:00 600 pounds TNT in truck
Iarnrod
> On Aug 11, 10:40 am, "Dennis E Strausser Jr"
>
> <dlwstraus...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Give it up Iarnrod.
> > This 007 guy will never get it.
>
I am not a he.
> … keeps repeating that no one testified to sequenced
> explosions just before the buildings fell…
That is true. Do you dispute it? It cannot be disputed. It is
unequivocally true, and it is available for all to see worldwide on
the videos and audios. There were NO sequenced CD explosions, none at
all. That’s not even questionable.
> that the collapse of building 7 was "completely asymmetrical,"
Is there some reason you dispute this? If you dispute it, it can only
be that you have chosen to avoid all of the evidence. We can even SEE
the collapse begin with the east penthouse, meaning the southeast
portion of the building was falling into the street well ahead of the
widely seen global collapse of the remaining north façade. Parts of
WTC7 literally PUNCTURED two other buildings high up across the
street.
This cannot possibly fit anyone’s definition of a symmetrical
collapse. It was completely chaotic. You are basing your claim only on
the last visible collapse of the north and west walls, by which time
much of the internal structure of the building already lay in the
streets below.
> and that the towers fell at 1/3 times free fall speed,
Do you own a watch with a second hand? Have a stopwatch? Even a moron
can count to 20 by taking his shoes off. The tower collapses are on
VIDEO, for crying out loud. The fall from the top to the street took
in excess of 20 seconds per tower. Free fall would be nine+ seconds
(actually a bit less since the collapse initiation points were lower
that the tops of the buildings).
This cannot be denied because thousands of videos exist.
Time them, honey, and you’ll see I am right.
> I'll definitely "never get it."
I believe that!
> Are those
> who say that no plane hit the south tower kookier than that?
Those who say no plane hit the south tower are certifiably insane.
> > You're just wasting you're time.
> > 007 just cant grasp the fact, that our government
> > always has our backs.
> > They tried on that day back in 2001, they failed.
>
> The problem I have with the "incompetence theory" is that no one was
> disciplined.
For what?
> If the FAA was as incompetent in reporting problems with
> the planes as the 9/11 Commission, after hearing at least 3 different
> stories from NORAD, said they were, someone should have gotten fired
> and/or charged with manslaughter.
Nonsense. The rapidity with which the events unfolded engulfed the
system as it existed on 9/11. Most of it was over before the magnitude
of what the terrorists were doing was manifest.
> > How bout this 007, try and handle just one of the threats
> > our government has to deal with every single day.
> > Which is over 100. It takes anywhere from one day, and up to
> > weeks to investigate just one.
> > Our Government knew it was coming, but unfortunately, they didn't know
> > where.
> > That's one of the things that you CT kooks like to pick on.
> > They had the right side of the country, putting extra guard on our weapons,
> > but our
> > government isn't perfect. They had the wrong place.
> > Are you God 007? If not, then your as imperfect as the rest of us.
> > We strive to have great security, but no matter how hard we try, something
> > will
> > still slip thru.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what should have happened that day with
> NORAD.
?? NORAD had nothing to do with monitoring for domestic hijackings. If
you’re still trying to figure THAT out, then it’s no wonder you have
such fantasy beliefs about the rest of 9/11.
> I've read, I believe by an air force pilot, before 9/11, that
> any plane which either goes significantly off course, turns its
> transponder off, or stops communicating, can expect 2 fighter jets at
> its side within 10 minutes. Do you think that's way off base?
It’s not only off the base, it’s not only not even in the ball park,
it’s in a completely different country called Fantasyland.
There is no way even AFTER 9/11 that such a thing could occur. It took
80 minutes for a single interceptor to reach Payne Stewart’s
Gulfstream even after notification.
Ten minutes for two fighter jets to be alongside a hijacked aircraft
is not even physically possible, flightwise, unless the hijackers are
circling an Air Force Base. Yeesh.
> I
> believe that presidential authority would have been necessary for
> planes to have been shot down. Don't you find it odd that after both
> towers had been hit and air traffic control knew of other hijackings,
> the president was still reading in that classroom, neither concerned
> about his safety, somehow seeming to know that he wasn't a target,
> even though his schedule had been made public, nor prepared to issue
> an order to shoot down the other planes?
That’s not an accurate rendition of what happened. He was taken out
after the second hit, before which the people in Florida were
presuming the first hit was a tragic accident.
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 10:40=A0am, "Dennis E Strausser Jr"
><dlwstraus...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Give it up Iarnrod.
>> This 007 guy will never get it.
>
>As long as he keeps repeating that no one testified to sequenced
>explosions just before the buildings fell, that the collapse of
>building 7 was "completely asymmetrical," and that the towers fell at
>1/3 times free fall speed, I'll definitely "never get it." Are those
"1/3" ??? Try two- three times, as shown in the video of the collapse
and the high-school physics, all here:
WTC7 was 610 ft tall.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
The WTC7 "fast as free-fall" crap is wrong by huge amounts. Free fall
for WTC7 (610 ft.) would be 6.17 seconds. WTC7 could be 2,000 ft high
for 11 seconds to be "free fall".
Equations: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
BDK
@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, 0...@embarqmail.com says...
> On Aug 11, 12:13 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 007 wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 6:09 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 9, 10:26 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Aug 9, 8:24 pm, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Mr. Jowenko didn't mention any
> > > > > > > of that. Did he really change his mind about building 7 being a
> > > > > > > controlled demolition?
> >
> > > > > > No. Not at all. But Mr. Jowenko is a person in the Netherlands. He has
> > > > > > no connection with this case. The kookers who showd him the video
> > > > > > *failed to inform him* of the massive structural damage and raging
> > > > > > fires. That's why he said what he did. He didn't *know* about the
> > > > > > damage and fires. That makes it not surprising that he would make such
> > > > > > a statement.
> >
> > > > > Assuming you accept that he's a demolition expert, don't you believe
> > > > > that he would have considered those possibilities?
> >
> > > > You miss the point. He assumed it was a CD when kookers showed hi the
> > > > video. They did not even tell him it was the WTC7 building. Had he
> > > > been told of the massive structural damage and the raging uncontrolled
> > > > fires, he would not have offered such an opinion.
> >
> > > Do you have a link to him saying that he changed his mind once he
> > > learned more?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
> >
> > changed his story in 2005, not after he learned more but as he decided
> > to throw in with the kook side.
> >
> > Read his original story. Before he changed it. The man in the elevator
> > the truth. Other witnesses in the lobby experienced the same thing.
> > Suddenly the story shifts and the guy is burned by some mysterious
> >
> > > And did he ever comment on how sneaky the kooks were in
> > > tricking him?
> >
> > You are now confusing two people here.
>
> No, you are.
>
> Thanks for the link. I'll read it.
>
> > You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
> > structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
> > you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>
> Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
> explosives caused after the impacts.
>
> > Witnesses did not hear, see or feel any controlled demolition
> > explosives.
>
> zzzzzz
>
Did you sleep through science class too?
If there were no explosive charges heard just before the collapse, and
there weren't any, then it couldn't have been a demolition.
Or are you one of those poor folks who believe in "Silent Explosives"?
BDK
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Now you've got it!!!
Just go look it up!
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So i could run giganews and get binaries even though I'm using
>Verizon? I'll think about it. Thanks.
Exactly. Provider for the pipe to the big pool known as the Internet
has nothing to do with where you ultimately pump the water that comes
through it from.
Patrick Keenan
"Disneygeek" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c174983-2fe3-4530...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
============
That's entirely up to you. The problem at the moment is that you seem to
not understand the technical aspects, and so can't really take informed
action in any manner.
-pk
Patrick Keenan
===============
Absolutely correct. Whether you're using Verizon or AOL or Acme Internet
doesn't matter at all. You can get an account on *any* news server system,
such as Giganews or Supernews and use it regardless of your ISP.
In fact, this is a better choice because if you travel, you will still have
access to the news servers when you are off the "home" network.
HTH
-pk
Disneygeek
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, Xnews didn't work that way, it used the Verizon account and
where Verizon went, so went Xnews.
007
> In article <8cb9595c-7bc3-40af-9256-4dffa1445...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
> >> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
> >> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>
> >Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
> >explosives caused after the impacts.
>
> How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
> leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
How do you know that that's what it was due to? It's inconsistent to
say that fire can gradually bring a building to the point of collapse
and then say that "controlled demolition explosions" must be present
for it to have been a "controlled demolition," as if "non controlled
demolition explosions" couldn't do what you say fire did. You've
written that a very special kind of explosive, set off in a very
special way, is required to cut such large steel beams and make a
building collapse, but then you write that fire did it without any of
that. How did fire accomplish what only these very special explosives
can do? Why do demolition companies spend months preparing buildings
for collapse? Why don't they just light matches to them?
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 4:25=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <8cb9595c-7bc3-40af-9256-4dffa1445...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 007 =A0<0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 11, 12:13=3DA0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
>> >> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
>> >> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>>
>> >Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
>> >explosives caused after the impacts.
>>
>> How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
>> leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
>
>How do you know that that's what it was due to? It's inconsistent to
>say that fire can gradually bring a building to the point of collapse
Because NYFD Chief Hayden, in command at the time says the building
was beginning to shift as measured as early as 2PM. His statement is
below.
Is he lying?
Because more than 100 eyewitness firemen say so.
41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building
Are they lying?
All names and their full text statements are to be found via the
links, below.
FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.
FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we
were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and
13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible
bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock
in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
ALL FIREMEN STATEMENTS.
Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Lookup for a few non-fireman transcripts:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
Disneygeek
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because they would also have to run airplanes into them first. (Or
drop pieces from a large tower onto them.) They'd also have to all be
designed like the WTC!
The simple fact is, no explosions were heard or recorded at the
initiation of the collapses.
Iarnrod
> On Aug 12, 4:25 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> > In article <8cb9595c-7bc3-40af-9256-4dffa1445...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 11, 12:13=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
> > >> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
> > >> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>
> > >Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
> > >explosives caused after the impacts.
>
> > How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
> > leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
>
> How do you know that that's what it was due to?
Because that’s what happened to the building – structural damage and
raging uncontrolled fires.
“Controlled demolition” charges don’t go off three to four hours
before a collapse.
> It's inconsistent to
> say that fire can gradually bring a building to the point of collapse
> and then say that "controlled demolition explosions" must be present
> for it to have been a "controlled demolition," as if "non controlled
> demolition explosions" couldn't do what you say fire did.
No one said that. And in any case, the irrefutable FACT that there
were no controlled demolition explosions eliminates controlled
demolition as a possible cause.
> You've
> written that a very special kind of explosive, set off in a very
> special way, is required to cut such large steel beams and make a
> building collapse, but then you write that fire did it without any of
> that.
Fire did not “cut” any beams. No one said it did. Fire and huge
structural damage weakened key support points and began the collapse
on the southeast side, leading to a progressive failure due to dynamic
loading.
It’s very simple to understand except for kooks apparently who need to
reject physical reality in order to preserve their physically
impossible fantasies.
> How did fire accomplish what only these very special explosives
> can do?
WTF “very special explosives” are you talking about? You’re the only
one talking about them.
> Why do demolition companies spend months preparing buildings
> for collapse? Why don't they just light matches to them?
Because that wouldn’t be sufficient. They would also have to fly fully
loaded jetliners into them at 500+ mph, and that’s not allowed.
Kookers think they can ignore the totality of the cause and isolate
one at a time as “insufficient” thinking that invalidates the
totality. It’s kooker logic at its finest – dumb.
Mind you, that’s even though fire alone WAS sufficient to cause the
complete collapse of Madrid’s Windsor Tower steel framed structure.
BDK
@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
I think you're making this way too hard..
Xnews is a Newsreader! It's not a newsserver! Gravity, Agent, Xnews,
etc, are newsreaders, programs used to access usenet. Giganews and quite
a few others are newsservers, you set up Xnews, etc to use a Giganews
account, just like email, you can use any email program or account on
almost any PC, you just have to set it up right.
All Verizon is is the ACCESS to the net, you don't have to use their
news servers. Some ISP's don't even have them at all. No problem, you
just get an account at Giganews or whatever.
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 4:25=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <8cb9595c-7bc3-40af-9256-4dffa1445...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 11, 12:13=3DA0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massive
>> >> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as well;
>> >> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>>
>> >Yes, I can, in comparing what the damage from fire was to what damage
>> >explosives caused after the impacts.
>>
>> How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
>> leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
>
>How do you know that that's what it was due to? It's inconsistent to
>say that fire can gradually bring a building to the point of collapse
Then why is the steel in ALL steel-framed buildings coated in
fireproofing material and the buildings are equipped with sprinklers
and it is illegal to store large quantities of fuel oil in them?
For legal reasons, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 didn't have to follow those
laws and these buildings were literally unique in the whole world.
Due to loopholes in the fire code law, the impact of the planes and
other facts, ALL of the above was NOT the case for WTC1, 2, and 7 on
9/11/2001.
Petroleum-fueled fires burned in buildings that had compromised
fireproofing and damaged shrinker systems.
The buildings fell down.
Nobody with any relevant expertise is surprised.
Nobody.
The literal handful of self-identified experts that claim otherwise
refuse to speak in public and explain why and answer relevant
questions.
Why should I believe them?
george
> In article <da1a5bee-8332-4624-92de-1be435be4129
> @i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
If he wants to use Google groups there's a marvelous kill file
designed for Google.
Peter Clark
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, Xnews didn't work that way, it used the Verizon account and
>where Verizon went, so went Xnews.
Xnews does work that way. What you didn't do is configure Xnews to
use some other news server than Verizons.
Disneygeek
> In article <da1a5bee-8332-4624-92de-1be435be4129
> @i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
Ah, newsREADER vs. newsSERVER! It takes me awhile, but I get it now.
Thanks.
Disneygeek
<Inval...@NotIn.YourLifetime.com.hatespam> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Disneygeek
>
> >Well, Xnews didn't work that way, it used the Verizon account and
> >where Verizon went, so went Xnews.
>
> Xnews does work that way. What you didn't do is configure Xnews to
> use some other news server than Verizons.
Because I don't have one.
007
Did the damage to building 7 from the explosion of the north tower
cause the fires in building 7 or did the explosions that were heard in
building 7, including some before the north tower was destroyed, or
both or neither?
> They'd also have to all be
> designed like the WTC!
>
> The simple fact is, no explosions were heard or recorded at the
> initiation of the collapses.
Al Dykes completely evaded my question by repeating something
irrelevant. Maybe you'll answer it:
If fire can gradually bring a building to the point of a complete,
symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed, why can't "non
controlled demolition explosives?"
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 13, 5:43=A0am, Disneygeek <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 3:16=A0am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 12, 4:25=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <8cb9595c-7bc3-40af-9256-4dffa1445...@v16g2000prc.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>>
>> > > 007 =A0<0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Aug 11, 12:13=3DA0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >> You ask if fire is much more powerful. You keep ignoring the massi=
>ve
>> > > >> structural damage from the impacts. You must factor that in as wel=
>l;
>> > > >> you cannot isolate it and ignore it.
>>
>e
>> > > >explosives caused after the impacts.
>>
>> > > How do you account for the fact that the building was shown to be
>> > > leaning due to structural failure and fire as early as 2PM?
>>
>> > say that fire can gradually bring a building to the point of collapse
>> > and then say that "controlled demolition explosions" must be present
>> > for it to have been a "controlled demolition," as if "non controlled
>> > written that a very special kind of explosive, set off in a very
>> > special way, is required to cut such large steel beams and make a
>> > building collapse, but then you write that fire did it without any of
>s
>> > can do? =A0Why do demolition companies spend months preparing buildings
>> > for collapse? =A0Why don't they just light matches to them?- Hide quote=
>d text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Because they would also have to run airplanes into them first. (Or
>> drop pieces from a large tower onto them.)
>
>Did the damage to building 7 from the explosion of the north tower
>cause the fires in building 7 or did the explosions that were heard in
>building 7, including some before the north tower was destroyed, or
>both or neither?
Nobody heard man-made explsions at WTC.
Jennings is the sole source of your claim and he won't speak in public
or answer wuestions about his claims, so why should I believe him?
Iarnrod
Yes.
> or did the explosions that were heard in
> building 7, including some before the north tower was destroyed, or
> both or neither?
There were no explosions in WTC7 before the WTC1 collapse.
> > They'd also have to all be
> > designed like the WTC!
>
> > The simple fact is, no explosions were heard or recorded at the
> > initiation of the collapses.
>
> Al Dykes completely evaded my question by repeating something
> irrelevant. Maybe you'll answer it:
> If fire can gradually bring a building to the point of a complete,
> symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed,
You are once again ignoring the effect of the massive structural
damage. It was the damage PLUS the fires that caused the collapse of
WTC7. As you continue to ignore this vital fact, you show you are not
really interested in answers to this subject.
You also continue to lie about the nature of the collapse. It was not
symmetrical at all, as I have proven to you, and it was not anywhere
near free-fall speed. It was a *minimum* of 16 seconds AFTER the first
visible sign of the collapse *already occurring* on the southeast
side. That visible sign meant it was already happening prior to the
-16 second mark.
> why can't "non controlled demolition explosives?"
Of course explosives can also cause a building to collapse. What do
you mean by “non controlled demolition explosives?” I’ve seen
buildings blow up from gas leaks, for example. But what’s your point?
The fact is, since the building was known to be collapsing due to the
damage and fires, to the extent that FDNY pulled its firefighting
effort and waited for the inevitable event, what would any additional
explosives have to do with anything? More importantly, there were no
explosives of ANY KIND going off just prior to the collapse, so it is
physically impossible that any “silent and invisible” explosives had
any role here.
007
> On Aug 15, 3:45 am, 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Did the damage to building 7 from the explosion of the north tower
> > cause the fires in building 7
>
> Yes.
How do you know? How do you know it wasn't the explosions that caused
the fires?
You have great certainty. You "know" everything. If you like feeling
embarrassed, I highly recommend you reread, with a little more care
than you have, that discussion about Danny Jowenko and William
Rodriguez in which I was discussing Jowenko, you changed the subject
to Rodriguez, you said that I was confusing the two, I said "no, you
are," and, with as much certainty as you just answered my question
about the fires in building 7, you wrote "No, c’mon here. You confused
Rodriguez and Jowenko. You can’t run from that. It’s archived." Let's
see if you have the character to admit you're wrong. Who knows? You
might even salvage some credibility. But then, if you write something
like "There were no explosions in WTC7 before the WTC1 collapse," as
if you "know" that Barry Jennings is either lying or mistaken with as
much certainty as you "know" that I confused Jowenko and Rodriguez,
probably not.