OT: Ping Chris Robin or JoeTurn - 9/11 Question
Paul Popinjay
following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
"How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours – without even a
crime scene investigation?"
"How come none of the 19′s names appeared on the passenger lists released
the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
-PP
fffurken
> Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
"The only reason I have to believe Chris Robin is an idiot is because
he's a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Everything else speaks to the
contrary".
That's me, quoting myself.
Seriously Paul, yawn. What are you trying to do here? Some 9/11
conspiracy chat, yank the 9/11 conspircacy theorists chain? For your
amusement?
Stop trolling.
joeturn
DEBUNKING is the joke the government cronies set out to debunk
everything that has potentual to connect the government with this
travisty!
So the answer is no there has been nothing debunked just government
coverups as usual!
They tell one lie after the other to back up their claim!
Now in 1989 there was plans to take the towers down using scaffolding
but the project was stopped by the men in black! The reason they were
being torndown was because they were being eaten alive by galvanic
errosion they were almost ready to collapse on there own!
Asbestos applied by Haliburtin was not used under the correct
proceedure and demolition would cause wide spread law suits and expose
the guilt of the contractor that errected the buildings.Thus it had to
be by some other source years of planning they came up with a
terrorist attack to go to war killing two birds with one stone.
The 19 terrorist were given visas to visit the USA by the feds as
they
were going to be the scapegoats for the Government!
Most of the terrorist are still alive and doing well 5 of them are
still on the US Payrole for covert operations!.So now you know they
were invited here by the Feds for that purpose.The drivers license
were most like fraudulant because of the type of visas they were here
on!
None -the-less keep in mine none of the planes ever hit the buildings
that day not even the pentagram!
ramashiva
> "How come none of the 19′s names appeared on the passenger lists released
> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
Why do you waste your time on this nonsensical bullshit???
Seriously, Paul, WTF is wrong with you?
This question is based on a false premise. The names of all the
hijackers appear on the flight manifests. End of story.
Get a fucking life already.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/05/911-hijackers-not-on-flight-manifests/
William Coleman (ramashiva)
da pickle
>I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
> following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
> internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
> for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
> response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>
> I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>
>
> "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
> perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a
> crime scene investigation?"
>
> "How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released
> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
>
>
> Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
You need to watch NCIS once in a while, Paul.
joeturn
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no
two-bit internet conspiracy buff.
Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has
personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous
man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to
get this information out to people.
The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show.
Forwarded with Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate
News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning
to Breathe Free.
Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may
know the truth of 9/11.
The Bush Junta Unmasked
"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation.
Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the
attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton
Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers'
lawsuit
Alex Jones Radio Show September 10, 2004 Transcription by 'RatCat'
AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very
successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims
families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a
major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was
involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the
next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with
us.
SH: Glad to be on.
AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in
a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military
officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your
case alleging?
SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and
Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only
in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually
ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have
some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush
personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political
advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons
and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point
out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons.
At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith
and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And
we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior
thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential
dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So,
technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.
AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like
professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I
know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar
lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved.
SH: 7 billion, 7 billion
AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating
evidence you've got of them ordering the attack?
SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers' class action
lawsuit as well as a suit on behalf of the families and the basic
three arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this
event. And secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act,
Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent
evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of
course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved
with that, and all these lies.
AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we've got to break. Let's come
back and get into the evidence. BREAK
AJ: All right my friends, second hour, September 10th, 2004, the
anniversary of the globalist attack coming up tomorrow. It's an
amazing individual we have on the line. Bob Dole's former chief of
staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld
and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a
dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S.
government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims'
families signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is
Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los
Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please
sir, recap what you were just stating and then let's get into the new
evidence. And then we'll get into why you are being harassed by the
FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the
whistle on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us
all about it.
SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to
happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a
witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S.
undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the
CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their
landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this
was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George
W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents
as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in
spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally
ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals
of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant
on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card
whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to
kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another
rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had
seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a
few months later at a California press conference when he said he had,
quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower."
And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was
was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a
personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the
Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the
federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to
Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political
gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering
Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been
harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is
instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off
the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI.
My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken
into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.
FangBanger
> I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
> following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
> internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
> for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
> response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>
> I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>
>
> "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
> perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours – without even a
> crime scene investigation?"
airport video
>
> "How come none of the 19′s names appeared on the passenger lists released
> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
phony id's ... whats the point here ?
>
>
> Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
>
> -PP
I know the 2 billion is an inflated number, but no one has come up
with a figure that is accurate.
Alim acknowleding that he is full of shit
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ChrisRobin
> I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
> following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
> internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
> for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
> response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>
> I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>
> "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
> perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours -- without even a
> crime scene investigation?"
>
> "How come none of the 19 names appeared on the passenger lists released
> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
>
> Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
See Ramashiva's post. It describes the chronology of the release of the
manifests (and also notes that the manifests of Flights 11 and 77 have
NEVER been released).
More secrecy and unanswered questions, unfortunately.
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
>
> Get a fucking life already.
>
> http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/05/911-hijackers-not-on-
flight-manifests/
>
First of all, I was asking Chris and Joe, not you, nor Fffurken, nor Da
Pickle, and CERTAINLY not FangBanger.
And second, I was just reading some stuff today and figured I would just
ask an innocent question, OF CHRIS, AND JOE! Is that ok with you? Maybe
I don't have a life. Maybe I haven't been laid in 20 years either. Ever
think of that? So what the fuck is wrong with me asking a question,
especially when I know there are some people on this newsgroup, LIKE
CHRIS AND JOE, who know a fuck of a lot more about this subject than I do?
And further, what else was I going to do today? It is already
established that I have no life. I went to the market this morning to
buy some Fuji Apples and cat litter. Then I went to Home Depot again, to
get something I forgot to get yesterday when I went there after seeing
the two old ladies in the Prius. So what else should I have done today?
I guess I could have read your thread about global warming. I could have
drawn up a pot of hot tea, wrapped myself in a warm blanket, because it's
fucking cold in here, and read your thread about global warming.
Paul Popinjay
>
> See Ramashiva's post. It describes the chronology of the release of the
> manifests (and also notes that the manifests of Flights 11 and 77 have
> NEVER been released).
>
> More secrecy and unanswered questions, unfortunately.
>
I am reading Ramashiva's linked to article now. This will take some
time, I am a slow reader. I have Ramashiva's info to read, and then
Joe's information to read. I'm not going out anymore tonight. It's
cold. And I already earned enough points at the casino for December. I
should make the top tier in the slot club this month. I'll just fix some
tea, eat a Fuji apple, and read some of this stuff from you guys.
popinjay999
Joe, what do you mean no planes hit the buildings? Wtf is that? I'm
not talking the Pentagon, I mean the WTC.
popinjay999
>
> http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
>
Reading this. Fascinating! I had not even heard of Stanley Hilton
before. Where the fuck have I been?
popinjay999
"....some of these hijackers, at least some of them were on the
payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI, CIA, double agents.
They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in effect, all this
led up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the George Bush
administration, basically."
joeturn
> On Dec 12 2010 5:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> > I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
> > following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
> > internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
> > for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
> > response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>
> > I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>
> > "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
> > perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours – without even a
> > crime scene investigation?"
>
> airport video
Go back and check the airport video and the time and place it was
took!
>
>
>
> > "How come none of the 19′s names appeared on the passenger lists released
> > the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
>
> phony id's ... whats the point here ?
You are catching on now they were fake Ids planted by the FEDs to
colaberate their farse is the point!
igotskillz
it isnt a Bush Creation. Osama's dad had a crew way back.
Saudi King loses his soldiers now as his partner, Bush maintains security.
End result is rich bush, rich king, no crazies.
________________________________________________________________________
joeturn
You have been, busy being deprived of imformation by the media!
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
They had to go to plan B and fake the crashes using cartooned
video,because there was too much of a risk the planes would miss their
intended targets!
Pepe Papon
<joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The 19 terrorist were given visas to visit the USA by the feds as
>they
>were going to be the scapegoats for the Government!
>
>
>Most of the terrorist are still alive and doing well 5 of them are
>still on the US Payrole for covert operations!
And you know this how, exactly?
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Flights 11 and 77 were in a hanger under-going routined maintinance
they never left the ground that day!
The wheels on report indicated this!
joeturn
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:10:32 -0800 (PST), joeturn
>
>
> >The 19 terrorist were given visas to visit the USA by the feds as
> >they
> >were going to be the scapegoats for the Government!
>
> >Most of the terrorist are still alive and doing well 5 of them are
> >still on the US Payrole for covert operations!
>
> And you know this how, exactly?
You do too!
Clave
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:072c9f87-5eba-4a37...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Thank you.
Exactly the reply warranted.
--
"Lie some more, shithead
I do it all the time"
-- Beldin the Obvious
joeturn
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
This video will tell you where the hijackers are working today!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#docid=-3094325071318294910
ChrisRobin
That's old news, but I'd never heard of this Stanley Hilton guy until
today. That boy's got a mouth on him, for sure.
Here's some other interesting stuff I came across today: an in-depth look
into who likely had access to the WTC... Lots of connections that are
important to understanding the big picture IMO:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
1st of a 4 part series. A lot of information to absorb but it's really
interesting to note the recurring cast of characters: AIG. BCCI. Rudy
Giuliani. Michael Chertoff. Paul Bremer. Halliburton. Yada yada yada...
------
joeturn
ficticous flight and why did they call it 77?
popinjay999
>
> This video will tell you where the hijackers are working today!
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#docid=-30...
Joe, this was obviously an Italian film, and the dubbed voices makes
it too annoying for me to watch. Still interested in knowing more
about the hijackers, but I'm not going to spend well over an hour
watching that, on top of reading everything else.
popinjay999
>
> Here's some other interesting stuff I came across today: an in-depth look
> into who likely had access to the WTC... Lots of connections that are
> important to understanding the big picture IMO:
>
> http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
>
> 1st of a 4 part series. A lot of information to absorb but it's really
> interesting to note the recurring cast of characters: AIG. BCCI. Rudy
> Giuliani. Michael Chertoff. Paul Bremer. Halliburton. Yada yada yada...
>
..... Brookings, Trilateral Commission, Wolfowitz, Kissinger,
Greenberg, Friedman, Marsh, Prescott Jr., I can't take this. It's
like 4:00 in the morning here, and I have to get ready for work.
Going to have to finish this later. Too much info to absorb right
now. I WILL finish this later.
One thing, though, that I have to say, is that it sickens me how many
people have pretty much swallowed the official line hook line and
sinker and essentially don't give a fuck anymore. And this happened
ONLY nine years ago. This really sank in last week when I posted
about all the evidence pointing to advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor,
I posted it on Dec.7th. And nobody cares. You've got stupid people
like Susan, Bub, Fl Turbo and Will from New Haven, they have
essentially bought all the window dressing about 9/11, and they are
not alone. Why should people give a fuck that the same kind of
complicity happened in the planning, BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, of both
Pearl Harbor and 9/11, two events separated by 60 years?
Will_gamble
While you are reading. This is some information that make Stanley Hilton
seem a little unreliable as a source.
http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
joeturn
Well the title of that artical prooves it to be wrong they even start
off giving him a bad score based on his spelling!
The FAKE lawsuit contains tooooo many legal arguments not to be real!
So I'm not surprised he has not already commited suicide because of
his public intention to point fingers at the BUTT bush admiistration!
joeturn
It was from TEXICO that is why I posted it .It is not biased these
people wanted to show that the government appointed NIST COMMISION was
a farse..The film sold me because it was a better investigation .I had
no problem watching it,I never noticed any dubbing at all,I could
hardly stop watching it till the end and I still like to play it over
and over again.It is my Wizard of OZ/Its a Woderful Life,Miracle on
34th Street,ect... It just wont go away!
You cant determine which is right or wrong if you dont examine all the
evidence.The Country is Demonic and leading its citzens to
slaughter.The 4 part thing of ChrisRobin tells you this rabbit hole is
a "Bottomless Pit".It names lots of dots all you have to do is connect
them.The brown&root to all Evil is to follow the money.(gold brick
road)
Will_gamble
> On Dec 13, 9:26 am, "Will_gamble" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Dec 12 2010 9:53 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, joeturn <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
> >
> > > Reading this. Fascinating! I had not even heard of Stanley Hilton
> > > before. Where the fuck have I been?
> >
> > While you are reading. This is some information that make Stanley Hilton
> > seem a little unreliable as a source.
> >
> > http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html
> >
> Well the title of that artical prooves it to be wrong they even start
> off giving him a bad score based on his spelling!
>
"artical prooves"
So we should use spelling to determine whether we should read peoples
opinions? Wouldn't that pretty much eliminate everything you write?
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
No not at all you should use your comprehention skills to determine
your opinion. Grammar and spelling is a mental block for the educated,
They have been programmed not to think for themselves but to grade an
article on its use of correct grammar. This is where us uneducated
idiots have the upper hand. We can see through all the cannon fodder
and pick out the usful imformation is a post without getting hung up
on grammar.
Did you know our English teachers cant understand British people
because they use the correct prenonciation of the words and this
scrambles the mind of a USA teacher because they themselves cant speak
true English,all they know is how to spell!
ChrisRobin
> ...... Brookings, Trilateral Commission, Wolfowitz, Kissinger,
> Greenberg, Friedman, Marsh, Prescott Jr., I can't take this. It's
> like 4:00 in the morning here, and I have to get ready for work.
> Going to have to finish this later. Too much info to absorb right
> now. I WILL finish this later.
>
> One thing, though, that I have to say, is that it sickens me how many
> people have pretty much swallowed the official line hook line and
> sinker and essentially don't give a fuck anymore. And this happened
> ONLY nine years ago. This really sank in last week when I posted
> about all the evidence pointing to advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor,
> I posted it on Dec.7th. And nobody cares. You've got stupid people
> like Susan, Bub, Fl Turbo and Will from New Haven, they have
> essentially bought all the window dressing about 9/11, and they are
> not alone. Why should people give a fuck that the same kind of
> complicity happened in the planning, BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, of both
> Pearl Harbor and 9/11, two events separated by 60 years?
Life as we know it is a carefully stage-managed soap opera. Very little is
left to chance... "Coincidences" are for suckers and idiots.
_____________________________________________________________________
Will_gamble
> On Dec 13, 12:53 pm, "Will_gamble" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Dec 13 2010 10:21 AM, joeturn wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 13, 9:26 am, "Will_gamble" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 12 2010 9:53 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, joeturn <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
> >
> > > > > Reading this. Fascinating! I had not even heard of Stanley Hilton
> > > > > before. Where the fuck have I been?
> >
> > > > While you are reading. This is some information that make Stanley
Hilton
> > > > seem a little unreliable as a source.
> >
> > > >http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html
> >
> > > Well the title of that artical prooves it to be wrong they even start
> > > off giving him a bad score based on his spelling!
> >
> > "artical prooves"
> >
> > So we should use spelling to determine whether we should read peoples
> > opinions? Wouldn't that pretty much eliminate everything you write?
> >
> - Show quoted text -
>
> No not at all you should use your comprehension skills to determine
> your opinion. Grammar and spelling is a mental block for the educated,
> They have been programmed not to think for themselves but to grade an
> article on its use of correct grammar. This is where us uneducated
> idiots have the upper hand. We can see through all the cannon fodder
> and pick out the usful imformation is a post without getting hung up
> on grammar.
>
> Did you know our English teachers cant understand British people
> because they use the correct prenonciation of the words and this
> scrambles the mind of a USA teacher because they themselves cant speak
> true English,all they know is how to spell!
I misunderstood you, I thought you were referring to the spelling in the
article I posted.
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh I thought you was jerking my chain.
joeturn
>
You have to be more careful swallowing all that site has to offer for
instance this clip shows the no plane was a hoax and the pod was the
under carrageof a 757. My anallagy shows me that the previous 16 foot
hole in the pentagram had the words punch out written in red on them
indicating that portion should be removed before the public could see
the size of the hole and to make it large enought so that a 757 could
have did the damage but it was a missile that hit the pentagram if
anything did on 911!
The release of the missil video was most likely not a missle that hit
tower 2.I say it was a photo shopped cursor that was not faded out of
the cartoon.Cursor being a line drawn to the false impact area so the
plane could be edited into the video and line up with the preset
explosives!
NO planes hit any of the buildings that day and the theory was not
started by Donnald Rumsfelled
joeturn
you?
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
I will fetch you a copy if not!
The NO cell was not a hoax!
To this day nearly 10 years later you still cant make a cell phone
call aboard a jet plane flying 500 miles an hour>
Cell towers are assigned to each phone call if another towers signal
over powers the connection the original tower drops the call,because
of over ride the stronger tower cant relay the connection without
redialing the number and reassigning the new tower and by then the
next tower forces a disconnect!
The warning on board Jet planes of not to use cell phones because of
danger is a PHONEY excuse to keep the public from knowing that cell
phones wont work going that speed!
joeturn
ramashiva
> To this day nearly 10 years later you still cant make a cell phone
> call aboard a jet plane flying 500 miles an hour
> Cell towers are assigned to each phone call if another towers signal
> over powers the connection the original tower drops the call,because
> of over ride the stronger tower cant relay the connection without
> redialing the number and reassigning the new tower and by then the
> next tower forces a disconnect!
> The warning on board Jet planes of not to use cell phones because of
> danger is a PHONEY excuse to keep the public from knowing that cell
> phones wont work going that speed!
As usual, you are full of shit and do not know what you are talking
about. Cell phones do indeed work on commercial airliners, and a
little Googling will turn up many instances of people stating that
they have successfully used cell phones on airliners.
Go away. Seriously, just go away.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Will_gamble
I have no doubt about the hijackings and obviously saw the planes hit the
building, don't believe the conspiracy stuff.... That said, this makes
you scratch your head concerning reported use of cell phones.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
susan
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:h8dgt7x...@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 12 2010 6:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>> I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
>> following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
>> internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
>> for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
>> response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>>
>> I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>>
>> "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
>> perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours -- without even a
>> crime scene investigation?"
>>
>> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
>>
>> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
>
> See Ramashiva's post. It describes the chronology of the release of the
> manifests (and also notes that the manifests of Flights 11 and 77 have
> NEVER been released).
>
> More secrecy and unanswered questions, unfortunately.
I never heard this one - you are saying that the flight manifests are
available for our viewing for the other 2 flights involved, but not for 11
and 77? I had always understood that NO flight manifests were ever
available.
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then your a pathological liar you were not there, no one saw any
planes hit any building on 911 except the government stoogies!
What you saw, is what we all were fed! A cartoon.Bush is the only one
that saw a plane that day he even saw the first airplane hit and said
to himself "that piiot must have had a problem" or something to that
effect.That too was another lie as not even the Nadeu brother that
knew of the 911 conspiracy in advance and trained his camera on tower
1 before the explosion occured!
The other brother was watching the crowds reaction blocks away. They
both knew what time to set up their cameras an start their jobs
doccumenting a government ploy to go to war! As they did when they had
Churchhill sink them two luxury liners to invite us into WAR.
They also set up the Pearl Harbor scenario for the same excuse!
Cell phone technology will not work going that rate of speed! You
would be lucky if it held contact long enough to get a single ring
before it looses connection!
Believe the conspiracy stuff, very little of it is wrong! Your
Government conspired the 911 WAR maker$$$$$$
joeturn
New cell phone technology allows call from flights?
What about all those 9/11 calls?
”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of
the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to
project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04
“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has
improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above
10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04
Dear friends,
Below is a very interesting article in USA Today about new technology
enabling cell phone use on airplanes. We all know that you need to be
within range of a cell phone tower in order to make cell phone calls.
The new technology reported below sets up a beacon on planes allowing
the use of cell phones. Yet, it is most interesting that all of the
newspapers at the time of 9/11 reported multiple cell phone calls from
the hijacked planes which could not have been within reach of a cell
phone tower. Particularly on Flight 93, which crashed in the
countryside of Pennsylvania, numerous calls were reported to have been
made using cell phones, with at least one being a 30-minute call. How
is this possible?
Note the claim towards the end of the article: "It was widely known
that cell phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers use
them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several passengers aboard
hijacked airliners called loved ones." As far as I can tell, this is
not at all a widely known fact. In my work as an interpreter, I have
at times flown over 50,000 miles a year, yet have never seen or heard
of someone making a cell phone call from a plane. Have any of you ever
heard of this? Another unanswered question about 9/11. Please help
spread the news.
With best wishes,
Fred
Note: To find articles showing multiple cell phone use on Sept. 11,
2001, type "9/11" and "cell phone calls" into your favorite search
engine, or see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11?language=printer
[30-minute call] and http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/911.call/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2004-07-16-jet-phones_x.htm
Cell phones test positive on AA flight
FORT WORTH (AP) — With television cameramen hovering, Qualcomm chief
executive Irwin Jacobs sat in the front row of coach and made one of
the first legal cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner. After
chatting with a telecom industry lobbyist for a few minutes, Jacobs
pronounced the technology behind the airborne phone call a success,
although adding that it will be improved over the next couple years.
Jacobs and a group of reporters were aboard an American Airlines
jetliner Thursday as it took off from Dallas-Fort Worth International
Airport for a demonstration of Qualcomm's cellular technology at
25,000 feet.
The flight required special clearance from the Federal Aviation
Administration and Federal Communications Commission, which ban the
use of electronic devices abroad planes because of fear they would
interfere with navigation systems and cellular networks on the
ground.
"It's pretty cool," said Monte Ford, American's top technology
official.
Ford said he called his wife, secretary and friends in Paris and
Madrid and pronounced the quality of the links good, although he
acknowledged the international connections weren't quite as good as
domestic ones.
Reporters were given phones with code division multiple access, or
CDMA technology, and a few minutes to make and receive calls. Qualcomm
commercialized the CDMA technology used in wireless network equipment
and licenses system software to cell phone makers.
Connections from the plane were generally good, although some calls
were dropped. Sound quality was about the same as a regular cell call
on the ground, other than the loud background noise on the MD-80 jet.
There was a delay of about one second in the voice communications,
like that encountered when using a satellite phone, which interfered
with natural conversation. The delay was caused by the way voices are
digitally transmitted in so-called packets from the airplane to the
ground.
Also, the caller could not hear the phone ringing on the other end,
which caused at least one reporter to hang up while the person on the
other end was shouting into the receiver.
Jacobs said San Diego-based Qualcomm would spend the next two years
testing whether electronic signals interfered with the jet's avionics
system. He also said the technology would be improved and the one-
second delay would be shortened.
Eventually, air travelers should be able to make calls, download
movies and do all sorts of other things with wireless devices aboard
jetliners, he said.
"My guess is we will see the same kind of uses that you have with cell
phones on the ground — maybe even more because you're confined to a
seat for some time in a plane," Jacobs said.
The cooperation between Qualcomm and American is not exclusive.
Qualcomm is talking to other carriers around the world about testing
CDMA phones on their jets, and American may talk to other
telecommunications companies, officials said.
Qualcomm's CDMA technology is one of a few standards used worldwide to
convert voice into digital form for transmission over a wireless
network.
American would have an important advantage over competitors if it
could become the first U.S. carrier to allow cell phone use on most of
its planes, Ford said.
Several years ago, American installed seatback phones, which could be
used with a credit card, on many of its planes but ripped them out
except in some Boeing 777s and 767s on international routes.
"People found those phones expensive to use and not necessarily
convenient," Ford said. "They waited to get on the ground to make
calls with their cell phones."
The seatback phones use FAA-approved technology that doesn't interfere
with jet navigation systems. Airlines generally charge about $4 a
minute plus a $4 access charge.
Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell phones will
sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers use them surreptitiously.
On Sept. 11, 2001, several passengers aboard hijacked airliners called
loved ones.
However, the FAA and the airlines ban them because they fear that the
signals could interfere with navigational equipment. The FCC bans
their use from planes because the signals reach many cell-phone towers
and have been shown to disrupt cellular networks.
A nonprofit aeronautics group, RTCA Inc., is working on
recommendations to the FAA on guidelines for testing wireless
devices.
-- To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one
email every few days):
http://www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe --
Overwhelmed by this material? Click here
joeturn
> "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Flight 77 did not exist!
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/aa_flight_11_mainifest_popup.htm
I wonder how many of the crew are still alive?
ChrisRobin
> I never heard this one - you are saying that the flight manifests are
> available for our viewing for the other 2 flights involved, but not for 11
> and 77? I had always understood that NO flight manifests were ever
> available.
As far as I'm aware, manifests for Flights 11 and 77 were never released.
To clarify, I don't believe the other two flight manifests (93 and 175)
were ever released directly to the media. They were released on two other
occasions, though: once as evidence in the Moussaoui trial, and then a
second time when author Terry Mcdermott (supposedly) sourced them for his
biography of the hijackers, "Perfect Soldiers." No explanation has been
given as to why they were withheld from the media, but released to
Mcdermott... assuming he's on the level, of course.
The Boston Globe also ran a graphic on their website depicting a mocked-up
map of the seating arrangements for Flight 11, but it wasn't sourced so
it's not clear whether they got their information from the airline, the
FBI, or from an independent source/investigation.
That's all I know on the topic. I realize that doesn't exactly clear
anything up, but that's the nature of a lot of the specific details about
9/11 – the deeper you dig into them, the less sense all of the secrecy and
inconsistencies begin to make.
_______________________________________________________________________
joeturn
joeturn
It was first achieved in 2004 using new tecnology from Qualcom but not
possible anywhere in the world on 9/11/2001
bub
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>I realize that doesn't exactly clear
>anything up, but that's the nature of a lot of the specific details about
>9/11 � the deeper you dig into them, the less sense all of the secrecy and
>inconsistencies begin to make.
questions that need to be answered
"So if most of the energy of the falling debris was dissipated and was
not the cause of the major spikes in the seismic record then what was?
Perhaps massive explosions in the lowest (level -7) basements of the
Twin Towers, besides the supporting steel columns where they met the
Manhattan bedrock? Perhaps even small nuclear explosions? Not
Hiroshima-style 15-kiloton blasts but perhaps the sort produced by
mini-nukes developed in recent years by the Pentagon?"
yeahhhhhhhh,of course...nuclear explosions
Danny Quinn
> I was reading some apparently unanswered questions about 9/11 today. The
> following two questions about the hijackers themselves are all over the
> internet. What I want to know is, did anyone come up with an explanation
> for these two questions that I cannot find? What was the government's
> response, and did the Popular Mechanics crowd come up with a "debunk"?
>
> I copied these straight from the internet, verbatim.
>
> "How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim
> crime scene investigation?"
>
> "How come none of the 19′s names appeared on the passenger lists released
> the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?"
>
> Chris and Joe, you have read infinitely more about this than I have. Was
> there an "answer" or a "debunk" to these two questions? Thanks.
>
re: Popular Mechanics Nonsense
The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16
"myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with
"irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of
the U.S. government.
But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular
Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned
that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article
supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a
practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that
directly led to the creation of the massive national security
department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of
"journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't
respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin
Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly.
Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked
if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know."
Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me
that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist â
€“ the one who never answers the phone.
Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to
talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland
Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."
Jerry Sturdivant
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8d4e4fa-def9-4674...@f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Wow. I had no idea there were people this delusional.....
Jon
>> But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular
> Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned
> that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new
> Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4220721
Is PM staffer Benjamin Chertoff a cousin of Michael Chertoff,
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security?
As we explain in our book, it appears that they could be distant
relatives. The connection, if any exists, dates back to the 19th
century, before either family immigrated to the U.S. They have never
met, and never spoken to one another. Michael Chertoff has never
spoken with any member of the Popular Mechanics staff, nor with any
member of Benjamin Chertoff's family.
The speculation concerning the supposed Chertoff connection is a good
example of how conspiracy theorists often latch on to shreds of
information, but get the details wrong. Ben Chertoff ran PM's research
and fact-checking department at the time of the original magazine
article, and conducted some reporting for the story. He was not the
"senior editor," "head writer," or any of the other incorrect titles
lofted by theorists. (Ben was later promoted to online editor, and
recently left the magazine to pursue work as a freelance writer and
producer.)
Moreover, Michael Chertoff was not secretary of Homeland Security at
the time PM researched the original story. He was sworn in on Feb. 15,
2005, more than a month after the piece went to the printers.
Conspiracy theorists often present the supposed connection between
Benjamin and Michael Chertoff as ipso facto proof of some sort of
collaboration. But why would that be? There are nearly 30 people on
the editorial staff of PM. Virtually none of them knew each other--or
Ben--before coming to work here. So far, no one has explained to us
how they believe a relatively junior magazine staffer could convince
dozens of his colleagues to become complicit in a cover-up of one of
the worst attacks in U.S. history.
popinjay999
HEY DANNY! Do you see the lengths that people will go to to discount
THE OBVIOUS? In this post, regular RGPer "Jon", is joined by other
RGP regulars like Fl Turbo, his brother Bub, and his other brother
Susan, in virtually just shrugging their shoulders when confronted
with the Chertoff-factor. There's nothing you can do about it, Danny,
it's like a mental disorder or something. They're going to have faith
in their rulers, come hell or high water, even as they are marching
over the cliff like the good little lemmings that they are.
-Paul Popinjay
ChrisRobin
> questions that need to be answered
>
> "So if most of the energy of the falling debris was dissipated and was
> not the cause of the major spikes in the seismic record then what was?
> Perhaps massive explosions in the lowest (level -7) basements of the
> Twin Towers, besides the supporting steel columns where they met the
> Manhattan bedrock? Perhaps even small nuclear explosions? Not
> Hiroshima-style 15-kiloton blasts but perhaps the sort produced by
> mini-nukes developed in recent years by the Pentagon?"
>
> yeahhhhhhhh,of course...nuclear explosions
Straw man much?
------�
ramashiva
You can repeat this lie as often as you want, but it is still a lie.
From the New York Times, 9/14/2001 --
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/technology/14cell.html
According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with
varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline
flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to
increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have
stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a
maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems
can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising
altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
''The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all
phases of a commercial flight,'' said Marvin Sirbu, professor of
engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. ''An
excess of caution prevents us from doing so, of course, because we are
so worried about the safety of air travel.''
Got that, numbnuts? From an engineering professor in 2001 --
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT CELL PHONES CAN WORK IN ALMOST ALL
PHASES OF A COMMERCIAL FLIGHT.
Now STFD and STFU.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
joeturn
Your wrong you have swallowed another Government coverup! Cell phones
wont stay connected long enough to say hello! Try it for your self
and stop believing the Government stoogies!
Qualcomm introduced the first technology to use a cell phone aboard a
jetliner in 2004.It was not available in 2001 unless you were on the
tarmac!
joeturn
Now lets discuss the safety of using it because of interferring with
airtravel!
They tell you that the use can cause the pilot interferance with his
electroics onboard! This is also hog wash The FCC would not have
allowed cell phones to operate in their frequency range if their was a
potentual threat to interfear with air travel.
A cell tower puts out mega watts and is continously bombarding the
airwaves with said interfearance.Its affect on airtravel has never
made the news.No crashes or Burmuda Triagle effects at all and it
being mega more powerful than an onboard cell phone!!!!!!!
WAKE UP your hynotized
ramashiva
> Your wrong you have swallowed another Government coverup! Cell phones
> wont stay connected long enough to say hello! Try it for your self
> and stop believing the Government stoogies!
Did you bother to check Professor Sirbu's credentials???
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/sirbu/
Marvin Sirbu received B.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering (1966)
and Mathematics (1967), an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering
(1968) and an Sc.D. in Electrical Engineering with a minor in
Economics (1973) all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Sirbu remained at MIT as a Research Associate in the Center for
Policy Alternatives before joining the faculty of MIT's Sloan School
of Management. While at MIT he directed its Research Program in
Communications Policy.
In 1985 he moved to Carnegie Mellon University with a joint
appointment in Engineering and Public Policy, the Tepper School of
Business, and Electrical and Computer Engineering. In 1989 He founded
CMU's Information Networking Institute which engages in
interdisciplinary research and education at the intersection of
telecommunications, computing, business and policy studies.
Dr. Sirbu spent the 2006-2007 academic year at the Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de Télécommunications.
Research Interests
Telecommunications technology, policy, and management; regulation and
industrial structure of computer and communications technologies;
communications networks and standards; economics of information and
networks; electronic commerce.
Got that, numbnuts???
DOCTORATE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FROM MIT
PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING AT CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
PRIMARY RESEARCH INTEREST IS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, POLICY,
AND MANAGEMENT
When a man with these credentials stated in 2001 that cell phones work
on commercial airliners, that is very convincing evidence.
You've got nothing but your insane, conspiratorial ravings.
Everything you post on this newsgroup is misinformation, bullshit, and
lies.
ramashiva
> As far as I'm aware, manifests for Flights 11 and 77 were never released.
Actually, manifests for all four flights were released at the
Moussaoui trial --
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Flights
William Coleman (ramashiva)
RGP Loner
Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
collapsed at free fall speed?
http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
buildings. I know you have all the answers and I would love to do a bit
of debating with someone as knowledgeable as yourself so I can find the
truth. Are you up for it ?
http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered
explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the
WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered
in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers,
led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:[i]
“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust
is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and
is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
REFERENCES
[i] Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley,
Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009.
http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
_______________________________________________________________________
RGP Loner
> On Dec 19 2010 11:38 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 10:45 am, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I'm aware, manifests for Flights 11 and 77 were never released.
> >
> > Actually, manifests for all four flights were released at the
> > Moussaoui trial --
> >
> > http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Flights
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> collapsed at free fall speed?
>
> http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
>
> Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
> report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> buildings. I know you have all the answers and I would love to do a bit
> of debating with someone as knowledgeable as yourself so I can find the
> truth. Are you up for it ?
>
> http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
>
>
>
I guess not , Rama is probably just up in a tree somewhere polishing his
Knob... Oh well ... see how they run .
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
RGP Loner
Really, and you are providing the photo copy of the original flight
manifest... No you are NOT... You are providing a list of names that were
provided by the FBI and that have no bases in fact as proof of an "
original Manifest '.
What is your interest Rama. I thought you were supposed to be the
smart one but for the last few years you have only shown yourself to be a
TOOL.
Why is that ? Some say it is because you are studying to be an
arborist.... Is that true ?
( crickets )
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
-------
RGP Loner
And Really Wilhelm Coleman, ( if that is your real name )
How do you explain this information taken from the article you posted?
-----------------------------------
several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become
problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously
discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on
American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail
al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami,
whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who
allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the
initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who
would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a
name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed
"Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six
names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts
Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19
probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."
----------------------------------
So much for your effort... you need to stop and go back to school before
you lose your
funding ... Get outta here LOL ...
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
---
ramashiva
> Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> collapsed at free fall speed?
No need to explain what didn't happen.
> http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
> Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
> report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> buildings.
Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
found in the dust of WTC buildings.
These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
conclusively debunked, but idiots like you, skillz, and joeturn
continue to believe them.
Not my problem.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
>These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
conclusively debunked, but idiots like you, skillz, and joeturn
>continue to believe them.
>Not my problem.
>William Coleman (ramashiva)
This is too funny - and not about whether happened the way we were told or
not.
The funny part is that when Willie AND OTHERS disagree with Paul, Paul takes
to task everyone else, telling them how disillusioned they are EXCEPT NEVER
MENTIONS HOW DISILLUSIONED Willie is.
Now here is Willie taking to task Loner, skillz and joeturn and forgetting
to mention that Paulie is on the other side. - you know, the side of the
IDIOTS?
popinjay999
>
> This is too funny - and not about whether happened the way we were told or
> not.
>
> The funny part is that when Willie AND OTHERS disagree with Paul, Paul takes
> to task everyone else, telling them how disillusioned they are EXCEPT NEVER
> MENTIONS HOW DISILLUSIONED Willie is.
>
> Now here is Willie taking to task Loner, skillz and joeturn and forgetting
> to mention that Paulie is on the other side. - you know, the side of the
> IDIOTS?
Please consider the following mitigating factors:
#1.) Ramashiva - Extremely high IQ, has independently researched topic
and come to his own conclusion based on evidence he has weighed,
independent of any influence by the government/media complex but based
on his own rational thinking process.
#2.) Susan - Questionable IQ, has difficulty composing a coherent
post, appears to base many decisions on emotional impulse, tends to be
swayed by the latest neo-con propaganda piece of the day.
#3.) Ramashiva - Super Genius
#4.) Susan - Ditz
RGP Loner
> On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> > collapsed at free fall speed?
>
> No need to explain what didn't happen.
What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
report are you ?
Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NIST
report ?
http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
>
> > Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
> > report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> > buildings.
>
> Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
> found in the dust of WTC buildings.
But there was Nano thermite found in the dust and I have provided the
scientific proof in the cite. Why are you trying to lie now ? You refuse
to discuss the Scientific report . That is fine . But don't try to lie
and deny that the report isn't evidence. That makes you look like you
don't know what you are talking about . Again I will post my evidence and
you can discuss the evidence or put your head in the sand and deny what is
clear and obvious . Your choice ..
but don't expect to maintain any credibility on the matter by just
sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and saying their
is no evidence of thermite .
http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
FROM THE REPORT:
“The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
> These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
> conclusively debunked
When where and by whom,,,?? I hope you are not going to bring out some
magazine article that was written long before the truth was known. The
evidence for Nano thermite was just released a year or two ago. That has
never been discussed in your favorite magazine... Has it ?
I saw your attempt to debunk the flight manifest evidence. You fell flat
on your face when I showed you to be wrong by citing your own reference .
Remember that ?. So you look the fool for spouting about what you
clearly know little about, while I am able provide you with documented
evidence to counter your assertions.
I can't even begin to understand the mental gymnastics involved in trying
to believe the Government version of events. You sir, are a puppet.
> Not my problem.
It is your problem if you continue to make claims that you are clearly
unable to support with evidence. It clearly and definitively shows you to
be the fool to any unbiased observer .
I thought you were supposed to be the smart one around here. What
happened to all of that BS talk about being the arbiter of truth. LOL...
you are nothing but an old hat... LOL
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
____________________________________________________________________
popinjay999
>
> What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
> collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
> report are you ?
>
Hey Boise, can you tell me again what happened to the evidence, the
collapsed steel? I remember reading that they shipped it somewhere.
Why not move it to another site where it could be examined further,
rather than ship it somewhere where it will never be seen again? Why
weren't the remnants of the collapse treated like the evidence of any
other crime scene?
ramashiva
> On Dec 20 2010 8:19 AM, ramashiva wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> > > collapsed at free fall speed?
> > No need to explain what didn't happen.
> What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
> collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
> report are you ?
Yes, I am. If you had bothered to actually read the NIST report, you
would know that it was the north face which accelerated at a free fall
rate for approximately 2.25 seconds, and this brief period of free
fall is explained in the NIST report as the result of weakened columns
which offered negligible resistance. The conclusion that this brief
period of free fall acceleration can only be explained by explosions
is the purest nonsense.
Here is a link to the final NIST report, which I am 100% certain you
have never read --
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
I refer you to page 45. The buckled columns are discussed earlier in
the report.
> Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NIST
> report ?http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
> > > Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
> > > report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> > > buildings.
> > Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
> > found in the dust of WTC buildings.
> But there was Nano thermite found in the dust
No there wasn't.
> and I have provided the scientific proof in the cite.
No you didn't.
> Why are you trying to lie now ?
I am not lying. The work of Steven Jones, on which you are relying,
has been thoroughly debunked seven ways from Sunday. If you had
bothered to actually look for contrary evidence and arguments, rather
than gullibly swallow every lie you read on Truther websites, you
would already know this.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/where_s_the_barium_.html
> You refuse
> to discuss the Scientific report . That is fine . But don't try to lie
> and deny that the report isn't evidence. That makes you look like you
> don't know what you are talking about . Again I will post my evidence and
> you can discuss the evidence or put your head in the sand and deny what is
> clear and obvious . Your choice ..
> but don't expect to maintain any credibility on the matter by just
> sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and saying their
> is no evidence of thermite .
> http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
> FROM THE REPORT:
> “The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
> active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
> a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
> > These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
> > conclusively debunked
> When where and by whom,,,??
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
> I hope you are not going to bring out some
> magazine article that was written long before the truth was known. The
> evidence for Nano thermite was just released a year or two ago. That has
> never been discussed in your favorite magazine... Has it ?
> I saw your attempt to debunk the flight manifest evidence. You fell flat
> on your face
No I didn't.
> when I showed you to be wrong by citing your own reference.
Get help. You are delusional.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
RGP Loner
> On Dec 20, 8:05 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20 2010 8:19 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> > > > collapsed at free fall speed?
>
> > > No need to explain what didn't happen.
>
> > What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
> > collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
> > report are you ?
>
> Yes, I am. If you had bothered to actually read the NIST report, you
> would know that it was the north face which accelerated at a free fall
> rate for approximately 2.25 seconds, and this brief period of free
> fall is explained in the NIST report as the result of weakened columns
> which offered negligible resistance. The conclusion that this brief
> period of free fall acceleration can only be explained by explosions
> is the purest nonsense.
>
> Here is a link to the final NIST report, which I am 100% certain you
> have never read --
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
I did read it thank you very much.. I found it unscientific, not based in
fact, and worse it was deliberately misleading .
> I refer you to page 45. The buckled columns are discussed earlier in
> the report.
>
> > Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NIST
>
> > report ?http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
>
> > > > Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily
verifiable
> > > > report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> > > > buildings.
>
> > > Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
> > > found in the dust of WTC buildings.
>
> > But there was Nano thermite found in the dust
>
> No there wasn't.
>
> > and I have provided the scientific proof in the cite.
>
> No you didn't.
>
> > Why are you trying to lie now ?
>
> I am not lying. The work of Steven Jones, on which you are relying,
> has been thoroughly debunked seven ways from Sunday. If you had
Wrong.. this is the report i cited .
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen,
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009.
http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
As I understand this scientific report was produced in Norway.
> bothered to actually look for contrary evidence and arguments, rather
> than gullibly swallow every lie you read on Truther websites, you
> would already know this.
I have looked at your links and it is nothing but speculation of what
might have happened .
The nano thermite was found in the dust samples from 911 in the last year
or two. Why do you provide cites that are half a decade old that purports
to dispute something they know nothing about ? I wonder why the websites
you cite don't include anything about the NIST report on WTC7? why is
that ?
It is your websites that offer nothing of scientific value and indeed
offer nothing but speculation and denial . Here is the report on thermite
http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
It has never been scientifically disputed or challenged as it should have
been. I wonder why ? maybe it is because the report is based on sound
science and that the veracity of the report is not in doubt.
> http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
>
> http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/where_s_the_barium_.html
>
> > You refuse
> > to discuss the Scientific report . That is fine . But don't try to lie
> > and deny that the report isn't evidence. That makes you look like you
> > don't know what you are talking about . Again I will post my evidence and
> > you can discuss the evidence or put your head in the sand and deny what is
> > clear and obvious . Your choice ..
> > but don't expect to maintain any credibility on the matter by just
> > sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and saying their
> > is no evidence of thermite .
>
> > http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
>
> > FROM THE REPORT:
> > “The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
> > active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
> > a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
>
> > > These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
> > > conclusively debunked
>
> > When where and by whom,,,??
NONE of the websites you have shown even discuss the report that thermite
was found . So How does that Prove that there wasn't any thermite ?
It seems to me that those websites are as out of date as the Pop science
magazines that blamed WTC 7 collapse on diesel fuel and facade damage to
the building, when the NIST report said that those two conditions had
nothing to do with the collapse.
You don't find it odd that you need to refer to old and thoroughly
debunked government propaganda to support your position, especially when
the material cited is out of date and useless in regards to WTC7 and the
NIST report ?
> http://www.911myths.com/
>
> http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
>
> http://www.debunking911.com/
>
> http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
>
> http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
>
> http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
>
> > I hope you are not going to bring out some
> > magazine article that was written long before the truth was known. The
> > evidence for Nano thermite was just released a year or two ago. That has
> > never been discussed in your favorite magazine... Has it ?
>
> > I saw your attempt to debunk the flight manifest evidence. You fell flat
> > on your face
>
> No I didn't.
Yes you did . go back and look , you didn't even reply to that post
because you were so embarrassed that I used your own cite to discredit you
RGP Loner
Not all of the steel was destroyed. Look at this . I bet they wish they
could get this one back.
http://buildingwhat.org/sulfidated-steel/
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
______________________________________________________________________
RGP Loner
That is a VERY good question POP. I didn't know the answer, so I looked
up on this website to see it an answer to your question could be found .
Sure enough. IT WAS A CRIME SEEN .WOW .
http://buildingwhat.org/destruction-of-evidence/
Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:[i]
“[A] person ‘renders criminal assistance’ when, with intent to prevent,
hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or
believes has committed a crime…he…suppresses, by any act of concealment,
alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the
discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal
charge against him;”
OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE
WTC
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment
of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a
significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the
upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections,
and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some
of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the
top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the
first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded
independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being
destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the
valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling
contract.”
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we
can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is
borderline criminal.”
Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the
debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it
collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up
very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in
the case of Tower 7.”
CONTROL OF THE WTC CLEANUP
In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and
investigations was not followed. According to the New York Times:[v]
“In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal
agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup
and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a
degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had
encountered.
“‘They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,’ said Charles Hess, who
is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.”
New York City’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control
of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani’s “back-room decision to scrap
the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency
Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed”:[vi]
“[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite
formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political
considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written
before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up
after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest
versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the
contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not
quite know what the DDC was.”
DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the
need to preserve the evidence:[vii]
“Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made
it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the
question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11.
‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the
towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out
of the debris pile.”
By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed
from the site,[viii] in what one journalist with unrestricted access to
the site called, “the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and
debris removal.”[ix]
THE DECISION TO DESTROY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton:[x]
“[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including
Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap
yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse
before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard
Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would
say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster
would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to
quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added
for emphasis]
However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel
is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and
given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on
the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE
team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According
to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xi]
“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling
the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of
the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the
investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE,
it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late
that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the
ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”
By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the
BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle
the steel stood.
Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully
aware of the illegality of destroying physical evidence prior to their
decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the
steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than
three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of
steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling
the steel – raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.
THE CONTINUED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY
In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the
public to halt its recycling of the steel. According to Times reporters
Glanz and Lipton:[xii]
“The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the
victims’ families. On December 14, nearly three months after the program
had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City
Hall protesting the recycling decision. Her son, Christian, a
firefighter, had died in the towers’ collapse. ‘We’re here today to call
for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,’ she
said.”
The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering
community. Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1,
2002:[xiii]
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center
has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence
that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices
and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to
be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of
evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the
value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard
for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an
exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10
stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion,
the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will
amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”
Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times
reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xiv]
“Officials in the mayor’s office declined to reply to written and oral
requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle
the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the
investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered
structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the
city’s Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris
removal at the site.”
Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? The outright refusal
of city officials to desist from recycling the steel again raises serious
questions about the intent of their actions.
REFERENCES
[i] New York Penal – Article 205, §205.5 Hindering Prosecution.
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0205.50_205.50.html
[ii] Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002.
p.14.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128021952/http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm
[iii] Ibid. p. 185.
[iv] The History Channel, Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13, 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8
[v] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader
Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html?pagewanted=1
[vi] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade
Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 66, 118.
[vii] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of
the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company,
2003, p.299.
[viii] David Sapsted, The Daily Telegraph, “250 Tons of Scrap Stolen from
Ruins,” September 28, 2001.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/telegraph_250tons.html
[ix] William Langewiesche, “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade
Center,” New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 146.
[x] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of
the World Trade Center,” New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company,
2003, p.330.
[xi] Ibid. p.331.
[xii] Ibid. p.332.
[xiii] Bill Manning, Fire Engineering, “$elling Out The Investigation,”
January 1, 2002.
http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/133237/articles/fire-engineering/volume-155/issue-1/departments/editors-opinion/elling-out-the-investigation.html
[xiv] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, “Experts Urge Broader
Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,” December 25, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html?pagewanted=1
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
--------
RGP Loner
Not ALL of the steel was shipped off.... Some was melted in the basements
of the wtc towers. An impossibility according to NIST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
http://buildingwhat.org/
-----
ramashiva
> On Dec 20 2010 9:16 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 8:05 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Dec 20 2010 8:19 AM, ramashiva wrote:
> > > > On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
> > > > > collapsed at free fall speed?
> > > > No need to explain what didn't happen.
> > > What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
> > > collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
> > > report are you ?
> > Yes, I am. If you had bothered to actually read the NIST report, you
> > would know that it was the north face which accelerated at a free fall
> > rate for approximately 2.25 seconds, and this brief period of free
> > fall is explained in the NIST report as the result of weakened columns
> > which offered negligible resistance. The conclusion that this brief
> > period of free fall acceleration can only be explained by explosions
> > is the purest nonsense.
> > Here is a link to the final NIST report, which I am 100% certain you
> > have never read --
> >http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
>
> I did read it thank you very much.. I found it unscientific, not based in
> fact, and worse it was deliberately misleading.
LOL. You are a hopeless nutcase.
> > I refer you to page 45. The buckled columns are discussed earlier in
> > the report.
> > > Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NIST
> > > report ?http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
> > > > > Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily
> verifiable
> > > > > report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
> > > > > buildings.
> > > > Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
> > > > found in the dust of WTC buildings.
> > > But there was Nano thermite found in the dust
> > No there wasn't.
> > > and I have provided the scientific proof in the cite.
>
> > No you didn't.
> > > Why are you trying to lie now ?
> > I am not lying. The work of Steven Jones, on which you are relying,
> > has been thoroughly debunked seven ways from Sunday. If you had
> Wrong.. this is the report i cited.
I said the WORK of Steven Jones has been discredited. He has been on
this thermite kick for years.
> Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen,
> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
> As I understand this scientific report was produced in Norway.
Are you aware of what Bentham Open Access is??? Are you aware of what
the "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" is???
It's not a scientific journal in any sense of the word. It's a vanity
journal, where the authors pay to have papers published. There is no
peer review, and Bentham Open Access has accepted papers for
publication that were specifically written as complete, unintelligible
nonsense.
Do your fucking homework.
Steven Jones is a total nutcase truther whose work previous to this
paper has been totally discredited, as I said.
Naturally, since you are also a total nutcase truther, you actually
believe the bullshit and nonsense he publishes.
Here is some background on Steven Jones --
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Steven+Jones
Here are a couple of videos on the specific article you have cited --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyKTMnKCexs
http://911thermitefree.blogspot.com/2010/04/video-defusing-nanothermite-integrity.html
> > bothered to actually look for contrary evidence and arguments, rather
> > than gullibly swallow every lie you read on Truther websites, you
> > would already know this.
> I have looked at your links and it is nothing but speculation of what might have happened.
FAIL.
> The nano thermite was found in the dust samples from 911 in the last year
> or two. Why do you provide cites that are half a decade old that purports
> to dispute something they know nothing about?
You are fucking hopeless. The links I provided debunk Jones' previous
work on thermite and make it clear that he is not a legitimate
scientist, but a total whackjob.
> I wonder why the websites
> you cite don't include anything about the NIST report on WTC7?
FAIL.
> why is that ?
> It is your websites that offer nothing of scientific value and indeed
> offer nothing but speculation and denial.
FAIL.
> Here is the report on thermite
> http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
> It has never been scientifically disputed or challenged as it should have
> been. I wonder why?
The article is not published in a legitimate scientific journal, and
Steven Jones is well known to be a total nutcase.
> maybe it is because the report is based on sound
> science and that the veracity of the report is not in doubt.
FAIL.
> >http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
> >http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
> >http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
> >http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
> >http://www.911myths.com/html/where_s_the_barium_.html
> > > You refuse
> > > to discuss the Scientific report . That is fine . But don't try to lie
> > > and deny that the report isn't evidence. That makes you look like you
> > > don't know what you are talking about . Again I will post my evidence and
> > > you can discuss the evidence or put your head in the sand and deny what is
> > > clear and obvious . Your choice ..
> > > but don't expect to maintain any credibility on the matter by just
> > > sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and saying their
> > > is no evidence of thermite .
> > >http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
> > > FROM THE REPORT:
> > > The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
> > > active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
> > > a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
> > > > These and thousands of other lies about 9/11 have been repeatedly and
> > > > conclusively debunked
> > > When where and by whom,,,??
> NONE of the websites you have shown even discuss the report that thermite
> was found . So How does that Prove that there wasn't any thermite?
Burden of proof is on you. The article you cite is published by a
vanity press by a total nutcase.
> It seems to me that those websites are as out of date as the Pop science
> magazines that blamed WTC 7 collapse on diesel fuel and facade damage to
> the building, when the NIST report said that those two conditions had
> nothing to do with the collapse.
FAIL.
> You don't find it odd that you need to refer to old and thoroughly
> debunked government propaganda to support your position, especially when
> the material cited is out of date and useless in regards to WTC7 and the
> NIST report?
FAIL.
> >http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
> >http://www.debunking911.com/
> >http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
> >http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
> >http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
> > > I hope you are not going to bring out some
> > > magazine article that was written long before the truth was known. The
> > > evidence for Nano thermite was just released a year or two ago. That has
> > > never been discussed in your favorite magazine... Has it ?
> > > I saw your attempt to debunk the flight manifest evidence. You fell flat
> > > on your face
> > No I didn't.
> Yes you did.
FAIL.
> go back and look , you didn't even reply to that post
> because you were so embarrassed that I used your own cite to discredit you.
I didn't reply to your post because it had no relevance to anything I
had said. You need to get over this idea that when people don't reply
to you that means you are right and they have no answer for you.
Mostly it means that everything you post is incoherent nonsense
quoting people like Steven Jones who are totally whacked out nutcases
themselves.
I have wasted enough time on you. Don't expect any further replies.
You've got nothing.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
<aaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Dec 20 2010 8:19 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 11:46 pm, "RGP Loner" <aaaa...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Rama , so glad you are here ... Can you help me explain how WT&
>> > collapsed at free fall speed?
>>
>> No need to explain what didn't happen.
>
>What do you mean " didn't happen" ? You aren't trying to deny that WTC7
>collapsed at free fall speed for over 2 seconds as verified in the NIST
>report are you ?
>
>Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NIST
>report ?
>http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
I followed your link, and I still haven't seen evidence in the NIST
report. What I saw was a purported quote from that report, completely
devoid of context. I even took the step of following the links at the
bottom of the page, and I was unable to find that quote in the actual
NIST report.
>> > Also, what are your thoughts about this scientific and easily verifiable
>> > report that showed that nano thermite was in the dust of the wtc
>> > buildings.
>>
>> Again, no need to explain what didn't happen. No nano thermite was
>> found in the dust of WTC buildings.
>
>But there was Nano thermite found in the dust and I have provided the
>scientific proof in the cite. Why are you trying to lie now ? You refuse
>to discuss the Scientific report . That is fine . But don't try to lie
>and deny that the report isn't evidence. That makes you look like you
>don't know what you are talking about . Again I will post my evidence and
>you can discuss the evidence or put your head in the sand and deny what is
>clear and obvious . Your choice ..
>but don't expect to maintain any credibility on the matter by just
>sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and saying their
>is no evidence of thermite .
>
>http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
>
>FROM THE REPORT:
>“The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
>active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
>a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
I have no idea what to make of this.
da pickle
I have wasted enough time on you.
==========================
RGP reached this stage in the past, posters left and somehow new and more
interesting posters (such as yourself) rescued the group. A hundred or so
posts a day and all from about three or four people and a few folks that
respond to them until, like above, frustration at the waste of time becomes
*enough*.
Wholesale deletion of sometimes ten or twelve back-and-forth insults in old
threads that have been going back-and-forth for weeks or even months is the
norm. Hopefully, the new year will bring some respite.
Merry Christmas, Bill, I hope you are feeling well and having a great
holiday season.
ramashiva
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:05:59 -0800, "RGP Loner"
> >Did you fail to see the site which includes the evidence in the NISTreport ?
> >http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/
> I followed your link, and I still haven't seen evidence in the NIST
> report. What I saw was a purported quote from that report, completely
> devoid of context. I even took the step of following the links at the
> bottom of the page, and I was unable to find that quote in the actual
> NIST report.
Here are three blatant lies in the link numbnuts provided --
"NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally
acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall."
"NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent
could have occurred."
As you can easily see, on page 45 of the actual NIST report, NIST
stated that the north face, not the entire building, descended at a
free fall acceleration rate for 2.25 seconds. And of course, they
explained that this brief period of free fall was caused by buckled
columns which offered minimal resistance.
"The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is
by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring
down the building."
Of course, this is just another truther lie. There was no absolute
free fall of Building 7, and that limited period of free fall by the
north face is easily explained, and is most certainly not evidence of
explosives.
> >http://buildingwhat.org/explosive-residues/
> >FROM THE REPORT:
> > The red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is
> >active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is
> >a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
> I have no idea what to make of this.
Yawn. It's an unverified claim by a discredited truther nutcase
published in a bogus journal by a vanity press.
This is Boise's modus operandi. He trots out transparent bullshit and
lies, insists that they be accepted as factual, then demands that
these "facts" be explained.
Next case.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
<ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is
>by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring
>down the building."
>
>Of course, this is just another truther lie. There was no absolute
>free fall of Building 7, and that limited period of free fall by the
>north face is easily explained, and is most certainly not evidence of
>explosives.
The question I'd like the truthers to answer is: What would the
government's purpose have been in blowing up WTC7? What value added
was there in blowing up that little building after the Twin Towers
were taken out?
Clave
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:26j3h6lq8nnt3sg2r...@4ax.com...
It housed the city's emergency command center which contained evidence of
the conspiracy. And some of Giuliani's love stains.
Jim
popinjay999
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:36:42 -0800 (PST), ramashiva
>
But here again, it is us truthers who are supposed to explain this?
All of a sudden the burden of proof is on us, and if we don't know
every detail with certainty, then we must be full of crap. The
fucking building falls yet was never hit by any plane, it looks like a
building being demolished with explosives, yet it couldn't have been
so because we cannot tell you with certainty why the conspirators did
it. You know what? I can't tell you why Kennedy was shot either,
maybe it was just an accident.
FL Turbo
Lee Harvey Oswald was a nutcase who got off a few lucky shots.
Who can understand exactly why a nutcase does what a nutcase does?
Oh, BTW.
I'm posting this from a treehouse in my backyard.
Can you prove that I'm not?
Go ahead.
Try.
Betcha can't.
Then that would mean that I am posting from a treehouse in my
backyard, wouldn't it?
popinjay999
>
> Oh, BTW.
> I'm posting this from a treehouse in my backyard.
> Can you prove that I'm not?
>
> Go ahead.
> Try.
> Betcha can't.
>
> Then that would mean that I am posting from a treehouse in my
> backyard, wouldn't it?
Great analogy, except I have not seen the tree you're in with my own
eyes. I did, however, see with my own eyes WTC7 fall instantly as if
it was demolished by explosives. And so did you. You saw it with
your own eyes too. But nice try, though, Beldin, uhh, I mean Turbo.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 2:06�am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:36:42 -0800 (PST), ramashiva
>>
>> <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is
>> >by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring
>> >down the building."
>>
>> >Of course, this is just another truther lie. �There was no absolute
>> >free fall of Building 7, and that limited period of free fall by the
>> >north face is easily explained, and is most certainly not evidence of
>> >explosives.
>>
>> The question I'd like the truthers to answer is: �What would the
>> government's purpose have been in blowing up WTC7? � What value added
>> was there in blowing up that little building after the Twin Towers
>> were taken out?
>
>
>But here again, it is us truthers who are supposed to explain this?
Yes.
>All of a sudden the burden of proof is on us, and if we don't know
>every detail with certainty, then we must be full of crap.
All of a sudden? Hardly. You want to make a convincing case for a
conspiracy, then your story needs to be, um, convincing. The first
step would be to actually have the story make sense.
> The
>fucking building falls yet was never hit by any plane, it looks like a
>building being demolished with explosives, yet it couldn't have been
>so because we cannot tell you with certainty why the conspirators did
>it.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been so. It's just that there's
insufficient evidence that it actually was so.
>You know what? I can't tell you why Kennedy was shot either,
>maybe it was just an accident.
Nobody knows for sure why Kennedy was shot. There's actually some
reason to suspect some sort of conspiracy on that one, although I
haven't seen a convincing case made for any particular theory.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
You know for a fact that there was nothing more to it? Can you
explain why Jack Ruby shot Oswald?
popinjay999
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:51:25 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
>
> >But here again, it is us truthers who are supposed to explain this?
>
> Yes.
>
How about letting your own eyes explain it, you dumb mutherfuckers?
This is the most laughable thing about all of this, all of you idiots,
Turbo, Ed Falk, the whole group of you! Have you got eyes? Have you
got a pair of eyes? I'm laughing my ass off at what a bunch of stupid
fucking lemmings you all are. YOU CAN SEE BUILDING 7 JUST DROP! Was
it hit by a plane? Uhh, I don't think so. IT JUST DROPPED! And you
people have the audacity to call us truthers crazy? YOU are the
fucking idiots who are crazy. Buildings don't just DROP! You fucking
NUTS! I can't tell you WHY it was done, who the fuck am I, the
Amazing Kreskin or something? Get the fuck outta here, all of you.
Believe what you want.
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because you wont look for a convincing case like this one for
instance!
FL Turbo
wrote:
You don't even trust Ramashiva?
FL Turbo
I can tell you the simplest version of how and why Jack Ruby came to
shoot Oswald, but that wouldn't even satisfy a rookie Conspiracy
Theorist.
It's too simple.
There's just gotta be more to it.
Right?
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Hard to answer, since you didn't bother to post your simple
explanation.
joeturn
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:38:31 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:04:09 -0800, Pepe Papon
>
> >>On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:38:50 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The youtube video has left him speachles he did not know Jack Rubys
connection to Oswald!
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I could post the simple explanation I read, or I could make up a
simple explanation myself and post it, but it wouldn't matter.
The Conspiracy minded wouldn't accept either.
They want a deep, dark conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands
of people.
Lyndon Johnson had JFK killed.
The CIA had JfK killed.
The Cubans emigres had JFK killed.
Fidel Castro had JFK killed.
The Russions had JFK killed.
Yadda, yadda, because blah, blah, blah.
I went through this about 40 years ago, and finally decided to listen
to Mr. Occam and accept the simplest explanation as the best.
My favorite theory though, was the one that said Aristotle Onassis had
JFK killed so he could marry Jackie.
After all, if Nikita Khruschev was assassinated, would Onassis have
married Nina?
popinjay999
>
> I could post the simple explanation I read, or I could make up a
> simple explanation myself and post it, but it wouldn't matter.
>
> The Conspiracy minded wouldn't accept either.
> They want a deep, dark conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands
> of people.
>
> Lyndon Johnson had JFK killed.
> The CIA had JfK killed.
> The Cubans emigres had JFK killed.
> Fidel Castro had JFK killed.
> The Russions had JFK killed.
> Yadda, yadda, because blah, blah, blah.
>
> I went through this about 40 years ago, and finally decided to listen
> to Mr. Occam and accept the simplest explanation as the best.
>
> My favorite theory though, was the one that said Aristotle Onassis had
> JFK killed so he could marry Jackie.
> After all, if Nikita Khruschev was assassinated, would Onassis have
> married Nina?
> I don't think so.
I haven't been reading this thread, so what are you talking about
here? Are you insinuating that you think the JFK assasination was by
a lone gunman? I never got into this, but I'd love for you to spell
it out in black and white right now. Yes or no, do you believe there
was any conspiracy in that even or not? Just a simple yes or no, so I
can know whether to call you a fucking idiot or not.
FL Turbo
Of course Onassis had a few people to act as intermediaries and get
Oswald in a position to shoot.
So no, Oswald didn't do it all by himself.
He had help.
It didn't take much prompting at all to get Ruby to kill the guy that
assassinated Kennedy, and shut his mouth forever.
Like I say, just a few intermediaries is all it took.
Nice and simple.
No big conspiracy with a cast of thousands.
Everyone saw the results.
Onassis married Jackie, didn't he?
popinjay999
>
> Of course Onassis had a few people to act as intermediaries and get
> Oswald in a position to shoot.
>
> So no, Oswald didn't do it all by himself.
> He had help.
>
> It didn't take much prompting at all to get Ruby to kill the guy that
> assassinated Kennedy, and shut his mouth forever.
> Like I say, just a few intermediaries is all it took.
> Nice and simple.
> No big conspiracy with a cast of thousands.
>
> Everyone saw the results.
> Onassis married Jackie, didn't he?
Hey Turbo, nothing personal, but you're fucking nut. Seriously.
FL Turbo
Say what??
You don't like my theory?
OK, I'll sex it up a little.
Onassis hired Cuban emigres to help Lee Harvey get into position.
Onassis hired former CIA agents to get Ruby all geeked up and into
position.
How's that?
You like it a little better now?
I hope you're not going to go all joeturn on me and deny that Onassis
married Jackie.
susan
"FL Turbo"
> I hope you're not going to go all joeturn on me and deny that Onassis
> married Jackie.
>
Prove it. Just because the news media said so, and our government confirmed
same means that it DIDN'T happen. If fact, they never met. Every picture
you have seen is photoshopped.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
How would Jack Ruby fit into any of those theories?