Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Ramabriga

unread,
Sep 23, 2007, 11:37:00 PM9/23/07
to
Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11

by Clyde Wilson


Our late friend Murray Rothbard used to point out to those who scoffed at "conspiracy
theories" that history is indeed full of real conspiracies, and that often conspiracy
provides a more satisfactory explanation for an event than the "lone nut theory" that
is popular with government spokespersons.

The continuing drumbeat of speculation that 9/11 may have been a U.S. government "black
ops" mission, a charge coming from what seems to be a respectable minority of seemingly
informed observers, tells us much about the sad condition of the American polity.

I am inclined to think that none of us can possibly have enough information to know the
full truth about 9/11. We will not have such information for years, very possibly
never. Why, we still don’t know the full truth about the Lincoln and Kennedy
assassinations. In my always humble opinion, the incompetence demonstrated by our
rulers before, during, and after 9/11 would be alone enough to bring down any
government, without the need for revelations of complicity – if we had a responsible
democratic regime.

I am not a "conspiracy theorist," but, like any old newspaperman, I am a skeptic. In
the years of my misspent youth as a reporter I saw police chiefs, mayors, newspaper
executives, and other dignitaries lie and distort and suppress the truth. I am inclined
to suspect that such is even more likely among the feds, for whom the stakes are much
greater.

Is the U.S. government capable of such an atrocity? I take this to be true: the
politicians who wield the immense powers of the U.S. government will murder Americans
if it serves their agenda and they can get away with. To think otherwise is to take an
excessively naïve attitude toward Power. Those politicians have a lifetime record of
self-serving and lack of moral principle – else they would not be where they are. Power
corrupts. Power can only be checked by counter Power. The U.S. government exercises
much power that is unchecked, unresponsible, and clandestine. This has been habitual
and institutionalized at least since World War II.

Can we judge that the official government story of what happened on 9/11 is unreliable?

We know that politicians lied about the sinking of the "Maine," Pearl Harbour, the Gulf
of Tonkin, Waco, and Iraqi WMD. This administration has engaged in more systematic and
frequent deception of the public perhaps than any other in recent times. And has been
successful at it because the public has never been more ignorant and the media more craven.

Yes, thoughtful citizens have every reason to suspect some self-serving deception in
the government story, though this does not necessarily imply actual complicity in the
atrocities. It might imply a cover-up of incompetence, irresponsibility, negligence,
and fecklessness in high places. The strongest argument against the black ops theory,
it seems to me, is that such an accomplishment is beyond the imagination and the
competence of the politicians in power.

The most important point here is that Power is by its nature dangerous, acquisitive,
and corrupting and must always be watched and questioned by people who wish to retain
their freedom. This we have nearly forgotten, but was a watchword to our Founding
Fathers. So, let's keep on doubting and challenging official "truth."

September 18, 2007


http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson26.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Al Dykes

unread,
Sep 23, 2007, 10:39:46 PM9/23/07
to
In article <46f71642$0$26418$8826...@free.teranews.com>,

Ramabriga <Rama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11
>
>by Clyde Wilson
>
>
>Our late friend Murray Rothbard used to point out to those who scoffed at "conspiracy
>theories" that history is indeed full of real conspiracies, and that often conspiracy
>provides a more satisfactory explanation for an event than the "lone nut theory" that
>is popular with government spokespersons.
>
>The continuing drumbeat of speculation that 9/11 may have been a U.S. government "black
>ops" mission, a charge coming from what seems to be a respectable minority of seemingly
>informed observers, tells us much about the sad condition of the American polity.
>


"informed observers"?

Name one.

----
Anyone that hasn't seen Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth Movement"
kooks that hang out there should look at the first three videos. The
others should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about
9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Bruno Muscarelli

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:18:38 AM9/24/07
to

"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fd781i$5q$1...@panix5.panix.com...

> In article <46f71642$0$26418$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Ramabriga <Rama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11
> >
> >by Clyde Wilson
> >
> >
> >Our late friend Murray Rothbard used to point out to those who scoffed at
"conspiracy
> >theories" that history is indeed full of real conspiracies, and that
often conspiracy
> >provides a more satisfactory explanation for an event than the "lone nut
theory" that
> >is popular with government spokespersons.
> >
> >The continuing drumbeat of speculation that 9/11 may have been a U.S.
government "black
> >ops" mission, a charge coming from what seems to be a respectable
minority of seemingly
> >informed observers, tells us much about the sad condition of the American
polity.
> >
>
>
> "informed observers"?
>
> Name one.

Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
much?


Vandar

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:19:17 AM9/24/07
to
Bruno Muscarelli wrote:

Yeah. I'm sure the administration gives a fat rat's ass about a bunch of
anonymous yahoos bleating on usenet.

> Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
> much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
> much?

Why do you?

Barbi Satin

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:54:15 AM9/24/07
to

"Bruno Muscarelli" <Fugged...@nj.rr.com> wrote in message
news:13fem5e...@corp.supernews.com...

I have never seen him post on any issue other than 911. It must pay his
bills. Welcome to NAZI America.

NWO

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 11:51:05 AM9/24/07
to

"Bruno Muscarelli" <Fugged...@nj.rr.com> wrote in message
news:13fem5e...@corp.supernews.com...
>

BINGO!!!

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Al Dykes

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 12:15:32 PM9/24/07
to

Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts!
W. Churchill.

The movement that uses the word "Truth" much, too much, hasn't come up
with a relevant fact in 6 years of whining.

consheshnuss

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 8:22:40 AM9/26/07
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:00 -0500, Ramabriga <Rama...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And after this we get a unsurprising Al Dykes response "name one
informed observer" as if any person paying attention to the facts,
omissions, distortions and lies from the official theory needs to be
named.


consheshnuss

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 8:24:52 AM9/26/07
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:18:38 -0700, "Bruno Muscarelli"
<Fugged...@nj.rr.com> wrote:

in a response to Al Dykes:

>Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
>makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
>newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
>and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
>much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
>much?
>

It could be he "believes" in the government for the sake of belief.

consheshnuss

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 8:27:07 AM9/26/07
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:19:17 GMT, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Bruno Muscarelli wrote:
>

>>
>>
>> Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
>> makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
>> newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
>> and their misdeeds.
>
>Yeah. I'm sure the administration gives a fat rat's ass about a bunch of
>anonymous yahoos bleating on usenet.

Pfff

Your sarcasm is reality but to limited. They do not give a rats ass
about anything but their beliefs.

consheshnuss

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 8:28:20 AM9/26/07
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:54:15 -0400, "Barbi Satin"
<gg2d...@c53ogsmdfdfat.net> wrote:

>>
>> Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11
>> questions
>> makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
>> newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current
>> administration
>> and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
>> much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care
>> so
>> much?
>
> I have never seen him post on any issue other than 911. It must pay his
>bills. Welcome to NAZI America.

If he is on payroll it is another example of taxpayer waste.


>
>

me

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 9:54:15 AM9/26/07
to
On Sep 24, 2:18 am, "Bruno Muscarelli" <Fuggedabou...@nj.rr.com>
wrote:

> "Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fd781i$5q$1...@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <46f71642$0$26418$88260...@free.teranews.com>,

> > Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Black Ops: Conspiracy and 9/11
>
> > >by Clyde Wilson
>
> > >Our late friend Murray Rothbard used to point out to those who scoffed at
> "conspiracy
> > >theories" that history is indeed full of real conspiracies, and that
> often conspiracy
> > >provides a more satisfactory explanation for an event than the "lone nut
> theory" that
> > >is popular with government spokespersons.
>
> > >The continuing drumbeat of speculation that 9/11 may have been a U.S.
> government "black
> > >ops" mission, a charge coming from what seems to be a respectable
>
> minority of seemingly
>
> > >informed observers, tells us much about the sad condition of the American
> polity.
>
> > "informed observers"?
>
> > Name one.
>
> Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
> makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
> newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
> and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
> much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
> much?

Let's cover a few points #1, I'm not sure why follks so interested
in
getting to the "truth" would object to some very well done critical
review.
#2 No one is suggesting that questioning of authority is in and of
itself
a problem. The problem is that those questions get elevated to the
level of "fact" by the questioners. Just because one is suspicious of
authority, is not in and of itself proof that authority has actually
done
anything. #3 Promulgating bad science in an effort to support
bad presumptions so as to justify the questions doesn't serve,
science, the question, or anyone asking the questions. #4 The
presence of motive is not proof of any action.

Al Dykes

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 10:28:24 AM9/27/07
to
In article <spjkf3ptvtmbifhcp...@4ax.com>,


Screw "the government". Google will show anyone that looks that my
.signature line has been unchanged since some tome in 2002.

The "truth Movement" shows itself for what it is by it's own quotes.
They turn out to be fraudulent when checked.

Avery, Burmas, Prof. Jones, Alex Jones and the rest Make Shit Up and
the masses of Twoofers just parrot them.


There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.

Examples;

Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have twisted his
9/11 reporting;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305

------------------------

"Todd Beamer is Alive"


Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote

"Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
is still alive.",

When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html

KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?

BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...

KING: Watching you and the babies?

BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
than he was before. And I'll join him some day

--------------------------------------------

An Aside: Mr. Jones's Dishonest Illogic.

>From the very same Debunking911 page I referenced above,
check out this litte gem as an aside.

---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.

----------------------


Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot. Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;

"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...

The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;

"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF

----------------------

Many Truthy sites have this quote from a firemen. This
URL, for example; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.
AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

----------------------
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.

I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.

That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;

------------------------------------------------------------

Many sites have quotes similar to this;

Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
its maneuverability;
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

but it leaves out the end of the statement,
"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.


----------------------------------------------------------

Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp

------------------------------------------------------

You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11
sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC
argument, for instance.:

A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also
given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked
up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction
was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those
implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131

Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading
the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw
explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but
mysteriously that.s been edited out:

We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we
saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of
the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt

You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11
Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting
transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look
for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.


----------------------------------------------------------


There are quotes like this interview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took

Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
said. "He could not fly at all.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to
hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that
[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a
building and hit it."


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html

-------------------------


http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html


---------

My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys
behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the
desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the
Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm
paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and
it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile
when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion
when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit
out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as
absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.

-----------


I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came
from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

-----------

Quotes

.I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the
building. You know like when they demolish a building?.--Assistant
Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant
Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just
to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't
know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that
particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I
looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my
conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to
him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front
of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that
time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result
of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to
him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just
wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said
did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by
see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I
thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Let me guess why they left that important part out..

.t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the
charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop,
pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS
BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR
FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE
CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT
BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST
ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD
RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE,
BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND
THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?

A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER
SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE,
THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF

First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What
do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking
TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top
of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an
airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this
odd combination.

.There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It
appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides,
materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a
momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."
--Chief Frank Cruthers

there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared
at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to
be an EXPLOSION... :blink:

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower
two started to come down.. --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each
other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF

And here is the outright LIE...

. we heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come
down.. -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen

Note where these liars put the "...."

Now for the REAL quote...

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming
from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever,
but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what
it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was
the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF

With that alone I should rest my case. ;) These CT sites are dishonest.

Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem
like there are more people hearing explosions than there really
are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and
Stephen Gregory's interview split in two, as if there are different
people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping
you won't notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them
up???

.Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the
building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound,
and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red
flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around
the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds
and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and
then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore

MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.

GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN
SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "IT'S
BLOWING".

I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A
SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE
COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND,
NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I

KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CAN'T
EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I
THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.

...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT

IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS
THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE
FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND,
AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED
FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND
THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS
AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN
ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

It's time to see a transformer explosion.

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.

SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER
AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES,
STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE
WATER.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF

.I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see
it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to
believe it was just an explosion.. -- Captain Jay Swithers

When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could
hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see
who was yelling "run".

At that point I looked back and most of the people who were
triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I
took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling,
I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it
was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew
that we had to go.

But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF

First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.

Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; .I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it.s an inside job; and the firemen know it too., said Isaac.

"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,. Isaac added that .many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they.re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the .higher-ups. forbid discussion of this fact.. --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.

A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.

In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying .detonated. and .they had planned to take down a building.. They even say .Boom. to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they.re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is .As if.. .As if they had planned to take down a building.. .It was as if as if they had detonated.. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom- (hand moves down)

boom.

This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn.t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn.t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.

A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says

The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.

The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.

When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.

Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that this was a misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:

1. Although the newswomen began the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in the "first tower when it was struck," at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says "Oh yeah." But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.

2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to "call [the] main office in Illinois." Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).

3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: "There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack." Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as "towards One Word Trade" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.

I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was "dragged" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.

USA Today

As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.

There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.

Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.

----------

. Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
. Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 *
. Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
. Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
. Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
. Car #50: B6-108 *
. Car #99: 107-110

There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.

pg 34 (adobe pg 72)

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)

There were firemen who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html

So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorists.

Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval.

-------------------------------------
The Airfone "Smoking Gun"

It has been going around the truther community the last week or so that they have found a "smoking gun" proving that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, because AA flight 77 did not have airfones. This has most recently been mentioned in a David Ray Griffin interview posted on 911 Blogger:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/airfone-smoking-gun.html


-----------------------------------------------


In article <469e4115$0$16397$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
Ramabriga <Rama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3KcT_LVM0E
>
>--


Everyone, watch that video, it's only a minute long (unlike most Truth
Movement videos) and it shows the "Truth Movement" one more time
misusing the words of others to make us believe that someone believes
Truthy claims.


------------------

he BBC doesn't claim "that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos".
The BBC does claim that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos from BBC World Service. The tapes from BBC News 24 for example are not lost.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Said Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM:

Quote:
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html
I love quote-mining!

The very next sentence in your source reads:
Quote:
We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
So, TruthSeeker1234, why don't you try to get hold of these tapes and prove your point?
And don't forget the many other European broadcasters in your quest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

------------------------------

>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html


BTW: On that same URL, the quote, "There's a bomb in the building -
start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"
on your first URL is from a bomb call from some building mile
from WTC It was a false alarm.

I bet the Twoofers never tell you that. They lie by omission.


------------------------------------

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 1, 2007, 6:28:21 PM10/1/07
to
On 27 Sep 2007 10:28:24 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <spjkf3ptvtmbifhcp...@4ax.com>,
>consheshnuss <cons...@nuss.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:18:38 -0700, "Bruno Muscarelli"
>><Fugged...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>in a response to Al Dykes:
>>
>>>Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
>>>makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
>>>newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
>>>and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
>>>much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
>>>much?
>>>
>>
>>It could be he "believes" in the government for the sake of belief.
>
>
>Screw "the government". Google will show anyone that looks that my
>.signature line has been unchanged since some tome in 2002.

I don't see you posting anything that brings any belief you have
checked their sorry/theory. I fact you seem confused about simple
basic facts surrounding 9/11 and all of its various theory's.


>
>The "truth Movement" shows itself for what it is by it's own quotes.
>They turn out to be fraudulent when checked.

Only the ones you ignore: i.e. molten steel.


>
>Avery, Burmas, Prof. Jones, Alex Jones and the rest Make Shit Up and
>the masses of Twoofers just parrot them.

if you say so, tweetie.

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 3, 2007, 4:42:38 PM10/3/07
to
In article <4us2g3pcnrut2nace...@4ax.com>,

consheshnuss <cons...@nuss.org> wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2007 10:28:24 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <spjkf3ptvtmbifhcp...@4ax.com>,
>>consheshnuss <cons...@nuss.org> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:18:38 -0700, "Bruno Muscarelli"
>>><Fugged...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>in a response to Al Dykes:
>>>
>>>>Thou doth protest too loudly. Your constant efforts to debunk 9-11 questions
>>>>makes me question your agenda. It is well known that shills frequent the
>>>>newsgroups in attempts to stop any questioning of the current administration
>>>>and their misdeeds. Are you one of those? If not, how is it you spend so
>>>>much time challenging anyone with a question about 9-11? Why do you care so
>>>>much?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It could be he "believes" in the government for the sake of belief.
>>
>>
>>Screw "the government". Google will show anyone that looks that my
>>.signature line has been unchanged since some tome in 2002.
>
>I don't see you posting anything that brings any belief you have
>checked their sorry/theory. I fact you seem confused about simple
>basic facts surrounding 9/11 and all of its various theory's.
>
>
>>
>>The "truth Movement" shows itself for what it is by it's own quotes.
>>They turn out to be fraudulent when checked.
>
>Only the ones you ignore: i.e. molten steel.
>

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 12:55:12 PM10/7/07
to


Perhaps, but not me. You seem to have your head planted so far up your
ass you can not even accept the link provide that has quotes with the
original reports/articles cached as proof. You are ignoring facts. Its
not a surprise, AL.


John P.

unread,
Oct 7, 2007, 10:29:57 PM10/7/07
to
"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message

>>There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
>>committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
>>repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

> Perhaps, but not me.

Good point Cornholio. It was good of you to point out how you kooks also
share denial as a common trait.


consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 10:25:32 AM10/8/07
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:29:57 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
wrote:


Grow up little boy.

John P.

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 10:22:47 PM10/8/07
to
"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message

>>>>There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
>>>>committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
>>>>repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

>>> Perhaps, but not me.

>>Good point Cornholio. It was good of you to point out how you kooks also
>>share denial as a common trait.

> Grow up little boy.

Why Cornholio? You looking for someone to tell you what it's like before you
decide to try it?
I can tell you right now Beavis, it's not for you. I can see that just being
an idiot overtaxes your brain. Growing up would surely kill you.


consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 11:19:39 AM10/9/07
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:22:47 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
wrote:

>"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message


>
>>>>>There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
>>>>>committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
>>>>>repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.
>
>>>> Perhaps, but not me.
>
>>>Good point Cornholio. It was good of you to point out how you kooks also
>>>share denial as a common trait.
>
>> Grow up little boy.
>
>Why Cornholio?


Ask your mommy, JP.


consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 11:26:45 AM10/9/07
to

You chirping tweeters do the same. You've been shown/supplied a link
of molten steel. You've denied its existence.

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 1:35:50 PM10/9/07
to
In article <7a7ng3tr5sim3oqg6...@4ax.com>,

There has been no link shown that includes "I saw molten steel" or
anything close.

Prove me wrong. It has to have the name of the person quoted to be
fact-checled. There are a couple people that are mis-quoted by
Twoofers.


10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",
patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy
no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of
what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above,
even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth
time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep"
again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis
whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise
their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics
about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the
importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's
"once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in
common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any
responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you
simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account
can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of
your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the
government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and
evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists
have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand
that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual
enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they
do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and
abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any
of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a
liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of
their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material
rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the
previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed
to declare the "official" account totally discredited without
having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables
them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small
inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered
questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure
from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate
to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively
discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to
prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that
they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their
claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six,
the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in
order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should
be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do
not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are
almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the
real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that
the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and
of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people
are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are
questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable
length. Because the most important thing about these people is
that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They
cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good
evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source
from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with
the same answer when they ask the same question.

John P.

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 12:10:44 AM10/10/07
to
"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message

> Ask your mommy, JP.

She died.

That's what happens to people eventually Cornholio.

One day, a very, very, very long time from now, when you grow up, your mommy
will die too. ... but don't worry, you'll likely not be breastfeeding
anymore by then. It's very possible you'll be eating grown up food by then.


John P.

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 12:13:24 AM10/10/07
to
"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message

> You chirping tweeters do the same. You've been shown/supplied a link


> of molten steel. You've denied its existence.

ROFLMAO! You don't know what "molten" means? ... and you're attempting to
discuss 9/11 with the grown-ups?

You can't pick up molten metal with a claw. Molten metal is a liquid.


BDK

unread,
Oct 10, 2007, 2:07:43 AM10/10/07
to
In article <k5edncMmYbL9zJHa...@comcast.com>,
Jo...@youreatowel.com says...

But the kook's believe in "Magic Steel", that doesn't turn into liquid
when it becomes..molten. And they wonder why people call them kooks?

BDK

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 10:49:18 AM10/12/07
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:10:44 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
wrote:

>"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message


>
>> Ask your mommy, JP.
>
>She died.
>
>That's what happens to people eventually Cornholio.

Fist they grow up little boy, John.

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 10:59:14 AM10/12/07
to

Yes because if it doesn't say I saw steel in quotes it means it was
all second hand.


>
>Prove me wrong. It has to have the name of the person quoted to be
>fact-checled. There are a couple people that are mis-quoted by
>Twoofers.

You've been proven wrong, AL

>
>
> 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
> A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
> http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
>
> 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
> are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",
> patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

Confidence can be misconstrued as such.


>
> 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy
> no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of
> what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above,
> even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth
> time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep"
> again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis
> whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

Sticking to the unanswered truth or repeated exposure of lies can be
perceived as.

>
> 3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise
> their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
> they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics
> about the claims that they make.

So you just make shit up.

>
> 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
> bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the
> importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's
> "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
> however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in
> common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any
> responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you
> simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account
> can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of
> your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the
> government) is therefore the truth.

Phrases need to be precise with parsing tweeters around.


>
> 5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
> principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
> small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
> dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and
> evidence in any alternative account.

More beliefs on your part, AL.


>
> 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists
> have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
> respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
> anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand
> that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual
> enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they
> do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and
> abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.


How's about no evidence, AL.

>
> 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
> theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
> without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any
> of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a
> liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of
> their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material
> rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the
> previous lot.

What claim have I made that was untrue or unfounded, AL?


>
> 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed
> to declare the "official" account totally discredited without
> having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables
> them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small
> inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered
> questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure
> from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate
> to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively
> discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to
> prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that
> they even definitely exist.

If anyone has leaped to conclusions it is the chirping tweeters like
yourself, AL. <i.e. a high heat source (thermite) can't cut steel.>


>
> 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their
> claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six,
> the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in
> order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should
> be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do
> not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are
> almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the
> real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that
> the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and
> of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

Because all conspiracy's aren't real and there isn't a history of
them.

>
> 10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
> body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people
> are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are
> questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable
> length. Because the most important thing about these people is
> that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They
> cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good
> evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source
> from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with
> the same answer when they ask the same question.


As opposed to its incompetence

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 11:10:35 AM10/12/07
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:13:24 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
wrote:

>"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message

Tips or parts can be molten. Again parsing with words is lame. And I
wouldn't call what I think you are referencing to be molten anyway.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
>

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 11:17:45 AM10/12/07
to


In tweeter land steel can not become partially molten. It can only be
completely or not molten at all. Tweeters believe a tip or end of a
girder or perhaps the center of one could never become molten where it
becomes two pieces with molten tips. Poor poor little chirping
tweeters.

doesn't need to be subjected to the same level of heat all over to
become completely molten right, BDK.

BDK

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 1:46:11 PM10/12/07
to
In article <092vg35f3j2pf5lna...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:10:44 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message
> >
> >> Ask your mommy, JP.
> >
> >She died.
> >
> >That's what happens to people eventually Cornholio.
>
> Fist they grow up little boy, John.

More gay sex stuff, Cornholio?

(Just kidding)

But you do crack me up. Don't you get tired from all the tap dancing?

BDK
Looking down on Shills everywhere.

BDK

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 2:03:41 PM10/12/07
to
In article <oj3vg35rg8t6di84l...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

Just the fact that you believe in the molten steel claims at all is just
funny as hell. Sorry, but if you really thought about it, you would
realize how ridiculous it is.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> doesn't need to be subjected to the same level of heat all over to
> become completely molten right, BDK.
>

BWHAHAHAHA!!

You need to get some steel rods, or similar, and get yourself some
thermite, or just a big arc welder and do some "molten steel"
experiments. Melt it, let it drip, let the puddle touch other steel
rods, and see what happens. Time how long it takes to cool, and maybe
get one of those infra red digital thermometers and see how the temps
fall, and how hot it is above the molten puddle.

If you haven't figured out the problems with the molten steel claims in
a very short time, call your lawyer and sue your schools for fraud, and
your parents for lying to you and telling you were "smart".

I know you wouldn't even consider doing the above, as it could possibly
make you come to doubt your faith. Couldn't have that, could we?


BDK

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 9:05:24 AM10/13/07
to
In article <tc2vg3dbl2buu89eq...@4ax.com>,

fact-checked. There are a couple people that are mis-quoted by
Twoofers.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists


A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",
patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy


no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of
what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above,
even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth
time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep"
again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis
whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise


their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics
about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui


bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the
importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's
"once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in
common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any
responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you
simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account
can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of
your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the
government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the


principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and
evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists


have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand
that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual
enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they
do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and
abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy


theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any
of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a
liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of
their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material
rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the
previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed


to declare the "official" account totally discredited without
having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables
them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small
inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered
questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure
from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate
to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively
discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to
prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that
they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their


claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six,
the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in
order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should
be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do
not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are
almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the
real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that
the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and
of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the


body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people
are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are
questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable
length. Because the most important thing about these people is
that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They
cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good
evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source
from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with
the same answer when they ask the same question.

--

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 9:06:27 AM10/13/07
to
In article <oj3vg35rg8t6di84l...@4ax.com>,


There is no verified eyewitness for *any* molten steel on the pile at
WTC.

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 10:45:15 AM10/13/07
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:46:11 -0400, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:

>In article <092vg35f3j2pf5lna...@4ax.com>,
>cons...@nuss.org says...
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:10:44 -0500, "John P." <Jo...@youreatowel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message
>> >
>> >> Ask your mommy, JP.
>> >
>> >She died.
>> >
>> >That's what happens to people eventually Cornholio.
>>
>> Fist they grow up little boy, John.
>
>More gay sex stuff, Cornholio?
>
>(Just kidding)
>
>But you do crack me up. Don't you get tired from all the tap dancing?
>
>BDK

Yes the tweeters are attempting to tire me out with their deluded
arguments whether straw men or not.

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 10:51:15 AM10/13/07
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:03:41 -0400, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:

>In article <oj3vg35rg8t6di84l...@4ax.com>,
>cons...@nuss.org says...
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:07:43 -0400, BDK <B...@magicsteel.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <k5edncMmYbL9zJHa...@comcast.com>,
>> >Jo...@youreatowel.com says...
>> >> "cornholeuss" <cons...@nuss.org> wrote in a message
>> >>
>> >> > You chirping tweeters do the same. You've been shown/supplied a link
>> >> > of molten steel. You've denied its existence.
>> >>
>> >> ROFLMAO! You don't know what "molten" means? ... and you're attempting to
>> >> discuss 9/11 with the grown-ups?
>> >>
>> >> You can't pick up molten metal with a claw. Molten metal is a liquid.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >But the kook's believe in "Magic Steel", that doesn't turn into liquid
>> >when it becomes..molten. And they wonder why people call them kooks?
>> >
>> >BDK
>>
>>
>> In tweeter land steel can not become partially molten. It can only be
>> completely or not molten at all. Tweeters believe a tip or end of a
>> girder or perhaps the center of one could never become molten where it
>> becomes two pieces with molten tips. Poor poor little chirping
>> tweeters.
>>
>
>Just the fact that you believe in the molten steel claims at all is just
>funny as hell. Sorry, but if you really thought about it, you would
>realize how ridiculous it is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> doesn't need to be subjected to the same level of heat all over to
>> become completely molten right, BDK.
>>
>
>BWHAHAHAHA!!
>
>You need to get some steel rods, or similar, and get yourself some
>thermite, or just a big arc welder and do some "molten steel"
>experiments. Melt it, let it drip, let the puddle touch other steel
>rods, and see what happens. Time how long it takes to cool, and maybe
>get one of those infra red digital thermometers and see how the temps
>fall, and how hot it is above the molten puddle.
>
>If you haven't figured out the problems with the molten steel claims in
>a very short time, call your lawyer and sue your schools for fraud, and
>your parents for lying to you and telling you were "smart".
>
>I know you wouldn't even consider doing the above, as it could possibly
>make you come to doubt your faith. Couldn't have that, could we?
>
>
>BDK

I am not the believer am I?

Are they all liars and in on the no planes/space based laser
conspiracy, BDK?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 10:55:19 AM10/13/07
to


No just conspirators of the no planes/space based laser, AL

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

BDK

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 1:28:52 PM10/13/07
to
In article <bdm1h3dolu14frsm0...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

Tire you out??

You think I want you to stop posting, and lose your funny as hell posts?


WTF is wrong with you?

BDK

BDK

unread,
Oct 13, 2007, 1:30:52 PM10/13/07
to
In article <8km1h3dpphr7ifdp2...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

You really don't know, do you?

Really?

Holy shit!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BDK

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 14, 2007, 8:41:18 AM10/14/07
to
In article <8km1h3dpphr7ifdp2...@4ax.com>,


I've gone though every name on that page and they all say they heard
it from someone else. Taking the first name, Mark Loizeaux, someone
asked him for confirmation. Here's the email text. You are welcome to
email him to get a confirmation.


Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center
site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working
with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of
debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were
digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning
debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the
molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm
not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-xxxx
Fax: 1-410-667-xxxx
www.controlled-demolition.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

Al Dykes

unread,
Oct 14, 2007, 8:42:38 AM10/14/07
to
In article <51n1h39189sr1u004...@4ax.com>,


Every name on that page, when checked, turns out to be second hand
telling of what someone else said they heard someone else say.

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 15, 2007, 2:31:37 PM10/15/07
to

And if you'd actually read the URL you'd know that AFP and Loizeaux
are suspect. What you continually ignore is the remaining reports and
cached articles, AL.

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 15, 2007, 2:36:19 PM10/15/07
to


You believe that to be true, AL. Why not mention a strawman argument
again i.e. Loizeaux?


consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 15, 2007, 2:38:39 PM10/15/07
to


You do mean the people who respond to my post .i.e. John P.

You know I also got a kick out of his claim of Ins. Fraud
Investigators would have uncovered a shadow government black op.


BDK

unread,
Oct 15, 2007, 11:35:23 PM10/15/07
to
In article <spc7h35p3d1p9pbk1...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

Sure they would have, sure they would have.

It must really be hard for your family to keep from cracking up when you
spout the crazy shit you do all the time.

If you still talk to them.

BDK

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 16, 2007, 10:39:30 AM10/16/07
to


Does this mean you agree that the fraud investigative team would
uncover a black op?


Pfff.

BDK

unread,
Oct 16, 2007, 3:13:18 PM10/16/07
to
In article <a7j9h31gb1mbcv5pe...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

There goes that leaky brain case of yours again. Please get it fixed
before the bugs get inside and start a new colony.
BDK

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 24, 2007, 10:28:43 AM10/24/07
to


Is that yes I do believe that the fraud investigative team would
uncover a black op?

BDK

unread,
Oct 24, 2007, 2:08:10 PM10/24/07
to
In article <fjluh35gbi3dfcmsb...@4ax.com>,

LOL. You think alllllll those people could keep a secret?

Amazing, in so many ways, Cornholio....

BDK

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 6:20:00 AM10/25/07
to

BDK

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 2:33:42 PM10/25/07
to
In article <hcr0i35b1g9rg90dc...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

BWHAHAHAHA..Is the black op the planes that crashed into the buildings,
or is it the "coverup" of the molten pools of steel?

BDK

consheshnuss

unread,
Oct 31, 2007, 9:42:02 AM10/31/07
to


The short bus is on its way for ya.

BDK

unread,
Oct 31, 2007, 4:59:24 PM10/31/07
to
In article <ig1hi3li8587vi714...@4ax.com>,
cons...@nuss.org says...

Hey, I hear they have secretly moved the formerly molten pools of steel
to a place in New Jersey!

I believe it's called Chuckie Cheeze's. Obviously, a CIA front.

BDK

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages