9/11 - concentrate on what you can see with your own eyes
Robert Henderson
explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
possible). Watch the videos of the planes approaching and hitting the
Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted by
people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited to
partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
expertise. RH
From: Paul Roberts <pc...@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:34:01 -0600
Subject: New York Police photos of 9/11 WTC
Can Americans Believe the Evidence of Their Own Eyes?
The British press has just published a number of photographs that have
finally been released, or forced to be released,
by the NY Police Department of the three WTC buildings' disappearance
8.5 years ago.� For that is what happened.� The buildings did not fall
down, or burn down, or collapse. The buildings suddenly disappeared into
micro-particles of fine dust.
All of the photographs are extremely interesting to people with an
educated eye.� But the two below should wake up
even the large scientifically and technically illiterate part of the US
population. The first photo shows the top of the tower engulfed in black
smoke with a few small flames, a definite indication of a smothered, low
temperature fire. The next frame a few seconds later shows the building
disappearing into the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhatten
.
How did this happen?�� Clearly low temperature, isolated, smothered
fires did not cause the building and its massive steel structure to
suddenly vaporize into dust.
The visual evidence totally contradicts the official government line
about the tower's destruction.
How much longer can the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 be
supported in view of NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE?
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
BDK
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk says...
> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
> and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
> possible). Watch the videos of the planes approaching and hitting the
> Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted by
> people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited to
> partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
> dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
> before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
>
> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
> expertise. RH
>
I wonder how many times this nonsense has been shot down in
alt.conspiracy alone?
>
>
>
> From: Paul Roberts <pc...@mac.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:34:01 -0600
> Subject: New York Police photos of 9/11 WTC
>
> Can Americans Believe the Evidence of Their Own Eyes?
>
> The British press has just published a number of photographs that have
> finally been released, or forced to be released,
> by the NY Police Department of the three WTC buildings' disappearance
> 8.5 years ago. For that is what happened. The buildings did not fall
> down, or burn down, or collapse. The buildings suddenly disappeared into
> micro-particles of fine dust.
BWHAHAHAHA! Only if your delusional.
> All of the photographs are extremely interesting to people with an
> educated eye. But the two below should wake up
> even the large scientifically and technically illiterate part of the US
> population. The first photo shows the top of the tower engulfed in black
> smoke with a few small flames, a definite indication of a smothered, low
> temperature fire. The next frame a few seconds later shows the building
> disappearing into the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhatten
> .
> How did this happen? Clearly low temperature, isolated, smothered
> fires did not cause the building and its massive steel structure to
> suddenly vaporize into dust.
I would like to know what happens to people that would make them believe
such nonsense as posted above?
>
> The visual evidence totally contradicts the official government line
> about the tower's destruction.
Quite the opposite, it confirms it.
> How much longer can the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 be
> supported in view of NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE?
>
No, it's you 911 truthers who have no supporting evidence. Shit, half
your claims are flat out impossible.
Same old kooktards with the same old kookdumb.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Robert Henderson
<TopS...@sanity.com> writes
>In article <s2aaTSTj...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
>phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk says...
>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
>> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
>> and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
>> possible). Watch the videos of the planes approaching and hitting the
>> Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted by
>> people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited to
>> partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
>> dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
>> before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
>>
>> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
>> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
>> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
>> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
>> expertise. RH
>>
>
>I wonder how many times this nonsense has been shot down in
>alt.conspiracy alone?
>
>>
Government Shill #2
Dud. Even your claim that "...eye witness accounts also report some very
nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact." Is patently
ridiculous.
Objectively true? Only if you have no idea what you are talking about.
--
Shill #2
Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you
are talking about.
george
> Dud. Even your claim that "...eye witness accounts also report some very
> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact." Is patently
> ridiculous.
>
> Objectively true? Only if you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
The asylum has released another flood of the mentally challenged upon
us once more.
It's going to be one of those years...
Government Shill #2
It's a constant source of amusement that these people who have obviously
never piloted even a paper plane consider the manoeuvres as "nifty". Sudden
bank? Sharp turn? Wanker.
--
Shill #2
America: [307] million wankers living in a country with no word for wanker.
Jeremy Clarkson
george
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:06:06 -0800 (PST), george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 7:37 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dud. Even your claim that "...eye witness accounts also report some very
> >> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> >> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact." Is patently
> >> ridiculous.
>
> >> Objectively true? Only if you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> >The asylum has released another flood of the mentally challenged upon
> >us once more.
> >It's going to be one of those years...
>
> It's a constant source of amusement that these people who have obviously
> never piloted even a paper plane consider the manoeuvres as "nifty". Sudden
> bank? Sharp turn? Wanker.
>
and a steep turn or three
Al Dykes
Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
>explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
>the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
>and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
Not one.
You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
collapse and a link to what he said.
"explosion" is a good word for "loud noise".
"like a bomb" is a metaphor. So is "like a freight train". Firemen
said both. That doesn't mean they thought there were bombs or freight
trains at WTC.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
BDK
> In article <s2aaTSTj...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> >explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
> >the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
> >and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
>
>
>
> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
>
> Not one.
>
> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> collapse and a link to what he said.
>
> "explosion" is a good word for "loud noise".
>
> "like a bomb" is a metaphor. So is "like a freight train". Firemen
> said both. That doesn't mean they thought there were bombs or freight
> trains at WTC.
>
>
>
>
>
No trains? Awwwwwww.
harry k
wrote:
> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
> and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
> possible). Watch the videos of the planes approaching and hitting the
> Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted by
> people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited to
> partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
> dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
> before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
>
> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
> expertise. RH
>
You did see that huge pile of rubble/steel/bodies, etc? Does that
look like "fine dust" to you? How long did it take for a massive
removal effort to cart all that stuff away?
Pure you and the other kooks, there wasn't anything there to _be_
carried away.
Harry K
Animal03-
Bobby obviously lives in an alternate reality.
Every claims by kooktars like yourself have been proven false countless
times......from the mythical power down, to "themite/thermate" to
untrained pilots to melting steel to oxygen starved fires to "pods" etc etc.
Mike Jones
> In article <s2aaTSTj...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk says...
>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
>> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
>> and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
>> possible). Watch the videos of the planes approaching and hitting the
>> Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted
>> by people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited
>> to partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
>> dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
>> before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
>>
>> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
>> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
>> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
>> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
>> expertise. RH
>>
>>
> I wonder how many times this nonsense has been shot down in
> alt.conspiracy alone?
>
Ok. Seeing as you raised this here, how about /you/ post /your/ basic
summary of why and how this guy is wrong. No links to something, no
jeering put-downs, no "everybody knows this" stuff, just your own basic
understandings of what actually happened, and why you think the official
line is not only correct, but is the only way things happend on that day.
Can you do it? Or are you going to just call in your giggling goofball
chums to kick up a dust storm as you run for cover once again?
Ready? Steady? Go!
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
Delta
must be a demolition formula... expected rubble pile size relative to
original building mass..
another one = expected average particle size relative to mass/kinetic
energy of original building.
plenty of good research to be done here.
Lou Ravi
> In article <s2aaTSTj...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
>> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own
>> eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a
>> many as
>
>
>
> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
>
> Not one.
>
> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> collapse and a link to what he said.
Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
Iarnrod
Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
Lou Ravi
> You did see that huge pile of rubble/steel/bodies, etc? Does that
> look like "fine dust" to you? How long did it take for a massive
> removal effort to cart all that stuff away?
And quickly bury it in the sea before any serious examination of the
evidence could take place.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Noooo! you poor naive fool - it was reversed engineered UFOs from Area
51 using their chameleon fields! All the passengers of the real aircraft
were offloaded at Area 51 and shot.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
george
No!
Most of the debris from the Towers is in a land fill.
You -really- should read up on the subject before you post
Iarnrod
wrote:
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> >> Al Dykes wrote:
> >>> In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> >>>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
> >>>> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own
> >>>> eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a
> >>>> many as
> >>> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> >>> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
> >>> Not one.
> >>> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> >>> collapse and a link to what he said.
> >> Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
>
> > Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
> > demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
>
> > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> Noooo! you poor naive fool - it was reversed engineered UFOs from Area
> 51 using their chameleon fields! All the passengers of the real aircraft
> were offloaded at Area 51 and shot.
Are you sure it wasn't Area 39? I heard it was there.
Lou Ravi
Don't try bullshitting laddie. Building seven with a few fires in a few
rooms collapsed in a perfect demolition scenario. If you believe otherwise
you believe in the tooth fairy.
> Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Lou Ravi
As you like, but where it went is not the point, the fact is it was not
examined properly.
george
Nonsense!
It was examined over quite a long period.
Why do you persist in lying ?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill
Mike Jones
> Iarnrod wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>> In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
>>>> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
>>>>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus
>>>>> on the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your
>>>>> own eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a
>>>>> many as
>>>> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
>>>> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse. Not
>>>> one.
>>>> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
>>>> collapse and a link to what he said.
>>> Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
>>
>> Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
>> demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
>>
>> Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> Noooo! you poor naive fool - it was reversed engineered UFOs from Area
> 51 using their chameleon fields! All the passengers of the real aircraft
> were offloaded at Area 51 and shot.
You idiot! No way would they use area 51! They'd have skipped next door
to are 52 to fool observers!
Or was it area 50? Hmmm? The plot thickens.
BDK
madef...@libertysurf.fr says...
LOL, it seems more likely you believe in all kinds of funny stuff. How
come if it was a "perfect demolition scenario", it didn't collapse like
a demolition at all? And there weren't any charges heard going off as
would have been heard if it was demoed? Do you believe in silent
explosives? I bet you do, since that's about the only way demolition was
even possible. But that doesn't matter to you, does it?
>
> > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Yes, we're going to laugh at you, a lot..
BDK
@g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
He's a swallower of the sacred kookpages and doesn't realize how stupid
the shit he claims is.
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> >> Al Dykes wrote:
> >>> In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> >>>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus
> >>>> on the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your
> >>>> own eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as
> >>>> a many as
>
> >>> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> >>> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
>
> >>> Not one.
>
> >>> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> >>> collapse and a link to what he said.
>
> >> Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
>
> > Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
> > demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
>
> Don't try bullshitting laddie.
Bullshitting is what you are doing, dearie. Controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility in these
collapses. That's a fact.
> Building seven with a few fires in a few
> rooms collapsed in a perfect demolition scenario.
Not possible, sorry, dearie, There were NO controlled demolition
explosives going off, that is PROVEN FACT. Raging uncontrolled fires
on many floors and massive structural damage... collapse foreseen five
hours before it collapsed due to damage and bulging wall... this is a
perfect example of a structural failure collapse. Why do you "think"
it was controlled demolition when all the proof is that it was not?
Because you *want* to believe that?
> If you believe otherwise you believe in the tooth fairy.
I have just proven that you are the one who believes in delusions.
There is not one shred of evidence supporting your claims.
> > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Why are you laughing at the proven trruth instead of trying to build
your case?
Oh, that's right, you cannot support your case because it is false.
Animal03-
Animal03-
Typical kooktard, when presented with facts......move the goal post
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message <MPG.25e1e03cbd8dafd098b...@news.buckeye-express.com>, BDK
> <TopSh...@sanity.com> writes
>
> >In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> >phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk says...
> >> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> >> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus on
> >> the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your own eyes
> >> and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as a many as
> >> Twin Towers (Bags of coverage on YouTube). Planes supposedly piloted by
> >> people who had never flown a plane and whose expertise was limited to
> >> partial completion of simulator courses flew the planes with great
> >> dexterity into what were from the air small targets. One banked sharly
> >> before the approach. Improbable is inadequate a word to describe that.
>
> >> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
> >> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> >> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
> >> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
> >> expertise. RH
>
> >alt.conspiracy alone?
>
Do you teabag Henderson?
JC
Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ex-cia-chief-james-woolsey-handed-down-gag-order-to-911-firefighters.html
Jerry Mazza
Infowars
October 20, 2009
This tale begins during and shortly after 9/11/2001, when a writer named
Randy Lavello published a story at Prison Planet, Bombs in the Building:
World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact. Among the
many tales in this article, a number of which were picked up in Mike
Rivero's web site, what really happened, is a conversation between
Lavello and Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul
Isaac Jr. It's a head-spinner…
The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that
Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day.
"[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac
Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] 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." Paul further
elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire
Department's Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the
ranks. 'There were definitely bombs in those buildings,' he told me."
Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski,
saying "It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or
retaliation or losing their jobs." He mentions that the FBI gag order
placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them
from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky
praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man
Investigative Team.
Syzmansky wrote that "When he [Isaacs] worked as an auxiliary fireman
specializing in emergency and disaster communications response, Isaac
said after 9/11 he began monitoring all emergency units to see if any
patterns or information about the perpetrators could be learned. "Over
the last four years he's compiled information and names of civilians and
firefighters, whose identities he keeps anonymous for their safety, who
all claim to have either witnessed explosions in the towers or have
information that a controlled demolition took place." Isaacs is quoted
as saying, "It's just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for
fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," again regarding Woolsey's FBI
gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials,
preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, also in attendance at the WTC 'open grave
site' on September 11, 2005, wrote the following on APFN, "I just got
back from Ground Zero. People know the truth! Half of the police and
firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know 9/11 was an
inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were
supporting what we were doing! I had tears in my eyes." So, why would
former CIA director Woolsey, as the Fire Department's Anti-terrorism
Consultant, be gagging Isaac and his colleagues about what they saw and
heard, i.e. bombs exploding in the building if not to cover up the
government conspiracy, the inside job behind the supposed demolition of
the WTC by two jetliners, whose fuel fire supposedly melted the
redundant steel frames which caved and caused a pyroplastic free-fall of
each building in some ten seconds. All at once the conspiracy of the
lone Muslim airliner hijackers destroying the towers goes down the
drain, glub, glub! That's why Firefighters and Police Officers were
gagged.
In fact, click Rivero's "what really happened" site above to get to get
more linked interviews of Firefighters talking about explosions shortly
after 9/11 occurred. Rivero is amazing at collecting data, classifying
it, and incorporating it into his encyclopedic 9/11 site. Read what the
heroes had to say.
For instance, "Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point,
Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as
high as the 24th floor … 'Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else
also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor,' said
Cacchioli. 'There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back
down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind
us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a
loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.' Lou
continues, 'Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to
pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And
all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a
flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me… I
somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I
began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one
hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell,
but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like
they did in 1993!'" Unfortunately, the bastards in 1993 and in 2001 had
considerable help from the bastards in our government. The Woolsey gag
order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police
Officers have had to deal with to this day. Imagine their anger, seeing
their buddies disappear in explosions, fire and smoke. Imagine having to
swallow that anger, that grief and humiliation, for the grand purpose of
America sinking into the grizzly War on Terror in a matter of days.
Imagine having to work on the pile at Ground Zero knowing what you knew.
Or having to play deaf, dumb and blind, as 340 Firefighters died, two
fire paramedics and one FDNY Chaplain and as 23 New York Police officers
and 36 Port Authority officers went down. Not to mention the 2800 plus
civilians taken from their lives senselessly.
Is it any wonder then that Justice John Lehner recently killed the NYC
CAN ballot initiative to reinvestigate 911. The Justice called the
initiative "irrelevant," and rejected the will of 80,000 New Yorkers who
had signed petitions to make it to happen. Is it the specter of James
Woolsey gagging the Justice, or Mayor Bloomberg? Bloomberg rejected the
will of the people after they had twice voted against a third term for
New York Mayors. And since Mayor Bloomberg is in the middle of a
political campaign for his illegal third term, he might want to assure
us that we're not being gagged, like Justice Lehner or the Fire and
Police Departments. We would like to hear the full 9/11 story presented
by a truly independent and expert commission. What Bush did, what is
still being done, is in keeping with Hitler's axiom: If you tell a lie,
make sure it's a big lie, and keep telling it till everyone believes or
has to believe it for fear of seeming unpatriotic. And so it's time to
take the gag off, one way or the other. Let those Firefighters and
Police officers speak without fear of retribution. Let the facts, the
real facts of 911, gathered by engineers, architects, pilots, retired
military men, first responders, citizens of New York and the world,
speak for once loud and clear. New Yorkers should take to the streets to
protest the Justice's gag order. Case in point: a few days ago the
governor of Puerto Rico announced that he would fire 20,000 government
workers to close his $4 billion deficit, once again balancing deficits
on the backs of labor. This caused the people of Puerto Rico to pour
into the streets in a spontaneous one-day strike! In fact, their Puerto
Rican brothers and sisters in New York City joined in a March at the
Puerto Rican government offices here. Their collective reaction made
waves from the mainland to the island.
We don't want to end up with an Emperor instead of a duly-elected Mayor,
Governor, or President, and silence instead of justice. Why not bring
the wheels of New York to a squealing halt in a similar strike? So for
once we can hear the voice of truth on those scratchy fire and
policeman's walkie talkies. Then Mr. Woolsey can gag his old friends at
the CIA or his new friends at the Wall Street Journal where he now
writes guest columns. Or perhaps be gagged himself by Rupert "The Fox"
Murdoch, yellow press media mogul of our time.
JC
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
A new article in U.S. News & World Report quotes a couple of
psychologists, one sociologist and one historian to argue that people
who question the government's version of 9/11 are prone to false
thinking.
Initially, remember that, while there are many honorable psychologists
and psychiatrists, psychologists helped to create the U.S. torture
program, and actively participated in it.
Also, psychologists - such as Freud's nephew Edward Bernays - have been
central to propaganda efforts for a century. See also this and this.
Moreover, many mental health professionals have concluded that the
official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the
official version suffer from emotional problems or defense mechanisms.
For example:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther Professor
Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph
Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor Retired
Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris Ph.D. in
Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed
Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Finally, it should be obvious that the opinions of mental health
professionals are only as sound as their knowledge. For example, a
mental health professional in 1640 would likely have labeled Galileo
crazy for saying that the Earth orbits around the Sun.
More importantly, a German psychologist who heard from a patient in 1933
- when Hitler started consolidating power in Germany - that Hitler was a
dangerous fascist who would launch a world war, try to take over the
world and kill millions would likely be labeled as delusional.
Just as with any field, the opinions of mental health professional are
only as good as their knowledge.
Indeed, even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves now say that they don't
believe the government's version of 9/11.
For example:
The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White
House) "obstructed our investigation"
Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military
officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission
considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated
with the false statements we were getting"
9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating:
"It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and
"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11
issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it
up"
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the
9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some
point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what
happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was
from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different
story from what had been told to us and the public for two years....
This is not spin. This is not true."
Given that even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves don't believe the
government's version of 9/11 any more, is a mental health professional
who believes the official version really saying that the entire 9/11
Commission is delusional?
Controllers
Americans have been conditioned to give up everything including their
rights, money and homes for fear of being labeled mentally ill,
Anti-semitic, conspiracy theorists.
, http://911blogger.com/node/20218
==================================
JC
Something to ponder.
Look at the WTC's fire... Remember WTC beams are 2 to 3 times stronger
to resist 707 plane crash. ,
http://www.infowars.com/images2/world/madrid_%20wtc_fires.jpg ,
Now look at these 2 Madrid fire pic's...remember, this fire burned for
20 hours , http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire22a.jpg ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg ,
Now look at the Madrid building after the 20 hour fire. ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire11.jpg ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html?q=spain_fire_2005.html
VFW
<044d982d-ce37-48b3...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
of course we may never know the whole story,, but...
the government's version is so lame.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
Iarnrod
> In article
> <044d982d-ce37-48b3-b800-9a04935cd...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Name one problem with it.
You can't and you won't.
HardySpicer
The owner of the building said on TV that he was going to pull the
building.
That means demolish it. Yes it can be proven it was blown up. It falls
at the same speed as
a blown up building. A natural collapse would mean the building
falling at a strange angle.
The only question is who did it?
Hardy
Government Shill #2
When a demolition team "pulls" a building it attaches cable to the
buildings and *pulls* it. Like this:
http://www.myvideo.ch/watch/1014813/Pull_6
Yes it can be proven it was blown up.
Well, if you can do it you will be the first.
>It falls at the same speed as a blown up building. A natural collapse would mean the building
>falling at a strange angle.
Why?
>The only question is who did it?
That's the only thing that's not in question. Well, for sane people it's
not in question.
--
Shill #2
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
European Division
george
> of course we may never know the whole story,, but...
> the government's version is so lame.
Unfortunately fact is like that dry and accurate whereas fiction can
be exciting and novel and wrong.
Iarnrod
No he didn't. He said no such thing. you're lying.
> That means demolish it.
No it doesn't. You're lying again.
> Yes it can be proven it was blown up.
Then by all means, proceed... <snicker>
Can you do any better than the parade of lying kookjpobs who have
preceded you?
> It falls
> at the same speed as
> a blown up building.
So what? Does gravity work differently depending on such
circumstances? You have a very strange anti-scientific view of the
world.
How does your theory address the proven fact that there are no
explosives going off? Kinda hard to blow up a building with a wish and
a wink, ain't it?
> A natural collapse would mean the building
> falling at a strange angle.
How so? Explain that ludicrous claim. Are you on drugs? Do you think
you can just say such things and have them accepted by people with
brains?
> The only question is who did it?
UBL.
He admitted it.
Case closed.
Animal03-
Look ......a "topple like a tree" kooktard. LMAO
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
john smith
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb17b41f-bc02-4004...@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> That means demolish it.
UBL.
He admitted it.
Case closed.
So why isn't the Twin Towers mentioned on the FBI's Most Wanted list?
BDK
@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, gyans...@gmail.com says...
No, he never said anything like that. Try listening. The firefighting
effort was "pulled". Nothing sinister about it. A very sensible thing,
to a sane person. So are you claiming the firefighters blew it up, and
that those magical silent explosives that you poor kooks seem to believe
in were used to do it?
> That means demolish it.
No, it doesn't.
> Yes it can be proven it was blown up.
Not even possible, let alone proven. Unless you believe in invisible,
silent explosives.
> It falls at the same speed as a blown up building.
Not even close.
> A natural collapse would mean the building
> falling at a strange angle.
No, it wouldn't. You skipped out of science class, didn't you?
> The only question is who did it?
The guys flying the planes. Never in any doubt, by sane people anyway.
>
> Hardy
Hardly a clue would be a more accurate name for you.
BDK
says...
He saw all those "Godzilla" documentaries when he was a kid, and he
"knows" how a building really falls. He "knows" about all kinds of
really great stuff, I bet.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why would it be? Has UBL been indicted by a federal grand jury for
that attack? Why, no he hasn't, so therefore it would not appear on
his fugitive notice, now would it! <chuckle> Youa re so naive about
how things work.
Hint: We launched a fuckin' WAR to get him for 9/11. We didn't indict
him for it. The 10 Most Wanted list only contains those crimes with
which he has been charged.
Go buy a clue, kooktard.
john smith
***I thought you said he admitted to it? If so - what more evidence do they
want?***
Youa re so naive about
how things work.
Hint: We launched a fuckin' WAR to get him for 9/11.
***That's not how they spun it orginally, now, is it? You want to have your
cake and eat it, don't you?***
We didn't indict
him for it. The 10 Most Wanted list only contains those crimes with
which he has been charged.
Go buy a clue, kooktard.
***Awww! Granny's vocabulary chip's sticking again! Get some new material,
eh? ;-) ***
Robert Henderson
<fb17b41f-bc02-4004...@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> writes
>How so? Explain that ludicrous claim. Are you on drugs?
No, he is simply a fantasy Celt and consequently adrift from reality ...
Iarnrod
Why would I need new material with you, johnny baby? You bring nothing
new to the table and my same ol' smackdown of your kooker ass is
completely sufficient.
Your FAILURE to counter any of my PROVEN FACTS is DULY NOTED in the
record. Q.E.D.
BTW, learn how to post properly, you nitwit.
Rev. 11D Meow!
Lardknob can't prove anything beyond his teeny-bopper shit-stained
undies.
HardySpicer
There were explosives. Traces of thermite were found everywhere. You
can see the explosions going off in building 7.
This is not 'anti scientific". Ask a demolition man and he will
confirm this. You cannot drop a building onto a postage stamp like
that by chance.
Hardy
HardySpicer
> In article <21452f8c-da55-4191-9090-2d6002eb06b0
I am not claiming firefighters blew it up. the explosives had to be
there possibly a week earlier.
You cannot just plant explosives in 5 minutes to collapse a building
in the right manner.
Hardy
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message
> <fb17b41f-bc02-4004-9ba7-6febd477e...@b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >How so? Explain that ludicrous claim. Are you on drugs?
>
> No, he is simply a fantasy Celt and consequently adrift from reality ...
> RH
> --
> Robert Henderson
> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Two for tea-bagging hendarse?
Animal03-
No there were not......the lack of a seismic signature is but one of
many pieces of evidence that refutes your claim.
> Traces of thermite were found everywhere.
No they were not. many building materials have the same basic compounds
found in thermite. Furthermore, there is no chain of command for the
supposed samples.
> You
> can see the explosions going off in building 7.
No, you cannot, but that does not stop kooktards from making the claim
> This is not 'anti scientific".
No, it is simply willful ignorance
>Ask a demolition man and he will
>> confirm this.
The only thing they confirm is that you are a moron
> You cannot drop a building onto a postage stamp like
> that by chance.
Since none of the WTC building did as you describe.....what is your point?
>
>
> Hardy
Animal03-
You obviously have never done work in NYC
Animal03-
Like death and taxes, a kooktard going "gay" is inevitable
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>No they were not. many building materials have the same basic compounds
>found in thermite. Furthermore, there is no chain of command for the
>supposed samples.
Chain of custody? Are you channeling Seon? :-)
--
Shill #2
na�ve: adjective
1. Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly
experience
2. Of or created by one without formal training; simple or naive in�style
3. Inexperienced
4. Lacking information or instruction
5. Not initiated; deficient in relevant experience
Example picture seonferguson.jpg
george
Thermite/thermate/nanothermite is/are not explosive
There were no explosives 'seen' going off in WTC7. Had there been
explosives those sounds would be heard on the many video soundtracks
of the day.
And every-one who was there that day would have heard them and they
would feature in ALL the eyewitness accounts.
Iarnrod
No. There were not. None. This is proven fact.
> Traces of thermite were found everywhere.
That is of course false, not even in dispute. Not only was there not
one single trace of thermite, it is actually physically impossible for
your cartoon magic gravity defying thermite theory to happen. Nor was
there any use of your super-secret magical "thermite," this is a
proven fact. Sorry to burst you little delusional bubble. Thermite is
not capable of producing what happened on 9/11. Simply put: It don't
do that.
> You
> can see the explosions going off in building 7.
BWAHAHHAAAAA!!!
After nine years you now "claim" to "see" explosions!!
BWAHAAAHHAAAAAAA!!!!
Cite, moron. You can't and you won't because there were none. FACT.
> This is not 'anti scientific".
It most certainly is. It is physics-defying gibberish.
> Ask a demolition man and he will
> confirm this.
They ahve. They say you are full of shit.
> You cannot drop a building onto a postage stamp like
> that by chance.
WTF?!??!
"Postage stamp?"
WTF are you blubbering about now?
Apparently you are unfamiliar with"gravity."
> Hardy
Hardy? Is your last name "Har Har!!??" BWAHAAAHHAAAAA!!!
Please keep replying with your debunked nutbaggery because as a rookie
here, you are in the running for Rookie Kooker of the Week!
Iarnrod
> there possibly a week earlier.
Therefore there were none because this did not happen. Nor did any
explosives go off. Proven FACT.
> You cannot just plant explosives in 5 minutes to collapse a building
> in the right manner.
Nor weeks earlier in an occupied building, especially when it is
beyond questioning that there were no explosives going off at the time
of the collapse. Observed and proven FACT.
> Hardy
Har Har
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you can't place them _at all_ in a populated building without
people noticing...Of course you kooks can claim 'invisibility cloaks'
That is what would be needed for your wet dreams to work.
BTW Thermite/ate is not explosive, It burns, it takes time, lots of
time, to burn through a column. That is why there is not one demo
expert on earth that would even consider using it in a CD.
Harry K
Animal03-
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:49:43 -0500, Animal03- <Wher...@yesterday.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No they were not. many building materials have the same basic compounds
>> found in thermite. Furthermore, there is no chain of command for the
>> supposed samples.
>
> Chain of custody? Are you channeling Seon? :-)
with a comment like that....it is a good thing I don't know where you
live :-)
john smith
Yeah - like I'm gonna listen to *you*!
You're evasion is noted, by the way! ;-)
john smith
_______________________________________________________
You're completely WRONG, by the way! Even Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden
wasn't responsible for 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xRLiRqb8M
I think I'll take the word of the ex-Vice President over some nameless
banshee, thanks all the same!
BDK
6548c7...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, gyans...@gmail.com says...
No, unless you believe in silent explosives, there weren't.
> Traces of thermite were found everywhere.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wrong again.
> You can see the explosions going off in building 7.
If you're delusional, I'm sure you can. Sane people don't see any
explosions.
> This is not 'anti scientific". Ask a demolition man and he will
> confirm this. You cannot drop a building onto a postage stamp like
> that by chance.
It wasn't dropped into a "postage stamp". Why won't you kooks talk to an
engineer, and maybe learn something? If you looked at any of the many
real demolition videos online, you would see the WTC collapses look
almost nothing like them.
But it's probably far far too late for you at this point though.
Rave on, please.
BDK
@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, gyans...@gmail.com says...
If there were explosives, why didn't anyone hear them, or see them go
off, like when a building is really demoed?
> You cannot just plant explosives in 5 minutes to collapse a building
> in the right manner.
LOL, you can't plant silent explosives in any building, no matter how
much time you have!!
>
>
> Hardy
BDK
says...
I doubt someone like him actually has a job at all. More likely, he's on
SSI disability, or just living in his folk's house.
BDK
says...
I was wondering how long it would take. You know it's coming, but not
exactly when.
Iarnrod
Wow, can't post properly AND illiterate AND evading the demand that he
provide facts.
That's OK, johnny. We know that you can't and you won't. Your evasion
is nothing more than dancing away.
Iarnrod
I have not been wrong about one single thing, dearie. FACT.
> Even Dick Cheney admits Bin Laden
> wasn't responsible for 9/11:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xRLiRqb8M
No he doesn't, sweetie.
> I think I'll take the word of the ex-Vice President over some nameless
> banshee, thanks all the same!
SO you believe Dick Cheeeeeeney, eh? You may be the only one... you
and the other rightarded morons.
Quite an admission there.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>Government Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:49:43 -0500, Animal03- <Wher...@yesterday.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No they were not. many building materials have the same basic compounds
>>> found in thermite. Furthermore, there is no chain of command for the
>>> supposed samples.
>>
>> Chain of custody? Are you channeling Seon? :-)
>
>with a comment like that....it is a good thing I don't know where you
>live :-)
LOL.
BTW... Seon's somewhere going "Chain of custardy? Whats wrong with that?"
--
Shill #2
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
john smith
Quite an admission there.
____________________________________________________
"Rightarded"? You're still parrotting gibberish...
And top marks for contradicting yourself in the same post! Bravo!
Iarnrod
Yup, that's you, johnny baby.
> You're still parrotting gibberish...
When have I parroted your posts, johnny baby? Never. It must be you
misinterpreting your munged attributions yet again. What are you
posting on, a computer by Hasbro?
> And top marks for contradicting yourself in the same post! Bravo!
Yet you fail to take yet another opportunity to specify one thing I
have been wrong about. You can't and you won't. You will continue to
tap dance and pretend but we can all see you lost,
Rev. 11D Meow!
Yet again, Lardknob cannot finish a complete sentence. That Jenkem
habit he's go not only keeps his weight up, but there's no blood left
to feed what is left of his brain.
OhmOmair
required to 'access' Pentagon airspace, and why no military planes
tried to intercept the hijacked planes - especially the ones
designated for Manhattan. I was watching the History Channel last
night about 9-11; "102 minutes that changed America" (don't recall
exact title) and was absolutely amazed how fast the towers fell and in
such a short span of time with, as the previous author described the
visibility and atmospheric conditions correctly.
I haven't been following the threads here on alt.conspiracy but agree
with both authors. Without trying to offend anyone, I think it is
safe to say that the media in the States follows protocol and that the
Bush Administration was not beyond orchestrating a disaster that would
have had such an emotional impact on the American sentiment (witnesses
in Times Square were already calling for war against the M.E. in that
documentary) to support of a prospective, full-scale war in
Afghanistan and Iraq. We already know the lies that were exposed by
the BA post-Iraq invasion and the devastation that caused to our
country in terms of lives, economy, etc. I am in Britain and would
very much like to be linked to these articles/photos. Thank you.
Feb 14, 10:19 am, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> As for the Pentagon attack, eye witness accounts also report some very
> nifty manoeuvring a a medium size airliner including a sudden bank and
> sharp turn before coming in on the final run before impact. Again, it
> makes no sense in the context of the hi-jackers supposed flying
> expertise. RH
>
> From: Paul Roberts <p...@mac.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:34:01 -0600
> Subject: New York Police photos of 9/11 WTC
>
> Can Americans Believe the Evidence of Their Own Eyes?
>
> The British press has just published a number of photographs that have
> finally been released, or forced to be released,
> by the NY Police Department of the three WTC buildings' disappearance
> 8.5 years ago. For that is what happened. The buildings did not fall
> down, or burn down, or collapse. The buildings suddenly disappeared into
> micro-particles of fine dust.
> All of the photographs are extremely interesting to people with an
> educated eye. But the two below should wake up
> even the large scientifically and technically illiterate part of the US
> population. The first photo shows the top of the tower engulfed in black
> smoke with a few small flames, a definite indication of a smothered, low
> temperature fire. The next frame a few seconds later shows the building
> disappearing into the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhatten
> .
> How did this happen? Clearly low temperature, isolated, smothered
> fires did not cause the building and its massive steel structure to
> suddenly vaporize into dust.
>
> The visual evidence totally contradicts the official government line
> about the tower's destruction.
> How much longer can the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 be
> supported in view of NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE?
Iarnrod
> I always wondered about the security codes or clearance that was
> required to 'access' Pentagon airspace,
No such things exist. You're making up a question with a false
premise. The Pentagon is under a runway approach for National Airport,
and always has been. Civilian planes fly over it constantly.
> and why no military planes
> tried to intercept the hijacked planes - especially the ones
> designated for Manhattan.
Umm, because no one knew what was going on until the first one crashed
and the fighters were too far away to get the second. It's called
"this ain't the movies, dearie, real time sucks."
> I was watching the History Channel last
> night about 9-11; "102 minutes that changed America" (don't recall
> exact title) and was absolutely amazed how fast the towers fell and in
> such a short span of time with, as the previous author described the
> visibility and atmospheric conditions correctly.
What do visibility and atmospheric conditions have to do with fire and
structural damage and imbalanced loading of the massive upper portions
of the towers?
> I haven't been following the threads here on alt.conspiracy but agree
> with both authors. Without trying to offend anyone, I think it is
> safe to say that the media in the States follows protocol and that the
> Bush Administration was not beyond orchestrating a disaster that would
> have had such an emotional impact on the American sentiment (witnesses
> in Times Square were already calling for war against the M.E. in that
> documentary) to support of a prospective, full-scale war in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
Utter nonsense of course since the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
You'd think even a criminal moron like AWOL Bush could have figured
that one out and used Iraqis.
george
> I always wondered about the security codes or clearance that was
> required to 'access' Pentagon airspace, and why no military planes
> tried to intercept the hijacked planes - especially the ones
> designated for Manhattan. I was watching the History Channel last
> night about 9-11; "102 minutes that changed America" (don't recall
> exact title) and was absolutely amazed how fast the towers fell and in
> such a short span of time with, as the previous author described the
> visibility and atmospheric conditions correctly.
Well the kooks aren't going to tell you this but there is a major
airport within 10 nautical miles of the Pentagon.
And there are no 'security codes' with airspace there are classes of
airspace.
The interception of aircraft is impossible when you don't know where
they are or where they're going.
And the Towers were so damaged that gravity bought them down.
rincewind
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> >> Al Dykes wrote:
> >>> In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> >>>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus
> >>>> on the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your
> >>>> own eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as
> >>>> a many as
>
> >>> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> >>> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
>
> >>> Not one.
>
> >>> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> >>> collapse and a link to what he said.
>
> >> Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
>
> > Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
> > demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
>
> rooms collapsed in a perfect demolition scenario. If you believe otherwise
> you believe in the tooth fairy.
Were you walking around the building taking stock in how far the fire
had spread? Firefighters on the scene said that the building was
tilting and bulging for up to three hours before finally collapsing.
rincewind
> On Feb 17, 3:52 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:41 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Iarnrod wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 12:02 pm, "Lou Ravi" <madeforj...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> > > >> Al Dykes wrote:
> > > >>> In article <s2aaTSTj48dLF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
> > > >>> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >>>> Note: The problem with concentrating on the technical building and
> > > >>>> explosives details is that there will never be an expert consensus
> > > >>>> on the subject. Concentrate instead on what you can see with your
> > > >>>> own eyes and eye witness accounts (take not one but a digest of as
> > > >>>> a many as
>
> > > >>> There isn't a single eyewitness to the collapse of WTC1,2, or 7 that
> > > >>> says they believe that man-made demolition caused a collapse.
>
> > > >>> Not one.
>
> > > >>> You can prove me wrong by giving me a name of an eyewitness of a
> > > >>> collapse and a link to what he said.
>
> > > >> Oh come on, the whole fucking world was an eye witness.
>
> > > > Yes, and they saw not one single indication of any controlled
> > > > demolition, which is now proven to be a physical impossibility.
>
> > > Don't try bullshitting laddie.
>
> > been proven to be a complete physical impossibility in these
> > collapses. That's a fact.
>
> > > rooms collapsed in a perfect demolition scenario.
>
> > explosives going off, that is PROVEN FACT. Raging uncontrolled fires
> > on many floors and massive structural damage... collapse foreseen five
> > hours before it collapsed due to damage and bulging wall... this is a
> > perfect example of a structural failure collapse. Why do you "think"
> > it was controlled demolition when all the proof is that it was not?
> > Because you *want* to believe that?
>
>
>
> > There is not one shred of evidence supporting your claims.
>
> > > > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> > > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> > Why are you laughing at the proven trruth instead of trying to build
> > your case?
>
> > Oh, that's right, you cannot support your case because it is false.
>
> building.
> at the same speed as
> falling at a strange angle.
The owner of the building was talking to the fire chief about
"pulling" firefighting support from the building. No demoliton expert
was involved at the time of the call therefore the term "pull" could
not have involved demolition.
sutartsorric
>
> > > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> Why are you laughing at the proven trruth instead of trying to build
> your case?
>
> Oh, that's right, you cannot support your case because it is false.
No bombs in the twin towers?
These eyewitness accounts are all complete nutters then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4&feature=related
Or maybe they were hallucinating, or perhaps just saying what the
conspiracy theorists had told them to say? Or maybe they cant repeat
what they said originally because they have all died in suspicious
circumstances.
That link will give you a start in discovering many others who tell
the same story, elevator doors blown off in the basement, janitors
with broken legs caused by an unknown blast, and all this happening
1000ft below where the aircraft hit.
Iarnrod
> On 16 Feb, 14:52, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Plane crashes caused it. End of story.
>
> > > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> > Why are you laughing at the proven trruth instead of trying to build
> > your case?
>
> > Oh, that's right, you cannot support your case because it is false.
>
> No bombs in the twin towers?
Correct. This has been proven true and is not even remotely in
dispute.
> These eyewitness accounts are all complete nutters then?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4&feature=related
Obviously not. They completely support what I am saying. None of them
says there were bombs. They are accurately describing what the scene
looked like after the first plane hit. The jet fuel exploded, as we
can all see in all the videos of the plane impacts. See the big
fireball? That be an explosion, but it is not a bomb, dearie.
The lying nutbag who posted the video labeled it with a lying title
"Explosions before planes hit WTC 911 9/11" when in fact none of those
women says that.
This is not even disputable. Did you even watch your own cite, dope?
These woman are tralking about escaping AFTER the plane hit. AFTER. Do
you know what "after" means or are you just another reality-denying
stupid twoofer?
> Or maybe they were hallucinating, or perhaps just saying what the
> conspiracy theorists had told them to say? Or maybe they cant repeat
> what they said originally because they have all died in suspicious
> circumstances.
Or maybe you are smoking crack.
These woman support the official findings. The fireball from the plane
impacts exploded down the elevator shafts and burned and killed people
in them and blew out the lobby doors and devastated floor after floor.
This is fully documented and in fact that is what these women are
describing. They are not, of course, describing "bombs" going off.
> That link will give you a start in discovering many others who tell
> the same story, elevator doors blown off in the basement, janitors
> with broken legs caused by an unknown blast,
It is not "unknown," kook. A plane going 500+ mph hit the damn
building. The fireball caused by the exploding jet fuel roared down
the enclosed elevator shafts. Are you mental? Why are you so
incredulous at a completely normal and understandable outcome of
slamming a jetliner into a skyscraper? What is is about kooks that
makes them deny what their own eyes and experience would tell them?
Yikes, I fear for our future if this is the current crop of younguns
coming up!
> and all this happening
> 1000ft below where the aircraft hit.
Well, of course, because the aircraft hit 1,000 feet up. If the plane
had hit the 10th floor it would only have happened, oh, 180 feet below
where the plane hit. But it was, undeniably, the impact of the planes
that caused it. Not in dispute. Why are you incredulous at this? Have
you not heard of "gravity?" Do you not think the burning jet fuel
would go DOWNWARD in the shafts exploding and burning and blowing out
doors and killing and burning people in the way?
Why does this completely to-be-expected course of events so mystifying
to the kookers?
Are you so deluded that you actually "think" there were bombs in the
building timed to go off simultaneously with the plane crashes? Why?
What would be the point of that, when the plane crashes are totally
capable of doing the damage? Why do you make shit up and misinterpret
what these brave women have said?
Robert Peffers
"sutartsorric" <sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:9cc0dd96-10ff-4111...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
a major fire? Say a two up/two down semi-villa?
I have. As a union rep I had to take safety officer courses. Two that
shocked me, and everyone else, were a fire in a deep fat fryer. What shocked
was the speed of spread. The other was a fire in a semi-villa. Both were
set-up by the fire service for excercise purposes and we trainees were not
involved in fighting fires, just learning what were the danger signs. The
thing that shocked about that fire in the semi-villa was that, in a
surprisingly short time, the windows /doors etc. ,exploded outwards -
violently. That's what happens in building fires - they explode.
Transfer that to a tall building and remember that these have lift shafts &
stair wells that act like chimney ducts. They funnel the hot air upwards and
draw fresh oxegen laden air in to feed the fire. The force of this when it
reaches the top can only be imagined.
--
Auld Bob.
sutartsorric
> "sutartsorric" <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Are you lot real? Or are you clever automatons programmed by Microsoft
for inane rapid rebuttal to anything said against the establishment?
Are you honestly expecting me to believe that an aircraft hitting a
building 1000ft above the ground would cause an explosion at basement
level large enough to blow lift doors outwards, break limbs of the
workers down there? And at the same time all the survivors who were
coming down flights of stairs from nearer the impact reported to
explosions and no blast injuries?
Have you actually listened to eyewitness reports from people on higher
floors who said when they reached the ground floor lobby, there was no
lobby it had disintigrated?
And as for the speed of the aircraft that you state, you are obviously
turning a blind eye to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because being in total
robot denial that the worlds most wonderful country could allow
anything to happen to any of its treasured citizens, you will not have
read
"Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for
EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic
effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots
over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United
175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be
probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430
knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible
for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB
using EA990 as a benchmark."
george
> And as for the speed of the aircraft that you state, you are obviously
> turning a blind eye to Pilots for 9/11 Truth,
Mainly because they are not (in the majority) current.
Or sane.
If the NIST reported airspeeds are incorrect point out where.
See, how it works is NIST writes a report based upon evidence from -
qualified- experts.
Robert Peffers
Don't be bloody stupid. I'm confirming what the establishment line is.
I'm attempting to show there is no conspiracy by showing what happens in
fires in buildings.
Furthermore what is likely to be done in a high building if the emergency
services decide they have no chance to save the structure. Then the only
remaining action is to bring it down in a manner that sees it fall as close
to being within its own footprint as they can.
The alternative of the structure falling outwards does ot bear thinking
about.
>
> Are you honestly expecting me to believe that an aircraft hitting a
> building 1000ft above the ground would cause an explosion at basement
> level large enough to blow lift doors outwards, break limbs of the
> workers down there?
The fuel exploded. Not only would the blast go downwards it would go in
every other direction that it could.
Tall buildings have lift shafts, ventilation shafts. Rubbish shutes and
stairwells.
Any blast will fly into any opening and travell through them. Do you know
what the Giovanni Battista Venturi Effect is?
There are obviously places within the various ducts & shafts in a building
where this effect will happen.
The result is a high velocity jet of very hot gasses, (air is a gas
remember).
Now do you know how acetaline burners are able to cut steel?
> And at the same time all the survivors who were
> coming down flights of stairs from nearer the impact reported to
> explosions and no blast injuries?
So? It depends if the immediate hot blast went down the lift shafts, as the
reported injuries and blown out doors suggest, or down the stairs. The point
you miss is that while stairs all have fire doors to prevent a straight
through blast, lift shafts, cable and pipe ducts and vent shafts do not.
If you have a chimney you can get to try this. Take a couple of sheets of
paper, newspaper is good, Crumple them up.
Put one on a dinner plate or other fireproof surface and light it. It will
burn and leave some ash.
Now place the plate into the mouth of the chimney and light that. There will
be a short pause then the paper will probable fly up the chimney.
If you have an open fireplace with a fire going in it. A bit of paper put
above the fire at the chimney entrance will shoot up the flue. Thats what
the flue is designed to do. To design it they build in a venturi reduction
just above the actual fireplace. Now that is just fire not an explosion.
How the hell do you think straffed ship explode?
>
> Have you actually listened to eyewitness reports from people on higher
> floors who said when they reached the ground floor lobby, there was no
> lobby it had disintigrated?
As pointed out there are great big long shafts all the way from below ground
level to above the penthouse level.
This channels the explosion to basement level in an instant. Fire doors stop
rapid progress down the stairwells.
Have you ever bothered to read the fire orders in a tall building?
The first rule is to stop the lifts. The instruction always say to make your
way down the nearest stairs.
I mentioned my Union rep saefty officer training. I had to pull up the
management in the office building for breaches of the safety regulations.
There were wheelchair bound workers on upper floors. In a fire they are
doomed. The regulations provide one lift only as far from the fire location
as possible. The disabled ger removed and the lift turned off while other
use stairs.
>
> And as for the speed of the aircraft that you state, you are obviously
> turning a blind eye to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because being in total
> robot denial that the worlds most wonderful country could allow
> anything to happen to any of its treasured citizens, you will not have
> read
>
> "Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for
> EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic
> effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots
> over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United
> 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be
> probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430
> knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible
> for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB
> using EA990 as a benchmark."
Whatever, it was more than fast enough, and anyway I never mentioned the
aircrafts speed.
--
Auld Bob.
Iarnrod
> Are you lot real? Or are you clever automatons programmed by Microsoft
> for inane rapid rebuttal to anything said against the establishment?
Hey nutbag, prove something wrong instead of using fallacious ad
hominem.
The konspiracy klaims are physically impossible. FACT.
> Are you honestly expecting me to believe that an aircraft hitting a
> building 1000ft above the ground would cause an explosion at basement
> level large enough to blow lift doors outwards, break limbs of the
> workers down there?
Ever hear of an elevator shaft? FACT. The jet fuel exploded down the
shaft and burned many people. That's just what happens. Are you
thinking there was a "bomb" in the basement timed to go off
simultaneously with the plane crash? Are you on drugs?
> And at the same time all the survivors who were
> coming down flights of stairs from nearer the impact reported to
> explosions and no blast injuries?
Stop smoking crack.
> Have you actually listened to eyewitness reports from people on higher
> floors who said when they reached the ground floor lobby, there was no
> lobby it had disintigrated?
Duh.
> And as for the speed of the aircraft that you state, you are obviously
> turning a blind eye to Pilots for 9/11 Truth,
Pilots for 9/11 Truth are the blind ones.
> because being in total
> robot denial that the worlds most wonderful country could allow
> anything to happen to any of its treasured citizens, you will not have
> read
Are you nuts? Deal with what happened, not with what you "think"
should have happened in your Hollywood induced delusions.
> "Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for
> EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic
> effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots
> over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United
> 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be
> probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430
> knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible
> for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB
> using EA990 as a benchmark."
False.
VFW
<471bb0a3-5bfe-4ac7...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
sutartsorric <sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I know what I saw with my own eyes on live TV on 9/11 - the camera being
on
a news helicoptor about level with the top of the first tower to
collapse.
The first thing was the appearance of a cloud of debris shooting out
horizontally from the floors at and near the TOP of the building, NOT at
the
level on which the plane struck the building.
Then the collapse began - FROM THE TOP DOWN. It proceeded at near
free-fall
speed until the building was a pile of rubble.
In retrospect, I can only conclude this was a controlled demolition by
explosives, but unlike the standard procedure where the explosives are
detonated simultaneously at the bases of the supporting steel columns,
the
entire building had explosives planted in it and they were detonated in
sequence from the top down.
Photos and videos showing molten steel cascading from one of the towers
as
it collapsed proves that demolition explosives, employing thermate and
high
explosive "kicker" charges, were used. There is no other scientifically
credible explanation for these large quantities of white-hot molten steel
being present.
I later saw, on live TV, the sudden, straight down, near free-fall speed
collapse of building 7, which unlike the towers WAS a standard procedure
controlled demoliton by explosives.
BLOWN TO BITS: FURTHER PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel
framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
SMOKING
GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires and debris damage
could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of
controlled demolition by explosives. Such demolitions take many days or
weeks to set up - not the few hours between the attacks and the collapse.
The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND, lending
credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring down the
towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank
building
would probably have remained standing.
Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in
psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be
what it
obviously was, and they present often ludicrous explanations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend
their indefensible position. The Homeland Terrorists are obviously
desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the
foreknowledge if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and
economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin Laden
have
somehow totally incapacitated our NORAD defenses on that horrible
morning?
I don't think so!
But there is evidence of the INSIDE JOB as clear and indisputable as the
explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of
NORAD.
Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of
nearby
buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers.
If
the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance
(shattering force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow
bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.
So - shills, disinformationists, and those chronically in denial - who
among
you can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being
the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?
--
Money; What a Concept !
Patrick Keenan
news:georgeswk-65E04...@news.toast.net...
OK. So, tell us how these explosives were transported into a building that
was guarded for such things since it had been the target of bombings
previously.
Give a plausible estimate of how much explosive was used, how it was
carried in and installed without anyone ever noticing anything, and how it
was triggered.
Explain where the residue is, because it certainly wasn't found. In
your model, it should have been abundant.
And if you're going to try to pawn off the Steven Jones crap, I hope you
realize that he didn't demonstrate explosive residues, and can't even say
for sure where his samples came from.
By the way, the collapse of Building 7 wasn't sudden. It had been expected
for hours, as I'm sure you do know, and the fire and debris damage was
anything but minor.
Your rambling simply is not convincing.
Iarnrod
> In article
> <471bb0a3-5bfe-4ac7-b21d-6f87a4c7c...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Apparently you do not, since you believe things that did not happen.
> The first thing was the appearance of a cloud of debris shooting out
> horizontally from the floors at and near the TOP of the building, NOT at
> the
> level on which the plane struck the building.
Lie of course.
> Then the collapse began - FROM THE TOP DOWN.
Uh, yeah, that's where the damage was. Do you expect it go from bottom
up -- you know, like a REAL controlled demolition would do?
> It proceeded at near
> free-fall
> speed until the building was a pile of rubble.
It was not even close to free fall speed, dearie. This is not even in
dispute. The debris that is falling *beside* the building from falling
off is falling at free fall speed and reaches the ground well ahead of
the collapse wave. This is not even debatable -- it's in every single
video, disproving your kooker "free fall " klaim.
> In retrospect, I can only conclude this was a controlled demolition by
> explosives,
How does the FACT that no explosives actually are going off affect
your "theory?" <chuckle>
> but unlike the standard procedure where the explosives are
> detonated simultaneously at the bases of the supporting steel columns,
> the
> entire building had explosives planted in it and they were detonated in
> sequence from the top down.
How come this is not happening?
> Photos and videos showing molten steel cascading from one of the towers
> as
> it collapsed
No video shows any such thing; you're lying.
> proves that demolition explosives, employing thermate
... uh, earth to shithead, thermite is not an explosive. Wanna try
that one again?
> and
> high
> explosive "kicker" charges, were used.
Well, how does the proven FACT that there are no explosives being used
impact your theory?
> There is no other scientifically
> credible explanation for these large quantities of white-hot molten steel
> being present.
There was ZERO molten steel present, ever. Wanna try that one again?
> I later saw, on live TV, the sudden, straight down, near free-fall speed
> collapse of building 7, which unlike the towers WAS a standard procedure
> controlled demoliton by explosives.
How does the proven fact that there are no explosives going off alter
your little theory, kook?
you do know that explosives make noise and bright flashes, eh?
How do you get around the fact that none was going off?
Stop smoking crack, nutbag. Your parents are embarrassed by you.
sutartsorric
This is amazing. People like myself take a different view to the
automatons, and all they can do is give the same old patronising
answers, together with childish attempts to humiliate and belittle
anyone who does not agree entirely with how they have been programmed,
i.e. "are you on drugs?" or "stop smoking the crack".
It is all very sad, and doubly so since this kind of behaviour fits
perfectly the initial stages of severe psychological trauma - which
are denial, followed by anger. I dont think it is me that ought to be
consulting a physician.
People are changing their tune these days. Now the jet fuel from an
aircraft that has been proven to be flying well in excess of the top
speed of a 767 (at altitude, never mind at circa 1000ft) and that
eyewitnesses describe as "nothing like any aircraft I have seen
before, it had no windows in the side" has become super-hyper jet
fuel. Not only can it burn hot enough and long enough to melt several
inches of steel on the 244 supporting columns, but it also had the
power to do this plus travel almost 1/4 of a mile in a fireball
downwards and cause a blast so large it broke people's legs, but did
not blow the elevator doors higher up the building, just on the
basement and lobby levels.
That really is some jet fuel. They ought to patent it, it would come
in useful for NASA space exploration.
Unfortunately, I have not taken the easy way out and just blithely
accepted everything I am told by my 'superiors' in government. I (and
millions like me) have taken the difficult route of actually listening
to the eyewitness reports from the lower classes (mainly of Hispanic
descent) who did the menial work in the buildings, and something that
the official inquiry paid scant attention to. Now we are beginning to
realise why.
I have also watched that slow motion footage of the aircraft
approaching the tower and one or two frames before the nose hits the
building, a bright flash appears to the lower right of the point where
impact is about to be made. That footage also shows the aircraft to
have some form of dark oblong structure attached underneath the
fuselage between the wings. I wonder what that was for? Could it have
anything to do with the bright flash?
I'm sure the automatons will have more patronising and abusive ways of
explaining everything away, in their normal fashion as stating
everything as fact without any links or references to where their
'facts' originated (apart of course from the official report, but that
has been hardwired into their memory).
As for this comment regarding explosives - "Explain where the residue
is, because it certainly wasn't found. In your model, it should
have been abundant. " This is laughable. Any normal society faced with
a disaster of this kind, with so many dead bodies amongst the rubble,
would have conducted a thorough and painstaking piece by piece
forensic search of the building remains which ought to have taken
years, and maybe given some comfort to the families of the deceased -
not ship the whole lot off to landfill as quickly as bloody possible.
So, yes, residue was not found because no one was given the chance.
Iarnrod
> This is amazing. People like myself take a different view to the
> automatons,
No you don’t, kooker. Don’t get so full of yourself that you “think”
you’re “taking a different view.” You’re fucking deluded. The shit you
pull is disproven. FACT. You don’t have a different view, you have a
reality-denying problem.
> and all they can do is give the same old patronizing answers,
It’s called the proven truth, dearie. You’d better get used to it
because denying reality for too long can lead to trouble, like walking
into walls and jabbing your fork into your ear.
> together with childish attempts to humiliate and belittle
> anyone who does not agree entirely with how they have been programmed,
> i.e. "are you on drugs?" or "stop smoking the crack".
How else should I handle a kook? YOU are the programmed one.
Programmed to deny reality and make shit up.
> It is all very sad,
Oh, I agree with THAT for sure but not the way YOU mean it! <snicker>
> and doubly so since this kind of behaviour fits
> perfectly the initial stages of severe psychological trauma - which
> are denial, followed by anger. I dont think it is me that ought to be
> consulting a physician.
Of course you don’t. That’s true of all pathological reality deniers
like you.
> People are changing their tune these days.
No they’re not. They’ve seen the reports, accepted reality … AND UBL’s
admissions… and moved on to life.
> Now the jet fuel from an
> aircraft that has been proven to be flying well in excess of the top
> speed of a 767
WTF??? Are you nuckin’ futs? You’re lying again. See, this is what I
mean by making shit up. You deny the reality that the plane was
nowehere near its top speed. Shit, EVERY FLIGHT I have ever taken hhas
gone well over 500 mph. I watch that little screen thingy on the seat
back that shows DirectTV and the plane’s position on a Mapquest map.
We’re *flying through the air,* buttercup.
> (at altitude, never mind at circa 1000ft)
BWAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!! So you think a plane plummeting out of the sky
should SLOW DOWN as it gets closer to the ground? Well, you’re right,
accidentally… it SHOULD slow down… IF YOU AREN’T TRYING TO CRASH IT.
Gawd, you’re stupid. How did you get so stupid?
> and that
> eyewitnesses describe as "nothing like any aircraft I have seen
> before, it had no windows in the side"
Utter bullshit of course. You’re lying again.
How much effort does it take to plug your fingers in your ears and go
“la la la la la la” to keep reality from reaching your brain? You are
a particularly sad case of kookeritis.
> has become super-hyper jet fuel.
WTF are you making up now, kook?
> Not only can it burn hot enough and long enough to melt several
> inches of steel on the 244 supporting columns,
Why would it have to do that? No one but you kooks is maintaining that
any steel columns melted. NIST sure doesn’t think any steel melted. I
don’t think any steel melted. Why do you? Are you insane?
Besides, the jet fuel mostly burned off in the crash. It set off
office fires over many floors.
LEARN WHAT IT IS YOU ARE TRYING TO CRITIQUE FIRST before making an ass
of yourself and embarrassing your parents.
> but it also had the
> power to do this plus travel almost 1/4 of a mile in a fireball
> downwards
Why does gravity confound you?
> and cause a blast so large it broke people's legs, but did
> not blow the elevator doors higher up the building, just on the
> basement and lobby levels.
Exactly where you’d expect it because it’s at the bottom and that’s
where the pressure was because the shaft came to an end, nit-fucking-
wit. The blast wave had nowehert go after hitting the bottom.
Would you mind going back to junior high and taking a few physics
classes?
> That really is some jet fuel.
Yes, it was some jet fuel. Very good. You do realize it was loaded
into a JET? Therefore, it was some jet fuel.
Do you think your childlike primitive incredulity at normal reactions
means anything to your many betters? What is confusing you here?
Really. I mean it. Are you smoking crack?
> They ought to patent it, it would come
> in useful for NASA space exploration.
Why would jet fuel be useful in a rocket? Hydrazine, liquid hydrogen
maybe. But you’re pretty dopey if you think ordinary jet fuel could be
used by NASA for its rockets.
> Unfortunately, I have not taken the easy way out and just blithely
> accepted everything I am told by my 'superiors' in government.
When did your parents realize you were a paranoid delusional?
You do understand that you are engaging in an invalid ad hominem
argument here?
You actually need to SHOW what it is you think is wrong, and not just
say “It’s false because the government investigated it.”
> I (and millions like me)
Gawd, I fear for our children’s future!
> have taken the difficult route of actually listening
> to the eyewitness reports from the lower classes (mainly of Hispanic
> descent) who did the menial work in the buildings, and something that
> the official inquiry paid scant attention to. Now we are beginning to
> realise why.
Every single witness report corroborates the official findings, dope.
WTF are you talking about? You DISRESPECT these working class people,
who are MY heroes, by twisting what they say to suit your kooker
agenda. You have NO RESPECT for what they went through and saw by
twisting their words, you lying sack of shit. I spent my career
working with the poor and immigrants, and on their behalf I call you
out for the delusional nitwit you are.
> I have also watched that slow motion footage of the aircraft
> approaching the tower and one or two frames before the nose hits the
> building, a bright flash appears to the lower right of the point where
> impact is about to be made. That footage also shows the aircraft to
> have some form of dark oblong structure attached underneath the
> fuselage between the wings. I wonder what that was for?
It was natural shadow and light, dearie. Come down from your crack
high, sober up and live in reality.
> Could it have
> anything to do with the bright flash?
You need a bright flash, dearie. A glint of light? Holy shit you’re a
moron.
> I'm sure the automatons will have more patronising and abusive ways of
> explaining everything away,
There is nothing to explain except how you manage to button your shirt
each day, being such a loser.
> in their normal fashion as stating
> everything as fact without any links or references to where their
> 'facts' originated (apart of course from the official report, but that
> has been hardwired into their memory).
All been done, kook. YOU don’t provide ANY evidence at all of anything
you say, didn’t THAT occur to you? You can’t because the shit you say
is all lies so there can be no evidence.
> As for this comment regarding explosives - "Explain where the residue
> is, because it certainly wasn't found. In your model, it should
> have been abundant. " This is laughable.
BWAHAAAHAHAHAA!!!
Oh, yes, it’s laughable for us to ask you to provide one scintilla of
evidence for your stupid claim! What were we THINKING!!
BWAHAAAHAHAAHAAA!!
> Any normal society faced with
> a disaster of this kind,
Any normal society would not have cut its programs for the mentally
ill so that people like you are forced to go through life without some
kind of treatment.
> with so many dead bodies amongst the rubble,
> would have conducted a thorough and painstaking piece by piece
> forensic search of the building remains which ought to have taken
> years,
Why would it take that long? What you suggest WAS done. EVERY bit of
debris was sifted and examined. You have no clue what you’re talking
about. You’re just nuts and making shit up.
> and maybe given some comfort to the families of the deceased -
> not ship the whole lot off to landfill as quickly as bloody possible.
That’s not what happened, but thanks for being delusional until the
end. You are a fresh source of komedy gold for us, as we were getting
bored with knowsknothing, hankie and rigor mortie.
Do you not realize that all of the debris was in fact examined, and
that much of it was examined at the Staten Island landfill as well and
that an enormous amount of evidence was collected and catalogued? Are
you brainless?
> So, yes, residue was not found because no one was given the chance.
A lie. Nice touch to close out with a lie.
Patrick Keenan
====
Sorry, but that is simply not the case.
You are just making things up. Thanks for making that clear.
george
> In article
> <471bb0a3-5bfe-4ac7-b21d-6f87a4c7c...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> I know what I saw with my own eyes on live TV on 9/11 - the camera being
> on
> a news helicoptor about level with the top of the first tower to
> collapse.
And you saw what no-one else saw. That's got to be kook comedy at its
finest.
Then the collapse began - FROM THE TOP DOWN. It proceeded at near
> free-fall
> speed until the building was a pile of rubble.
Freefall is what all those bits falling down the side of the building
were doing.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed
>
Robert Peffers
So you could tell from watching a video that the molten stuff was steel?
Have you much experiance of identifying molten steel?
Ever actually seen any?
> it collapsed proves that demolition explosives, employing thermate and
> high
> explosive "kicker" charges, were used. There is no other scientifically
> credible explanation for these large quantities of white-hot molten steel
> being present.
All tall buildings have lift shafts all the way from below ground right up
to the roof.
These are the line of least resistance. An explosion anywhere in the
building takes the line of least resistanc. That might also be out the
windows but those windows are very tough. A fast craft smashes through, the
fuel is on fire in the engine so the ruptured fuel tanks ignite and explode.
the blast goes both up and down the line of lest resistance. There are also
cable, water,sewage, phoneline ducts.
There are stairwells but these have many firedoors to slow the blast and
that then is redirected to the line of least resistance.
In effect you have something like a rifle barrel that speeds up the blast
both up and down
Think about it?
A cartridge explodes in a breech, the bullet in the end is projected out a
barrel.
Why do you think a rifle bullet has more velocity than a snub nosed handgun?
--
Auld Bob.
VFW
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote:
well. Maybe having a real investigation might provide some answers.
Those that fought any investigation seem to have blood on their hands.
Two Wars for Oil. Greed. I'm sure killing almost 3000 is nothing to
them. Just a foot in the door.
Iarnrod
> In article <B8OdnY5oMvzJFw3WnZ2dnUVZ_r-dn...@supernews.com>,
> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "VFW" <george...@toast.net> wrote in message
> >news:georgeswk-65E04...@news.toast.net...
> > > In article
> > > <471bb0a3-5bfe-4ac7-b21d-6f87a4c7c...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Answers? You don't even have a question, nitwit.
Ask a question. I'm not aware there's anything still needing answers.
Patrick Keenan
There was a real investigation.
> Those that fought any investigation seem to have blood on their hands.
You know, I've been urging people like you, who appear to want a "real
investigation", to do so, and detailed the means for doing so.
Precisely zero of the "9/11 truthers" have made use of this infomation.
All find some excuse to not follow through when given the means to their
end.
It's very simple. The insurers - and their shareholders - could recover
billions of dollars in claims if it was shown that explosives were used.
These companies have a very real interest in this.
All you have to do is buy some shares and start a shareholder's movement to
investigate with a view to recovering the funds.
I'll bet a donut that you, too, will find some excuse and not take this
simple, straightforward and meaningful action.
> Two Wars for Oil. Greed. I'm sure killing almost 3000 is nothing to
> them. Just a foot in the door.
> --
> Money; What a Concept !
The next move is yours.
You can start a meaningful movement for investigation, or you will find an
excuse and show that you don't believe your claims.
It's up to you. When will we see your press release?
-pk
sutartsorric
> On Mar 5, 6:31 am, sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is amazing. People like myself take a different view to the
> > automatons,
>
> No you don’t, kooker. Don’t get so full of yourself that you “think”
> you’re “taking a different view.” You’re fucking deluded. The shit you
> pull is disproven. FACT. You don’t have a different view, you have a
> reality-denying problem.
No that can not be FACT because you dont know me, and cannot prove it
Therefore everything you say now is proven to be rubbish
My advice to you all is to treat this as a court of law
And you should start again.
Iarnrod
> On 5 Mar, 15:40, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:31 am, sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is amazing. People like myself take a different view to the
> > > automatons,
>
> > No you don’t, kooker. Don’t get so full of yourself that you “think”
> > you’re “taking a different view.” You’re fucking deluded. The shit you
> > pull is disproven. FACT. You don’t have a different view, you have a
> > reality-denying problem.
>
> No that can not be FACT
Sorry, dearie but it IS a FACT that cannot be denied. A) The shit you
say is already disproven. B) You still believe it. C) You're a reality-
denier. Case closed.
> because you dont know me, and cannot prove it
I don't have to know you, idiot, you're POSTING your reality-denying
beliefs RIGHT HERE. Knowing you isn't necessary to conclude you're a
reality-denying kook because you just denied reality. How would
knowing you make your lies any less of a lie? You don't even make
sense. You must be sniffing glue this weekend.
> Therefore everything you say now is proven to be rubbish
Except it's proven true, pumpkin.
> My advice to you all is to treat this as a court of law
Uh, it's usenet, moron. It's a loony bin. It ain't a court of law.
> And you should start again.
No. Sorry. I already proved you're a delusional nitwit.
Patrick Keenan
On 5 Mar, 15:40, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:31 am, sutartsorric <sutartsor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is amazing. People like myself take a different view to the
> > automatons,
>
> you�re �taking a different view.� You�re fucking deluded. The shit you
> pull is disproven. FACT. You don�t have a different view, you have a
> reality-denying problem.
|
| No that can not be FACT because you dont know me, and cannot prove it
It can be considered fact, because we know what you have posted.
| Therefore everything you say now is proven to be rubbish
You are the one who has been posting discredited and disproven ideas, such
as explosive-caused "demolition" of the towers.
|
| My advice to you all is to treat this as a court of law
Why? It isn't, and you certainly don't treat it that way.
Why should you get to impose a double standard?
JC
firefighting support from the building. No demoliton expert was involved
at the time of the call therefore the term "pull" could not have
involved demolition.
JC: At the time of silverskeems statement, THERE WERE NO FIREMEN IN WTC
BUILDING 7.
JC
were embbeded with a NYC firecrew before 9/11 and with them all through
it. The firemen on video said bombs were going off as if preset. Then
a gov. gag order to shut up all fire and police from telling the truth.
JC
of a 707 Boeing wich has 30 tons more load capacity than the 767.
Engeneers said it likely could withstand multiple impacts.
WTC+MADRID PIC'S
Something to ponder.
Look at the WTC's fire... Remember WTC beams are 2 to 3 times stronger
to resist 707 plane crash. ,
http://www.infowars.com/images2/world/madrid_%20wtc_fires.jpg ,
Now look at these 2 Madrid fire pic's... ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire22a.jpg ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg ,
Now look at the Madrid building after the fire wich burned for 20 hours.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire11.jpg ,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html?q=spain_fire_2005.html