Controlled Demolition Experts WORLDWIDE agree WTC7 was 100% a controlled demolition = 9/11 Inside Job!
911fal...@gmail.com
Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
controlled demolition
Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
WTC7=C.D.
Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
C.D.
Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
kangarooistan
> EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
> Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
> Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
> controlled demolition
> WTC7=C.D.
> Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
> C.D.
> Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
> WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
Nobody still believes 9/11 was a muslim plot , the only ones still
pretending to believe 9/11 was done by muslims are those who are paid
to lie
If you do a google search of every person who still believes in a 9/11
muslim plot
Do a google search on how they also pushed the W M D Lies
The same people who are STILL trying desperately to PUSH 9/11 as a
muslim plot
9/11 has been totally proven to be an inside job to start a war
against ISLAM
same as the " Boston tea party " and " charles Manson " and hundreds
of other false flag undercover false flags that white christian
capitalists have used again and again and again to justify the endless
rape murder pillage and plunder of one victim after another
The only people who still pretend to believe the " official version "
are the warcriminals who know that chages are being prepared to charge
everybody who lied us into a war we will lose
The guilty already know their days are numbered , its not long now
till the truth leaks out and all the warcriminals will try and hide
from justice , but wewill hunt them all down
They can run , but they can not HIDE
Sunny
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171089740.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
controlled demolition
Kiki6
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ummm, I was just wondering with all the proof that the WTC tradgedy
was an inside job,WHY isn't anyone doing anything about it?We need to
bring the perpertrators of such a heinous crime to justice.(And STOP
the WAR ON TERRORISM for goodness sake!That's a diversion!)
Vandar
> On Feb 9, 11:56 pm, "Sunny" <wombatho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>><911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1171089740.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
>>Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
>>Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
>>controlled demolition
>>Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
>>WTC7=C.D.
>>Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
>>C.D.
>>Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
>>WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
>
>
> Ummm, I was just wondering with all the proof that the WTC tradgedy
> was an inside job,WHY isn't anyone doing anything about it?
Because the claim that 9/11 was an inside job is false. There is nothing
to do anything about.
kangarooistan
Sadly just like most warcrimes it takes time to prepare a criminal
case against those who break international laws
Like even Hitler , Milosoviv , Saddam and Rawanda , Pinochet , it
seems like it takes about a decade to get the warcriminals before the
courts , sone times longer
I myself have been active gathering evidence and names of every body
who is a warcriminal and every body who supports war criminals since
the christians and JEWS started the war on 9/11
Sadly even WARCRIMINALS must be given a fair trial before we hang them
And we must use the legal system , that has no guns or bombs , we need
to move carefully as the warcriminals may escape prosecution if we run
too early , we must wait until after the commit their crimes then
gather the evidence then build the case then find the right court and
the right legal team and the money and it will take 10 years in the
courts
BUT MATE
Its ery very close now , some test case are being run to test the
system
Any day now we may see action and once it starts we can expect the
warcrimes trials to last for 60 years , just like in WW2 , they are
STILL hunting down war criminals
We will charge every last warcriminal , even those who " helped " the
war criminals , we will sieze ther assets once we get started and they
can then pay the legal costs themselves
I know of some cases that are ready to run NOW
It wont be long , but we need to obey the rules , we are not criminals
like they are
kanga
kangarooistan
On Feb 10, 9:02 pm, "Kiki6" <Littlemissfus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Abdul-Haady Sadeem
> Sadly just like most warcrimes it takes time to prepare a criminal
> case against those who break international laws
>
>
Millions of Moslems were eyewitnesses to Bush detonating the explosives on
9/11.
Once everyone is forced to convert to Islam, we will all live in harmony.
Allah u Akbar!
9-11 Honesty
the towers was if Bush (a trained pilot) was controlling them from the Oval
Office.
Loose Change is now considered the definitive historical account about what
really happened on September 11, 2001.
Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it
drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense
George Monbiot
Tuesday February 6, 2007
The Guardian
There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush
government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into
gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain
reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an
epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness,
eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.
Article continues
The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men that
airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11
2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift,
with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative
voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.
The Pentagon, the film maintains, was not hit by a commercial airliner. There
was "no discernible trace" of a plane found in the wreckage, and the entrance
and exit holes in the building were far too small. It was hit by a cruise
missile. The twin towers were brought down by means of "a carefully planned
controlled demolition". You can see the small puffs of smoke caused by
explosives just below the cascading sections. All other hypotheses are
implausible: the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and the towers fell too
quickly. Building 7 was destroyed by the same means a few hours later.
Flight 93 did not crash, but was redirected to Cleveland airport, where the
passengers were taken into a Nasa building and never seen again. Their voices
had been cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and used to make fake calls to
their relatives. The footage of Osama bin Laden, claiming responsibility for
the attacks, was faked. The US government carried out this great crime for four
reasons: to help Larry Silverstein, who leased the towers, to collect his
insurance money; to assist insider traders betting on falling airline stocks;
to steal the gold in the basement; and to grant George Bush new executive
powers, so that he could carry out his plans for world domination.
Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not
yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the
complete absence of scientific advice. At one point, the presenter asks: "So
what brought down the twin towers? Let's ask the experts." But they don't ask
the experts. The film-makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any
contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of
conspiracy.
The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen, and a flight
instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the firemen off in
mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the
impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting
the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had "no doubt" that
Hanjour could have done it.
Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the specialists
in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film-makers now say that the third
edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he turns out to be
"a theology professor". They don't name him, but I would bet that it's David
Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracists.
The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of
thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of
demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor
Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the
Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence
Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of
the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the
investigators who picked through the rubble.
If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture
that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on
the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet
none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the
whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell
the greatest story ever told.
Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than
the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it
collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the
plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact
recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is
why the holes weren't bigger.
The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse
turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns
and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel
structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top
stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs
of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.
Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an
aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows
that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7
collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes
feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the
automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the
fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded.
Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.
So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot
expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population.
There is no reasoning with this madness. People believe Loose Change because it
proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great
evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs
our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws
campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear
weapons, privatisation, inequality - while permanently wrecking their
credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-
existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New
American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the
conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.
The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the
US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did
it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They
are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its
real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is
surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.
Vandar
Riiiight. And what court do you think they'll be tried in?
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
And exactly what evidence are they basing their opinions on? Watching
a video?
John P.
> EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
> Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
> Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
> controlled demolition
> Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
> WTC7=C.D.
> Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
> C.D.
> Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
> WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
There it is. All 5 of the demolitions experts in the world agree. The other
5,000 that disagree don't count.
It's an interesting claim, but a quick Google search makes me wonder if it's
supported by something other than a claim made in Loose Change or somewhere
similar.
A search on Ph. Sellier; A.T, or different variations, turns up nothing to
show he's made any claim regarding WTC 7.
Jowenko was shown a short video clip and asked about what he thought he saw.
His opinion is interesting, but hardly based on a complete analysis of the
situation (for example, he was neither shown nor told about the extensive
damage to the opposite face of the building, the bulges in the walls over 3
hours before the collapse, etc.)
With Francis Ponant. the only reference that turns up in Google is a single
alternate conspiracy video. Not very compelling.
As a matter of fact, it is this same single video that provides the only
reference for this entire claim (with the exception of Jowenko - who has
also gone on record as stating that WTC 7 was not and would not have been
"pulled")
Not much of a claim.
911fal...@gmail.com
First we will need enough people who know the truth.
So the most we can do is make sure that people are armed with the
knowledge. They will see then with their very own eyes the mainstream
media being used to cover up the truth. Then they will get angry.
A day will come when the critical mass is powerful enough to oust the
corrupt judiciary, media, and government. At that point the LEADERS of
the revolution will stand up and take their positions.
Then the hunt for justice will begin and people like John Howard, Ehud
Olmert, Tony Blair, and GWB will be executed for crimes against
humanity.
911fal...@gmail.com
You just saw a list of 6 professional controlled demoltion companies
who have stated that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
We already know that. We didn't need professionals to confirm the
basic laws of physics exist.
You realise that there is yet to be published an official report on
the collapse of WTC7?
Five years later NIST is still delaying their investigation.
So in leau of any official explanation claiming that WTC7 was a
phenomena of modern engineering your defense of the OBL 9/11 is
baseless.
You got to wonder what your interests here are: To defend the truth or
to allow intolerable injustice to prevail? And in the name of what do
you persist in attacking 9/11 Truthers?
In the name of saving face because you wasted the last five years at
dinner parties arguing about how muslims have to be wiped off the
planet?
911fal...@gmail.com
vandar the war crimes can't continue. So if there are no courts to
process Justice then there will be a revolution in the end.
I dont know about you but I dont want to live under tyranny. The
uphold of Justice is critical to peace of a nation. So if their is no
due process in place there will be revolution. Thats what has happened
over and over again in History.
Vandar
> On Feb 10, 2:27 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Kiki6 wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 9, 11:56 pm, "Sunny" <wombatho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>><911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:1171089740.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
>>>>Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
>>>>Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
>>>>controlled demolition
>>>>Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
>>>>WTC7=C.D.
>>>>Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
>>>>C.D.
>>>>Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
>>>>WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
>>
>>>Ummm, I was just wondering with all the proof that the WTC tradgedy
>>>was an inside job,WHY isn't anyone doing anything about it?
>>
>>Because the claim that 9/11 was an inside job is false. There is nothing
>>to do anything about.
>
>
>
> You just saw a list of 6 professional controlled demoltion companies
> who have stated that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
And not one of them has even touched any part of the building or site.
> We already know that. We didn't need professionals to confirm the
> basic laws of physics exist.
We also don't need professionals to claim those laws were broken, as
conspiracists do.
> You realise that there is yet to be published an official report on
> the collapse of WTC7?
Yes. You're aware of why, aren't you?
> Five years later NIST is still delaying their investigation.
They aren't delaying it, they are finishing it.
> So in leau of any official explanation claiming that WTC7 was a
> phenomena of modern engineering your defense of the OBL 9/11 is
> baseless.
Other than the admissions by bin Laden, KSM, and others.
> You got to wonder what your interests here are: To defend the truth or
> to allow intolerable injustice to prevail?
To state the truth. It needs no defense.
> And in the name of what do
> you persist in attacking 9/11 Truthers?
Reality.
> In the name of saving face because you wasted the last five years at
> dinner parties arguing about how muslims have to be wiped off the
> planet?
I've never made such a ridiculous claim.
Anything else you want to lie about, "truther"?
kangarooistan
>
> - Show quoted text -
The number of legal opinions condemning the western actions on more
and more issues daily is one day going to build into a landslide of
legal cases against Bush Blair and Howard and their supporters
Its starting with a few test cases on smaller issues and evidence is
flooding in as committees question the main actors this evidence will
" hang " those who have lied in the recent past
One day they will all hang
911fal...@gmail.com
> Sunny wombatho...@yahoo.com.au said:> EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
>
> Millions of experts say that the only way those planes could have flown into
> the towers was if Bush (a trained pilot) was controlling them from the Oval
> Office.
But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
It is not outrageous conspiracy theory to observe prima facie that the
collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Yes it
does look exactly like a controlled demolition.
If you put it in with 100 footages of known controlled demolitions
nobody would notice any difference.
Your mockery is foolish. You are a fool. It is your mockery which is
outrageous. The only foolish comments in this thread come from those
denying the blatant obvious that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
>
> Loose Change is now considered the definitive historical account about what
> really happened on September 11, 2001.
>
But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
It is not outrageous conspiracy theory to observe prima facie that the
collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Yes it
does look exactly like a controlled demolition.
If you put it in with 100 footages of known controlled demolitions
nobody would notice any difference.
Your mockery is foolish. You are a fool. It is your mockery which is
outrageous. The only foolish comments in this thread come from those
denying the blatant obvious that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
> Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it
> drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense
Thats true. People consider Loose Change as a good introduction to
9/11 Truth for teenagers.
But it makes alot of bad arguments and is not promoted by the core
movement of 9/11 Truth.
If you want to see the real documentaries about 9/11 then go to
www.video.google.com and see
911 Press for Truth
911 Mysteries
Everybody Gotta Learn Sometime
Also see Professor Steven Jones' thesus called Why Indeed Did the Twin
Towers Collapse.
>
> George Monbiot
> Tuesday February 6, 2007
> The Guardian
>
> There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush
> government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into
> gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain
> reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an
> epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness,
> eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me
Interesting that the Guarding are addressing a serious issue but are
making stupid ridiculous counter arguments that don't qualify as
arguments at all but rather mindless mockery.
>
> Article continues
> Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the specialists
> in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film-makers now say that the third
> edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he turns out to be
> "a theology professor". They don't name him, but I would bet that it's David
> Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracists.
There are plenty of experts. The top post of this thread just gave you
a list of 6 of them in controlled demolition. Why don't you call them
up in Europe and confirm? If you're so concerned about defending the
official story why don't you call them and ask them personally?
>
> The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of
> thousands of people.
I agree that the official story is a lie but I do not agree with the
attempt of Loose Change to explain what DID happen exactly. However
this statement that the plot must have involved 10,000s of people is a
lie.
Such conspiracy are carried out in a compartmentalised needs-to-know
format. Most people are unwittingly involved and never realise that
they participated. This is how intelligence agencies work on every
covert mission.
> It could not have been executed without the help of
> demolition experts,
We know who the demolition company is who were outsourced for the
technological expertise: They are actually called "Contolled
Demolition"
>the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre,
The security firm was only six weeks on the job and had two directors
who are direct relatives of GWB. The Lease Holders of the WTC were
only six weeks into the Lease and were the first private lease holders
in the history of WTC.
>Mayor
> Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains),
Who is a zionist jew just like the two lease holders of WTC Frank Lowy
and Larry Silverstien.
>much of the US air force,
The US airforce was not involved. There were many drills being carried
out by NORAD on 9/11. It was actually an unprecedented number of
drills. Dick Cheney had just 1 month before 9/11 signed over the
executive control of NORAD to the Secreatry of Defence. This is
unprecedented in the history of NORAD and it turned out to be the
reason given as to why NORAD failed.
LOOK!!!! Do not walk silently and ignorantly through this valley of
death. There is too much at stake for you to trust blindly the
summaries and insults being wagered by mainstream press. You must go
and view the swarms of documentary detailing how this was carried out
and how the official story is clearly proven 100 times over to be an
utter fucking lie, an urban myth.
>the
> Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence
> Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of
> the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the
> investigators who picked through the rubble.
NORAD have changed their story of what they were doing on 9/11 THREE
TIMES.
go see 911 Press for Truth.
The author of this guardian article has now been listed to appear in
court to be tried for complicity for covering up 9/11 and he will be
executed for Treason.
That is when the revolution happens of course.
We will not forget traitors like this who pen blatant lies in the
press. They will be tried and executed. And if the revolution is slow
in it turns then there will be resistance militia who will hunt these
traitors down and execute them in public places without trial.
So let the trials begin or you better run because we are going to get
you.
>
> If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture
> that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on
> the Jerry Springer
Jerry Springer is a zionist jew and is participating in the
degradation of American morality.
Jerry Springer show has never had anyone on testifying evidence
contradictory to the official story of 9/11.
The author has moved predictably into what is known as simple
inductive generalisations. If you study them you see they are easily
falsifiable in every case.
>Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet
> none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the
> whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell
> the greatest story ever told.
There have been many witness testimonies that contradict the official
story.
Anyone who whistleblew as a participant in 9/11 would be
assassinated.
There are very few who were in control of command. As I explained and
can table historical examples of this, there are many operations that
can be carried out in a compartmentalised structure on a needs to know
basis. This is the inherant nature of covert operations.
This is not outlandish conspiracy theory. Most people who participated
in the Manhatten Project did not know the end goal was to produce a
nuclear bomb.
>
> Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than
> the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it
> collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the
> plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact
> recovered.
But there are no photos or videos of the attack and yet we know that
teh Pentagon has hundreds of CCTV cameras which would have caught it
on video. We know the FBI confiscated 80 videos from neighbouring
private and civic buildings and have refused to release any to date
that show a plane hitting the pentagon.
>The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is
> why the holes weren't bigger.
>
> The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST has yet to produce a report on the collapse of the WTC7.
GWB delayed an official inquiry into WTC for 400 days - an
unprecedented delay and yet it was the biggest crime in American
history.
>Far from being impossible, the collapse
> turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns
> and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel
> structures.
e
This journalsit who has the power to publish an article that is read
by millions has done about 1/100th of the research into 9/11 than I
have and yet he has the audacity to stand up and speak about it.
> As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top
> stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs
> of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.
this is the official urban myth. There is no modelling that has been
released for public scritiny and what has been released was easily
falsifiable by anyone gifted in scientific education.
>
> Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an
> aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows
> that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7
> collapsed.
Amazing. There is yet to be an official report on t
he collapse of WTC7 and yet this guy, who is not privy to all the data
that NIST refuses to allow the public to access, and yet he has
demonstrated how WTC7 collapsed? Amazing. The guy must be a clarvoyant
>Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes
> feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the
> automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the
> fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded.
that is not how a building implodes. I challenge you to go heat up a
steel structure with a heavy load on it and see if it suddenly free
fall collapses. That notion is ridiculous and any one with half a
brain can see that.
here is an example for the retarded individuals who can't put two and
two together:
>
> Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.
They farmed 300 "experts" none of which will agree to join in a dabate
with 9/11 Truther academics. The defenders of zionism keep claiming
there are no experts and academics who support the charges being made
by 9/11 Truthers.
You will never see a zionist supporters openly acknowledge those 6
controlled demolition companies above I listed.
>
> So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot
> expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population.
Well they must be co-conspirators. Also the author of this Guardian
hitpieace must be a co-conspirator or else he shouldn't be calling
himself a journalist.
> There is no reasoning with this madness.
Once war is declared on the 9/11 Truthers we will form militia and
hunt you down and execute you. At that point I agree that there will
be no reasoning. Once the war begins reasoning goes out the window.
Your opportunity is NOW and you spit in our face and protect war
criminals. For that you will be executed like pigs.
>People believe Loose Change because it
> proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great
> evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs
> our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws
> campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear
> weapons, privatisation, inequality -
9/11 Truthers also fight on those issues. Iraq war was based on WMD
lies. 9/11 Truthers are a subset of such activists who believe with
good reason that because of the american psyche of 9/11 the only
reason that such war cimes as No-WMDs is being allowed to continue is
because on 9/11 the americans were brainwashed into supporting a
zionist agenda of destroying the middle-eastern powers in what can
only be described as imperialist conquest. Once someone reaslise the
truth about 9/11 they cease to be apathetic to the issues you've
penned above.
>while permanently wrecking their
> credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-
> existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New
> American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the
> conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.
There is alot of nonsense in Loose Change yes. And that is why you
have chosen it to table above mentionings of any of the other
extremely popular and academic compilations of this 9/11 Truth issue
such as
911 Press for Truth
9/11 Mysrteries
Everybody Gotta Learn Sometime
...and the list goes on to papers and
see Michel Chussodovsky's War and Globalisation at
www.video.google.com
All the above listed films are there too.
>
> The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive.
Even an idiot in this day and age is familiar with the social
phenomena of Martrydom.
If these three men were assassinated their movie would be seen by even
more people and further more people would turn to violent militia to
further to message of this cause.
> If the
> US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy,
It is not all knowing, all-encompassing. It is easier to control the
actions of a million people than it is to control one individual. It
is easier because it is easier to predict the behaviour of a million
people.
This is basic group psychology 101 and the power of modern data-mining
technologies to refine that power.
You're trying to make out that its some kind of exotic power.
We have one person called Dan Rather go on television and 1 million
people at the other end who have no right of reply have to listen to
him.
Thats pretty fucking clear bloody obvious how this power is
maintained.
Nothing exotic about it. In fact only simple controls can work. Its a
simple control but it is very powerful.
> why did
> it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation.
What kind of a moron is this journalist? I just explained another
explanation didn't I? its called martyrdom. If the three directors of
Loose Change were assassinated there would be 10 times the number of
people flock to see their film. that simple.
The audience that this journalist is targeting are basically the
uneducated core sheeple working class who rarely to none think for
themselves and need to be led as they are led voluntarily.
> They
> are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its
> real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is
> surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.
In fact Loose Change may indeed be agents of Zionism. There film is
full of many nonsense conclusions and has done more damage to 9/11
Truth than good.
Obviouslyh the agents behind this atrocity would invest alot of money
in covering it up. disinformation films such as Loose Change are very
effective at that. The mainstream press (the same people who have
promoted relentlessly and high repetitively the OBL 9/11 story) have
given alot of promotion to Loose Change. And invariably they never
mention other documentaries one could see for a slightly different
incite to this issue.
Impartial journalism is dead. It died in Australia for certain with
the new Sedition Acts.
journalists are self-censoring and parroting the government
discourse.
Thus in order to get imparital journalism without corporate interests
poisening it, you need to search and cross-check your sources on the
internet.
If you merely spend 100 hours investigating 9/11, starting with the
documentaries I have listed, you will undoubtedly discover that indeed
it was a false-flag operation and indeeed it is critical to the apathy
of western psyche to the other far worse tyrannies being carried out
such as Iraq illegal invasion.
This journalist has clearly done none of that. Its clear in his
reporting that he knows nothing of the 9/11 issues and he has no
intent to know them. His only objective here was to assassinate the
9/11 Truth movement. And for that one day he will be executed.
911fal...@gmail.com
>
> Millions of experts say that the only way those planes could have flown into
> the towers was if Bush (a trained pilot) was controlling them from the Oval
> Office.
But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
It is not outrageous conspiracy theory to observe prima facie that the
collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Yes it
does look exactly like a controlled demolition.
If you put it in with 100 footages of known controlled demolitions
nobody would notice any difference.
Your mockery is foolish. You are a fool. It is your mockery which is
outrageous. The only foolish comments in this thread come from those
denying the blatant obvious that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
>
> Loose Change is now considered the definitive historical account about what
> really happened on September 11, 2001.
>
But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
It is not outrageous conspiracy theory to observe prima facie that the
collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Yes it
does look exactly like a controlled demolition.
If you put it in with 100 footages of known controlled demolitions
nobody would notice any difference.
Your mockery is foolish. You are a fool. It is your mockery which is
outrageous. The only foolish comments in this thread come from those
denying the blatant obvious that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
> Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it
> drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense
Thats true. People consider Loose Change as a good introduction to
9/11 Truth for teenagers.
But it makes alot of bad arguments and is not promoted by the core
movement of 9/11 Truth.
If you want to see the real documentaries about 9/11 then go to
www.video.google.com and see
911 Press for Truth
911 Mysteries
Everybody Gotta Learn Sometime
Also see Professor Steven Jones' thesus called Why Indeed Did the Twin
Towers Collapse.
>
> George Monbiot
> Tuesday February 6, 2007
> The Guardian
>
> There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush
> government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into
> gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain
> reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an
> epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness,
> eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me
Interesting that the Guarding are addressing a serious issue but are
making stupid ridiculous counter arguments that don't qualify as
arguments at all but rather mindless mockery.
>
> Article continues
> Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the specialists
> in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film-makers now say that the third
> edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he turns out to be
> "a theology professor". They don't name him, but I would bet that it's David
> Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracists.
There are plenty of experts. The top post of this thread just gave you
a list of 6 of them in controlled demolition. Why don't you call them
up in Europe and confirm? If you're so concerned about defending the
official story why don't you call them and ask them personally?
>
> The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of
> thousands of people.
I agree that the official story is a lie but I do not agree with the
attempt of Loose Change to explain what DID happen exactly. However
this statement that the plot must have involved 10,000s of people is a
lie.
Such conspiracy are carried out in a compartmentalised needs-to-know
format. Most people are unwittingly involved and never realise that
they participated. This is how intelligence agencies work on every
covert mission.
> It could not have been executed without the help of
> demolition experts,
We know who the demolition company is who were outsourced for the
technological expertise: They are actually called "Contolled
Demolition"
>the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre,
The security firm was only six weeks on the job and had two directors
who are direct relatives of GWB. The Lease Holders of the WTC were
only six weeks into the Lease and were the first private lease holders
in the history of WTC.
>Mayor
> Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains),
Who is a zionist jew just like the two lease holders of WTC Frank Lowy
and Larry Silverstien.
>much of the US air force,
The US airforce was not involved. There were many drills being carried
out by NORAD on 9/11. It was actually an unprecedented number of
drills. Dick Cheney had just 1 month before 9/11 signed over the
executive control of NORAD to the Secreatry of Defence. This is
unprecedented in the history of NORAD and it turned out to be the
reason given as to why NORAD failed.
LOOK!!!! Do not walk silently and ignorantly through this valley of
death. There is too much at stake for you to trust blindly the
summaries and insults being wagered by mainstream press. You must go
and view the swarms of documentary detailing how this was carried out
and how the official story is clearly proven 100 times over to be an
utter fucking lie, an urban myth.
>the
> Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence
> Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of
> the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the
> investigators who picked through the rubble.
NORAD have changed their story of what they were doing on 9/11 THREE
TIMES.
go see 911 Press for Truth.
The author of this guardian article has now been listed to appear in
court to be tried for complicity for covering up 9/11 and he will be
executed for Treason.
That is when the revolution happens of course.
We will not forget traitors like this who pen blatant lies in the
press. They will be tried and executed. And if the revolution is slow
in it turns then there will be resistance militia who will hunt these
traitors down and execute them in public places without trial.
So let the trials begin or you better run because we are going to get
you.
>
> If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture
> that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on
> the Jerry Springer
Jerry Springer is a zionist jew and is participating in the
degradation of American morality.
Jerry Springer show has never had anyone on testifying evidence
contradictory to the official story of 9/11.
The author has moved predictably into what is known as simple
inductive generalisations. If you study them you see they are easily
falsifiable in every case.
>Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet
> none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the
> whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell
> the greatest story ever told.
There have been many witness testimonies that contradict the official
story.
Anyone who whistleblew as a participant in 9/11 would be
assassinated.
There are very few who were in control of command. As I explained and
can table historical examples of this, there are many operations that
can be carried out in a compartmentalised structure on a needs to know
basis. This is the inherant nature of covert operations.
This is not outlandish conspiracy theory. Most people who participated
in the Manhatten Project did not know the end goal was to produce a
nuclear bomb.
>
> Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than
> the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it
> collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the
> plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact
> recovered.
But there are no photos or videos of the attack and yet we know that
teh Pentagon has hundreds of CCTV cameras which would have caught it
on video. We know the FBI confiscated 80 videos from neighbouring
private and civic buildings and have refused to release any to date
that show a plane hitting the pentagon.
>The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is
> why the holes weren't bigger.
>
> The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST has yet to produce a report on the collapse of the WTC7.
GWB delayed an official inquiry into WTC for 400 days - an
unprecedented delay and yet it was the biggest crime in American
history.
>Far from being impossible, the collapse
> turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns
> and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel
> structures.
e
This journalsit who has the power to publish an article that is read
by millions has done about 1/100th of the research into 9/11 than I
have and yet he has the audacity to stand up and speak about it.
> As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top
> stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs
> of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.
this is the official urban myth. There is no modelling that has been
released for public scritiny and what has been released was easily
falsifiable by anyone gifted in scientific education.
>
> Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an
> aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows
> that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7
> collapsed.
Amazing. There is yet to be an official report on t
he collapse of WTC7 and yet this guy, who is not privy to all the data
that NIST refuses to allow the public to access, and yet he has
demonstrated how WTC7 collapsed? Amazing. The guy must be a clarvoyant
>Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes
> feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the
> automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the
> fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded.
that is not how a building implodes. I challenge you to go heat up a
steel structure with a heavy load on it and see if it suddenly free
fall collapses. That notion is ridiculous and any one with half a
brain can see that.
here is an example for the retarded individuals who can't put two and
two together:
>
> Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.
They farmed 300 "experts" none of which will agree to join in a dabate
with 9/11 Truther academics. The defenders of zionism keep claiming
there are no experts and academics who support the charges being made
by 9/11 Truthers.
You will never see a zionist supporters openly acknowledge those 6
controlled demolition companies above I listed.
>
> So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot
> expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population.
Well they must be co-conspirators. Also the author of this Guardian
hitpieace must be a co-conspirator or else he shouldn't be calling
himself a journalist.
> There is no reasoning with this madness.
Once war is declared on the 9/11 Truthers we will form militia and
hunt you down and execute you. At that point I agree that there will
be no reasoning. Once the war begins reasoning goes out the window.
Your opportunity is NOW and you spit in our face and protect war
criminals. For that you will be executed like pigs.
>People believe Loose Change because it
> proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great
> evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs
> our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws
> campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear
> weapons, privatisation, inequality -
9/11 Truthers also fight on those issues. Iraq war was based on WMD
lies. 9/11 Truthers are a subset of such activists who believe with
good reason that because of the american psyche of 9/11 the only
reason that such war cimes as No-WMDs is being allowed to continue is
because on 9/11 the americans were brainwashed into supporting a
zionist agenda of destroying the middle-eastern powers in what can
only be described as imperialist conquest. Once someone reaslise the
truth about 9/11 they cease to be apathetic to the issues you've
penned above.
>while permanently wrecking their
> credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-
> existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New
> American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the
> conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.
There is alot of nonsense in Loose Change yes. And that is why you
have chosen it to table above mentionings of any of the other
extremely popular and academic compilations of this 9/11 Truth issue
such as
911 Press for Truth
9/11 Mysrteries
Everybody Gotta Learn Sometime
...and the list goes on to papers and
see Michel Chussodovsky's War and Globalisation at
www.video.google.com
All the above listed films are there too.
>
> The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive.
Even an idiot in this day and age is familiar with the social
phenomena of Martrydom.
If these three men were assassinated their movie would be seen by even
more people and further more people would turn to violent militia to
further to message of this cause.
> If the
> US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy,
It is not all knowing, all-encompassing. It is easier to control the
actions of a million people than it is to control one individual. It
is easier because it is easier to predict the behaviour of a million
people.
This is basic group psychology 101 and the power of modern data-mining
technologies to refine that power.
You're trying to make out that its some kind of exotic power.
We have one person called Dan Rather go on television and 1 million
people at the other end who have no right of reply have to listen to
him.
Thats pretty fucking clear bloody obvious how this power is
maintained.
Nothing exotic about it. In fact only simple controls can work. Its a
simple control but it is very powerful.
> why did
> it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation.
What kind of a moron is this journalist? I just explained another
explanation didn't I? its called martyrdom. If the three directors of
Loose Change were assassinated there would be 10 times the number of
people flock to see their film. that simple.
The audience that this journalist is targeting are basically the
uneducated core sheeple working class who rarely to none think for
themselves and need to be led as they are led voluntarily.
> They
> are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its
> real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is
> surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.
Shill #312
>But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
>stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Shill #312
--
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Monty Python's "Galaxy Song"
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> "Sunny" wrote in a message
>
> > EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
> > Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
> > Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
> > controlled demolition
> > Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
> > WTC7=C.D.
> > Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
> > C.D.
> > Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
> > WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
>
> There it is. All 5 of the demolitions experts in the world agree. The other
> 5,000 that disagree don't count.
There would not be 5000 controlled demolition Professionals in the
world.
Controlled Demolition Inc does most of the CDs in America. Its a very
serious business and not something carried out by small companies.
If you go watch the testimony of Danny Jowenko you will see LIVE how
he comes to realise that WTC7 was a fraud.
firstly, danny jowenko didn't know that the controlled demolition of
WTC7 was a secret.
He thought everyone knew that. The reason he didn't know this is in
part because the mainstream press has never talked about it and put
the word out that it is in dispute.
Secondly, Danny Jowenko didn't know that WTC7 was pulled on 9/11. He
thought it happened a few days later.
Other than that he had never looked into it much. If he had known it
was in dispute he probably would have been curious to look more.
You will discover that this is the case with 90% of CD Professionals
worldwide.
Find me Controlled Demoltion Professionals on record saying that the
accept the official story.
go on FUCWIT, go get me a list of your 5000.
Or are you just as ignorant as you look?
While you're at it go and look up Simple Inductive Generalisation.
although simple iductive generalisation is useful in determinaing
hypotheses to be tested it should never be mistaken for an argument as
it is readily falsifiable - as I've just done.
We use the same argumetn to falsify a SIG put for as an argument
everytime.
It is the most OFTEN used false-argument by people who don't want to
take the time to actually look into the issue of a matter, such as the
collapse of WTC7.
You are blinded by apathy. The truth is you really don't care. You are
a willing slave and worst of all you are a Nazi-drummer boy because
you are feeding the power of the criminals carrying out the genoicide
of the middle-east.
Tex
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171173298....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 10, 3:28 pm, 9-11 Honesty <9...@facts.org> wrote:
>> Sunny wombatho...@yahoo.com.au said:> EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN
>> INSIDE JOB !!!!
>>
>> Millions of experts say that the only way those planes could have flown
>> into
>> the towers was if Bush (a trained pilot) was controlling them from the
>> Oval
>> Office.
>
>
> But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
> stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
I guess the two massive planes that flew into the buildings had nothing to
do with it then. Fucking muppet
John P.
> First we will need enough people who know the truth.
Actually, what you're looking for is people who *don't* know the truth and
are willing to accept *your* version of it as real.
> So the most we can do is make sure that people are
> armed with the knowledge.
The most you can do is love your family and live every day to the fullest.
> They will see then with their very own eyes the mainstream
> media being used to cover up the truth.
I don't know what papers you read, but the truth about 9/11 has been printed
repeatedly in all the mainstream papers I've seen. Hell, it was even
broadcast live on almost every TV channel.
> Then they will get angry.
If people who believe the US government was involved in 9/11 are not already
angry, they never will be. Anyone who truly believes that shit and isn't
scared shitless to continue living here in the US, under a murderous
government, is an idiot.
> A day will come when the critical mass is powerful enough to oust the
> corrupt judiciary, media, and government. At that point the LEADERS of
> the revolution will stand up and take their positions. Then the hunt for
> justice
> will begin and people like John Howard, Ehud Olmert, Tony Blair, and GWB
> will be executed for crimes against humanity.
Oh wow dude! Have another bong hit. It's like, the 60's again... except this
time, the participants don't really believe in what they;re doing, they're
just used to playing roles as part of the latest fad. So, we're all 60's
today. We'll rise up and revolt against the man, against big oil, big
tobbaco, big chocolate and all the other bigs out there. Through illict drug
use, sex, music and an ability to talk about changing the world endlessly
without ever actually doing anything, we'll bring the evil empire down.
... or, like the children of the 60's, you'll get your hair cut, buy a nice
suit and go work for big silicone. After some years, you'll move up through
the ranks, and one day you'll realize - you've become 'the man'.
Watch your kids. They may smoke some weed and talk about revolution.
John P.
>> There it is. All 5 of the demolitions experts in the world agree. The
>> other
>> 5,000 that disagree don't count.
> There would not be 5000 controlled demolition Professionals in the
> world.
Good job Beavis. Likewise, a claim that 5 'experts', 4 of whom don't appear
to have gone on record anywhere making any claims to know what happened on
9/11 in NYC, does not provide one a reason to believe WTC 7 was brought down
via controlled demolition.
Any 'expert' who claims to know he is seeing a controlled demolition after
simply viewing a short video clip - seeing and hearing no explosions, and,
supposedly, knowing that a controlled demolition collapse is a gravity
collapse - which is identical to what one would see in any massive
structural failure, isn't much of an expert.
> If you go watch the testimony of Danny Jowenko you will see LIVE how
> he comes to realise that WTC7 was a fraud.
If you read up a bit on how investigations are done and how scientific
conclusions are reached, you'll realize Jowenko did neither.
> He thought everyone knew that. The reason he didn't know this is in
> part because the mainstream press has never talked about it and put
> the word out that it is in dispute.
The mainstream press didn't report any such dispute because there is no such
dispute. Among engineers, demolitions experts, investigators from a variety
of concerns (including insurance companies), none have gone on record
indicating they can justify any claims that it may have appeared as a
controlled demolition. I imagine they are waiting to see the results of the
investigation, rather than drawing uneducated conclusions based on minimal
information.
> Secondly, Danny Jowenko didn't know that WTC7 was pulled on 9/11.
Of course he knew it *wasn't* pulled. He has gone on record stating so.
> You will discover that this is the case with 90% of CD Professionals
> worldwide.
I have not found that to be the case among anyone, CD professionals or
otherwise, who has taken the time to look at more than a short video clip.
> Find me Controlled Demoltion Professionals on record saying that the
> accept the official story.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
> go on FUCWIT, go get me a list of your 5000.
> Or are you just as ignorant as you look?
Go on fuckwit... read it. Sound out the words and, maybe ask mom to explain
some of the bigger ones to you.
> While you're at it go and look up Simple Inductive Generalisation.
> although simple iductive generalisation is useful in determinaing
> hypotheses to be tested it should never be mistaken for an argument as
> it is readily falsifiable - as I've just done.
> We use the same argumetn to falsify a SIG put for as an argument
> everytime.
> It is the most OFTEN used false-argument by people who don't want to
> take the time to actually look into the issue of a matter, such as the
> collapse of WTC7.
Well, thanks for explaining your position and that of these 'experts' you
claim are able to draw valid conclusions from a short video clip.
Did you mean to shoot your foot off?
> You are blinded by apathy.
Never mistake facts, evidence and reality for apathy. Just because apathy
and reality end in a y, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. As I said,
ask mom to explain all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you
can't grasp this on your own.
> The truth is you really don't care.
The truth is, you have no idea who I am or how I feel. I've probably
researched more on the topic of 9/11 in the past 10 minutes than you have in
your entire life. Seeing some pretty colors on the water, and swallowing a
kook conspiracy site hook line and sinker doesn't make you well studied - it
just shows you for the sucker and moron you obviously are.
> You are a willing slave and worst of all you are a Nazi-drummer boy
> because you are feeding the power of the criminals carrying out the
> genoicide of the middle-east.
Yeah... GW's pretty good, isn't he. When did he start that? Something like
2,000 years ago, right?
Feel free to use your brain a bit if you decide to respond.
princo coasters
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171173298....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
LOL, talk about a fantasy! Maybe delusion is a better term for it.
The thousands of real demolition experts would probably call it a joke.
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
> > genoicide of the middle-east.
>
> Yeah... GW's pretty good, isn't he. When did he start that? Something like
> 2,000 years ago, right?
>
> Feel free to use your brain a bit if you decide to respond.
I just posted a thorough debunk of this Protec report and it hasn't
published for some reason.
Perhaps there is a delay. Unfortuantely I didn't save it and don't
care to write it again.
The main argument was that Protec claim to be Privy to an awful lot of
raw data, photos, video, seismograph data which they claim positions
them as the most authoritive party to make purely scientific analysis
of the events and yet the neglect to state why they have not supplied
access to this archive for public scrutiny.
The 9/11 Truth movement wants all records of such made public so that
truly independant autonomous disinterested parties may perform their
own analysis.
Protec claims to be disinterested and yet were contracted to the
Ground Zero site.
911fal...@gmail.com
Nup it seems that my post was Discarded. Perhaps I accidentally
clicked the wrong button.
I'm pretty pissed off. I just flamed the fuck out of you you arrogant
baseless turd.
fish.
911fal...@gmail.com says...
> EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
> Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
> Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
> controlled demolition
> WTC7=C.D.
> Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
> C.D.
> Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
> WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
>
>
you seem to have a bit of a problem convicing anyone falsefag...
Take that as a personal challenge to rant more.
--
"Once you black, you go deaf"
Family Guy.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
I just posted my full rebuttal again and yet didn't copy it because
its so rare that there are problems sending the message. And yet once
again it said "Post Successful" yet has not published. I'm writing
this now to test immediately whether this post will post.
I know its sounds conspiratorial but why the fuck did my full
rebuttals fail to publish? And then this I bet it fucking publishes
like the other two notes of mention above.
911fal...@gmail.com
You know what I can't fucking believe this. Like 1 in a 100 times I
have a problem after clicking send and lose the data. When I click
BACK in this knew fucking Google-Groups Beta shit my post has totally
disappeared.
perhaps if you spend too long in the editor working on your message it
times-out but still pretends that the post was
successful??????????????????//
WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????
I bet this fucking message posts!!!!!!!!!!
911fal...@gmail.com
Here is my now Discarded original in part (the later half is
rewritten)
How many have you got on record? None would disagree that prima facie
it looks like a controlled demolition. Many would refrain from comment
given the uncertainty of the integrity of publically available footage
of WTC7. As far as I know in the last five years no mainstream media
network or government agency has made available for download a copy of
the WTC7 collapse.
All copies available on the internet have been from independant
sources of uncertain generation of copies.
> > > While you're at it go and look up Simple Inductive Generalisation.
> > although simple iductive generalisation is useful in determinaing
> > hypotheses to be tested it should never be mistaken for an argument as
> > it is readily falsifiable - as I've just done.
> > We use the same argumetn to falsify a SIG put for as an argument
> > everytime.
> > It is the most OFTEN used false-argument by people who don't want to
> > take the time to actually look into the issue of a matter, such as the
> > collapse of WTC7.
>
> Well, thanks for explaining your position and that of these 'experts' you
> claim are able to draw valid conclusions from a short video clip.
>
> Did you mean to shoot your foot off?
I only shoot my foot off if I relied on a simple inductive
generalisation. SIGs are the most oft employed logical falacies on
usenet.
>
> > You are blinded by apathy.
>
> Never mistake facts, evidence and reality for apathy. Just because apathy
> and reality end in a y, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. As I said,
> ask mom to explain all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you
> can't grasp this on your own.
Is that so? Just like there were no WMDs and Powell knowingly lied to
UNSC to make the case for war and nobody gives a fuck since
Blair.Bush.Howard all got back into power with the blood of 500,000
dead women children and men of Iraq on their hands? Which part of
reality
did I mistake? Was it the part where Condi Rice says "The death of
500,000 people is worth it if it means the toppling Saddam"?
>
> > The truth is you really don't care.
>
> The truth is, you have no idea who I am or how I feel. I've probably
> researched more on the topic of 9/11 in the past 10 minutes than you have in
> your entire life. Seeing some pretty colors on the water, and swallowing a
> kook conspiracy site hook line and sinker doesn't make you well studied - it
> just shows you for the sucker and moron you obviously are.
Thats interesting because I've been researching it ever since Jan
2006. So you probably HAVE NOT done more research on the topic in a
period of 10 minutes than I have in my entire life.
You make many rash assumptions in this flaming. I have never swalled
any kook conspiracy sites. I have perused mainstream articles
conveniently archived by Standford academic Paul Thompson in his
Terror Timeline, I have considered the arguments of career academics
such as Steven Jones,
David Ray Griffin, and Michel Chussodovsky. I have never relied on any
kook site as primary source of information.
I should add in defence of 9/11 Truthers that there are plenty of kook
sites of the Debunk variety supporting the official story which make
blatant strawman arguments and arrogantly claim to have debunked our
cause. I have also fended off the barrage of pro-Officiale kooks who
are more than happy to attack us with insults but who have clearly
done so little research as to not even know the account of events
cited in official reports.
So for one year I have been fully cognicant to mainstream media
coverage of the 9/11 Truth movement and have noticed blatant cover-ups
and/or baseless argumentation used to discredit our cause.
>
> > You are a willing slave and worst of all you are a Nazi-drummer boy
> > because you are feeding the power of the criminals carrying out the
> > genoicide of the middle-east.
>
> Yeah... GW's pretty good, isn't he. When did he start that? Something like
> 2,000 years ago, right?
Thats called Apathy.
>
> Feel free to use your brain a bit if you decide to respond.
Here goes:
The following from the introduction of this Brent Blanchard August
2006 publication you've provided me.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Fistly the pdf has Copy/Paste disabled which makes it hard to critique
as i have to type it out by hand. I'll therefore may paraphrase
somewhat. It also lends itself to misquotation which will further
propagate misinformation.
Point I:
"Before releasing this report we reveiwed every paragraph and tried to
simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible"
This means that it is unlikely I will discover any unfamiliar words
contary to your rude assertion that I will need to "ask mom to explain
all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you can't grasp this
on your own".
It also means I can look forward to 12 pages of non-scientific broad
assertions void of data and technical analysis supporting them. Once
again I expect to be dependant on the good faith of the head of a
company which more than likley has past and future interests with
being in good favour of the US administration of the day.
Insults aside, I'm glad you've forwarded me this report for I had not
seen it before. The fact that no ignorant Official fans have cited it
in my prescence furthers my case that most of them havn't got a
fucking clue what even the Official story is let alone the rebuttals
of it. They're like brainless gang bangers who root for the winning
team regardless of colours. Their contempt and ridicule has nothing to
do with patriotism, for patriotism is essentially the vigilant
criticism of your country's government. The greatest and ever
potential enemy of our sovereignty is those who govern it.
Point 1:
Protec have positioned themselves as an authority to this issue by
claiming to be privy to "thousands of photographs...and video
tapes ..as well
is independently simultaneously recorded original mainstream news
broadcasts of the events of the day of 9/11 along with .."which
provide
substantial visual evidence
Protec has not stated any reason why they have neglected to provide
appendage to the
Here is my now Discarded original in part (the later half is
rewritten)
How many have you got on record? None would disagree that prima facie
it looks like a controlled demolition. Many would refrain from comment
given the uncertainty of the integrity of publically available footage
of WTC7. As far as I know in the last five years no mainstream media
network or government agency has made available for download a copy of
the WTC7 collapse.
All copies available on the internet have been from independant
sources of uncertain generation of copies.
> > > While you're at it go and look up Simple Inductive Generalisation.
> > although simple iductive generalisation is useful in determinaing
> > hypotheses to be tested it should never be mistaken for an argument as
> > it is readily falsifiable - as I've just done.
> > We use the same argumetn to falsify a SIG put for as an argument
> > everytime.
> > It is the most OFTEN used false-argument by people who don't want to
> > take the time to actually look into the issue of a matter, such as the
> > collapse of WTC7.
>
> Well, thanks for explaining your position and that of these 'experts' you
> claim are able to draw valid conclusions from a short video clip.
>
> Did you mean to shoot your foot off?
I only shoot my foot off if I relied on a simple inductive
generalisation. SIGs are the most oft employed logical falacies on
usenet.
>
> > You are blinded by apathy.
>
> Never mistake facts, evidence and reality for apathy. Just because apathy
> and reality end in a y, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. As I said,
> ask mom to explain all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you
> can't grasp this on your own.
Is that so? Just like there were no WMDs and Powell knowingly lied to
UNSC to make the case for war and nobody gives a fuck since
Blair.Bush.Howard all got back into power with the blood of 500,000
dead women children and men of Iraq on their hands? Which part of
reality
did I mistake? Was it the part where Condi Rice says "The death of
500,000 people is worth it if it means the toppling Saddam"?
>
> > The truth is you really don't care.
>
> The truth is, you have no idea who I am or how I feel. I've probably
> researched more on the topic of 9/11 in the past 10 minutes than you have in
> your entire life. Seeing some pretty colors on the water, and swallowing a
> kook conspiracy site hook line and sinker doesn't make you well studied - it
> just shows you for the sucker and moron you obviously are.
Thats interesting because I've been researching it ever since Jan
2006. So you probably HAVE NOT done more research on the topic in a
period of 10 minutes than I have in my entire life.
You make many rash assumptions in this flaming. I have never swalled
any kook conspiracy sites. I have perused mainstream articles
conveniently archived by Standford academic Paul Thompson in his
Terror Timeline, I have considered the arguments of career academics
such as Steven Jones,
David Ray Griffin, and Michel Chussodovsky. I have never relied on any
kook site as primary source of information.
I should add in defence of 9/11 Truthers that there are plenty of kook
sites of the Debunk variety supporting the official story which make
blatant strawman arguments and arrogantly claim to have debunked our
cause. I have also fended off the barrage of pro-Officiale kooks who
are more than happy to attack us with insults but who have clearly
done so little research as to not even know the account of events
cited in official reports.
So for one year I have been fully cognicant to mainstream media
coverage of the 9/11 Truth movement and have noticed blatant cover-ups
and/or baseless argumentation used to discredit our cause.
>
> > You are a willing slave and worst of all you are a Nazi-drummer boy
> > because you are feeding the power of the criminals carrying out the
> > genoicide of the middle-east.
>
> Yeah... GW's pretty good, isn't he. When did he start that? Something like
> 2,000 years ago, right?
Thats called Apathy.
>
> Feel free to use your brain a bit if you decide to respond.
Here goes:
The following from the introduction of this Brent Blanchard August
2006 publication you've provided me.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Fistly the pdf has Copy/Paste disabled which makes it hard to critique
as i have to type it out by hand. I'll therefore may paraphrase
somewhat. It also lends itself to misquotation which will further
propagate misinformation.
Point I:
"Before releasing this report we reveiwed every paragraph and tried to
simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible"
This means that it is unlikely I will discover any unfamiliar words
contary to your rude assertion that I will need to "ask mom to explain
all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you can't grasp this
on your own".
It also means I can look forward to 12 pages of non-scientific broad
assertions void of data and technical analysis supporting them. Once
again I expect to be dependant on the good faith of the head of a
company which more than likley has past and future interests with
being in good favour of the US administration of the day.
THE REST I CANT BE FUCKED WRITING FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME.
SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE FUCK MY MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE FAILS
TWICE TO POST WITH TWO REWRITTEN ENDINGS AND YET IMMEDIATELY
AFTERWARDS I POST A TESTER AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM?
I MEAN THE GOOGLE-GROUPS TOLD ME "POST SUCCESSFUL" - SO WHERE THE FUCK
IS IT?????????????//
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
Stay tuned for my full and complete rubuttal of the Protec August
c-2006 report that only apepars on 13 websites in google search
because they have blocked the google-bot and blocked the pdf from copy/
paste facility.
I wonder why these noble engineers claim with one face to volunteer
testimony appeasing the growing charge of conspiracy yet on the other
they have done everything possible to inhibit the circulation of this
grandly scammed report.
george
> Thats interesting because I've been researching it ever since Jan
> 2006. So you probably HAVE NOT done more research on the topic in a
> period of 10 minutes than I have in my entire life.
And yet you are unable to post to the Net.
And when you do it's the same old kook conspiracy claims without ever
reference to the NIST (and other) reports...
911fal...@gmail.com
And yet you just made a wild sweeping generalisation of my posts which
I can refute simply by showing you one post where I cite NIST.
I don't understand why my rebuttal wouldn't post. I spent a long time
in this eidtor on both occasions that if failed. So I suspect some
type of time-out bug.
But the post was reported "Post Successful" and yet never published.
Immediately following the apparent failed post (in leau of waiting
long enough to see if Google-Groups was delaying for maintenance) I
posted another test as seen above and indeed it posted immediately.
I am confused by that incident and you have offered nothing to assist
the curiosity.
Yet you have made a false statement about my posts.
You appear to be an idiot.
Sean
because it was a warm day on 9/11 and was warm enough to have melted ice. The
structures which they are experts in building due to over 10,000 years of
experience.
They saw the videos.
Why argue with the experts? It's futile.
911fal...@gmail.com
911fal...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2007 21:52:46 -0800, 911falsef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
> >stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
>
> Shill #312
> --
> And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
> 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
> Monty Python's "Galaxy Song"
Thoroughly debunked motherfucker
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
Could have done it myself had I not found it already.
911fal...@gmail.com
>
> The mainstream press didn't report any such dispute because there is no such
> dispute. Among engineers, demolitions experts, investigators from a variety
> of concerns (including insurance companies), none have gone on record
> indicating they can justify any claims that it may have appeared as a
> controlled demolition. I imagine they are waiting to see the results of the
> investigation, rather than drawing uneducated conclusions based on minimal
> information.
>
1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. You heard of
something called the recent Midterm elections motherfucker? You think
any of those people voted for Bush?
GovShill
> On Feb 11, 6:04 am, Shill #312 <govshill...@REMOVEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Feb 2007 21:52:46 -0800, 911falsef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >But thats not true and it does not refute the list of experts who have
> > >stated WTC7 was obviously controlled demolition.
>
> >http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif...
> > Shill #312
> > --
> > And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
> > 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
> > Monty Python's "Galaxy Song"
>
> Thoroughly debunked motherfucker
My! What a potty mouth you have Loon Boi!
Shill #312
Notan
I'm sure we'd *all* love to see a cite for that one.
Something credible.
--
Notan
GovShill
> > The mainstream press didn't report any such dispute because there is no such
> > dispute. Among engineers, demolitions experts, investigators from a variety
> > of concerns (including insurance companies), none have gone on record
> > indicating they can justify any claims that it may have appeared as a
> > controlled demolition. I imagine they are waiting to see the results of the
> > investigation, rather than drawing uneducated conclusions based on minimal
> > information.
>
> 1/3 of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html
4. Do you personally believe in the existence of each of the
following?
Believe Don't believe Not sure
God 92% 5 3
Heaven 85% 10 5
Miracles 82% 14 4
Angels 78% 15 7
Hell 74% 20 6
The Devil 71% 24 5
Ghosts 34% 60 6
UFOs 34% 55 11
Astrology 29% 64 7
Reincarnation 25% 62 13
Witches 24% 69 7
>You heard of
> something called the recent Midterm elections motherfucker?
You think that swearing bolsters your argument?
> You think any of those people voted for Bush?
You think that how people vote has any bearing on 11/9?
Shill #312
John P.
> I just posted a thorough debunk of this Protec report and it hasn't
> published for some reason. Perhaps there is a delay. Unfortuantely
> I didn't save it and don't care to write it again.
That's not very helpful then, is it?
> The main argument was that Protec claim to be Privy to an awful lot of
> raw data, photos, video, seismograph data...
Well, since they were the company who was collecting this data, one probably
needn't wonder too much how they may have had access to it.
> ... which they claim positions them as the most authoritive party
> to make purely scientific analysis of the events...
However, someone in another country who watches a short video clip is *more*
than qualified to provide an authoritive answer?
> ... and yet the neglect to state why they have not supplied
> access to this archive for public scrutiny.
a) Has anyone asked them for it?
b) Does any private company have a responsibility to provide criminal
evidence for public scrutiny?
> The 9/11 Truth movement wants all records of such made public so that
> truly independant autonomous disinterested parties may perform their
> own analysis.
Kind of like all the independent people involved in the NIST investigation?
Who would the 9/11 truth movement feel is independent and autonomous?
Obviously, anyone who is truly an expert in the proper fields doesn't fit
this description to the 9/11 truthers - they claim every single one of these
people has been bought off or silenced by GW and 'Da Jooz'.
Would the 9/11 truthers pay for this investigation? Do they have some type
of list of whom they'd accept as credible investigators? Do they lack any
ability to simply read the NIST investigation report to determine if sound
investigative techniques were used and accurate conclusions drawn?
Why are they unable to find anyone with the proper expertise to anywise this
report and point out any such flaws?
> Protec claims to be disinterested and yet were contracted to the
> Ground Zero site.
As you said, it isn't as though there are hundreds of demolition companies
from which to choose. Can you name an American demolition company that
*wasn't* involved in the ground zero investigation, recovery and clean-up?
John P.
> Nup it seems that my post was Discarded. Perhaps I accidentally
> clicked the wrong button.
> I'm pretty pissed off. I just flamed the fuck out of you you arrogant
> baseless turd.
Bummer. Most people who've tried, failed miserably. It'd be interesting to
see if you could actually come up with something better than the average 3rd
grade level stuff most people manage.
I suppose we could argue the facts and evidence - but, if you are a true
9/11 truther, you'll have nothing to do with such things.
As for my arrogance... if you were as awesome as me, you'd probably be
arrogant too. ;-)
John P.
> I just posted my full rebuttal again and yet didn't copy it because
> its so rare that there are problems sending the message. And yet once
> again it said "Post Successful" yet has not published. I'm writing
> this now to test immediately whether this post will post.
> I know its sounds conspiratorial but why the fuck did my full
> rebuttals fail to publish? And then this I bet it fucking publishes
> like the other two notes of mention above.
LOL! Sucks to be you right now. :-D
In such a situation, after the first failure, I would have typed the
response in notepad, saved the text file, then pasted it into the message to
avoid a possible second failure.
John P.
> You know what I can't fucking believe this. Like 1 in a 100 times I
> have a problem after clicking send and lose the data. When I click
> BACK in this knew fucking Google-Groups Beta shit my post has totally
> disappeared.
>
> perhaps if you spend too long in the editor working on your message it
> times-out but still pretends that the post was
> successful??????????????????//
>
> WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????
>
> I bet this fucking message posts!!!!!!!!!!
Take a break and try again later. If it's getting you this upset, you need
to chill a bit before trying again.
I've never been much of a fan of web based mail or news readers. OE works
fine for me, although I know there are a lot of anti-MS people who would
disagree simply because they dislike anything MS.
If that were the case, I'd probably use Forte's Agent for mail & news.
911fal...@gmail.com
Yeh I've seen those stats.
The top 6 are pious faiths. Its not suprising that people will say
they beleive in them. Its almost a cultural thing than an actual
belief. A hard question to ask and a hard answer to measure.
For example I don't have any faith but I would say i believe in God
because I like the concept and I love Jesus Christ's teachings.
The next 5 categories are part of the christian faith so its not
suprising to have those statistics.
But lets examine the bottom 5:
> Ghosts 34% 60 6
> UFOs 34% 55 11
> Astrology 29% 64 7
> Reincarnation 25% 62 13
> Witches 24% 69 7
You have no correlation as to whether the 36% of Americans who believe
9/11 was an inside job belong to either groups of yes's or no's
above.
Without any coefficients of correlation the table of values you've
submitted is meaningless.
I understand you point but its of no value to the argument you
suggest.
The 9/11 37% may well come from all the Dont Believes in the above
table.
If you think about it Osama has been sold much like a bogeyman coming
to get you. Much like a children's nightmare. And people have
responded generally much like children.
911fal...@gmail.com
Notan its Zogby International and also Howard Scripps. As far as polls
go they are the most credible. Further none on the side of the
neocons, such as CNN and Bill O'Reilley of FOX have rejected the poll.
Rather they have insinuated that it must be the dumbest 1/3 of
Americans who believe it. It whats this poll that triggered a wave of
programs on mainstream television and newspapers doing hit-pieces on
the 9/11 Truth. I would have loved to have seen real debates but
mostly it was ridicule and accusing 9/11 Truthers of being terrorist
sympathisers. The attacks made Mike Moore look like an angel (since
Mike Moore doesn't promote 9/11 Inside Jon much)
There was another interesting stat that I havn't tracked down again
but would like to:
60% of Americans havn't seen the footage of the collapse of WTC7.
Some people say this might explain why 36% (40%) of Americans think
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
John I could and I would really like to but it will take 20 hours and
I am busy this week.
I will post it in a fortnight "Midex debunks Blanchard Report".
I can show that Blanchard's refutation of controlled demolition theory
simultaneously rejects the pancake theory and global collapse
mechanism claimed by NIST. It appears that Blanchard wants the cake
but eats it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/mmmlink
simulated construction of the three towers which collapsed on 9/11
John P.
> How many have you got on record?
Well, to be honest, I haven't counted, but, it is sufficient to me that of
all the people who *could* form an educated opinion, none support the
alternate conspiracy theories. The only supporters of those theories come
from non-related backgrounds and experience, with a very few exceptions.
> None would disagree that prima facie it looks like
> a controlled demolition.
I would think such a comment would never come from a controlled demolition
expert as a building collapse caused by gravity would not look any different
from a controlled demolition - *if* you are viewing only the collapse.
The only difference one could see in a video would come just prior to the
collapse, when, in a controlled demolition, the charges would go off.
Looking through every CD video I could find, I notice that you see and hear
the charges every time. I imagine someone with experience in the CD industry
would look and listen for these explosions. Seeing and hearing none, as is
the case with WTC 7 collapse videos, I cannot fathom how they might then
possibly conclude they were seeing a CD.
> Many would refrain from comment given the
> uncertainty of the integrity of publically available
> footage of WTC7. As far as I know in the last
> five years no mainstream media network or government
> agency has made available for download a copy of
> the WTC7 collapse.
> All copies available on the internet have been from independant
> sources of uncertain generation of copies.
Huh? On the 5 year anniversary of 9/11, most news stations replayed at least
some of the coverage from 9/11. One of them (CNN maybe?) played ALL of their
coverage, from start to finish, from the entire day.
On the web, it seems most news sources have archives, which include their
9/11 footage.
In general - there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of first hand
witnesses on the scene. Many of them had cameras or camcorders. The majority
of the available footage from 9/11, logically, comes from these,
independent, sources. I would think it a bit ridiculous for anyone to
believe the government, or 'Da Jooz' managed to get hold of, edit amd return
all of these independent videos, without their owner's knowledge.
>> Never mistake facts, evidence and reality for apathy. Just because apathy
>> and reality end in a y, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. As I said,
>> ask mom to explain all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you
>> can't grasp this on your own.
> Is that so? Just like there were no WMDs and Powell knowingly lied to
> UNSC to make the case for war and nobody gives a fuck since
> Blair.Bush.Howard all got back into power with the blood of 500,000
> dead women children and men of Iraq on their hands? Which part of
> reality did I mistake? Was it the part where Condi Rice says "The death of
> 500,000 people is worth it if it means the toppling Saddam"?
The part you missed seems to be the part where we are talking about WTC 7,
how and why it collapsed, the facts, evidence and reality related to that.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting the strength and depth of your bias.
>> The truth is, you have no idea who I am or how I feel. I've probably
>> researched more on the topic of 9/11 in the past 10 minutes than you have
>> in
>> your entire life. Seeing some pretty colors on the water, and swallowing
>> a
>> kook conspiracy site hook line and sinker doesn't make you well studied -
>> it
>> just shows you for the sucker and moron you obviously are.
> Thats interesting because I've been researching it ever since Jan
> 2006. So you probably HAVE NOT done more research on the topic in a
> period of 10 minutes than I have in my entire life.
You loose. Do a Google groups search on "John P" +"WTC" or something
similar. You'll see I go back a bit more than Jan 2006... in great detail
quite often.
> You make many rash assumptions in this flaming.
That's kind of the way of Usenet, right? You make rash assumptions, and I
respond with my own rash assumptions.
> I have never swalled any kook conspiracy sites.
Are you claiming to have arrived at completely ridiculous and unsupported
conclusions on your own?
> I have perused mainstream articles conveniently archived
> by Standford academic Paul Thompson in his Terror Timeline,
> I have considered the arguments of career academics such as
> Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and Michel Chussodovsky.
> I have never relied on any kook site as primary source of information.
Man! That was a great punchline! Lemme' catch my breath here.
> I should add in defence of 9/11 Truthers that there are plenty of kook
> sites of the Debunk variety supporting the official story which make
> blatant strawman arguments and arrogantly claim to have debunked our
> cause. I have also fended off the barrage of pro-Officiale kooks who
> are more than happy to attack us with insults but who have clearly
> done so little research as to not even know the account of events
> cited in official reports.
See? That what really hurts any shred of legitimacy anyone in the truth
movement may have... they get support from people like you, who think you
are helping them. In reality, it just causes everyone in the movement to get
painted with the same brush.
> So for one year I have been fully cognicant to mainstream media
> coverage of the 9/11 Truth movement and have noticed blatant cover-ups
> and/or baseless argumentation used to discredit our cause.
You have? What have you noticed that was covered-up? ... and, how well was
it covered up that you somehow still managed to notice?
>> > You are a willing slave and worst of all you are a Nazi-drummer boy
>> > because you are feeding the power of the criminals carrying out the
>> > genoicide of the middle-east.
>> Yeah... GW's pretty good, isn't he. When did he start that? Something
>> like
>> 2,000 years ago, right?
> Thats called Apathy.
No. Close... it is another word that ends in "y" though. It's called
"History".
>> Feel free to use your brain a bit if you decide to respond.
> Here goes:
With all the hype and buildup, this better be good! ;-)
> The following from the introduction of this Brent Blanchard August
> 2006 publication you've provided me.
> http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
> Fistly the pdf has Copy/Paste disabled which makes it hard to critique
> as i have to type it out by hand. I'll therefore may paraphrase
> somewhat. It also lends itself to misquotation which will further
> propagate misinformation.
There are ways around that, but...
> Point I:
> "Before releasing this report we reveiwed every paragraph and tried to
> simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible"
> This means that it is unlikely I will discover any unfamiliar words
> contary to your rude assertion that I will need to "ask mom to explain
> all the words over 3 letters to you. It's obvious you can't grasp this
> on your own".
> It also means I can look forward to 12 pages of non-scientific broad
> assertions void of data and technical analysis supporting them.
Interesting conclusion. Is there some manner in which industry jargon or
technical terms somehow make a conclusion more accurate?
> Once again I expect to be dependant on the good faith of the head of a
> company which more than likley has past and future interests with
> being in good favour of the US administration of the day.
Right. You're biased against anything that you can somehow connect to the
government - which pretty much rules out anyone in the demolition industry
in the US, anyone who is somehow connected to a university, anyone who has
ever done research funded by a grant from the government. In short, the only
"scholars" you are left with are those with degrees in things like folklore,
languages and religion.
> Insults aside, I'm glad you've forwarded me this report for I had not
> seen it before.
So much for a year of research, eh? ;-)
> The fact that no ignorant Official fans have cited it
> in my prescence furthers my case that most of them havn't got a
> fucking clue what even the Official story is let alone the rebuttals
> of it. They're like brainless gang bangers who root for the winning
> team regardless of colours. Their contempt and ridicule has nothing to
> do with patriotism, for patriotism is essentially the vigilant
> criticism of your country's government. The greatest and ever
> potential enemy of our sovereignty is those who govern it.
Point taken. There are uneducated morons on both sides of this fence.
This is you and me. Let's take it from there.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > I just posted a thorough debunk of this Protec report and it hasn't
> > published for some reason. Perhaps there is a delay. Unfortuantely
> > I didn't save it and don't care to write it again.
>
> That's not very helpful then, is it?
>
> > The main argument was that Protec claim to be Privy to an awful lot of
> > raw data, photos, video, seismograph data...
>
> Well, since they were the company who was collecting this data, one probably
> needn't wonder too much how they may have had access to it.
>
> > ... which they claim positions them as the most authoritive party
> > to make purely scientific analysis of the events...
>
> However, someone in another country who watches a short video clip is *more*
> than qualified to provide an authoritive answer?
>
> > ... and yet the neglect to state why they have not supplied
> > access to this archive for public scrutiny.
>
> a) Has anyone asked them for it?
>
> b) Does any private company have a responsibility to provide criminal
> evidence for public scrutiny?
>
> > The 9/11 Truth movement wants all records of such made public so that
> > truly independant autonomous disinterested parties may perform their
> > own analysis.
>
> Kind of like all the independent people involved in the NIST investigation?
You mean the independant people who after five years still havn't
produced a report on the failure of WTC7? Perhaps they are waiting
until the collective memory of what is and isn't first generation
footage and photo evidence gets lost in cyberspace?
A company like Protec should be commissioned by the Government to make
all the archived material accessable from their website. This would
ensure that the 9/11 Truth community had undisputed first generation
copies of everything to cite.
If people are covering things up then it suggests they are covering
something up.
>
> Who would the 9/11 truth movement feel is independent and autonomous
Open forum debates based on the evidence. Notice that Blanchard
doesn't cite any evidence in his report but rather cites the non-
existence of evidence to support CD. This implies that none of the
immense archives he holds has anything to support CD. Any evidence
that he knows is already public property he cites and refutes as
evidence. And for example his claim to have seismographic evidence of
no CD patterns is easy to provide - its basically and blank piece of
paper isn't it?
> Obviously, anyone who is truly an expert in the proper fields doesn't fit
> this description to the 9/11 truthers - they claim every single one of these
> people has been bought off or silenced by GW and 'Da Jooz'.
Well you must agree that since his company was charged with collecting
all the material analysis of Ground Zero one might question the
impartiality of that collection.
Has it take him five years to make it public that he has all these
archives?
Yes Steven Jones and the scholars for 9/11 Truth have repeatedly
requested NIST release these 1000s of photos and videos for public
scrutiny. The refusal to release them places everyone at the mercy of
the testimony of a limited few government agents.
In a court of law one cannot investigate a case without both sides
having access to the evidence. The government refuses to investigate
the hypothesis of controlled demolition thus we have no official
investigations into such.
>
> Would the 9/11 truthers pay for this investigation? Do they have some type
> of list of whom they'd accept as credible investigators?
If YouTube can fund their immense video feed with those modest url
adverts then I'm sure such an archive server could be funded by
advertisements.
>Do they lack any
> ability to simply read the NIST investigation report to determine if sound
> investigative techniques were used and accurate conclusions drawn?
I consider most of the NISTs reporting to be strawman, particular FAQ.
The body of the NIST report does not investigate CD theory and only
examines evidence pertaining to the point of collapse initiation. NIST
hasn't even modelled the pancake sequence. No official body has
published reports explaining the near free fall collapses.
> Why are they unable to find anyone with the proper expertise to anywise this
> report and point out any such flaws?
Do I have to answer that? There are 81% of Americans who don't believe
the official reports. 36% believe it was an inside job. A clear
majority of Americans want a proper investigation. This is ignored and
marginalised by the mainstream media.
>
> > Protec claims to be disinterested and yet were contracted to the
> > Ground Zero site.
>
> As you said, it isn't as though there are hundreds of demolition companies
> from which to choose. Can you name an American demolition company that
> *wasn't* involved in the ground zero investigation, recovery and clean-up?
Blanchard refers to the existence of some who were not althogh he
doesn't name them. I could find out of course with some research.
You can tell that we are going to go round and round. I'm quite
confident that you are not convinced that this conspiracy exists. I
doubt I could convince you otherwise.
Meanwhile we will conscript more and more Americans to join our
demands for an open public investigation. You could easily with the
aid of the internet have a simultaneous public and official
investigation. The present powers clearly have no interest in this
advancement of democracy to accord with the internet.
Perhaps such a form of 9/11 investigation would advance democracy to
new dimensions never imagined in the past.
It would be nice to put this issue to rest.
You might like to proffer why the FBI still withhold 80 odd CCTV
videos of Pentagon attacks.
Wouldn't they just put it to rest by showing the footage of the plane?
Also John you do recall that all 4 BlackBoxes were mysteriously
damaged beyond recovery and that we have never heard any of them?
In a time when people can see anything as ghastly as public executions
of Suddam on the internet whether the time has come to rid us of all
censorship. We are free people are we not? The masters of our ship?
What right does a government have to censor the truth from its people,
to act like a parental control on our choices?
JFK had a lot to say about that form of censorship. His speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU
And in the familiar words of Steven E. Jones "Well I agree with that!"
Vandar
John P.
> Here is your reply John P. 4 Brains
> http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
How original of you.
It's probably been over a year since I've gone over this particular
response, but, since you are fairly new at this, having started only in
January of last year, I'll go through it again.
"Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting
Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on
explosive demolition."
This is a true statement. Protec *is* one of the leading demolition
companies. This pathetic attempt to imply otherwise compels one to ignore
the remainder of this response as being equally foolish. He'd have done much
better to acknowledge the *fact* that Protec is a leading demolition
company, then explain the issues he had with Blanchard's paper.
"However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of
controlled demolitions, many individuals reject the official story of
gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition."
Outstanding logic. "Simple intuition" is a more accurate measure than actual
experience and knowledge. Obviously, simple intuition was insufficient in
telling him that the collapse from a controlled demolition *is* a gravity
driven collapse.
"Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough
pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction)
and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of
dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations."
Simple intuition must have told Jim Hoffman that pulverized concrete,
"explosiveness" and "rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction" might provide
clues to controlled demolition.
Pulverizing concrete with explosives would require many thousands of tons of
explosives. There is no indication explosives may have been present in the
towers or in WTC 7 in such massive quantities.
"Explosiveness"? ... sounds like Jim Hoffman would do well to learn some
basic physics.
"rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction"? Again, a basic grasp of physics
would help Mr. Hoffman. Since controlled demolition and structural failure
result in a collapse driven by gravity, unless he is claiming there were
massive rockets attached to the tops of the buildings to drive them down, he
offers nothing to explain how this might indicate CD.
" Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition
would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in
commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he
repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts."
Damn people relying on experts. Haven't they heard of "simple intuition"?
Sadly, bringing down a building requires one to understand and accept the
laws of physics and gravity.
" In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of
economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than
imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it
is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive
procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units
bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings."
His doubt is interesting. I wonder why he didn't bother to take the time to
find out if his simple intuition was correct?
It is rarely the goal of a combat demolition team to preserve surrounding
buildings or minimize damage. Pre-burning and other CD methods help to
minimize the amount of explosives required. In a situation where a combat
unit needed to minimize the use of explosives, they would, in fact, employ
the same methods.
" The key tenet of Blanchard's denial of WTC controlled demolition is thus
the unacknowledged assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in
the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral
damage. His reliance on a stealth assumption is reminiscent of the NIST
Report, which hides its failure to explain the total collapses of the Twin
Towers behind the idea that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to
"global collapse" -- an assumption that runs counter to all experience and
defies experimental verification."
His final comment in this paragraph is interesting. Can it be supported by
anything other than simple intuition?
" Blanchard makes repeated assertions that there is no evidence of
explosives. That is arguable, given the unexplained sulfidation of steel,
multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples, and
multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult to
explain absent high explosives."
More simple intuition? Why does Hoffman feel the sulfidation of steel at
ground zero is "unexplained"? What makes him believe there were/are
"multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples"? Where is
the evidence, or indications, or justification for simple intuition of
"multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult
to explain absent high explosives."?
Baseless claims do nothing to refute Blanchard's paper.
" Blanchard's use of the phrases "physical evidence relating to explosives"
and "physical evidence indicating explosives" implies that only physical
artifacts, such as samples containing residues of known explosives,
constitute physical evidence. However, the vast public bodies of photographs
and video recordings of the each towers' destruction are physical evidence
that can be used to make quantitative measurements about the global features
such as symmetry, rates of fall, rates of expansion, and trajectories of
rubble. Such features are the basis for arguments for demolition quite apart
from specific theories involving explosives. Blanchard's denials of evidence
of explosives, even if correct, do nothing to address those arguments."
Mr. Hoffman's intuition has failed him yet again as the entire body of
evidence - physical evidence, video and photographic evidence, and
eyewitness testimony, taken in totality, prove there were no explosives,
there was no controlled demolition.
One example from the evidence - walls that showed an obvious bulge prior to
the collapse of the building. This is a sign of structural failure and
probable collapse.
In the North tower, such a bulge was noted by a police helicopter pilot, 8
minutes prior to collapse initiation. That would be 8 minutes before
explosive charges would have gone off in a controlled demolition. The bulge
in the north tower wall is visible in photographic and video evidence. It is
addressed and graphics are provided, in the NIST report.
A bulge in WTC 7 presents an even greater problem for CD proponents, as it
was noted over 3 hours prior to collapse. No manner of controlled demolition
would cause structural failure to begin 3 hours before the collapse
initiation.
" Blanchard boasts about the volumes of evidence that supposedly supports
Protec's alleged investigation, but he doesn't let you, the reader, see any
of that evidence. Blanchard's approach contrasts with that of 9-11 Research,
which is to publish every piece of evidence we can find. That body of
evidence includes large collections of
a.. photographs of the WTC Towers' construction, aircraft impacts, fires,
explosive destruction, and remains
b.. videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7
c.. scientific papers, official investigations, and press reports
referenced throughout the website "
Mr. Hoffman feels that since *he* has not seen the evidence, simple
intuition tells him it doesn't exist? Is not evidence? Was improperly
analyzed? How does the fact that Jim Hoffman has not seen the evidence used
in any way debunk Blanchard?
" Protec's not having been paid to produce this article doesn't mean that it
lacks conflicts of interest. As a Ground Zero contractor and likely
recipient of other contracts from corporations and government entities that
have an interest in maintaining the official story, Protec and its employees
are hardly disinterested parties."
That's right Jim. Anyone who doesn't support the kook theory is a paid
government shill. Their business, their reputations, their professional
standing.... none of it means anything as long as they can snag a few
genuine GW dollars.
" ASSERTION #1
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."
Blanchard exploits a common misconception -- that because demolitions are
usually engineered to proceed from the ground up, all demolitions would
necessarily have to be engineered that way. This is of course false, since
explosive charges could be placed anywhere in a building and detonated in
any order desired. Obviously, the demolitions of the Twin Towers, being
designed to support the official narrative of events, started from around
the crash zones."
Blanchard is addressing the claim that the towers "looked exactly like
controlled demolitions". As Mr. Hoffman so clearly points out, in support of
Blanchard's response - the tower collapses looked nothing like controlled
demolitions.
Hoffman then uses simple intuition to claim that an unusual controlled
demolition was set up, designed to initiate at the floors where the planes
crashed. He offers no clues as to how these explosives, and their triggering
devices, would have survived the crashes, or how the planes would have been
flown so accurately so as to hit the buildings in on, very specific
location.
"Blanchard wants you to dismiss the "how" and "when", and only focus on the
point that he chooses to address. Any scientific investigation would
consider all aspects of the event rather than cherry-pick certain ones and
dismiss others out of hand."
Mr. Hoffman fails to realize that Blanchard is offering an expert opinion,
not a scientific investigation. For that, he'd do well to read through the
10,000+ pages of the final NIST report on the towers (and wait for the final
NIST report on WTC 7).
"Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the
planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each
Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much
greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding
the Towers rather than imploding them."
An interesting intuition. Does Mr. Hoffman have any intuition on how these
large quantities of explosives were brought into the buildings, put in place
and rigged without any of 50,000+ people noticing?
"Contrary to Blanchard's assertion that initial structural failures occurred
at "precisely the point where the respective planes struck," the visual
records show that in both Towers, structures were shattered well above the
crash zones before they moved downward into structures below the crash
zones. The early breakup of the South Tower's top is particularly apparent."
In this case, Hoffman should have used his eyes rather than his simple
intuition. It is clear, especially in the south tower videos (especially
those that show the crash zone close up) that the collapse initiates at the
point of the plane crash. Does he somehow suppose that while the 98th floor
collapses, the portion of the building above it should remain unchanged and
unmoving?
.............. <break time> .............
Look False... I can go through the rest of this if you want, but, being a
man of science, searching for the truth, I think you can already see that
Jim Hoffman offering opinions, guesses and "simple intuition" does *not*
amount to a debunking of Blanchard's opinion.
OK... back to work.
" Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ,
which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required
physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric
devices installed only in the Towers' cores."
That's great Jim! How do you then explain the initial failure occurring in
the perimeter columns and the fact that the collapse of the perimeter
columns and floors occurred ahead of that of the core (which can be seen
still standing during the collapses)?
Blanchard offers 2 logical choices if one wants to buy into controlled
demolition - the charges were either placed at the exact crash locations
prior to the planes hitting the buildings - and somehow the explosives and
triggering mechanisms all managed to survive the crash and fire ... OR ...
the explosives were placed *after* the planes crashed (which, of course, is
ridiculous)
Mr. Hoffman needs to try to work within the realm of available facts and
evidence. There are certain realities he must adhere to here. He could just
as easily propose that some type of LASER, shot from a satellite, actually
initiated the collapses. Blanchard didn't appear to be attempting to offer
wild speculations, but rather, address specific issues. In this case, that
issue was that the tower collapses looked exactly like a typical controlled
demolition. Neither looked anything like a typical controlled demolition and
Blanchard clearly and convincingly makes that point.
<a bunch of really stupid stuff passed over - which is saying a lot to imply
any of Hoffman's response could be that much more foolish than any other
portion of it>
"What video shows a "50-story tall section of the [North Tower] shearing
away intact" and what aerial photos show "massive volumes of debris that
impacted WTC 7"? As with the rest of the assertions that fill Blanchard's
article, the reader is apparently expected to just take his word for it."
Blanchard is addressing people who make claims regarding what happened on
9/11. Is it unrealistic of him to think people claiming to have so much
knowledge might have bothered to look at all available evidence?
" Blanchard's assertion that the jets of dust are a "natural and predictable
effect of rapid structural collapse" is belied by the fact that such
features have never been observed in a natural collapses, but are almost
universally observed in controlled demolition."
Again, Hoffman wants us to believe his intuition on this matter is somehow
'fact'. A simple video analysis, frame by frame, of the 'squibs' can answer
the question of whether the represent an explosion.
There are two possibilities we are looking for here - an explosion or air
being forced from the building. If it is the former, we should see an event
with the greatest forces represented in the initial frames, which then
diminishes in the subsequent frames. If it is the latter, we should see an
event that grows in force from the initial frame onward.
Such an analysis clearly shows the latter to be the case. Feel free to
perform this analysis for yourself.
" The eyewitness reports of the sights and sounds of explosions marking the
onsets of each Tower's destruction are abundantly corroborated by the visual
records of those events. "
Are they? Mr. Hoffman seems to feel he is not required to follow the same
rules he places upon Blanchard. Where is Mr. Hoffman's support for this
statement? To date, I have not seen a single WTC video in which explosives
are seen or heard. What evidence has Mr. Hoffman seen? Why has he not
released it to the public?
"Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was
later released to the public and currently appears on their website.
Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field
seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several
construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes. In all
cases, these recordings indicate single vibration events when the buildings
collapsed. At no point during 9/11 were independent or secondary vibration
events documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity
possessing such data.
This is false. Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before
the large signals.
The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that
the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset
of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the
excerpt."
Mr. Hoffman fails to explain how his analysis of the seismographic data,
based on simple intuition, is somehow more believable than that of the
experts at both Protec and Lamont-Doherty.
"The evidence that Protec apparently failed to come across includes
satellite images showing temperatures above the melting point of aluminum on
the surface of the rubble pile 5 days after the attack, and a number of
eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble pile."
Mr. Hoffman fails to explain how thermite, thermate or some other
unconventional demolition tool would explain hot areas or molten metal at
Ground Zero.
"In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with
equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and
debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymity to prevent
harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate
quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive
experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a
man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do
they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
beams at any point during debris removal activities.
How many foremen did Blanchard's investigators speak with? Two? Three?
Because Blanchard provides no details about this survey, his summary of its
results is meaningless."
While Hoffman's simple intuition is completely meaningful?
"Despite Blanchard's communications with Dr. Jones, he fails to accurately
describe the evidence that Jones cites for the use of thermite."
Unfortunately for Hoffman, his intuition caused him to fail to note the part
where Jones makes it clear that his findings are based on initial research
and *do* contain the many unanswered questions pointed out by Blanchard.
"Blanchard's claim that the steel was properly examined, lacking any
verification, stands as an empty assertion, and is contradicted by testimony
to a hearing by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of
Representatives."
Perhaps Hoffman should read his own source, as well as, maybe, doing some
further research before spouting the results of his simple intuition. The
clean-up at Ground Zero took 8 months. Investigators were on the scene at
Ground Zero. Another team of investigators went through the rubble and
examined evidence at Fresh Kills.
"
Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of
possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed
activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi,
President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by
Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi's Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the
entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at
the National Demolition Association's annual Convention in March 2003.
According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as
it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and
with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an
attempt to "rush" or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not
hundreds of unrelated individuals - working for various entities and
possessing various types of expertise - came in close contact with the steel
over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas. In
consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any
dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.
Blanchard's testimonial about his knowledge of the steel's chain of
possession does nothing to answer charges that the steel was disposed of
without proper forensic examination "
I would, at the very least, expect Hoffman to make some attempt to read, and
comprehend, the paragraph he is responding to. Was he confused by
Blanchard's use of the word "examiners" rather than investigators?
"The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with
those failures, the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved
specific structural conditions. Each failure displayed characteristics
dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we come across evidence of
explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions.
Defenders of the official story have failed to produce even a single example
outside of 9/11/01 of a steel-framed high-rise building -- even one of
faulty construction -- that has totally collapsed due to fires or a
combination of structural damage and fires, Blanchard's vague assertion that
"many steel structures have collapsed due to fire" notwithstanding."
Hoffman again displays his poor research skills here. What does he care what
defenders of 'the official story' have produced? What has his own research
shown him? Did Mr. Hoffman also somehow manage to fail to find any of the
numerous examples of steel framed structures fire induced collapse?
McCormick Place, The Sight & Sound Theater, Windsor Tower...
" Having failed to articulate, let alone answer, a single of the score of
compelling arguments for the demolition of the WTC skyscrapers, Blanchard
declares victory."
Then, amazingly, Hoffman, having done nothing to counter Blanchard's points,
offering zero evidence to support his claims, and after asking us to rely on
simple intuition, also claims victory.
Sorry False. There are a lot of points that can be discussed in regard to
9/11. Hoffman offers none of them.
John P.
>> The mainstream press didn't report any such dispute because there is no
There are facts and evidence that tell you what happened on 9/11. No number
of opinions, no matter how anyone voted in an election, can change those
realities.
John P.
>> The most you can do is love your family and live every day to the
>> fullest.
I just wanted to throw that out there again. ... just because it's true and
people should remind themselves of that every morning.
> Stay tuned for my full and complete rebuttal of the Protec August
> c-2006 report...
False, I would be more than pleased to see an actual point by point rebuttal
of the Blanchard by *you*. The link you provided to Jim Hoffman's rebuttal
was a pathetic attempt, at best. I have no doubt you can do much better than
Mr. Hoffman did.
> that only appears on 13 websites in Google search
> because they have blocked the Google-bot and blocked the pdf from copy/
> paste facility.
> I wonder why these noble engineers claim with one face to volunteer
> testimony appeasing the growing charge of conspiracy yet on the other
> they have done everything possible to inhibit the circulation of this
> grandly scammed report.
I would think that has more to do with kooks like Jim Hoffman claiming to
refute expert opinion based on "simple intuition". Many people with opinions
on a variety of topics choose to not share them publicly for fear of
attracting the attention of the loons, kooks, crazies, stalkers and other
vermin.
John P.
>>> The 9/11 Truth movement wants all records of such made public so that
>>> truly independent autonomous disinterested parties may perform their
>>> own analysis.
>> Kind of like all the independent people involved in the NIST
>> investigation?
> You mean the independent people who after five years still haven't
> produced a report on the failure of WTC7? Perhaps they are waiting
> until the collective memory of what is and isn't first generation
> footage and photo evidence gets lost in cyberspace?
Or, perhaps, as they have stated, they were completing their investigation
into the WTC 1 & 2 collapses.
.... perhaps because those buildings were the targets of the attack and
because many people died there, whereas WTC 7 was collateral damage from the
attacks, and no one died there?
Conversely, had NIST managed to whip through all their 9/11 related
investigations and reports in a short period of time, the truther movement
would claim that the speed at which they completed their tasks was 'proof'
the NIST had drawn their conclusion prior to the investigation and did not
conduct a complete and thorough investigation of all facts and evidence.
That's the thing with the truthers - *everything* is 'proof' of their
claims. If an investigation takes a long time, it's proof of a conspiracy.
If the investigation is completed quickly, it's proof of a conspiracy.
Meanwhile, I imagine there is a team of experts, structural engineers,
controlled demolitions experts, forensic investigators, firefighters, etc. -
assembled by the truth movement, ready to conduct an independent, unbiased
investigation. I wonder why they haven't made a list of these investigators
available publicly. It seems weird to demand an investigation and not have
any idea who'd be doing this investigation, or funding it. How much do the
truthers have saved up for this?
> A company like Protec should be commissioned by the Government to make
> all the archived material accessible from their website. This would
> ensure that the 9/11 Truth community had undisputed first generation
> copies of everything to cite.
Why? Because a groups of kooks using created facts and fantasy thinks so?
Sorry, for my tax dollar, I'd prefer the government address some real
issues.
> If people are covering things up then it suggests they are covering
> something up.
Hmmm... so then it only follows that if they're not, they aren't.
>> Who would the 9/11 truth movement feel is independent and autonomous
> Open forum debates based on the evidence.
That's not an investigation.
Have you ever looked at the list of people whom were involved in the NIST
investigation and report?
> Notice that Blanchard doesn't cite any evidence in his
> report but rather cites the non-existence of evidence to
> support CD.
Notice that Blanchard's paper isn't a report, nor is it the result of a
detailed investigation. It is merely a presentation of professional, expert
opinion, to address some points made by those who have zero knowledge of
controlled demolition.
Notice you won't find anyone with actual knowledge and experience in the CD
industry disagreeing with Blanchard's paper.
> This implies that none of the immense archives
> he holds has anything to support CD. Any evidence
> that he knows is already public property he cites and refutes as
> evidence. And for example his claim to have seismographic evidence of
> no CD patterns is easy to provide - its basically and blank piece of
> paper isn't it?
Huh? Did you read Blanchard's paper?
"Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several
construction sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the
events at Ground Zero, including the collapse of all three structures.
These
measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data recorded by other
independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each
event."
You only had to make it to the second page to read that. How would you have
missed it?
>> Obviously, anyone who is truly an expert in the proper fields doesn't fit
>> this description to the 9/11 truthers - they claim every single one of
>> these
>> people has been bought off or silenced by GW and 'Da Jooz'.
> Well you must agree that since his company was charged with collecting
> all the material analysis of Ground Zero one might question the
> impartiality of that collection.
I don't question anyone's impartiality unless I have some reason to do so.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone with the requisite knowledge and
experience who doesn't have, and has never had, some connection with the
government.
Hell, I collected a government paycheck for 10 years, and I can assure you,
I have no love for politicians.
> Yes Steven Jones and the scholars for 9/11 Truth have repeatedly
> requested NIST release these 1000s of photos and videos for public
> scrutiny. The refusal to release them places everyone at the mercy of
> the testimony of a limited few government agents.
Refusal to release them? Many are contained in the NIST report. Many were
used for the Moussaoui trial. They're all over the web.
I am not aware of any investigative body that publicly releases all evidence
that is part of an ongoing investigation.
The photos, videos and other evidence that *are* (and have been) available,
are sufficient to clear up any questions you have about CD in any of the WTC
buildings.
> In a court of law one cannot investigate a case without both sides
> having access to the evidence. The government refuses to investigate
> the hypothesis of controlled demolition thus we have no official
> investigations into such.
They also refuse to investigate the hypothesis that UFO's brought down the
towers with a super secret LASER ray. Why? Because there isn't a single clue
to point them towards believing it has any possibility of being true.
*Nothing* on 9/11 points to CD of any of the buildings. There was no
physical evidence found. None of the videos contain audio or visual evidence
of CD. None of the photos provides any clue that a CD might have happened.
Some of the eyewitness testimony discusses explosions and other loud noises,
but none that can be corroborated with other evidence, and none sufficient
to spend millions of dollars on a wild goose chase.
All of the evidence that does exist clearly points *away* from a controlled
demo (a bulge in WTC 7 three hours before the collapse - three hours!)
>> Would the 9/11 truthers pay for this investigation? Do they have some
>> type
>> of list of whom they'd accept as credible investigators?
> If YouTube can fund their immense video feed with those modest url
> adverts then I'm sure such an archive server could be funded by
> advertisements.
So, you're not looking for a real investigation, but simply a chance for web
hobbyist to weigh in with their non-expert opinions. That would be vastly
different from an actual investigation done by professionals (such as the
hundreds of people involved in the NIST investigation).
That seems rather pointless. Everything necessary to prove controlled
demolition already exists. It works like this:
Fact #1 - I hate President George Bush
Fact #2 - Therefore, he is responsible for everything that happened on 9/11
As I've said before, most truthers have no real concern for the truth and
don't want to be bothered with silly facts and evidence.
>> Do they lack any ability to simply read the NIST
>> investigation report to determine if sound
>> investigative techniques were used and accurate
>> conclusions drawn?
> I consider most of the NISTs reporting to be strawman, particular FAQ.
Really? Based on what experience and knowledge? What specific technique(s)
do you feel were flawed? What specific finding(s) do you feel are not
accurately supported by the investigation?
> The body of the NIST report does not investigate CD theory and only
> examines evidence pertaining to the point of collapse initiation. NIST
> hasn't even modeled the pancake sequence. No official body has
> published reports explaining the near free fall collapses.
NIST wouldn't model the pancake sequence as it is their finding there was no
pancake collapse. They wouldn't investigate CD because they had no evidence
pointing to, even mildly suggesting, CD.
It is similar to the fact that neither you nor I were investigated in
relation to the Dahmer or Gacey murders. We *might* have been involved - but
there was nothing to indicate that, so they didn't bother to investigate it.
Simple intuition, I guess. ;-)
>> Why are they unable to find anyone with the proper expertise to anywise
>> this
>> report and point out any such flaws?
> Do I have to answer that?
Only if you want to participate in this discussion.
> There are 81% of Americans who don't believe
> the official reports. 36% believe it was an inside job.
... and yet, they have no fear of continuing to live here in the US? They
get up and go to work every morning, take the wife out to dinner, have
birthday parties for the kids a Chuck E Cheese, yet they feel their
government would murder them by the thousands?
Perhaps these opinions are based on politics.
Facts and evidence don't lend themselves to political bias.
What is the percentage of structural engineers, demolitions experts,
forensic investigators, firefighters, policemen, or physicists that believe
the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition?
> A clear majority of Americans want a proper
> investigation. This is ignored and marginalized
> by the mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the results of the proper investigation have been made public and
are readily available. Why are these people ignoring exactly what they are
asking for?
>>> Protec claims to be disinterested and yet were contracted to the
>>> Ground Zero site.
>> As you said, it isn't as though there are hundreds of demolition
>> companies
>> from which to choose. Can you name an American demolition company that
>> *wasn't* involved in the ground zero investigation, recovery and
>> clean-up?
> Blanchard refers to the existence of some who were not although he
> doesn't name them. I could find out of course with some research.
Is that what you think he is saying here:
"The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi
Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers.
(Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero
site either worked under the supervision of one
of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.)"
To me, it seems he is saying these other companies worked as sub-contractors
to the named demolition company (and not every demolition company does
controlled demolitions using explosives. There are many small 'wrecking'
companies who work only with standard heavy equipment. There are very few
explosive demolition companies with the experience and knowledge to take
down a building of any significant size).
> You can tell that we are going to go round and round. I'm quite
> confident that you are not convinced that this conspiracy exists. I
> doubt I could convince you otherwise.
I'm always wide open. I'm no fan of politicians, the government, or anyone
else who may or may not have been involved. I cam into this several years
ago because I heard about some of the conspiracies and believed they might
be true. I'm not one to readily accept what any one person or source tells
me, so I always look to see how any claim can be supported (or not). Over
time, I saw that every alternate conspiracy claim asks me to accept blatant
lies, poor research, ignorance or simply to ignore evidence, facts, science
or reality. I have not found one that stands up to even minor scrutiny.
Alternate 9/11 conspiracies are a religion. One must accept them on faith
alone.
> Meanwhile we will conscript more and more Americans to join our
> demands for an open public investigation. You could easily with the
> aid of the internet have a simultaneous public and official
> investigation. The present powers clearly have no interest in this
> advancement of democracy to accord with the internet.
>
> Perhaps such a form of 9/11 investigation would advance democracy to
> new dimensions never imagined in the past.
Or, it would simply validate the kooks into believing they could cause the
US government to waste millions of tax dollars, and take time away from
actual issues which *should* have the attention of our politicians.
> It would be nice to put this issue to rest.
You can. Simply look at the facts and evidence.
> You might like to proffer why the FBI still withhold 80 odd CCTV
> videos of Pentagon attacks.
Or, for that matter, evidence of any other crime which they've investigated.
You might also wonder why the people that originally had those tapes had
never made a claim to have seen the plane on their tapes (or anything else),
or to personally have seen a plane or anything else.
You might like to proffer why people would wonder about the plane that hit
the pentagon. Flight 77 is gone. Parts of flight 77 were found in and around
the pentagon. Passengers, crew members, their personal effects and
belongings were found in and around the pentagon. The damage to the building
is consistent with it being hit by a large passenger jet. The damage to the
building is inconsistent with being hit by a smaller plane, and it is
entirely and extremely inconsistent with being hit by a missile, a bus, a
kid riding his bike or anything else. Witnesses saw a passenger jet,
consistent with flight 77 flying towards, and, in some cases, into the
pentagon.
> Wouldn't they just put it to rest by showing the footage of the plane?
Do you do drugs Danny?
Every day.
So, what's the problem then?
Do you honestly want me to believe that showing truthers video of flight 77
flying into the pentagon would put the matter to rest?
It's not enough that flight 77 was found in and around the pentagon.
It's not enough that passengers, crew, their belongings and personal effects
were found in the pentagon.
... all that was taped to the missile, or someone hid it in their sock and
dumped it there.
If such a tape existed (and, as best as I can tell, none does). the truthers
would simply claim it was faked.
> Also John you do recall that all 4 BlackBoxes were mysteriously
> damaged beyond recovery and that we have never heard any of them?
No. How could I recall that? The CFR and CDR from flights 77 and 93 were all
recovered. Audio was played for some of the victims family members. A
transcript of the flight 93 CVR is available on the Moussaoui trial exhibits
site;
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
Now... do I recall that the CVR and CDR from the WTC flights were not
recovered?
Yes. I do.
> In a time when people can see anything as ghastly as public executions
> of Suddam on the internet whether the time has come to rid us of all
> censorship. We are free people are we not? The masters of our ship?
> What right does a government have to censor the truth from its people,
> to act like a parental control on our choices?
The same right they've always had and always used.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Here is your reply John P. 4 Brains
> >http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
>
> How original of you.
>
> It's probably been over a year since I've gone over this particular
> response, but, since you are fairly new at this, having started only in
> January of last year, I'll go through it again.
>
> "Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting
> Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on
> explosive demolition."
>
> This is a true statement. Protec *is* one of the leading demolition
> companies.
It indicated what was about to ensure: An unqualified assurance that
there is no evidence of CD. He does not present a scientific paper and
yet he refutes one, namely Steven Jones''
>This pathetic attempt to imply otherwise compels one to ignore
> the remainder of this response as being equally foolish.
You missed the point. Popular Mechanics did they same thing. They
claimed to have spoken to hundreds of "éxperts''. failed to name them,
and then proceeded to assure the reader that there is nothing to see
here. Move on. Move on. Nothing to see here.
>He'd have done much
> better to acknowledge the *fact* that Protec is a leading demolition
> company, then explain the issues he had with Blanchard's paper.
Its just that this is a tactic we are all to familiar with. Pulling
Rank.
We want the evidence on the table. We want to examine everything that
he claims to ahve examined and without such access his mere assurance
is not satisfactory, particularly at this late stage.
>
> "However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of
> controlled demolitions, many individuals reject the official story of
> gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition."
>
> Outstanding logic. "Simple intuition" is a more accurate measure than actual
> experience and knowledge. Obviously, simple intuition was insufficient in
> telling him that the collapse from a controlled demolition *is* a gravity
> driven collapse.
You are assuming that Blanchard is telling the truth. The fact is we
have no way of knowing whether he is being honest. We must merely take
his word for it!
You see John You see what you have done as a result of Blanachard
pulling rank for two pages before his report? (And it wasn't even a
report - it was an FAQ list.) You have gone and done exactly what he
wanted you to do.
The only argument you have to favor Blanchard's reporting over the
9/11 Truthers is that you assert "Blanchard is an expert and you are
laymen"
It take four years to get a degree in engineering. At what point does
a layman become an expert on a given topic?
>
> "Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough
> pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction)
> and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of
> dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations."
>
> Simple intuition must have told Jim Hoffman that pulverized concrete,
> "explosiveness" and "rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction" might provide
> clues to controlled demolition.
Jim Hoffman was referring to the simple intuition of a lay audience
when witnessing live the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7. Indeed
most engineers were stunned. Most of the news anchors reporting the
event live described the event as like a controlled demoltiion, huge
explosions, etc....
Blanchard assures us that we can discount all these witness
testimmonies of bombs going because he happened to have his own
private army of seismographs and they confirm the abscence of any such
activities.
What we bascially have here with this Blanchard report is ONE WITNESS
and his name is Blanchard.
Sure, Blanchard is an expert in this particular field. But what do you
know about his character?
You are expecting the 9/11 Truth movement to discount all witnesses
based on the testimony of one man?
Why doesn't Blanchard show us the footage he has? He certainly doesn't
want his pdf going anywhere other than where it is on his website.
Hé's bloody secured it from copy/paste functions making it harder to
critique. He has blocked it from google searches which is why I've
never found it in my Google Reader RSS feeds.
>
> Pulverizing concrete with explosives would require many thousands of tons of
> explosives. There is no indication explosives may have been present in the
> towers or in WTC 7 in such massive quantities.
>
> "Explosiveness"? ... sounds like Jim Hoffman would do well to learn some
> basic physics.
And yet you havn't offered the word that you claim replaces it.
Blanchard himself in the introduction has stated that every paragraph
has been revised and laymanised with all technical and scientific
terminology removed. (So as to make it accessable to layman). You
expect Hoffman to refute layman arguments with scientific terminology?
John why do you think the scholars for 9/11 truth and the Academic
Journals of 9/11 have refused any right of reply?
You know why? THERE ISN'T ONE!
A scientist cannot argue with someone who insists on asserting layman
terminology.
This so called EXPERT Blanchard hasn't given us any evidence of his
expertise in his writings. Merely his claim to be an expert is the
only indication that indeed he is one!
Aside, Blanchard himself states that 95% of the debris was thrown
sideways, causing that mushroom cloud. You might wonder then how this
remaining 5% managed to knock down the lower floors in the "pancake-
like" mechanism.
>
> "rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction"? Again, a basic grasp of physics
> would help Mr. Hoffman. Since controlled demolition and structural failure
> result in a collapse driven by gravity, unless he is claiming there were
> massive rockets attached to the tops of the buildings to drive them down, he
> offers nothing to explain how this might indicate CD.
I guess that Hoffman should have excused himself at the beginning of
his critque in the same manner that Blanchard conveniently claimed
that his report was written for the layman.
John I'm an engineer, a scientist. I don't appreciate Blanchard's
report as useful or insightful. Its a load of "believe me, I'm an
expert"
I have a Bachelor of Science
I have 3 out of 4 years of Chemical Engineering Degree
Shall we just huff and puff and pull rank on this issue or shall we
demand the evidence be made available to the public easily on an
internet server so that this issue can be put to rest?
Is Protec hoping to sell their archive to media outlets one day? Is
that why Blanchard is withholding the evidence?
Why does Blanchard neglect to address this issue about their
withholding access to the archive in his introduction?
Is Protec hoping to make money out of the mass murder of 3000 people?
Clearly we agree on that much? On 9/11 3000 people were mass murdered.
>
> " Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition
> would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in
> commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he
> repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts."
Yes I agree. That was one of Blanchards strawman FAQ. He does not
attempt to explain or acknowledge that a clandestine CD would need to
look like it could be attributed to natural disaster.
>
> Damn people relying on experts. Haven't they heard of "simple intuition"?
> Sadly, bringing down a building requires one to understand and accept the
> laws of physics and gravity.
We are no relying on an expert here. We are relying on the credibility
of one witness, and his name is Blanchard.
In a real sceintific report it would not matter if the author was
Charles Manson. What matters is the arguments put forth and the
evidence provided to support them. The evidence must be varifiable and
any experimental results cited must be repeatable. That includes a
full and thorough description of how the experiment was conducted in
exactly what conditions (SLC? etc..).
Blanchard has done none of that. In fact I wonder whether Blanchard is
a Scientist at all.
>
> " In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of
> economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than
> imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it
> is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive
> procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units
> bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings."
>
> His doubt is interesting. I wonder why he didn't bother to take the time to
> find out if his simple intuition was correct?
I agree with that doubt. And I could write a rebuttal to Blanchard ten
times more deadly that Hoffman has done.
I think Hoffman has limited his time spent on this unworthy ragged
report of Blanchard.
>
> It is rarely the goal of a combat demolition team to preserve surrounding
> buildings or minimize damage. Pre-burning and other CD methods help to
> minimize the amount of explosives required. In a situation where a combat
> unit needed to minimize the use of explosives, they would, in fact, employ
> the same methods.
Exactly.
>
> " The key tenet of Blanchard's denial of WTC controlled demolition is thus
> the unacknowledged assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in
> the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral
> damage. His reliance on a stealth assumption is reminiscent of the NIST
> Report, which hides its failure to explain the total collapses of the Twin
> Towers behind the idea that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to
> "global collapse" -- an assumption that runs counter to all experience and
> defies experimental verification."
>
> His final comment in this paragraph is interesting. Can it be supported by
> anything other than simple intuition?
You have misappropriated Hoffmans statement about simple intuition and
used it to attack his entire rebuttal.
>
> " Blanchard makes repeated assertions that there is no evidence of
> explosives. That is arguable, given the unexplained sulfidation of steel,
> multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples, and
> multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult to
> explain absent high explosives."
>
> More simple intuition?
The the journals of 9/11. Go listen to the interview between Leslie
Roberts and Steven Jones podcast.
Long established evidence.
Blanchard claims to have the only archive of unadultered evidence and
then claims there is nothing in it to support CD.
Rather how about he try refuting the evidence that is already public
and that has been studied and DOES point to CD.
Or how about we call it '"uncontrolled demolition"?
>Why does Hoffman feel the sulfidation of steel at
> ground zero is "unexplained"? What makes him believe there were/are
> "multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples"? Where is
> the evidence, or indications, or justification for simple intuition of
> "multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult
> to explain absent high explosives."?
>
> Baseless claims do nothing to refute Blanchard's paper.
Blanchard does not addressd them. Blanchard's REPORT or FAQ Response
does not assert anything. He simply claims there is no evidence of CD.
>
> " Blanchard's use of the phrases "physical evidence relating to explosives"
> and "physical evidence indicating explosives" implies that only physical
> artifacts, such as samples containing residues of known explosives,
> constitute physical evidence. However, the vast public bodies of photographs
> and video recordings of the each towers' destruction are physical evidence
> that can be used to make quantitative measurements about the global features
> such as symmetry, rates of fall, rates of expansion, and trajectories of
> rubble. Such features are the basis for arguments for demolition quite apart
> from specific theories involving explosives. Blanchard's denials of evidence
> of explosives, even if correct, do nothing to address those arguments."
>
> Mr. Hoffman's intuition has failed him yet again as the entire body of
> evidence - physical evidence, video and photographic evidence, and
> eyewitness testimony, taken in totality, prove there were no explosives,
> there was no controlled demolition.
You rely alot on this slur on Hoffmans passing comments on ""simple
ïntuitition"
Don't overestimate how many people in the population possess it!
Leslie Robertson employs the term also. He said the as the Chief
Engineer of the construction of Twin Towers that he knew intuitively
that the impact of the planes wouldn't bring down the buildings. I
knew that too. Most people were shocked when they came down. And don't
deny that John. We are talking about three hundred firemen who deal
with burning buildings for a career.
Thats the part that gets me. No one wants to ever mention the three
hundred firemen who are dead who all say with their own fucking lives
they would bet on it that those buildings were brought down with
bombs.
I've seen many Officiale fans propagate the notion that it was a
suprise that the towers withstood the planes AT ALL! Clearly thats a
falacy of morons who lack simple intuitiion. Simple Intuition is a big
issue in a population dumbed down deliberately with fluoride and
materialism.
> One example from the evidence - walls that showed an obvious bulge prior to
> the collapse of the building. This is a sign of structural failure and
> probable collapse.
So what? It may be explained because someone had blown out the trusses
with thermite.
Blanchard claims that a controlled demolition would need to confront
the permiter columns which hold the weight of the building uniformly.
And yet the official story claims that all one needed to do was knock
out the trusses and the walls would buldge.
They could have sent a black-op team up there to finish the job and
they could have pulled them off the roof as it was covered with smoke.
There were military helicopters up there you seen that? Funny noone
mentions it.
You got to remember that in the military there are plenty of
psychopaths that just love doing Mission Impossibles and being but
fucked by their commanders.
They are a different breed of human. Killing Machines. You know
that!!! So why are you acting all stupid liek you don't know that the
military has access to these type of men? The type of men who don't
care who the enemy is, they just want to be pointed at the enemy and
told what to do to them. They are happy to be working for the most
powerful people in the world.
>
> In the North tower, such a bulge was noted by a police helicopter pilot, 8
> minutes prior to collapse initiation. That would be 8 minutes before
> explosive charges would have gone off in a controlled demolition. The bulge
> in the north tower wall is visible in photographic and video evidence. It is
> addressed and graphics are provided, in the NIST report.
But you're still speculating.
>
> A bulge in WTC 7 presents an even greater problem for CD proponents, as it
> was noted over 3 hours prior to collapse. No manner of controlled demolition
> would cause structural failure to begin 3 hours before the collapse
> initiation.
And yet we have no footage of it. NO photos of it? And yet that bulge
wasn't caused by the gradual removal of key but not critical supports?
How does it go then John? The authorities slectively release photos
and video that supports their hypothesis and withholds any that
doesn't? And what right to they claim to withhold all the material
evidence? To protect the rights of the dead who may be seen in the
photos? Yes? Is that a good reason to withhold 9/11 evidence from the
public? That dead bodies can or may be seen in the debris?
And yet they play the falling bodies from the towers everyday of the
year don't they? Oh, but I guess those bodies arn't actually DEAD are
they so its o.k.? They are just seconds from death.
>
> " Blanchard boasts about the volumes of evidence that supposedly supports
> Protec's alleged investigation, but he doesn't let you, the reader, see any
> of that evidence. Blanchard's approach contrasts with that of 9-11 Research,
> which is to publish every piece of evidence we can find. That body of
> evidence includes large collections of
> a.. photographs of the WTC Towers' construction, aircraft impacts, fires,
> explosive destruction, and remains
> b.. videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7
> c.. scientific papers, official investigations, and press reports
> referenced throughout the website "
I agree totally with Hoffman on that.
> Mr. Hoffman feels that since *he* has not seen the evidence, simple
> intuition tells him it doesn't exist? Is not evidence? Was improperly
> analyzed? How does the fact that Jim Hoffman has not seen the evidence used
> in any way debunk Blanchard?
Like I said. The only thing Blanchard's report amounts to in the
abscence of the evidence he cites is Blanchard as a sole witness. We
have hundreds of witnesses to events that indicate there was
explosives.>
Blanchard discounts all those witnesses as children who wouldn't
recognise the difference between explosions and then he roles on his
secret Seismographs that Protec has as far as I know never before
brought forward or announced having. They would never have been
solicited by NIST because NIST never investigated CD hypothesis.
But you believe him dont'you John? You've never seen them but you
believe Blanchard because he's a pedophile? Why do you believe
Blanchard? Because he's a seriel rapist?
>
> " Protec's not having been paid to produce this article doesn't mean that it
> lacks conflicts of interest. As a Ground Zero contractor and likely
> recipient of other contracts from corporations and government entities that
> have an interest in maintaining the official story, Protec and its employees
> are hardly disinterested parties."
>
> That's right Jim. Anyone who doesn't support the kook theory is a paid
> government shill. Their business, their reputations, their professional
> standing.... none of it means anything as long as they can snag a few
> genuine GW dollars.
Face the fact John: Protec is not independant. They were contracted by
Mafio de Guliani to 'collect' material data.
>
> " ASSERTION #1
> "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
> PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."
>
> Blanchard exploits a common misconception -- that because demolitions are
> usually engineered to proceed from the ground up, all demolitions would
> necessarily have to be engineered that way. This is of course false, since
> explosive charges could be placed anywhere in a building and detonated in
> any order desired. Obviously, the demolitions of the Twin Towers, being
> designed to support the official narrative of events, started from around
> the crash zones."
>
> Blanchard is addressing the claim that the towers "looked exactly like
> controlled demolitions". As Mr. Hoffman so clearly points out, in support of
> Blanchard's response - the tower collapses looked nothing like controlled
> demolitions.
Yes that is why its a strawman question. Because its a coin of phrase.
Its not an exact criminal charge. The towers do not look like a
natural gravity collapse.
But you know what I'm glad that Blanchard answered this question
because in it we got an expert admitting that 95% of the debris was
going over the side and this directly contradicsts the pancake
mechanism that NIST allows to propagate in the mainstream media but
that NIST refuses to model.
How intersting hey? This is like a Proof by Contradiction. Lets assume
that it was a controlled demoltion. Then lets let Blanchard show why
it isn't a "controlled demolition"and then by doing so he has agued
that the ""pancake-like"' mechanism is thus immposible consider that
95% of the debris is gone over the side it means only 5% is falling
down on the remaining floors.
>
> Hoffman then uses simple intuition to claim that an unusual controlled
> demolition was set up, designed to initiate at the floors where the planes
> crashed.
Obviously the collapse was going to have to look like it could have
been naturally caused by the fires.
If it looked like a normal controlled demolition then everybody would
want to know how Osama got inside the WTC and planted the bombs.
> He offers no clues as to how these explosives, and their triggering
> devices, would have survived the crashes, or how the planes would have been
> flown so accurately so as to hit the buildings in on, very specific
> location.
Thermite doesn't burn up at temperatures as low as hydrocarbon fires.
Any thermite that DID get ingnited by an detonation curve from the
impact of the planes would not have been noticed amongst the fire
ball. It would have been disiappated explosively along with the
fieball. Any columns that were knocked out by the plane would not need
to be knocked out again.
Remaining columns would still have the thermite. That particular
floors of impact would need a higher redundancy of thermite charges
than the rest of the building because of the risk of them being
knocked off by the vibrations of impact.
the outer perimter columns, contrary to Blanchards flawed assertion,
would not have needed to be rigged with thermite or cutter charges.
One need to just knock out the trusses and the core columns. Leslie
Roberts claims just the floor trusses need to go, as per the official
explanation anyways.
>
> "Blanchard wants you to dismiss the "how" and "when", and only focus on the
> point that he chooses to address. Any scientific investigation would
> consider all aspects of the event rather than cherry-pick certain ones and
> dismiss others out of hand."
Yes Blanchard's report above all else is the most unscientific
approach to WTC collapse I have seen. its one of the worst. I've seen
better arguments put by laymen.
>
> Mr. Hoffman fails to realize that Blanchard is offering an expert opinion,
> not a scientific investigation. For that, he'd do well to read through the
> 10,000+ pages of the final NIST report on the towers (and wait for the final
> NIST report on WTC 7).
John fails to remember that we will not rely on the mere heresay of
one individual called Blanchard who has taken five years to come
forward and yet still \, through Protec, withholds all the material
evidence he claims to rely on to make his conclusion.
John even an expert demolition professional is disabled from offering
a rebuttal because he does not have access to the material evidence
that Blanchard claims privy to. Thus the only thing we have is to
BELIEVE blanchard as a WITNESS and he is just a SOLE WITNESS.
>
> "Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the
> planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each
> Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much
> greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding
> the Towers rather than imploding them."
>
> An interesting intuition. Does Mr. Hoffman have any intuition on how these
> large quantities of explosives were brought into the buildings, put in place
> and rigged without any of 50,000+ people noticing?
There are many indications as to how this was done. Many strange
goings ons in the weeks before 9/11 in those towers such as a planned
total power shut down in the top half of the south tower two weeks
before 9/11. Such as a change of the seucity company 6 weeks before
9/11, such as strange work activities during the nights on certain
floors, such as the removal of the bomb-sniffing dogs permanently from
th towers just two weeks before the 9/11.
We can go on and on. There is alot of evidence suggesting that indeed
such as covert operation was going on.
You realise that the reason in conventional demos that they uses WIRES
to run all the bombs togehter is because its CHEAPER than using RF
remote triggers right? We are talking about a Military operation here.
State of the art nanoparticulated thermate could have been used which
would make thermate behave much like an explosive as well as an agent
that cuts through steel like butter.
>
> "Contrary to Blanchard's assertion that initial structural failures occurred
> at "precisely the point where the respective planes struck," the visual
> records show that in both Towers, structures were shattered well above the
> crash zones before they moved downward into structures below the crash
> zones. The early breakup of the South Tower's top is particularly apparent."
>
> In this case, Hoffman should have used his eyes rather than his simple
> intuition. It is clear, especially in the south tower videos (especially
> those that show the crash zone close up) that the collapse initiates at the
> point of the plane crash. Does he somehow suppose that while the 98th floor
> collapses, the portion of the building above it should remain unchanged and
> unmoving?
The north tower transmission tower is seen to move first. Also if you
actually go look at the collapse of the north tower footage again you
will note that the the floors above the crash zone implode like a
classic controlled demolition. When that has completed the tower
starts to collapse top down beginning at the crash zone.
It is irrefutable. Its on all the footage.
So yes we see a classic CD from the 98th floor up and then when it is
complete the rest starts to collapse top down.
Yet we see the opposite in the South Tower collapse.
>
> .............. <break time> .............
-----<smoko>-------
>
> Look False... I can go through the rest of this if you want, but, being a
> man of science, searching for the truth, I think you can already see that
> Jim Hoffman offering opinions, guesses and "simple intuition" does *not*
> amount to a debunking of Blanchard's opinion.
Jim Hoffman doesn't do the greatest job. He says everything I would
have said but I could say more. I think that Hoffman couldnt'be
bothered because even if Hoffman was himself an equally experienced
controlled demolition professional he is left with no right of reply
because Protec, through Blanchard, have issued an opinion written in
laymen's terms and backed by not one single reference to their body of
material evidence that is varifiable and they claim that puts them in
a position to be the most authoritive body on this issue.
Well, we'll just have to take their word for it eh!
>
> OK... back to work.
>
> " Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ,
> which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required
> physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric
> devices installed only in the Towers' cores."
>
> That's great Jim! How do you then explain the initial failure occurring in
> the perimeter columns and the fact that the collapse of the perimeter
> columns and floors occurred ahead of that of the core (which can be seen
> still standing during the collapses)?~
The initial failure observed in the perimter columns may not be the
INITIAL failure. You cannot see inside the building. Indeed there are
photos at NIST that point to what may be trusses inside that have
failed.
Once the trusses are knocked out the perimeter columns are going to
buldge arn't they?
>
> Blanchard offers 2 logical choices if one wants to buy into controlled
> demolition - the charges were either placed at the exact crash locations
> prior to the planes hitting the buildings - and somehow the explosives and
> triggering mechanisms all managed to survive the crash and fire ... OR ...
> the explosives were placed *after* the planes crashed (which, of course, is
> ridiculous)
>
> Mr. Hoffman needs to try to work within the realm of available facts and
> evidence. There are certain realities he must adhere to here. He could just
> as easily propose that some type of LASER, shot from a satellite, actually
> initiated the collapses. Blanchard didn't appear to be attempting to offer
> wild speculations, but rather, address specific issues. In this case, that
> issue was that the tower collapses looked exactly like a typical controlled
> demolition. Neither looked anything like a typical controlled demolition and
> Blanchard clearly and convincingly makes that point.
I also agree with Hoffman that Blanchard onlt tabled two logistical
possibilities to how a CD-type demolition would be carried out and
that these are not the only possibilites. In fact they are the worst
examples of how it might be done.
Notice that Blnachard proposes that the MIB would have to place bombs
on all or most of the perimeter columns when in fact they would have
to place bombs on NONE of the perimeter columns.
>
> <a bunch of really stupid stuff passed over - which is saying a lot to imply
> any of Hoffman's response could be that much more foolish than any other
> portion of it>
I havn't read Hoffmans rebuttal . I know what it says. it says exactly
what I'm thinking of Blanchards report.
I'm reading Hoffmans rebuttal for the first time now here with you.
>
> "What video shows a "50-story tall section of the [North Tower] shearing
> away intact" and what aerial photos show "massive volumes of debris that
> impacted WTC 7"? As with the rest of the assertions that fill Blanchard's
> article, the reader is apparently expected to just take his word for it."
Indeed. It seems that Blanchard is the only person in the word with
access to this special MIB snuff video archive of their 9/11 mass
murdering black-op.
>
> Blanchard is addressing people who make claims regarding what happened on
> 9/11. Is it unrealistic of him to think people claiming to have so much
> knowledge might have bothered to look at all available evidence?
No hes not John. Blanchard specifically states in the introduction
that he has edited the report into layman terms to make it accessable
to everyone. And yet its apparently too much evidence for him to paste
even a single citation or link to any of the evidence he refers to.
>
> " Blanchard's assertion that the jets of dust are a "natural and predictable
> effect of rapid structural collapse" is belied by the fact that such
> features have never been observed in a natural collapses, but are almost
> universally observed in controlled demolition."
Absolutely true.
>
> Again, Hoffman wants us to believe his intuition on this matter is somehow
> 'fact'. A simple video analysis, frame by frame, of the 'squibs' can answer
> the question of whether the represent an explosion.
>
> There are two possibilities we are looking for here - an explosion or air
> being forced from the building. If it is the former, we should see an event
> with the greatest forces represented in the initial frames, which then
> diminishes in the subsequent frames. If it is the latter, we should see an
> event that grows in force from the initial frame onward.
>
> Such an analysis clearly shows the latter to be the case. Feel free to
> perform this analysis for yourself.
Hoffman isn't talking about the squibs. He's talking about the
pyroclastic clouds of pulverised concrete that covered the entirity
of manhatten and flooded down streets like waves.
This is seen in all controlled demolitions and is not a characteristic
of natural gravity collapses.
>
> " The eyewitness reports of the sights and sounds of explosions marking the
> onsets of each Tower's destruction are abundantly corroborated by the visual
> records of those events. "
>
> Are they? Mr. Hoffman seems to feel he is not required to follow the same
> rules he places upon Blanchard. Where is Mr. Hoffman's support for this
> statement? To date, I have not seen a single WTC video in which explosives
> are seen or heard. What evidence has Mr. Hoffman seen? Why has he not
> released it to the public?
There is one video compilation of that evidence called 9/11 Witnesses
although I can't attest to the authenticity of it.
I know one black witness we've all seen who was running down the tower
and was blown off his feet by an explosion on the 8th floor. There are
heaps of witnesses to explosions going off.
I've seen a video of the firemen later in the day before WTC7 comes
down and we hear a massive explosion and all the firemen are amazed as
to what it could be. They think they are in a war zone.
The trapped firemen in the movie WTC have given testimony of hearing
explosions later in the day but they just think that it must have been
the collapse of WTC7.
>
> "Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
> Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was
> later released to the public and currently appears on their website.
oh sorry. Blanchard does give ONE citation.
> Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field
> seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several
> construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes. In all
> cases, these recordings indicate single vibration events when the buildings
> collapsed. At no point during 9/11 were independent or secondary vibration
> events documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity
> possessing such data.
>
> This is false. Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty
> Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before
> the large signals.
Yep.
>
> The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that
> the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset
> of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the
> excerpt."
Oh look John, Hoffman is getting serious.
>
> Mr. Hoffman fails to explain how his analysis of the seismographic data,
> based on simple intuition, is somehow more believable than that of the
> experts at both Protec and Lamont-Doherty.
I havn't looked into this yet so....
>
> "The evidence that Protec apparently failed to come across includes
> satellite images showing temperatures above the melting point of aluminum on
> the surface of the rubble pile 5 days after the attack, and a number of
> eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble pile."
Yes I've seen that and thanks to Hoffman for reminding me. Yes why
doesn't Blanchard recognise this most severe evidence of thermite?
>
> Mr. Hoffman fails to explain how thermite, thermate or some other
> unconventional demolition tool would explain hot areas or molten metal at
> Ground Zero.
Because there is nothing to explain how an area could be that hot
other than with chemical combustion. Hydrocarbon fires can't get that
hot. the concete dust that we see covering Manhatten for miles, inches
thick would have put out all the fires in the debris if it wasn't for
what must have been thermite reactions which don't require oxygen. It
proves that there is some sought of chemical fires with their own
oygen supply.
>
> "In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with
> equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and
> debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymity to prevent
> harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate
> quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive
> experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a
> man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do
> they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
> beams at any point during debris removal activities.
>
> How many foremen did Blanchard's investigators speak with? Two? Three?
> Because Blanchard provides no details about this survey, his summary of its
> results is meaningless."
>
> While Hoffman's simple intuition is completely meaningful?
Again you just relied on a vacuous snipe at hoffman for using that
""simple intuitiion" line.
I can do the same with Blanchard. "I guess that explanation is
satisfactory enough, for a layman!"
Its clear that Blanchard didn't write this report for 9/11 Truthers.
It was written to stave off anymore people becoming 9/11 Truthers.
Its an insult for Blanchard to feign that this was published to
appease 9/11 Truthers who have investigated the issues enough to
become politically active.
>
> "Despite Blanchard's communications with Dr. Jones, he fails to accurately
> describe the evidence that Jones cites for the use of thermite."
>
> Unfortunately for Hoffman, his intuition caused him to fail to note the part
> where Jones makes it clear that his findings are based on initial research
> and *do* contain the many unanswered questions pointed out by Blanchard.
>
I'm getting tired now.
Will bail out for rest and perhaps return another day........
For the record: 9/11 was a false flag operation and that is clear 100
times over. Anyone who denies it at this late stage is just in denial
or a criminal complicit.
Criminal Complicits will be executed for treason.
BE CAREFUL OF THE GOOGLE-GROUP/BETA BUG. IF YOU SPEND TOO LONG WRITING
A POST IT WILL PRETEND THE POST WAS SUCCESSFUL BUT NEVER PUBLISH IT.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Here is your reply John P. 4 Brains
> >http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
>
> How original of you.
>
> It's probably been over a year since I've gone over this particular
> response, but, since you are fairly new at this, having started only in
> January of last year, I'll go through it again.
>
> "Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting
> Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on
> explosive demolition."
>
> This is a true statement. Protec *is* one of the leading demolition
> companies.
It indicated what was about to ensue: An unqualified assurance that
there is no evidence of CD. He does not present a scientific paper and
yet he feigns to refute one, namely Steven Jones''
He has written this report to appeal to the remaining sheeple idiots
who still beleive the official story. He has not written it with the
9/11
Truth audience in mind otherwise he wouldn't have laymanised the
terminology.
>This pathetic attempt to imply otherwise compels one to ignore
> the remainder of this response as being equally foolish.
You missed the point. Popular Mechanics used the same tactic as well.
They
claimed to have spoken to hundreds of "éxperts'', failed to name them,
posed an FAQ strawman hitlist,
and then proceeded to assure the reader that there is nothing to see
here. Move on. Move on. Nothing to see here.
>He'd have done much
> better to acknowledge the *fact* that Protec is a leading demolition
> company, then explain the issues he had with Blanchard's paper.
Its just that this is a tactic we are all too familiar with. Pulling
Rank.
We want the evidence on the table. We want to examine everything that
he claims to have examined and without such access his mere assurance
is not satisfactory, particularly at this late stage.
>
> "However, because these events display so many obvious characteristics of
> controlled demolitions, many individuals reject the official story of
> gravity-driven collapses based on simple intuition."
>
> Outstanding logic. "Simple intuition" is a more accurate measure than actual
> experience and knowledge. Obviously, simple intuition was insufficient in
> telling him that the collapse from a controlled demolition *is* a gravity
> driven collapse.
You are assuming that Blanchard is telling the truth. The fact is we
have no way of knowing whether he is being honest. We must merely take
his word for it!
You see John what you have done as a result of Blanachard
pulling rank for two pages before his report? (And it wasn't even a
report - it was an FAQ list.) You have gone and done exactly what he
wanted you to do. Believed him. There is nothing else to believe other
than Blanchard.
The only argument you have to favor Blanchard's reporting over the
9/11 Truthers is that you assert "Blanchard is an expert and you are
laymen and all your witnesses are liers or mistaken because they too
are laymen"
It take four years to get a degree in engineering. At what point does
a layman become an expert on a given topic?
>
> "Blanchard avoids discussing most of those features (the thorough
> pulverization, explosiveness, and rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction)
> and instead appears to address two of the features (symmetry and jets of
> dust) but with only muddled and convoluted explanations."
>
> Simple intuition must have told Jim Hoffman that pulverized concrete,
> "explosiveness" and "rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction" might provide
> clues to controlled demolition.
Jim Hoffman was referring to the simple intuition of a lay audience
when witnessing live the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7. Indeed
most engineers were stunned. Most of the news anchors reporting the
event live described the event as like a controlled demoltiion, huge
explosions, etc....
Blanchard assures us that we can discount all these witness
testimonies of bombs going off because he happened to have his own
private army of seismographs and they confirm the abscence of any such
activities.
What we bascially have here with this Blanchard report is ONE WITNESS
and his name is Blanchard!
Sure, Blanchard is an expert in this particular field. But what do you
know about his character?
You are expecting the 9/11 Truth movement to discount all witnesses
based on the testimony of one man?
Why doesn't Blanchard show us the footage he has? He certainly doesn't
want his pdf going anywhere other than where it is on his website.
Hé's bloody secured it from copy/paste functions making it harder to
critique. He has blocked it from google searches which is why I've
never found it in my Google Reader RSS feeds.
>
> Pulverizing concrete with explosives would require many thousands of tons of
> explosives. There is no indication explosives may have been present in the
> towers or in WTC 7 in such massive quantities.
>
> "Explosiveness"? ... sounds like Jim Hoffman would do well to learn some
> basic physics.
And yet you havn't offered the word that you claim replaces it.
Blanchard himself in the introduction has stated that every paragraph
has been revised and laymanised with all technical and scientific
terminology removed. (So as to make it accessable to laymen). You
expect Hoffman to refute layman arguments with scientific terminology?
John why do you think the scholars for 9/11 truth and the Academic
Journals of 9/11 have mostly neglected any right of reply to
Blanchards evidence?
You know why? THERE ISN'T ANY!
A scientist cannot argue with someone who insists on asserting layman
terminology.
This so called EXPERT Blanchard hasn't given us any evidence of his
expertise in his writings. Merely his claim to be an expert is the
only indication that indeed he is one!
Aside, Blanchard himself states that 95% of the debris was thrown
sideways, causing that mushroom cloud. You might wonder then how this
remaining 5% managed to knock down the lower floors in the
"pancake-like" mechanism.
>
> "rapidity of the Twin Towers' destruction"? Again, a basic grasp of physics
> would help Mr. Hoffman. Since controlled demolition and structural failure
> result in a collapse driven by gravity, unless he is claiming there were
> massive rockets attached to the tops of the buildings to drive them down, he
> offers nothing to explain how this might indicate CD.
I guess that Hoffman should have excused himself at the beginning of
his critque in the same manner that Blanchard conveniently claimed
that his report was written for the layman.
John I'm an engineer, a scientist. I don't appreciate Blanchard's
report as useful or insightful. Its a load of "believe me, I'm an
expert"
I have a Bachelor of Science
I have 3 out of 4 years of Chemical Engineering Degree
Shall we just huff and puff and pull rank on this issue or shall we
demand the evidence be made available to the public easily on an
internet server so that this issue can be put to rest?
Is Protec hoping to sell their archive to media outlets one day? Is
that why Blanchard is withholding the evidence?
Why does Blanchard neglect in his introduction to address this issue
about their
withholding access to the archive?
Is Protec hoping to make money out of the mass murder of 3000 people?
Clearly we agree on that much? On 9/11 3000 people were mass murdered.
>
> " Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition
> would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in
> commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he
> repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts."
Yes I agree. That was one of Blanchards strawman FAQ. He does not
attempt to explain or acknowledge that a clandestine CD would need to
look like it could be attributed to natural disaster.
Rather he points out why the collapse of the towers differed from a
classic controlled demolition. But it wasn't a classic controlled
demolition
was it? It was a Black-op demolition.
>
> Damn people relying on experts. Haven't they heard of "simple intuition"?
> Sadly, bringing down a building requires one to understand and accept the
> laws of physics and gravity.
We are not relying on an expert here. We are relying on the
credibility
of one witness, and his name is Blanchard.
In a real sceintific report it would not matter if the author was
Charles Manson. What matters is the arguments put forth and the
evidence provided to support them. The evidence must be varifiable and
any experimental results cited must be repeatable. That includes a
full and thorough description of how the experiment was conducted in
exactly what controlled environment (SLC? etc..).
Blanchard has done none of that. In fact I wonder whether Blanchard is
a Scientist at all.
>
> " In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of
> economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than
> imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it
> is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive
> procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units
> bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings."
>
> His doubt is interesting. I wonder why he didn't bother to take the time to
> find out if his simple intuition was correct?
I agree with that doubt. And I could write a rebuttal to Blanchard ten
times more deadly that Hoffman has done.
I think Hoffman has deliberately limited his time spent on this
Exactly.
The journals of 9/11. Go listen to the interview between Lesllie
with burning buildings for a career who bet their lives on it!
Thats the part that gets me. No one wants to ever mention the three
hundred firemen who are dead who all say with their own fucking lives
they would bet on it that those buildings were brought down with
bombs.
I've seen many Officiale fans propagate the notion that it was a
suprise that the towers withstood the planes AT ALL! Clearly thats a
falacy of morons who lack 'simple intuitiion'. Simple Intuition is a
big
issue in a population dumbed down deliberately with fluoride and
materialism.
> One example from the evidence - walls that showed an obvious bulge prior to
> the collapse of the building. This is a sign of structural failure and
> probable collapse.
So what? It may be explained because someone had blown out the trusses
with thermite.
Blanchard claims that a controlled demolition would need to confront
the permiter columns which hold the weight of the building uniformly.
And yet the official story claims that all one needed to do was knock
out the trusses and the walls would buldge.
They could have sent a black-op team up there to finish the job and
they could have pulled them off the roof as it was covered with smoke.
There were military helicopters up there you seen that? Funny noone
mentions it.
You got to remember that in the military there are plenty of
psychopaths that just love doing Mission Impossibles and being butt-
fucked by their commanders.
They are a different breed of human. Killing Machines. You know
that!!! So why are you acting all stupid like you don't know that the
military has access to these type of men? The type of men who don't
care who the enemy is, they just want to be pointed at the enemy and
told what to do to them. They are happy to be working for the most
powerful people in the world.
>
> In the North tower, such a bulge was noted by a police helicopter pilot, 8
> minutes prior to collapse initiation. That would be 8 minutes before
> explosive charges would have gone off in a controlled demolition. The bulge
> in the north tower wall is visible in photographic and video evidence. It is
> addressed and graphics are provided, in the NIST report.
But you're still speculating.
>
> A bulge in WTC 7 presents an even greater problem for CD proponents, as it
> was noted over 3 hours prior to collapse. No manner of controlled demolition
> would cause structural failure to begin 3 hours before the collapse
> initiation.
And yet we have no footage of it. NO photos of it? And yet that bulge
wasn't caused by the gradual removal of key but not critical supports?
How does it go then John? The authorities selectively release photos
and video that supports their hypothesis and withholds any that
doesn't? And what right do they claim to withhold all the material
evidence? To protect the rights of the dead who may be seen in the
photos? Yes? Is that a good reason to withhold 9/11 evidence from the
public? That dead bodies can or may be seen in the debris?
And yet they play the footage of the falling bodies from the towers
everyday of the
year don't they? Oh, but I guess those bodies arn't actually DEAD yet
are
they so its o.k.?
>
Mafio de Gulliani to 'collect' material data.
>
> " ASSERTION #1
> "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
> PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."
>
> Blanchard exploits a common misconception -- that because demolitions are
> usually engineered to proceed from the ground up, all demolitions would
> necessarily have to be engineered that way. This is of course false, since
> explosive charges could be placed anywhere in a building and detonated in
> any order desired. Obviously, the demolitions of the Twin Towers, being
> designed to support the official narrative of events, started from around
> the crash zones."
>
> Blanchard is addressing the claim that the towers "looked exactly like
> controlled demolitions". As Mr. Hoffman so clearly points out, in support of
> Blanchard's response - the tower collapses looked nothing like controlled
> demolitions.
Yes that is why its a strawman question. Because its a coin of phrase.
Its not an exact criminal charge. The towers do not look like a
natural gravity collapse.
But you know what I'm glad that Blanchard answered this question
because in it we got an expert admitting that 95% of the debris was
going over the side and this directly contradicts the pancake-like
mechanism that NIST allows to propagate in the mainstream media but
that NIST refuses to model.
How intersting hey? This is like a Proof by Contradiction. Lets assume
that it was a controlled demolition. Then lets let Blanchard show why
it isn't a "controlled demolition" and then by doing so he has
inadvertantly argued
that the ""pancake-like"' mechanism is thus immposible considering
that
95% of the debris is gone over the side, it means only 5% is falling
down on the remaining floors.
>
> Hoffman then uses simple intuition to claim that an unusual controlled
> demolition was set up, designed to initiate at the floors where the planes
> crashed.
Obviously the collapse was going to have to look like it could have
been naturally caused by the fires.
If it looked like a normal controlled demolition then everybody would
want to know how Osama got inside the WTC and planted the bombs.
> He offers no clues as to how these explosives, and their triggering
> devices, would have survived the crashes, or how the planes would have been
> flown so accurately so as to hit the buildings in on, very specific
> location.
Thermite doesn't burn up at temperatures as low as hydrocarbon fires.
You can put a blow-torch to thermite and it won't activate because
the
activation energy is much higher than that.
Any thermite that DID get ignited by any detonation curve from the
impact of the planes would not have been noticed amongst the fire-
ball. It would have been dissiappated explosively along with the
fieball. Any columns that were knocked out by the plane would not need
to be knocked out again by thermite.
Remaining columns would still have the thermite. The particular
floors of impact would need a higher redundancy of thermite charges
than the rest of the building because of the risk of them being
knocked off their respective columns by the vibrations of the plane
impacts.
The outer perimter columns, contrary to Blanchards flawed assertion,
would not have needed to be rigged with thermite or cutter charges.
One needs to just knock out the trusses and the core columns. Leslie
Roberts claims just the floor trusses need to go, as per the official
explanation anyways.
>
> "Blanchard wants you to dismiss the "how" and "when", and only focus on the
> point that he chooses to address. Any scientific investigation would
> consider all aspects of the event rather than cherry-pick certain ones and
> dismiss others out of hand."
Yes Blanchard's report above all else is the most unscientific
approach to WTC collapse I have seen. Its one of the worst. I've seen
better arguments put by laymen.
>
> Mr. Hoffman fails to realize that Blanchard is offering an expert opinion,
> not a scientific investigation. For that, he'd do well to read through the
> 10,000+ pages of the final NIST report on the towers (and wait for the final
> NIST report on WTC 7).
John fails to remember that we will not rely on the mere heresay of
one individual called Blanchard who has taken five years to come
forward and yet still \, through Protec, withholds all the material
evidence he claims to rely on to make his conclusion.
John, even an expert demolition professional is disabled from offering
a rebuttal because he does not have access to the material evidence
that Blanchard claims privy to. Thus the only thing we have is to
BELIEVE Blanchard as a WITNESS and he is just a SOLE WITNESS with
enormous conflicts of interest (regardless of his assertion of
impartiality).
>
> "Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the
> planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each
> Tower's mass to aid the destruction. Thus they would have had to use much
> greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding
> the Towers rather than imploding them."
>
> An interesting intuition. Does Mr. Hoffman have any intuition on how these
> large quantities of explosives were brought into the buildings, put in place
> and rigged without any of 50,000+ people noticing?
There are many indications as to how this was done. Many strange
goings ons in the weeks before 9/11 in those towers such as a planned
total power shut-down in the top half of the south tower two weeks
before 9/11 for an entire weekend. Such as a change of the security
company 6 weeks before
9/11, such as strange labor work activities during the nights on
certain
floors, such as the removal of the bomb-sniffing dogs permanently from
th towers just two weeks before the 9/11.
We can go on and on. There is alot of circumstantial evidence
suggesting that indeed
such as covert operation was going on and was opportuned.
You realise that the reason in conventional demos that they uses WIRES
to run all the bombs togehter is because its CHEAPER than using RF
remote triggers right? We are talking about a Military operation here.
State of the art nano-particulated thermate could have been used which
would make thermate behave much like an explosive as well as an agent
that cuts through steel like butter.
>
> "Contrary to Blanchard's assertion that initial structural failures occurred
> at "precisely the point where the respective planes struck," the visual
> records show that in both Towers, structures were shattered well above the
> crash zones before they moved downward into structures below the crash
> zones. The early breakup of the South Tower's top is particularly apparent."
>
> In this case, Hoffman should have used his eyes rather than his simple
> intuition. It is clear, especially in the south tower videos (especially
> those that show the crash zone close up) that the collapse initiates at the
> point of the plane crash. Does he somehow suppose that while the 98th floor
> collapses, the portion of the building above it should remain unchanged and
> unmoving?
The north tower transmission tower is seen to move first. Also if you
actually go look at the collapse of the north tower footage again you
will note that the the floors above the crash zone implode like a
classic controlled demolition. When that has completed the tower
starts to collapse top down beginning at the crash zone.
It is irrefutable. Its on all the footage.
So yes we see a classic CD from the 98th floor up and then when it is
complete the rest starts to collapse top down. And yet we also witness
a majority of that top debris has been pulversied and fallen over the
side.
So how did it force its way down in pancake?
Yet we see the opposite in the South Tower collapse. The top topples
and then again how did this toppled top force its way down collapsing
all the
floors at free-fall speed?
Amazing stuff John. But what amazes me more is how people like you
have got a mental block to the blatant obvious reality that those core
columns and trusses must have been taken out by explosives and that
the epic pyroclastic storms of dust descending their evil upon Gotham
City were the signature of that event.
And for Blanchard to fucking stand there and pretend that he doesn't
have to FAQ with video reference so voluminous that there could be no
doubt to support his thesus is a blatant fucking cover up and the guy
is listed to be held in court and tried for treason and execution for
treason when the revolution finally breaks.
Dare anyone at this hour to withhold archives of evidence from the
public.
Prptec is likely in possession of the largest archive of papertrailed
video and photographic evidence of 9/11 and Ground Zero clean up than
anyone in the world.
The 9/11 Truth movement must organise NOW to put political democratic
pressure and the threat of force (as is the protocol of our current
imperialist fascist governments to threaten military force) and make
Protec release this archive in full view on a dedicated YouTube
Channel.
Midex. Info-Terrosist.
>
> .............. <break time> .............
-----<smoko>-------
>
> Look False... I can go through the rest of this if you want, but, being a
> man of science, searching for the truth, I think you can already see that
> Jim Hoffman offering opinions, guesses and "simple intuition" does *not*
> amount to a debunking of Blanchard's opinion.
Jim Hoffman doesn't do the greatest job. He says everything I would
have said but I could say more. I think that Hoffman couldnt'be
bothered because even if Hoffman was himself an equally experienced
controlled demolition professional he is left with no right of reply
because Protec, through Blanchard, have issued an opinion written in
laymen's terms and backed by not one single reference to their body of
material evidence that is varifiable and they claim that puts them in
a position to be the most authoritive body on this issue.
Well, we'll just have to take their word for it eh!
>
> OK... back to work.
>
> " Blanchard's objections are answered by the 9-11 Research demolition FAQ,
> which describes demolition methods whose preparation would not have required
> physically accessing the perimeter columns, such as those using thermobaric
> devices installed only in the Towers' cores."
>
> That's great Jim! How do you then explain the initial failure occurring in
> the perimeter columns and the fact that the collapse of the perimeter
> columns and floors occurred ahead of that of the core (which can be seen
> still standing during the collapses)?~
The initial failure observed in the perimeter columns may not be the
george
All my posts get onto the group.
Yours occasionally do not.
and you call -me- an idiot..
Fred Fazemeier
"John P." <Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote in message
news:j6ydnbjC-8R0C1PY...@comcast.com...
> "Sunny" wrote in a message
>
> > EXPERTS WORLDWIDE SAY: WTC WAS AN INSIDE JOB !!!!
> > Ph. Sellier; A.T.Demolition; France says WTC7= C.D. 100% proof
> > Danny Jowenko Director of Danish demolition comp. expert says WTC7 =
> > controlled demolition
> > Francis Ponant senior engineer ofCEBTP Démolition France says
> > WTC7=C.D.
> > Heinrich Harzheim; Jean Harzheim GmbH & Co. KG -- Germany -> WTC7=
> > C.D.
> > Ing. Elias Thesorakis engineer from Exorixi S.A.; Serres-Spain says
> > WTC7= C.D Genaro Conti from NAD Demolition Association-> WTC= C.D.
>
> There it is. All 5 of the demolitions experts in the world agree. The
other
> 5,000 that disagree don't count.
>
> It's an interesting claim, but a quick Google search makes me wonder if
it's
> supported by something other than a claim made in Loose Change or
somewhere
> similar.
>
> A search on Ph. Sellier; A.T, or different variations, turns up nothing to
> show he's made any claim regarding WTC 7.
>
> Jowenko was shown a short video clip and asked about what he thought he
saw.
> His opinion is interesting, but hardly based on a complete analysis of the
> situation (for example, he was neither shown nor told about the extensive
> damage to the opposite face of the building, the bulges in the walls over
3
> hours before the collapse, etc.)
>
> With Francis Ponant. the only reference that turns up in Google is a
single
> alternate conspiracy video. Not very compelling.
>
> As a matter of fact, it is this same single video that provides the only
> reference for this entire claim (with the exception of Jowenko - who has
> also gone on record as stating that WTC 7 was not and would not have been
> "pulled")
>
> Not much of a claim.
Google it up and watch it yourself. You don't have to be an expert to see
the bottom of the building collapse and it falls into its own footprint.
Vandar
You don't have to be an expert to see the large pile of debris WTC 7
deposited on Vesey Street.
Are you going to claim that Vesey Street was in building seven's footprint?
John P.
>> As a matter of fact, it is this same single video that provides the only
>> reference for this entire claim (with the exception of Jowenko - who has
>> also gone on record as stating that WTC 7 was not and would not have been
>> "pulled")
>> Not much of a claim.
> Google it up and watch it yourself. You don't have to be an expert to see
> the bottom of the building collapse and it falls into its own footprint.
Oh... good point Fred. After a couple years of discussing this topic, you
imagine I haven't seen WTC 7 collapse videos?
How about seen them, watched them frame by frame, backward and forward?
Try this. The East mechanical penthouse collapses into the building first,
indicating a structural failure beneath the penthouse. We then cannot see
anything happen for around 5 seconds. Maybe nothing is happening. Maybe the
penthouse is crashing down through the building. Maybe the penthouse falls a
floor or two and stops. Maybe the entire opposing face of the building is
collapsing. Don't know. The video doesn't offer anything that would allow us
to know what is happening during that 5 seconds. Then, the West penthouse
collapses into the building and then remaining structures on the roof. Then
the rest of the building collapses. The total collapse time, from initiation
to end, is over 13 seconds.
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view¤t=911NewsReport.flv
The damage done to surrounding buildings tells us WTC 7 failed to collapse
entirely within its own footprint.
If one considers gravity, in which direction might one expect a building to
fall other than down?
What have you read about the design and construction of WTC 7?
What was unique about the 5th floor?
What caused them to change the design of the building just prior to
beginning construction?
What was unique about the foundation of the building? (provides a free clue
to the above question)
If there was a controlled demolition, why are no explosions seen or heard in
any of the videos?
Why did firefighters stay out of WTC 7 most of the day?
A bulge, indicating structural failure, was noted in a wall of WTC 7 over 3
hours before the collapse. What manner of controlled demolition would
present itself over such a lengthy time span?
Once one looks beyond simply watching a single video, accepting a non-expert
opinion about what you're seeing, and ignoring all other factors, a
simplistic conclusion that we are seeing a controlled demolition becomes
much more difficult to consider.
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/?action=view¤t=NYPDvsLooseChange.flv
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
John, with regard to 9/11, the day you stop looking for authoritive
figures is the day you start looking cognicantly at the evidence and
seek your own conclusion.
Upon the evidence this conclusion is assured: 9/11 was a false-flag
operation.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> "Fred Fazemeier" wrote in a message
>
> >> As a matter of fact, it is this same single video that provides the only
> >> reference for this entire claim (with the exception of Jowenko - who has
> >> also gone on record as stating that WTC 7 was not and would not have been
> >> "pulled")
> >> Not much of a claim.
> > Google it up and watch it yourself. You don't have to be an expert to see
> > the bottom of the building collapse and it falls into its own footprint.
>
> Oh... good point Fred. After a couple years of discussing this topic, you
> imagine I haven't seen WTC 7 collapse videos?
>
> How about seen them, watched them frame by frame, backward and forward?
>
> Try this. The East mechanical penthouse collapses into the building first,
> indicating a structural failure beneath the penthouse. We then cannot see
> anything happen for around 5 seconds. Maybe nothing is happening. Maybe the
> penthouse is crashing down through the building. Maybe the penthouse falls a
> floor or two and stops. Maybe the entire opposing face of the building is
> collapsing. Don't know. The video doesn't offer anything that would allow us
> to know what is happening during that 5 seconds. Then, the West penthouse
> collapses into the building and then remaining structures on the roof. Then
> the rest of the building collapses. The total collapse time, from initiation
> to end, is over 13 seconds.
>
>
> The damage done to surrounding buildings tells us WTC 7 failed to collapse
> entirely within its own footprint.
>
> If one considers gravity, in which direction might one expect a building to
> fall other than down?
>
> What have you read about the design and construction of WTC 7?
> What was unique about the 5th floor?
> What caused them to change the design of the building just prior to
> beginning construction?
> What was unique about the foundation of the building? (provides a free clue
> to the above question)
> If there was a controlled demolition, why are no explosions seen or heard in
> any of the videos?
> Why did firefighters stay out of WTC 7 most of the day?
> A bulge, indicating structural failure, was noted in a wall of WTC 7 over 3
> hours before the collapse. What manner of controlled demolition would
> present itself over such a lengthy time span?
>
> Once one looks beyond simply watching a single video, accepting a non-expert
> opinion about what you're seeing, and ignoring all other factors, a
> simplistic conclusion that we are seeing a controlled demolition becomes
> much more difficult to consider.
>
The supporting column that must have held that penthouse was not in
the orgianls FEMA NIST diagramns of the nature of damage to the
builidng.
This is detailed in 911 Mysteries and varifiable elsewhere.
Do you contest that?
The column must have been "pulled".
age...@justicespammail.com
>John, with regard to 9/11, the day you stop looking for authoritive
>figures
Yeah, heaven forbid anyone consult "authoritative figures" for expert
answers.
age...@justicespammail.com
>The supporting column that must have held that penthouse
So you think that only one column held up the penthouse? What a loon.
John P.
> John, with regard to 9/11, the day you stop looking for authoritive
> figures is the day you start looking cognicantly at the evidence and
> seek your own conclusion.
> Upon the evidence this conclusion is assured: 9/11 was a false-flag
> operation.
That's an interesting thought False. However, blind acceptance of clearly
moronic "evidence", simply to support a faith in your religion is not the
road to the truth. You have to look at the actual evidence. You aren't
allowed to create your own realities when viewing this evidence. You can't
make up super-invisible military ninjas to pull off impossible stunts.
I *started* on this hobby thinking it was probably some type of conspiracy
involving the US government. I looked at the actual facts and evidence and I
have seen that no such conspiracy is needed to explain what happened on
9/11 - regardless of what you or I or anyone else *wishes* we could believe.
The only false flag here are the kook conspiracy religions.
... but, I'm always willing to go wherever the facts and evidence lead. If
you could provide a *single* bit of *evidence* to support any of your
lunacy, you'd be on the road to having me see things differently. In 5
years, no one among the entire 300 kook community has managed to come up
with this one piece of evidence.
John P.
>> Try this. The East mechanical penthouse collapses into the building
Try this False. Stop typing. Stop talking. Take some time to think first. Do
some research to answer the above questions. You don't need to type the
answers here, just answer them for yourself if you like. Think, ponder and
consider this new and exciting information - *then* respond.
It's more than a bit ridiculous for you to take all that in, then simply
guess at an answer - that there must have been one, single column holding up
the East mechanical penthouse, and it was 'pulled'.
Step one - figure out what 'pulled' is to a demolition company.
Step two - explain how this cable was attached to this single column and
what the other end was attached to.
Right there, your guess is gone to shit.
Stop. Research. Think. Then answer.
Stan de SD
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171751335....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
As if any idiot who thinks the Jews started WWII in 1933 has any credibility
<plonk>
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
Its a usely used term which generally depicts pulling the column out
by cable or explosives.
> Step two - explain how this cable was attached to this single column and
> what the other end was attached to.
it was blown not pulled with a cable.
>
> Right there, your guess is gone to shit.
WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
John P.
>> Step one - figure out what 'pulled' is to a demolition company.
> Its a usely used term which generally depicts pulling the column out
> by cable or explosives.
Almost, but not quite. It involves cables. It doesn't involve explosives. It
isn't about a column, it's about the remnants of a building, such as those
of WTC 6 after 9/11. Cables are attached near the top of the structure. The
other ends of the cables are attached to bulldozers or other heavy
equipment. The building is then, literally, pulled down. It is never done to
a structure greater than 6 or 7 stories. To imply the 47 story, mostly
intact WTC 7 was pulled, and then managed to fall nearly straight down, is
ridiculous and indicates a complete lack of understanding how buildings were
pulled.
There is no video or photographic evidence indicating cables were attached
anywhere to WTC 7. There are no witnesses who claim to have seen cables
attached to WTC 7 and strung out at great distance to a bulldozer or other
heavy equipment.
If you had ever bothered to do any research, here are some examples of what
you would have found;
"2. We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the
explosive
demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with.
The term is
used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity
of attaching long
cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment
(excavators,
bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side
for further
dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers
pulled
over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say
with certainty
that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground
Zero on 9/11,
physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure
did not collapse
in that manner anyway. "
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
From the "America Rebuilds" documentary, from which the Silverstein quote is
taken, they talk about pulling building 6
At 23 minutes into the documentary, the narrator tells us:
"The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centres 4, 5 and 6 was
rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set
the charges."
At 41 minutes into the documentary, we see how building 6 was pulled;
"Worker #1: Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six.
Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We
were worried about the building six coming down and damaging the slurry
wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
Worker #1: We've got the cables attached in four different locations going
up and they'll be pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the
north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with
cables""
http://www.911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
Here's what a "WTC 7 was intentionally demolished" conspiracy site says was
learned about pulling a building:
"Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:
"There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as
in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to
pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to
heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off
its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible
with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to
bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing
conventionally."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
This is from another pro-conspiracy theory site:
"Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a
calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of
websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building
6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites
specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'.
The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition
sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling
and demolition are synonymous."
http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
>> Step two - explain how this cable was attached to this single column and
>> what the other end was attached to.
> it was blown not pulled with a cable.
Was it blown up or was it pulled? You say Silverstein says it was pulled,
which means it wasn't blown up. In that case, we are talking about the
entire building. In this particular case, without doing a second of
research, you have dreamed up a magic single column to support the East
mechanical penthouse. You then claimed this column was pulled. Now you are
saying explosives were used. Which is it? I would think if you're going to
invent facts, you could easily be more consistent.
Now... since you clearly needed me to do the research to help you understand
what it means when a demolition company 'pulls' a building, do you think
with one foot already firmly into your mouth, you might attempt some
research into this magical column supporting the east penthouse, in order to
avoid trying to get both feet into your mouth?
>> Right there, your guess is gone to shit.
> WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
It was blown up by space dogs from the planet Bitchulon.
There you have it. Between your statement and mine, the mystery of what
happened to WTC 7 has been solved. NIST can stop their investigation and
everyone else can quit wondering.
Thank god all that's over now, eh?
What should we tackle next? Want to solve global warming, or should we cure
hunger and famine first? I know... I'll free the world of all illness and
disease!
Everyone on earth, and all plants and animals are free from all illnesses
and diseases.
Cool! I'll probably get a Nobel prize for that!
>> Stop. Research. Think. Then answer.
It saddens me that you ignored this advice the first time I offered it. I
put it up again with the hopes that you may realize now that it is a really
good piece of advice. You really should try it. I can't imagine your shoes
taste all that good, and it has to hurt your mouth shoving your foot in so
far.
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> >> Step one - figure out what 'pulled' is to a demolition company.
> > Its a usely used term which generally depicts pulling the column out
> > by cable or explosives.
>
> Almost, but not quite. It involves cables. It doesn't involve explosives. It
> isn't about a column, it's about the remnants of a building, such as those
> of WTC 6 after 9/11. Cables are attached near the top of the structure. The
No it is an industry slang. The WTC7 was not pulled with any cables.
Silverstein or a defence counsel issued a statement that he was
referring to pulling the firemen out, giving up.
I've never made a big deal about the statement. Its Silversteins claim
in the Supreme Court that the two plane attacks constituted two
seperate terror attacks under the letter of his insurance policy, and
thus he was entitled to two times the amount, 2x3.5 billion.
And don't tell me that I've mistaken that one! I read it in a law
report journal.
David Morgan (MAMS)
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171863495.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 5:09 am, "John P."
> <Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> > <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
> >
> > >> Step one - figure out what 'pulled' is to a demolition company.
> > > Its a usely used term which generally depicts pulling the column out
> > > by cable or explosives.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Almost, but not quite. It involves cables. It doesn't involve explosives. It
> > isn't about a column, it's about the remnants of a building, such as those
> > of WTC 6 after 9/11. Cables are attached near the top of the structure. The
The term is over 100 years old. It comes from the days in which
buildings actually were "pulled" over... it's hung in the industry.
> No it is an industry slang. The WTC7 was not pulled with any cables.
> Silverstein or a defence counsel issued a statement that he was
> referring to pulling the firemen out, giving up.
Silverstein couldn't make that excuse for himself. It would never pass
voice stress analysis and would contradict his earlier, filmed admission
in the PBS documentary, "America Rebuilds", that the decision was made
"...To pull it. So we made that decision, to pull, and we watched the building collapse."
It's all one big sentence and no one calls a group of men, "IT".
John P.
>>>> Step one - figure out what 'pulled' is to a demolition company.
>>> Its a usely used term which generally depicts pulling the column out
>>> by cable or explosives.
>> Almost, but not quite. It involves cables. It doesn't involve explosives.
>> It
>> isn't about a column, it's about the remnants of a building, such as
>> those
>> of WTC 6 after 9/11. Cables are attached near the top of the structure.
>> The
> No it is an industry slang.
The demolition industry disagrees with you. Why is that?
What is your source for this claim?
> The WTC7 was not pulled with any cables.
Correct. WTC was not pulled. Period.
> Silverstein or a defence counsel issued a statement that he was
> referring to pulling the firemen out, giving up.
Correct. An FDNY commander called him. The FDNY commander called to tell him
they were unable to fight the fires in WTC 7. The topic of discussion was
the firefighting effort in WTC 7. With no firefighting effort, the fires
would continue to burn out of control. There was no need for Silverstein to
ponder destroying a building that was already being destroyed, with nothing
being done to stop it. Referring to the topic of their conversation,
Silverstein indicates his concern over further loss of life and suggest they
pull 'it'. What is 'it'? 'It' is the topic of their conversation, the
firefighting effort. Given that he claims to have made that suggestion in
order to prevent further loss of life, how does your idea that he meant
"Blow up the building" fit in with that?
He then goes on to say "And they decided to pull it". Who are "they"? He was
talking to *a* single FDNY commander. What was the topic of discussion? The
firefighting effort? Who might 'they' have been then? Perhaps... the
firefighters, or FDNY. What would possibly lead you to believe FDNY would
make a decision to use controlled demolition to bring down a building that
was already in the process of being completely destroyed. Can you name a
single instance in which FDNY, or any fire department has engaged in such an
activity? Can you name a single instance in which FDNY, or any fire
department, had the authority to decide to deliberately demolish a building
with explosives or by pulling it?
Can you name a single instance in which a building owner goes on nationwide
TV, admits he committed insurance fraud, and he isn't investigated and
prosecuted for it by the insurance company (or companies)?
Why did
> I've never made a big deal about the statement. Its Silverstein's claim
> in the Supreme Court that the two plane attacks constituted two
> seperate terror attacks under the letter of his insurance policy, and
> thus he was entitled to two times the amount, 2x3.5 billion.
> And don't tell me that I've mistaken that one! I read it in a law
> report journal.
What you are mistaken about (aside from it being a federal court in
Manhattan, not the Supreme Court), and it is a mistake that is repeated on
almost every kook site, is that you begin by discussing WTC 7, then you talk
about the insurance policies on the WTC towers. The polices held on the
towers would not cover WTC 7, just as your insurance policy on one car does
not cover any other cars you own.
The 9 insurers in that case (note - that's 9 insurance companies that made
no attempt to go after Silverstein for insurance fraud, 9 insurance
companies that would have investigated whether or not building 7 was
intentionally demolished) were collectively responsible for a total of $1.1
billion per occurrence (for both towers). As a result of the court case,
they were required to pay for 2 occurrences - a total of $2.2 billion
dollars.
Silverstein is on the hook to pay for, and rebuild the towers (or, their
replacement). He also had to rebuild WTC 7 (which he has done) and 4
additional buildings.
Each building would have been insured, so the $2.2 billion has nothing to do
with WTC 7 or any other WTC buildings.
The cost to build the planned 'Freedom Tower' looks to be somewhere around
$3 billion.
The cost to rebuild WTC 7 was around $700 million. Silverstein collected
about half that much from the insurance policy on the original building. Tax
exempt liberty bonds were sold in order to raise the other half.
As a gauge for you to get some idea of costs involved, the MTA initially
estimated it would cost them $1.7 billion to repair the infrastructure
(primarily subway tunnels) damaged and destroyed on 9/11. (They later
updated that to $855 million).
If this guy is getting rich from some massive insurance scam, he's sure
doing a piss poor job of it.
i.am.not.usenetizen
http://rense.com/1.imagesH/demolitiondees.jpg
Sunny wrote:
> <911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171089740.6...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Morgan (MAMS)
"i.am.not.usenetizen" <i.am.not....@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:12tl7em...@corp.supernews.com...
;-)
i.am.not.usenetizen
> "i.am.not.usenetizen" <i.am.not....@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:12tl7em...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Visit this URL. It will help settled everything:
>>
>> http://rense.com/1.imagesH/demolitiondees.jpg
>
>
> ;-)
;-)
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
> (primarily subway tunnels) damaged and destroyed on 9/11. (They later
> updated that to $855 million).
>
> If this guy is getting rich from some massive insurance scam, he's sure
> doing a piss poor job of it.
WTC7 this in 2006 was the biggest realestate deal of the Year in NEw
YOrk.
Of course, you'd call that non-profitable?
. you don't understand finance.
There are countless figures you've missed in your speculation.
Why the hell do you think he is now known as Lucky Larry?
Animal05
Because "bib real estate deala" doesn't = profitable
>
> . you don't understand finance.
> There are countless figures you've missed in your speculation.
And you have presented none
911fal...@gmail.com
<Admiral...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote:
> <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
The payout was 5.5 billion. Reduced by Supreme Court decision from the
7billion Larry was trying to claim as two instances of terror attacks
amounting to 2 x 3.5 billion dollars.
one act of terror could have obliterated the entire block if it was
nuclear. And yet Larry would only get 3.5 billion. And yet you pursue
an economic forensice on his profit model for the fraud by making
assumptions about the complicity of the folio insurance companies who
had to pay out, by making landish assumptions about Larry's financial
management of his obligations to rebuild etc...
The guy laid out $150 million and then 6 weeks later had a claim to $5
billion.
It doesn't matter that he has to rebuild the towers and surrounds. He
has 5 billion dollars to contract whoever he wants., There are so many
kickbacks and empowerment because of his fortunate sitution and you
try to smooth it all over with icing sugar.
Really, you're operating from the presumption of innocence. Try
operating your assumptions froma presumption of guilt. You will
discver alot more that you're blinding yourself to.
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
LOL, you are truly deranged.
I'm glad you aren't in charge of anything of substance, financially,
because if you were, the investors would be fucked.
Big time.
BDK
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
He isn't, except by kooks and on kookpages. Larry is the equivalent of a
guy hitting the lottery for 5 million bucks and getting billed by his
lawyer for $4,999,980. Maybe Larry can take his "jackpot" and go to
Applebee's or Outback and live it up for an hour or so.
He's such a lucky guy.
BDK
David Morgan (MAMS)
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> Why the hell do you think he is now known as Lucky Larry?
Because of a $4.3 BILLION dollar return on a $124 Million dollar
invested of less than 6 months.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Animal05" <whowasI...@nomail.com> wrote in message...
> > WTC7 this in 2006 was the biggest realestate deal of the Year in NEw
> > YOrk.
> >
> > Of course, you'd call that non-profitable?
> Because "bib real estate deala" doesn't = profitable
Hey pundit-head... you've got *another* alias address for my bozo-bin.
Larry Silverstein made a $4.3 BILLION dollar return on a $124 Million dollar
investment of less than 6 months.
Hmmm.... not profitable, eh?
<fucking idiot.... PLONK>
Animal05
Davie proves to the world he is as ignorant about economics as he is
about flying an airplane.
David Morgan (MAMS)
<911fal...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> The guy laid out $150 million and then 6 weeks later had a claim to $5
> billion.
>
> It doesn't matter that he has to rebuild the towers and surrounds.
He doesn't "have" to do a damned thing. His agreement gave him the first
right of control over the rebuilding... there is no 'requirement'... just a desire.
John P.
You failed to answer any of the questions. Do you not have answers? Not even
guesses or theories?
>> No it is an industry slang.
>> The demolition industry disagrees with you. Why is that?
>> What is your source for this claim?
>> Correct. An FDNY commander called him. The FDNY commander called to tell
>> If this guy is getting rich from some massive insurance scam, he's sure
>> doing a piss poor job of it.
> WTC7 this in 2006 was the biggest realestate deal of the Year in NEw
> YOrk.
> Of course, you'd call that non-profitable?
> . you don't understand finance.
Right. So, if I have a total of $100 to my name, and I get loans to put up a
building, totalling $400 million, I have just made a profit of...? Well,
actually, I'm pretty much $400 million in debt, aren't I? I haven't made any
profit.
> There are countless figures you've missed in your speculation.
Fell free to clarify and provide any and all pertinent figures.
John P.
> <fucking idiot.... PLONK>
Cool. An honest sig line.
John P.
> The payout was 5.5 billion. Reduced by Supreme Court decision from the
> 7billion Larry was trying to claim as two instances of terror attacks
> amounting to 2 x 3.5 billion dollars.
> The guy laid out $150 million and then 6 weeks later had a claim to $5
> billion.
> It doesn't matter that he has to rebuild the towers and surrounds...
And you think *I* don't understand finance?
So, tell me Mr. Wall Street... If Silverstein is paid $5.5 billion, and his
cost to rebuild is $7 billion, how much profit has he made?
More importantly, if he was involved in a deliberate plan to demolish
building 7 or any of the WTC buildings, why would none of the many insurance
companies involved make any attempt to go after him for fraud?
> Really, you're operating from the presumption of innocence. Try
> operating your assumptions froma presumption of guilt. You will
> discver alot more that you're blinding yourself to.
True enough. Once I create a fantasy world where evidence, facts and reality
are ignored, and decide simply to label people guilty because I don't like
them, the blinders will come flying off. It will be like I'm free, free
falling, through the looking glass, off to Wonderland, Oz and all the great
places a good acid trip will take you.
Meanwhile, back here in the real world, facts and evidence rear their ugly
heads to impose themselves upon your desire to persecute those you envy.
John P.
> He doesn't "have" to do a damned thing. His agreement gave him the first
> right of control over the rebuilding... there is no 'requirement'... just
> a desire.
You fail to note that whether he chooses control over rebuilding or not,
whatever goes up there, he gets to pay for it.
Animal05
Once again Davey shows the world his knowledge of economics is as
minimal as that of piloting an airplane.......Davey the pile it.......LMAO
what a kook
>
>
>
>
>
> <fucking idiot.... PLONK>
Yeah.......shill bonus time. LOL
>
>
Animal05
I like how in kook world, you invest 1 million, borrow 9 million, take
out insurance for the 11 million, take a total loss, lose your tenants,
make a claim for the 11 million, somehow you are profiting 10 million.
on a 1 million investment. Somehow the 9 million loan, and the debt
service on it magically disappears in kook land.
John P.
> I like how in kook world, you invest 1 million, borrow 9 million, take out
> insurance for the 11 million, take a total loss, lose your tenants, make a
> claim for the 11 million, somehow you are profiting 10 million. on a 1
> million investment. Somehow the 9 million loan, and the debt service on
> it magically disappears in kook land.
They're not kooks, they magicians! They make debt and brain cells disappear
at freefall speeds! :-O
BDK
says...
Jeezus Pile-it Dave, can you even balance your checkbook without help?
I've never seen such a bunch of clueless people as you 911 whackjobs are
with regards to so many simple things.
You need to talk to an engineer to explain why WTC 1,2, and yes, 7 came
down, and an accountant to explain just how much Larry "made" from the
insurance.
You're Stoop-pendous Pile-it Dave..
BDK
BDK
Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com says...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in a message
>
> > <fucking idiot.... PLONK>
>
>
> Cool. An honest sig line.
>
>
>
When Davey wrecks his car and gets a check for 12K or whatever, did he
think he gets a new car for free? His nonsense about flying, and steel
and shit is one thing, but he can't even figure out that Silverstein has
a huge monthly payout that has no signs of ending anytime soon.
I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't dealing with Dave's 12 year old,
and not the real Dave.
BDK
BDK
Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com says...
Davey can't get the concept of debt apparently, Mom hasn't given him
access to her checkbook, and wisely so. Seriously, the fact that he has
absolutely no clue about finances makes me hope his wife (or mom, LOL)
takes care of the family finances. Dave might sign up for credit cards
and "make out like a bandit", and put them all out on the street.
BDK
John P.
> I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't dealing with Dave's 12 year old,
> and not the real Dave.
You must think very poorly of 12 year olds to say such a horrible thing.
Most 12 year olds I know have sufficient math skill to know that if I hand
them $10 and tell them they owe me $20, they haven't 'made' a dime... a fact
that is completely lost on Pilot Dave and his merry band of morons.
John P.
> Davey can't get the concept of debt apparently, Mom hasn't given him
> access to her checkbook, and wisely so. Seriously, the fact that he has
> absolutely no clue about finances makes me hope his wife (or mom, LOL)
> takes care of the family finances. Dave might sign up for credit cards
> and "make out like a bandit", and put them all out on the street.
If that were to be the case, I couldn't rag on him too much. I turned my
finances over to my wife as soon as possible. If I hadn't, I'd probably be
out on the street, with the coolest shopping cart full of all sort of
electronic toys and musical gear.... and I'd be pulling it with a really
nice 69 Charger. :-D
Vandar
And he's still paying rent on what used to be there.