Re: Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 7:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 3:25 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > <snip completely content-less post from knowsknothing that FAILED to
> > > rise to the challenge I issued to his stupid kooker ass:
>
> > You mean snip your lies upon lies.
>
> Nope.
Liar.
And you snipped the issue at hand again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing-wrong-Chinese-demolition-men-accidentally-create-leaning-tower-Liuzhou.html
>Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with even one
> thing.
>
And you are still a full of shit liar.
> We know that.
>
> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the homework I
> have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that you stupidly
> "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
Loser.
You are not the boss here.
I already named and posted your raft of lies which you snipped along
with the subject at hand in China.
But you keep avoiding it like the plague and snipping it.
Don't worry though everyone here knows your loser tactics.
Iarnrod
> On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 7:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 3:25 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > <snip completely content-less post from knowsknothing that FAILED to
> > > > rise to the challenge I issued to his stupid kooker ass:
>
> > > You mean snip your lies upon lies.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Liar.
That's funny, since you have PUSSIED OUT of EVERY challenge to name
even one thing I have said that you stupidly "think" is a lie. You
can't and you won't since I have never lied. And your ongoing FAILURE
to name one lie is testimony to that FACT!
> And you snipped the issue at hand again.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
That article is not an "issue at hand" as it has absolutely ZERO
relevance to anything under discussion, knowsknothing.
Now WHERE is your ONE CITE to anything I've said that you think is a
lie. Try it. You can't and you won't.
> >Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with even one
> > thing.
>
> And you are still a full of shit liar.
Since you FAILED to cite even one instance where I have lied -- which
you cannot possibly do since everything I have said is proven truth --
YOU are exposed as the lying liar that you are.
> > We know that.
>
> > And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the homework I
> > have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that you stupidly
> > "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> Loser.
That's you!
> You are not the boss here.
Yes I am. When you claim I am a liar but cannot name even on thing I
have said that is wrong, that entitles me to DEMAND YOUR STUPID KOOKER
ASS come up with just one little bitty thing... BUT YOU CAN'T AND YOU
WON'T because I have never lied.
> I already named and posted your raft of lies which you snipped along
> with the subject at hand in China.
You did no such thing. You have NEVER posted ANYTHING I have said
that's a lie. NEVER!!! That's a FACT!
China is irrelevant and has nothing to do with WTC. I never made any
claim about anything in China, you are merely DANCING AWAY from your
PROVEN FAILURE!
> But you keep avoiding it like the plague and snipping it.
BWAHAHAAAHAHAAA!!!! I keep snipping your non-responsive PUSSYING OUT.
You cannot name ONE THING I have said that is a lie. It's not even
possible.
> Don't worry though everyone here knows your loser tactics.
Projection. I have utterly defeated every kooker klaim you have made,
of course. Every single one.
I predict that again, in your next post, you will once more FAIL to
name anything I have said that you stupidly "think" is a lie. I say
that here and now, knowing full well even though you KNOW I have
predicted your failure, you STILL will fail to pony up an example. We
all know that you can't and you won't. You will now prove me right by
failing once again. GO =======>
AllYou!
news:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Liar.
> And you snipped the issue at hand again.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing-wrong-Chinese-demolition-men-accidentally-create-leaning-tower-Liuzhou.html
You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links, and
less and less of your own words. And the links you post don't
generally have much at all to do with the point at hand in the first
place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links, here ya
go.......... Refute these.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
And these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
http://jowenko.nl/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
>> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
>> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
>> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
>> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
>> even one thing.
>>
> And you are still a full of shit liar.
The evidence proves that you are.
>> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
>> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
>> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> Loser.
> You are not the boss here.
No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
and fail to respond.
knews4...@yahoo.com
You are a pathetic pathological liar.
One of your most blatant lies is that I have told any lies.
You also lie by omission when you snip text.
All I do is post links which you deny are relevant.
I'm tired of your childish games and name calling.
You wouldn't know relevance if it ran over you.
I say black you say white.
You've got nothing.
You present nothing.
You spew pablum.
Grow up.
Get a life.
Repent.
You are sick.
Everyone can see it except your little clone follower.
AllYou!
news:3eb391b3-53c4-4e7f...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Prove it.
> One of your most blatant lies is that I have told any lies.
> You also lie by omission when you snip text.
Prove it.
> All I do is post links
Which are hardly ever on point, or are hardly ever substantive. All
you do is post links as though they support your claims, or refute
those of others, but all the while knowing that it would take people
go through the laboreous process of opening each and every one of
your whacko links to prove that they're usless.
Well, I'll play that game too.
And these:
Now, respond to each one of those, in detail, or it's further proof
that you've got no argument.
> which you deny are relevant.
That's because they are not.
> I'm tired of your childish games and name calling.
Which YOU inititate.
> You wouldn't know relevance if it ran over you.
> I say black you say white.
That's because white is the right answer.
> You've got nothing.
Not true. Here:
And these:
> You present nothing.
Not true. Here:
And these:
> You spew pablum.
> Grow up.
> Get a life.
> Repent.
> You are sick.
> Everyone can see it except your little clone follower.
And you don't name call? LOL!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Liar.
> > And you snipped the issue at hand again.
>
> You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links, and
> less and less of your own words. And the links you post don't
> generally have much at all to do with the point at hand in the first
> place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
>
> Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links, here ya
> go.......... Refute these.
>
> http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attackshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Mythshttp://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-mythshttp://www.debunk911myths.org/http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theorieshttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
>
> And these:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=http://jowenko.nl/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Centerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQhttp://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling...
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbymehttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videoshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
> http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
>
> >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> >> even one thing.
>
> > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> The evidence proves that you are.
>
No it doesn't.
None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
> >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> > Loser.
> > You are not the boss here.
>
> No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> and fail to respond.
You are both blind.
Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing-wrong-Chinese-demolition-men-accidentally-create-leaning-tower-Liuzhou.html
AllYou!
news:145df331-d660-443e...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Jan 5, 4:31 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Liar.
>>> And you snipped the issue at hand again.
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>>
>> You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links,
>> and less and less of your own words. And the links you post
>> don't generally have much at all to do with the point at hand
>> in the first place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
>>
>> Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links,
>> here ya go.......... Refute these.
>>
> All of them have been fully debunked as CIA/Mosad sites.
Now, how can you possibly vilify other people for snipping your
links, when you've always done exactly the same thing to others.
Well, none of your tin-foil hat based sites have ever provided even
a scintilla of evidence of anything. That's why you've given up
saying what they actually say, and just post links. Any time you've
ever provided any quotes from those sites, they've been roundly, and
absolutely debunked. And the proof that this is true is that you've
given up even quoting those sites. All you do now is post links to
anything even remotely related to whatever point that you're trying
to make. It's what we call throwing all sorts of shit against the
wall in the desperate hope that some of it sticks.
Anyway, here are the links to the real deal sites that you snipped.
And these:
>>> And you are still a full of shit liar.
>>
>> The evidence proves that you are.
>>
>
> No it doesn't.
Yup, it actually does.
Iarnrod
YOU FAILED!!
You are a better dancer than Ginger Rogers, dearie. You dance away yet
again.
Even though I have never lied and have challenged you repeatedly to
NAME ONE THING, you cannot. You merely repeat your lie thinking I will
not notice that you haven’t actually alleged any.
> One of your most blatant lies is that I have told any lies.
I have proven that you lie constantly. FACT.
> You also lie by omission when you snip text.
I do not, of course. You’re just whining and arm-waving. I snip text
for brevity; your kookshit lies remain in your post; I do nothing to
delete your posts. Why would I? I WANT the world to see how much of a
stupid LIAR you are!
> All I do is post links which you deny are relevant.
Your links are lies and are irrelevant. That is not my problem but
yours. Your stupid little Chinese example is completely irrelevant to
anything we’re discussing and most certainly doesn’t address a single
thing I have said. It is simply your diversion from the fact that
you’re a lying liar.
> I'm tired of your childish games and name calling.
I do no such thing, moron.
> You wouldn't know relevance if it ran over you.
I possess all relevance and have proven that what you post is
irrelevant.
> I say black you say white.
Then white it is, since I proved you’re a liar.
> You've got nothing.
I have everything, of course, because you are lying again as I proved.
> You present nothing.
I present everything, of course, while you arm-wave.
> You spew pablum.
Everything I have said is proven truth and you have shown by your
repeated FAILURE to NAME ONE THING I HAVE SAID that you stupidly think
is a lie that YOU CANNOT BRING YOURSELF to challenge even one
statement I have made. FACT FACT FACT.
You STILL run away from the challenge in this very reply of yours.
STILL RUNNING AWAY. But I chase you down and pin you to the ground and
point out to the usenet reading world (maybe, what, 100 people left on
usenet?) that you are an UTTER FAILURE who cannot back up a single
kooker klaim you make.
> Grow up.
Already grown with grandkids.
> Get a life.
Got it already. Much more fulfilling and happy than your miserable
hateful stupid existence.
Now post another reply that FAILS TO STATE ONE LIE I HAVE SAID!!
<chuckle>
Iarnrod
> On Jan 5, 4:31 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > Innews:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Liar.
> > > And you snipped the issue at hand again.
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links, and
> > less and less of your own words. And the links you post don't
> > generally have much at all to do with the point at hand in the first
> > place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
>
> > Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links, here ya
> > go.......... Refute these.
>
> All of them have been fully debunked as CIA/Mosad sites.
BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!!!!
Are you on DRUGS???
> >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
>
> > And these:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http:/......
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> > >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> > >> even one thing.
>
> > > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> > The evidence proves that you are.
>
> No it doesn't.
It does, of course, not in dispute.
> None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
What is to address? There' was no thermite. That site is delusionally
wrong. FACT.
Thermite isn't even physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11.
Stop abusing drugs.
> > >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> > >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> > >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> > > Loser.
> > > You are not the boss here.
>
> > No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> > observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> > observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> > and fail to respond.
>
> You are both blind.
We see. of course, while YOU are blind AND stupid.
> Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
You're a moron!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 5, 1:41 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:31 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > Innews:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
> > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > > On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Liar.
> > > > And you snipped the issue at hand again.
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > > You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links, and
> > > less and less of your own words. And the links you post don't
> > > generally have much at all to do with the point at hand in the first
> > > place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
>
> > > Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links, here ya
> > > go.......... Refute these.
>
> > All of them have been fully debunked as CIA/Mosad sites.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!!!!
>
> Are you on DRUGS???
>
>
> > >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
>
> > > And these:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http:/......
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> > > >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > > >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > > >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > > >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> > > >> even one thing.
>
Another of your lies.
> > > > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> > > The evidence proves that you are.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> It does, of course, not in dispute.
>
Another of your lies.
> > None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
>
> What is to address? There' was no thermite. That site is delusionally
> wrong. FACT.
>
Another of your lies.
> Thermite isn't even physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11.
>
Another of your lies.
> Stop abusing drugs.
>
Another of your lies.
> > > >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> > > >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> > > >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> > > > Loser.
> > > > You are not the boss here.
>
> > > No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> > > observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> > > observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> > > and fail to respond.
>
> > You are both blind.
>
> We see. of course, while YOU are blind AND stupid.
>
Another of your lies.
> > Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>
> You're a moron!
Sure, sure.....
Iarnrod
> On Jan 6, 7:45 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 1:41 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 4:31 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Innews:655bc06a-8973-4f11...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
> > > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > > > On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Liar.
> > > > > And you snipped the issue at hand again.
> > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > > > You do realize, right, that you're posting more and more links, and
> > > > less and less of your own words. And the links you post don't
> > > > generally have much at all to do with the point at hand in the first
> > > > place, not even to mention that they're whacked.
>
> > > > Well, for as long as you'd prefer to have a battle of links, here ya
> > > > go.......... Refute these.
>
> > > All of them have been fully debunked as CIA/Mosad sites.
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!!!!
>
> > Are you on DRUGS???
>
> Yes, the Truth Drug.
Then why are you incapable of saying even one true thing? You're just
one more jooooo-obsessed hate filled lying moron who sees jooooos
behind every door and under every bed, knowsknothing. Kooks like you
are a dime a dozen and your completely unsupported claims are worth
even less.
> > > >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
>
> > > > And these:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http:/......
> > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > > > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> > > > >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > > > >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > > > >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > > > >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> > > > >> even one thing.
>
> Another of your lies.
BWAHAHAHHAAAAA!! You are prima facie lying here, kookshit. It is
UNDENIABLE that you HAVE NOT and CANNOT come up with even one thing.
Even as you deny it, you are failing!! This must be a drug-induced
error on your part!
> > > > > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> > > > The evidence proves that you are.
>
> > > No it doesn't.
>
> > It does, of course, not in dispute.
>
> Another of your lies.
Nope, You fail to support that with even ONE CLAIM of any lie you
stupidly "think" I have said.
In fact, we all know that you are AFRAID to confront me with any
statement I have made that you "think" is a lie, and the reason of
course is that you KNOW I will shove the truth up your stupid kooker
ass. You can't face that ultimate defeat, so that's the reason in post
after post that you FAIL to NAME ONE THING!!
> > > None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
>
> > What is to address? There' was no thermite. That site is delusionally
> > wrong. FACT.
>
> Another of your lies.
Nope. It's fact and you FAIL to produce any evidence that your claims
are true. You CAN'T and you WON'T because they are false. So you play
the stalling game, replying with arm-waving denials of the truth
hoping I will go away. I won't. I am on your ass day in and day out
confronting you with the FACT that you cannot and will not EVER
support any of your physically impossible claims.
> > Thermite isn't even physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11.
>
> Another of your lies.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Show then how your calim that thermite can defy gravity is supposed to
work, mouth breather!!!
I can't WAIT for this one but I am afraid I will have to because of
your proven history of avoiding provision of ANY evidence for any of
your stupid kookshit claims.
BWAHAAAHHAHAAA!!!
> > Stop abusing drugs.
>
> Another of your lies.
FACT.
> > > > >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> > > > >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> > > > >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> > > > > Loser.
> > > > > You are not the boss here.
>
> > > > No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> > > > observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> > > > observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> > > > and fail to respond.
>
> > > You are both blind.
>
> > We see. of course, while YOU are blind AND stupid.
>
> Another of your lies.
FACT!
> > > Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>
> > You're a moron!
>
> Sure, sure.....
PROVEN FACT!!!
For instance, above in this very post, you claimed thermite can defy
gravity. Please provide your evidence.
I can't wait for your next arm-waving denial.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Nothing but spew.
> > > > >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
>
> > > > > And these:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http:/......
> > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > > > > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > > > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> > > > > >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > > > > >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > > > > >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > > > > >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> > > > > >> even one thing.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> BWAHAHAHHAAAAA!! You are prima facie lying here, kookshit. It is
> UNDENIABLE that you HAVE NOT and CANNOT come up with even one thing.
> Even as you deny it, you are failing!! This must be a drug-induced
> error on your part!
>
I've pointed out many for days.
Get your seeing eye dog to read it to you.
> > > > > > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> > > > > The evidence proves that you are.
>
> > > > No it doesn't.
>
> > > It does, of course, not in dispute.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> Nope, You fail to support that with even ONE CLAIM of any lie you
> stupidly "think" I have said.
>
Sure, sure...
> In fact, we all know that you are AFRAID to confront me with any
> statement I have made that you "think" is a lie, and the reason of
> course is that you KNOW I will shove the truth up your stupid kooker
> ass. You can't face that ultimate defeat, so that's the reason in post
> after post that you FAIL to NAME ONE THING!!
>
> > > > None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
>
> > > What is to address? There' was no thermite. That site is delusionally
> > > wrong. FACT.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> Nope.
Where is your proof besides you mouth spew?
>It's fact and you FAIL to produce any evidence that your claims
> are true. You CAN'T and you WON'T because they are false. So you play
> the stalling game, replying with arm-waving denials of the truth
> hoping I will go away. I won't. I am on your ass day in and day out
> confronting you with the FACT that you cannot and will not EVER
> support any of your physically impossible claims.
>
And you keep saying something is impossible that is not.
> > > Thermite isn't even physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Show then how your calim that thermite can defy gravity is supposed to
> work, mouth breather!!!
>
I never claimed such and you've never cited where I did.
Your lies continue.
I've shown thermite cutting sideways.
Directed charges can go anywhere.
You lie and say they can't.
Spray on Nano-thermite could eaily bust steel joints.
> I can't WAIT for this one but I am afraid I will have to because of
> your proven history of avoiding provision of ANY evidence for any of
> your stupid kookshit claims.
>
> BWAHAAAHHAHAAA!!!
>
> > > Stop abusing drugs.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> FACT.
>
Yup, Jones' work is undeniable fact.
Nano-thermite was used on the WTC.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
>
> > > > > >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> > > > > >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> > > > > >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
That Jones is lying or a fraud.
You have nothing to prove it.
You lie and say it is disproven without any proof.
> > > > > > Loser.
> > > > > > You are not the boss here.
>
> > > > > No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> > > > > observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> > > > > observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> > > > > and fail to respond.
>
> > > > You are both blind.
>
> > > We see. of course, while YOU are blind AND stupid.
>
> > Another of your lies.
>
> FACT!
>
Yes.
The fact is you continue to lie and deny.
> > > > Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > > BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>
Laughing proves nothing.
Buildings don't disintegrate from falling.
The botched demolition proves it.
> > > You're a moron!
>
> > Sure, sure.....
>
> PROVEN FACT!!!
>
Another of your lies.
> For instance, above in this very post, you claimed thermite can defy
> gravity. Please provide your evidence.
>
I've shown thermite directed and cutting steel about 12 times.
Here is a simple patent.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4474113.html
You deny the example in the video you always snip can be scaled up to
take down the WTC.
Nano-thermite could easily do so.
You are a liar.
> I can't wait for your next arm-waving denial.-
You are looking in the mirror again.
The only arm waving here is by you.
You are a pathological denialist and a perpetual liar.
AllYou!
news:9fea4ee9-db3e-4d90...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> :
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:9fea4ee9-db3e-4d90...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
<snip a bunch of dead and useless links except one>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
Thanks.
You have one link right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
AllYou!
news:25645e7f-a0e9-4aab...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Yes, that was in there to prove the kinds of whackos you use as
proof. But I can understand your confusion, so I'll leave it off
the list from now on.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
Any others?
DanB
> In
> news:25645e7f-a0e9-4aab...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
> knews4...@yahoo.com<knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> On Jan 6, 1:51 pm, "AllYou!"<ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>> Innews:9fea4ee9-db3e-4d90...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>>
>> <snip a bunch of dead and useless links except one>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>>
>> Thanks.
>> You have one link right.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>
> Yes, that was in there to prove the kinds of whackos you use as
> proof. But I can understand your confusion, so I'll leave it off
> the list from now on.
>
>
You stomped your feet about a 'link' war!
Well, are you not special.....
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
(why an I feeding this troll?)
Well, I'm not, but in allYou, no name's world. It is simple:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A>
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>> In
>> news:25645e7f-a0e9-4aab...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4...@yahoo.com<knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>> On Jan 6, 1:51 pm, "AllYou!"<ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>> Innews:9fea4ee9-db3e-4d90...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>>>
>>> <snip a bunch of dead and useless links except one>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> You have one link right.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>>
>> Yes, that was in there to prove the kinds of whackos you use as
>> proof. But I can understand your confusion, so I'll leave it
>> off the list from now on.
>>
>>
> See: Question for allYou! about our monetary system...
>
> You stomped your feet about a 'link' war!
> Well, are you not special.....
I'll indulge your continuing obession with me for a little bit here,
mostly because I'm bored, to reiterate that I never said that I was
special. What I said is that if someone thinjs that a reasonable
and rational debate is to engage in dueling links, then I'll ignore
them, as I've pretty much done with you, or I'll simply show them
how silly they're being by posting my own set of links in response
to their links, and call it a day. My choice.
Of course, there are circumstances where posting a link to a site in
order to substantiate a claim is appropriate. But once the debate
sinks to the level where that's all that's being done, then it's
rather useless.
And whereas you brought up the thread about where YOU, out of the
bluse, asked me about my thoughts on the monetary system, it was
YOU, who quickly reduced that exchange to nothing more than
name-calling and insults just because I disagreed with you. Here's
your response to my very first response to you, and then you took it
down hill from there...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in
>> the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not
>> control the supply, nature does.
> That's irrelevant.
No, it is not.
> Man controls its value. If there were no intellect, gold would
> just be gold.
That was just plain dumb. But, if you had some gold you would like
to
send me, it would be fitting!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, if ever you have anything of substance to post to me, and if
ever you can control your juvenile instincts long enough to refrain
from undue acrimony, I might very well engage you is some debate or
other. But until then, move along, please.
PV
>> All of them have been fully debunked as CIA/Mosad sites.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAA!!!!
>
>Are you on DRUGS???
Apparently. He says that crap all the time, but never shows WHERE they were
debunked. I would assume it's on rense/flush cycle. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
DanB
> In news:jBf1n.2411$Sk4...@newsfe10.iad,
> DanB<a...@some.net> mused:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> In
>>> news:25645e7f-a0e9-4aab...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
>>> knews4...@yahoo.com<knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>>> On Jan 6, 1:51 pm, "AllYou!"<ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>>> Innews:9fea4ee9-db3e-4d90...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
>>>>
>>>> <snip a bunch of dead and useless links except one>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> You have one link right.
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
>>>
>>> Yes, that was in there to prove the kinds of whackos you use as
>>> proof. But I can understand your confusion, so I'll leave it
>>> off the list from now on.
>>>
>>>
>> See: Question for allYou! about our monetary system...
>>
>> You stomped your feet about a 'link' war!
>> Well, are you not special.....
>
Wow, should I feel special?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A>
hhc314
IDIOT!
Harry C,
Iarnrod
Who the FUCK are you, moron? Are you here as a proxy to get your ass
kicked in knowknothing's place?
So how come YOU fail to state one thing I have said that is a lie?
It's because you cannot. It's impossible to do, since I have not lied.
Don't even try to play here, you'll get your ass kicked.
Iarnrod
BWAHAHAAAAHAHAAA!!! YOU are the fuckin’ racist who brought it up, shit-
for-brains. You can’t even remember three posts ago? Are you glue-
sniffing?
> Nothing but spew.
Well, from you, yeah, jooooo-hating racist.
> > > > > >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
>
> > > > > > And these:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=http:/......
> > > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > > > > > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > > > > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> > > > > > >> Snipped your non-responsive foaming rant meant to divert
> > > > > > >> attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > > > > > >> anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > > > > > >> knowsknothing, because you WILL NOT and CANNOT come up with
> > > > > > >> even one thing.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > BWAHAHAHHAAAAA!! You are prima facie lying here, kookshit. It is
> > UNDENIABLE that you HAVE NOT and CANNOT come up with even one thing.
> > Even as you deny it, you are failing!! This must be a drug-induced
> > error on your part!
>
> I've pointed out many for days.
In fact you have pointed out this many: ZERO.
It is undeniable that you have YET to cite one single statement of
mine that you wish to challenge as a lie.
You can’t and you won’t. You’ve been avoiding it for weeks, dancing
away prettier than Ginger Rogers.
> Get your seeing eye dog to read it to you.
It doesn’t exist, moron. You have yet to name one. You STILL won’t
even after repeated challenge from me. You STILL won’t. Your next post
will STILL be absent one single claim of a lie by me. Just arm-waving
denial of reality.
> > > > > > > And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
> > > > > > The evidence proves that you are.
>
> > > > > No it doesn't.
>
> > > > It does, of course, not in dispute.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > Nope, You fail to support that with even ONE CLAIM of any lie you
> > stupidly "think" I have said.
>
> Sure, sure...
Obviously. This post for instance, there are none at all, just like
all the others. Just more of your repeated “Oh, I posted them,” when
the whole world can see you have not.
> > In fact, we all know that you are AFRAID to confront me with any
> > statement I have made that you "think" is a lie, and the reason of
> > course is that you KNOW I will shove the truth up your stupid kooker
> > ass. You can't face that ultimate defeat, so that's the reason in post
> > after post that you FAIL to NAME ONE THING!!
>
> > > > > None of your CIA/Mossad sites address this.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
>
> > > > What is to address? There' was no thermite. That site is delusionally
> > > > wrong. FACT.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Where is your proof besides you mouth spew?
Proof? No thermite was found. What else is needed? Oh yeah, how about
THIS: Thermite is physically incapable of producing what happened on
9/11.
Otherwise you need to explain your new scientific theory of magic
gravity defying thermite. <chuckle>
> >It's fact and you FAIL to produce any evidence that your claims
> > are true. You CAN'T and you WON'T because they are false. So you play
> > the stalling game, replying with arm-waving denials of the truth
> > hoping I will go away. I won't. I am on your ass day in and day out
> > confronting you with the FACT that you cannot and will not EVER
> > support any of your physically impossible claims.
>
> And you keep saying something is impossible that is not.
Not at all. You are the one who proposes the existence of silent and
invisible explosives and gravity defying thermite. These might exist
only in cartoons, but not in real life, knowsknothing.
> > > > Thermite isn't even physically capable of doing what happened on 9/11.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> > Show then how your claim that thermite can defy gravity is supposed to
> > work, mouth breather!!!
>
> I never claimed such and you've never cited where I did.
You claimed thermite was used. Thermite burns downward through
gravity. Thus it is physically incapable of cutting through steel
columns. The essence of your claim is an utter cartoon magic physical
impossiblilty.
You are too stupid to realize the implications of the kookshit claims
you make. If you wish to state the buildings were blown up with
explosives, you must explain why no explosives are going off.
See how reality works?
Back away from the gluepot, knowsknothing, and sober the fuck up.
> Your lies continue.
Your utter failure to name a single one is what continues. I have
never lied. FACT. You have never even alleged one. Also FACT!
> I've shown thermite cutting sideways.
No you haven’t.
> Directed charges can go anywhere.
Not through steel columns.
The devices you showed did not exist in 2001. Nor were any of the tens
of thousands that would have been required to do so, even if
physically possible to cut steel columns, ever recovered in the
debris. Did magic ninja steel-eating mites devour them before recovery
crews could spot any of them? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Again you are too stupid to realize the implications of your claims.
If those none-existent linear cutting charges had been used, the
thousands of housings would have been in the debris pile.
OOOOOPPPPSSSSS!!! Another EPIC FAIL for knowsknothing!! He proposes a
theory that something not present was present!
> You lie and say they can't.
I told the truth that they can’t.
> Spray on Nano-thermite could eaily bust steel joints.
No it can’t. “Spray on” thermite!!! Too fuckin FUNNY!!!!
You have no clue how it works and what it does.
Have you even SEEN the videos of it in action???? BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!
Tell us where those wild slow-burning flames were seen on the towers
at collapse initiation… BWAHAAHAHAHAAA!!!! Again you have a theory
that is completely contradicted by ALL of the evidence!
> > I can't WAIT for this one but I am afraid I will have to because of
> > your proven history of avoiding provision of ANY evidence for any of
> > your stupid kookshit claims.
>
> > BWAHAAAHHAHAAA!!!
>
> > > > Stop abusing drugs.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > FACT.
>
> Yup, Jones' work is undeniable fact.
It’s been completely debunked as false.
> Nano-thermite was used on the WTC.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
Sorry but not physically possible. Thermite does not do what was done
on 9/11.
> > > > > > >> And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the
> > > > > > >> homework I have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that
> > > > > > >> you stupidly "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> That Jones is lying or a fraud.
That’s been proven.
> You have nothing to prove it.
I do of course. Everyone does. It is prima facie that he is lying.
> You lie and say it is disproven without any proof.
The proof is in. He lied. There was no thermite, and thermite cannot
do what was done. It’s not in the realm of physical possibility.
> > > > > > > Loser.
> > > > > > > You are not the boss here.
>
> > > > > > No, but he is a pretty good observer, and based upon his
> > > > > > observations, and mine, and using your standard for how some
> > > > > > observations are therefore proof, we've proven that you PUSSY OUT,
> > > > > > and fail to respond.
>
> > > > > You are both blind.
>
> > > > We see. of course, while YOU are blind AND stupid.
>
> > > Another of your lies.
>
> > FACT!
>
> Yes.
> The fact is you continue to lie and deny.
The FACT is that this has never occurred. I have been proven correct
on everything I have said and you have been proven wrong.
> > > > > Observe how buildings fall if not blown up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > > > BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>
> Laughing proves nothing.
Your cite proves nothing since it is immaterial.
> Buildings don't disintegrate from falling.
They do, of course.
> The botched demolition proves it.
It does not such thing.
Unless you believe people shot in the head cannot die, since some
people have been shot in the head and have lived.
> > > > You're a moron!
>
> > > Sure, sure.....
>
> > PROVEN FACT!!!
>
> Another of your lies.
A proven fact is not a lie, dearie.
> > For instance, above in this very post, you claimed thermite can defy
> > gravity. Please provide your evidence.
>
> I've shown thermite directed and cutting steel about 12 times.
No you haven’t.
> Here is a simple patent.http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4474113.html
Long AFETR 9/11. Try again, kook.
> You deny the example in the video you always snip can be scaled up to
> take down the WTC.
It could not of course. You showed a blast that cut a tiny steel
rebar. It cannot cut steel columns of a building. It cannot be “scaled
up” yet be invisible and silent. Even if it could, the plain fact is
that ZERO of these devices was present on 9/11. Undeniable FACT.
> Nano-thermite could easily do so.
Nano-thermite is physically incapable of doing so.
> You are a liar.
Everything I have said is proven FACT, which makes YOU the liar. You
prove that by lying when you claim I lied.
> > I can't wait for your next arm-waving denial.-
>
> You are looking in the mirror again.
At you behind me waving your arms in denial of proven reality.
> The only arm waving here is by you.
That’s you looking in your stupid mirror.
> You are a pathological denialist and a perpetual liar.
You have yet to show one thing I said that is even wrong let alone a
lie.
YOU are the proven liar and that is a FACT.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
DanB
>
> Who the FUCK are you, moron? Are you here as a proxy to get your ass
> kicked in knowknothing's place?
BAHAHAHA. This is funny, Nimrod throwing a sissy fit on usenet
> Don't even try to play here, you'll get your ass kicked.
BAWWAWAWWAWAW, what a big man!
(this guy is a real retard....)
Iarnrod
> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of
your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!!
<sips Victory Iced Tea>
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod wrote:
>
> > Who the FUCK are you, moron? Are you here as a proxy to get your ass
> > kicked in knowknothing's place?
>
> BAHAHAHA. This is funny, Nimrod throwing a sissy fit on usenet
BWAAAAHAHAAHAAA!!! THIS is funny, some shit-for-brains troll
volunteers for me to kick his stupid kook ass!
> > Don't even try to play here, you'll get your ass kicked.
>
> BAWWAWAWWAWAW, what a big man!
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!! I am not a man, you stupid troll.
> (this guy is a real retard....)
You sure as fuck are, kooker.
AllYou!
Yes, I'm sure that you are very special.
Here's the part that you snipped, BTW. After all, you went to the
trouble of referencing that thread, it seems to me you should be
proud of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
knews4...@yahoo.com
All your lies wrapped into one.
Thanks for playing troll.
DanB
> On Jan 7, 7:39 pm, DanB<a...@some.net> wrote:
>> Iarnrod wrote:
>>
>>> Who the FUCK are you, moron? Are you here as a proxy to get your ass
>>> kicked in knowknothing's place?
>>
>> BAHAHAHA. This is funny, Nimrod throwing a sissy fit on usenet
>
> BWAAAAHAHAAHAAA!!! THIS is funny, some shit-for-brains troll
> volunteers for me to kick his stupid kook ass!
Gee, this guy is going to kick my ass on usenet, how cheeky.
>>> Don't even try to play here, you'll get your ass kicked.
>>
>> BAWWAWAWWAWAW, what a big man!
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!! I am not a man, you stupid troll.
Troll? Have you looked in the mirror? Man, woman, you only pretend to
have balls either way.
>> (this guy is a real retard....)
>
> You sure as fuck are, kooker.
I'm not a kooker, kooker, you're a kooker!
Idiot.....
Iarnrod
> On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
>
> > From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of
> > your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!!
>
> > <sips Victory Iced Tea>
>
> All your lies wrapped into one.
You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I have
said that is a lie; that would not be possible for obvious reasons.
You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively proved.
FACT.
> Thanks for playing troll.
And for winning!!!
DanB
AllYou!
news:171855bc-bd54-4dd1...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 6:33 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim
>>>> of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm
>>>> wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
>>
>> From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that
>> all of your psychically impossible claims have been proven
>> FALSE!!!
>>
>> <sips Victory Iced Tea>
>
> All your lies wrapped into one.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=
http://jowenko.nl/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
> Thanks for playing troll.
>
> http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
AllYou!
That's right. I'm not at all special in the way that you are.
Now, why would you bring up a thread in which we had some exchanges,
and then, when I welcome a look at those exchanges, you just keep
snipping any reference to them? Like this, for instance......
> That's irrelevant.
No, it is not.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
DanB
>
> Now, why would you bring up a thread in which we had some exchanges,
Let's, see...
> I'll indulge your continuing obession with me for a little bit here...
Nope, I don't need to play your stupid game. You must be a nitwit to
think you're that special.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 7, 9:10 pm, knowsknoth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
>
> > > From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of
> > > your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!!
>
> > > <sips Victory Iced Tea>
>
> > All your lies wrapped into one.
>
> You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I have
> said that is a lie;
Liar.
I pointed them out over an over and over and over.
that would not be possible for obvious reasons.
But not to you because you are blind to your own pathology.
> You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively proved.
> FACT.
>
You show nothing.
You prove nothing.
You spew.
You lie.
You deny.
You "claim."
> > Thanks for playing troll.
>
> And for winning!!!
Yup you win the 2009-2010 Pathological Liar Award.
Now explain why these buildings that were blown out at the bottom
didn't experience "global collapse" like the WTC buildings.
Why didn't they turn into huge dust clouds throwing beams hundreds of
feet?
Why did the building that toppled follow the Law of Conservation of
motion but WTC 2 didn't?
After all "their dynamic load" is released by the demolition
explosions on the lower floors and they should fall to the ground and
turn to dust just like the WTC towers did.
I know you won't "explain" because you are blind so it's just another
chance for the world to see more your spew, denial, and lies.
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>>
>> Now, why would you bring up a thread in which we had some
>> exchanges, and then, when I welcome a look at those exchanges...
>
> Let's, see...
Now, why would you bring up a thread in which we had some exchanges,
AllYou!
news:5ff0c0ac-93ab-4dcc...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I
>> have said that is a lie;
>
> Liar.
> I pointed them out over an over and over and over.
That's funny, because I can't find one instance of where that ever
happened.
>> You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively
>> proved. FACT.
>>
> You show nothing.
> You prove nothing.
> You spew.
> You lie.
> You deny.
> You "claim."
Well, then there's this....
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:5ff0c0ac-93ab-4dcc...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I
> >> have said that is a lie;
>
> > Liar.
> > I pointed them out over an over and over and over.
>
> That's funny, because I can't find one instance of where that ever
> happened.
>
> >> You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively
> >> proved. FACT.
>
> > You show nothing.
> > You prove nothing.
> > You spew.
> > You lie.
> > You deny.
> > You "claim."
>
> Well, then there's this....
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbymehttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videoshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
> http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
And this load of many dead, CIA/Mossad links proves that you can spew
useless links.
Robert Higgins
> On Jan 2, 9:55 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 1, 7:52 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 3:25 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > <snip completely content-less post from knowsknothing that FAILED to
> > > > rise to the challenge I issued to his stupid kooker ass:
>
> > > You mean snip your lies upon lies.
>
> > Nope.
>
> And you snipped the issue at hand again.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239841/Youre-doing...
>
> > attention from the FACT that you PUSSIED OUT and FAILED to name
> > anything I have said that is a lie. You are STILL evading,
> > thing.
>
> And you are still a full of shit liar.
>
>
> > And you will continue to PUSSY OUT and NOT RESPOND to the homework I
> > have assigned you: NAME ONE THING I have said that you stupidly
> > "think" is a lie. Try again, dearie....
>
> You are not the boss here.
> with the subject at hand in China.
I don't understand exactly what the video is supposed to "prove". This
is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like 9/11.
It's not hard to find botched building demolitions. In general, this
casts some doubt on a successful controlled demolition of so large a
structure as the WTC, especially in tandem with aircraft strikes. Was
there an aircraft strike involved in the Chinese video, and I just
missed it?
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old building does
NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did without
even more help than the failed demolition shows.
>This
> is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like 9/11.
The point exactly.
Buildings don't "globally collapse" without even more help than is
shown in the video.
The "Plane, fire, collapse" conspiracy theorists claim that fires and
a few broken beams caused the WTC Towers to globally collapse into
micron sized dust and throw tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from
"gravity."
That isn't how it works as can be seen in the Chines video.
> It's not hard to find botched building demolitions.
And none of them look like the WTC "gravitational collapse" which they
should if gravity could pulverize buildings once they start to fall.
>In general, this
> casts some doubt on a successful controlled demolition of so large a
> structure as the WTC, especially in tandem with aircraft strikes.
You have it backwards.
>Was
> there an aircraft strike involved in the Chinese video, and I just
> missed it?
You are lost.
Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the
demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have
turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams.
And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING.
The tops of the WTC buildings would not have pulverized and launched
beams LATERALLY hundreds of feet from "gravity."
If that is how it worked the Chinese building left standing in the
video would have "globally collapsed" into a nice pile of rubble once
it got a start from the charges exploding below allowing the dynamic
load of the rest of the building to crumble the rest of the building
as the plane, fire, global collapse conspiracists claim happened at
the WTC.
But as we can SEE buildings need to be blown out floor by floor to
"collapse."
DanB
> I'll indulge your continuing obession with me for a little bit here,
> mostly because I'm bored...
No thanks. Your bait stinks. You are still a nitwit....
PV
>Again you are too stupid to realize the implications of your claims.
>If those none-existent linear cutting charges had been used, the
>thousands of housings would have been in the debris pile.
>OOOOOPPPPSSSSS!!! Another EPIC FAIL for knowsknothing!! He proposes a
>theory that something not present was present!
Simple, they were made out of concrete, and got turned into monoatomic dust
with all the rest of it. Snort.
I kind of like the metal-eating nanoparasite idea. Expect it to show up on
a troother site soon. *
PV
>And this load of many dead, CIA/Mossad links proves that you can spew
>useless links.
Google, wikipedia, slate magazine, amazon.com, The San Francisco Gate,
Scientific American, and the New York Times are all CIA/Mossad front
operations? I assume you can prove that? How would you like a pulitzer
prize?
Also note - most of those links aren't dead. You see, you can't come here
and post links to crap which you claims prove something, and then say some
other links DON'T prove something. You've been playing this "I'm just
posting a link, I don't have to prove it" game in a number of newsgroups
for years, and it still doesn't mean shit. Give up. *
PV
>That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old building does
>NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did without
>even more help than the failed demolition shows.
So let me get this straight, you claim that because some guys screwed up a
demolition, that it proves that some other unrelated incident on the other
side of the planet WAS a demolition? What the hell?
I just threw myself at the ground flapping my arms and failed to take
flight, that must mean that all birds are CIA surveilance devices. *
PV
>> Harry C,
>
>Who the FUCK are you, moron? Are you here as a proxy to get your ass
>kicked in knowknothing's place?
I have a feeling that someone is forging Harry C's from line. Either that
or he's had some sort of brain issue, because the real Harry C. is a
crochety old fart, but one that's usually pretty much on target. *
Robert Higgins
You are using a very poor example. Here, some of the charges (there
are probably not so many in total, since it is a relatively small
building) failed to go off - and that is without the complications of
multi-level fires are airplane strikes. The frequency of botched
building demolitions shows that, even with lots of time, it is kind of
tricky to make it work perfectly.
Since this demolition was planned, they probably took the precaution
of removing anything valuable or flammable from the building. That
wasn't the case in any of the WTC buildings.
>
> >This
> > is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like 9/11.
>
> The point exactly.
> Buildings don't "globally collapse" without even more help than is
> shown in the video.
How do you know? Specifically, how does the video tell you much about
ANY OTHER different situation? It doesn't. No one cold get any data
about 9/11, one way of the other, from this video.
> The "Plane, fire, collapse" conspiracy theorists claim that fires and
> a few broken beams caused the WTC Towers to globally collapse into
> micron sized dust and throw tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from
> "gravity."
> That isn't how it works as can be seen in the Chines video.
How the hell does THIS video tell you ANYTHING about what happens with
fires and planes?
If you have a video where a building is hit by a plane, that still
doesn't prove that a building could be brought down by a plane strike
under similar (but not exactly similar circumstances. (I can show
videos of people hit by bullets where they DON'T die - but I doubt you
would stand in front of a similar round and hope for a lucky result,
too.)
VIdeos don't prove anything - other than that WTC got hit by two
planes, caught fire, and collapsed.
>
> > It's not hard to find botched building demolitions.
>
> And none of them look like the WTC "gravitational collapse" which they
> should if gravity could pulverize buildings once they start to fall.
Why would a BOTCHED demolition look like WTC? BTW, the Chinese
building was 22 stories tall - not anywhere close to the size of the
WTC. Each of the airplane strikes was higher than the ENTIRE height of
the CHinese building, so your example is not very applicable.
>
> >In general, this
> > casts some doubt on a successful controlled demolition of so large a
> > structure as the WTC, especially in tandem with aircraft strikes.
>
> You have it backwards.
Your theory (if I understand it correctly), is that several of the WTC
buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition, apparently by
design of the Bush Administration ( or the neo-cons, or the Jews),
with premeditation and malice aforethought. To be really fancy and
throw off the trail, they synchronized these demolitions with hijacked
aircraft that were flown into the buildings. The planners must have
assumed that the aircraft strikes would not mess up the subsequent
demolitions, because you consider that the aircraft strikes alone
would not have been sufficient to bring down the buildings. Is this
essentially correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
>
> >Was
> > there an aircraft strike involved in the Chinese video, and I just
> > missed it?
>
> You are lost.
> Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the
> demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have
> turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams.
Are there many examples of 767's hitting buildings? You write
"shouldn't have", which implies certainty, but it seems to be a
certainty based on a very small sample size.
> And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING.
Clearly, it was hit by flaming debris.
> The tops of the WTC buildings would not have pulverized and launched
> beams LATERALLY hundreds of feet from "gravity."
> If that is how it worked the Chinese building left standing in the
> video would have "globally collapsed" into a nice pile of rubble once
> it got a start from the charges exploding below allowing the dynamic
> load of the rest of the building to crumble the rest of the building
> as the plane, fire, global collapse conspiracists claim happened at
> the WTC.
But the Chinese building is very small, and of a totally different
design than the WTC. Moreover, just because you can duplicate some
superficial aspects of a collapse by controlled demolition does not
mean that it happened that way, or that it could not have happened
another way.
Iarnrod
> On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 9:10 pm, knowsknoth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 6:33 pm, knowsknoth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
>
> > > > From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of
> > > > your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!!
>
> > > > <sips Victory Iced Tea>
>
> > > All your lies wrapped into one.
>
> > You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I have
> > said that is a lie;
>
> Liar.
Is that your new sig? I proved you were a liar months ago.
> I pointed them out over an over and over and over.
You did no such thing of course. You have NEVER pointed out ANYTHING
that I have said that you stupidly "think" is a lie. This is
undeniable fact. Go back over all of your posts and you will NEVER
find ANY post that even alleges any specific statement I have made
that is a lie. You just arm-wave and foam and rant and deny reality
and screm, "liar.' This is not the act of a reasonable person, but of
a kook.
> > You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively proved.
> > FACT.
>
> You show nothing.
I have shown everything of course. You are projecting, since it is you
who has come up with one great big Goose Egg.
> You prove nothing.
I have proven everything of course. You are projecting, since it is
you who has come up with one great big Goose Egg.
> You spew.
You spew, of course. You are projecting, since it is you who has come
up with one great big Goose Egg.
> You lie.
You lie, of course. You are projecting, since it is you who has come
up with one great big Goose Egg.
> You deny.
You deny, of course. You are projecting, since it is you who has come
up with one great big Goose Egg.
> You "claim."
I prove as well. And I prove your "claims" to be utter lies.
> > > Thanks for playing troll.
>
> > And for winning!!!
>
> Yup you win the 2009-2010 Pathological Liar Award.
You're lying again, of course, since I have never told a lie, unlike
you who has ONLY lied.
> Now explain why these buildings that were blown out at the bottom
> didn't experience "global collapse" like the WTC buildings.
Howzabout YOU explain why you "think" they should haev, shit-for-
brains. Howzabout you START with the FACT that the WTC towers were not
"blown out at the bottom" and why in light of this FACT you "think"
the two cases should be identical!
BWAHAAAHAAHHHHAAAAA!!!!! MORE proof of your utter idiocy, as if any
more were needed!
> Why didn't they turn into huge dust clouds throwing beams hundreds of
> feet?
Uh, you just explained it, fuckface. "They were blown out at the
bottom." Why on earth would the intact top turn into huge dust clouds?
Have you been missing the FACT that I have been pointing out to you
that your Chinese example is totally immaterial here since it is in no
way similar in cause to the WTC tower collapses? Holy SHIT you're
dumb.
> Why did the building that toppled follow the Law of Conservation of
> motion but WTC 2 didn't?
It did, liar. You siad it yourself -- the Chinese building was "blown
out at the bottom." The WTC towers were structurally damaged near the
top. The Chinese building had only ground below it. It won't "crush"
the fuckin' ground, moron. The WTC towers had floor after floor of man-
made structure not designed to withstand dynamic loading of a 20- or
30-story office building falling down on them.
I wouldn't have even thought it possible for you to plumb new depths
of stupidity, yet here you are suggesting that completely dissimilar
collapse initiation processes should have produced identical
collapses. you're too stupid to see that your Chinese example IS a
controlled demolition and proceeded to collapse COMPLETELY DISSIMILAR
to the WTC tower collapses. THIS ALONE PROVES that WTC was not a
controlled demolition, you fuckin' dope. You're saying on hand hand
that WTC was controlled demo because it fell straight down instead of
toppling, and your compelling evidence is a controlled demolition in
which the building toppled sideways? That's fuckin' insane even by
knowsknothing standards.
Is a light bulb going off over your empty head yet?
> After all "their dynamic load" is released by the demolition
> explosions on the lower floors and they should fall to the ground and
> turn to dust just like the WTC towers did.
Not at all, your example disproves you on its face. There was no
building below to collapse into, only hard ground.
> I know you won't "explain" because you are blind
Uh, shit-for-brains, not only did I thoroughly explain it to your
stupid kooker ass, I shoved it up there so high it might have a chance
to reach your brain. Your example completely disproves you. You
presented a controlled demolition instance that was entirely
dissimilar to the WTC collapses, yet you want us to believe it's proof
the WTC was controlled demo? In-fucking-sane!!
> so it's just another
> chance for the world to see more your spew, denial, and lies.
Translation: It's another golden opportunity to kick your stupid
kooker ass, which I obligingly take!!
Iarnrod
> On Jan 8, 11:21 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:5ff0c0ac-93ab-4dcc...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com,
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> You have never ever been able to come up with even one thing I
> > >> have said that is a lie;
>
> > > Liar.
> > > I pointed them out over an over and over and over.
>
> > That's funny, because I can't find one instance of where that ever
> > happened.
>
> > >> You, however, have ONLY lies as I thoroughly and conclusively
> > >> proved. FACT.
>
> > > You show nothing.
> > > You prove nothing.
> > > You spew.
> > > You lie.
> > > You deny.
> > > You "claim."
>
> > Well, then there's this....
>
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926http://wtc...
> > http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...
>
> And this load of many dead, CIA/Mossad links proves that you can spew
> useless links.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! "Mossad!!" Typical joooooooo-hating insanity!!!
LUV IT!
Iarnrod
> Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the
> demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have
> turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams.
> And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING.
WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie.
You love videos so much, look at one for a change.
AllYou!
news:d0f3249c-7ab2-46ef...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Either you can actually support that claim, or you're a liar. So
let's see hos this turns out!
AllYou!
news:71a5f425-4a11-4dbe...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> I don't understand exactly what the video is supposed to
>> "prove".
>
> That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old
> building does
> NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did
> without
> even more help than the failed demolition shows.
>
>> This
>> is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like
>> 9/11.
>
> The point exactly.
You're so comletely whacked that you're actually posting proof that
the WTC buildings collapsd nothing like a controlled demonlition,
and then claiming that they did.
LOL!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:71a5f425-4a11-4dbe...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:48 am, Robert Higgins
> > <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I don't understand exactly what the video is supposed to
> >> "prove".
>
> > That even given a "start" with demolition charges an old
> > building does
> > NOT "globally collapse" like the WTC towers and building 7 did
> > without
> > even more help than the failed demolition shows.
>
> >> This
> >> is certainly a "controlled demolition", yet looks nothing like
> >> 9/11.
>
> > The point exactly.
>
> You're so comletely whacked that you're actually posting proof that
> the WTC buildings collapsd nothing like a controlled demonlition,
> and then claiming that they did.
>
> LOL!
You are lost as usual.
You are drunk.
You can't spell.
Iarnrod
Lost? He proved you wrong, as did I. YOU are the one who is lost.
Q.E.D.
> You are drunk.
Projection.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
knews4...@yahoo.com
Stop bothering them with facts.
They claim they have all the facts by decree.
Do you want to be called every name in the book for denying that the
government's conspiracy "theory" is false?
knews4...@yahoo.com
Yes.
You can read on word anyways.
> He proved you wrong, as did I. YOU are the one who is lost.
> Q.E.D.
>
Q.E.D your ass.
> > You are drunk.
>
> Projection.
You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
http://www.journalof911studies.com
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Iarnrod
BWHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Hint: You're a kook.
Iarnrod
Oh, so sorry, but you don't have any facts to bother anyone with,
knowsknothing.
> They claim they have all the facts by decree.
Nope. By factual proof. Something you can never have for your
physically impossible claims.
> Do you want to be called every name in the book for denying that the
> government's conspiracy "theory" is false?
BWAHAHAHAAAHHAAAA!!! It is what it is, fuckwad. When you're proven
wrong and still persist, what do you expect?
Iarnrod
> > Q.E.D.
>
> Q.E.D your ass.
Q.E.D. in any case at all, bird brain. You were proven wrong. Nothign
you can do about it. 'cept your arm-waving denials. They're worth
nothing though.
> > > You are drunk.
>
> > Projection.
>
> You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
Yet I have never lied. Imagine that. You are incapable of pointing to
even one thing I have said that is a lie. You can't and you won't.
And you have ONLY lied.
BradGuth
It's extremely difficult and technically complex to demolish
structures within their own footprint.
~ BG
knews4...@yahoo.com
From:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by
US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL)
(Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that
--
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-
coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-
coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic
coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that
films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of
apparent failure suggests
that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the
steel components of
the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008).
This could have
been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening.
The Port
Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with
evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative
materials” (NIST 2005). Such
alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites
substituted for intumescent
paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems
quite possible that
this kind of substitution could have been made with few people
noticing.
knews4...@yahoo.com
From:
Iarnrod
> On Jan 8, 2:59 pm, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
>
>
>
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> > >And this load of many dead, CIA/Mossad links proves that you can spew
> > >useless links.
>
> > Google, wikipedia, slate magazine, amazon.com, The San Francisco Gate,
> > Scientific American, and the New York Times are all CIA/Mossad front
> > operations? I assume you can prove that? How would you like a pulitzer
> > prize?
>
> > Also note - most of those links aren't dead. You see, you can't come here
> > and post links to crap which you claims prove something, and then say some
> > other links DON'T prove something. You've been playing this "I'm just
> > posting a link, I don't have to prove it" game in a number of newsgroups
> > for years, and it still doesn't mean shit. Give up. *
> > --
> > * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
> > like corkscrews.
>
> From:http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
What you keep missing, kook, is that thermite is physically incapable
of producing what happened on 9/11.
Iarnrod
Well, that rules this out as a source of what happened on 9/11!!
You don't even understand what you posted, kook.
knews4...@yahoo.com
And again you lie by snipage.
You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
http://www.journalof911studies.com
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
> > > > You are drunk.
>
> > > Projection.
>
> > You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
>
> Yet I have never lied.
Yes you have.
It's all you have.
You are pathological.
Get help.
You are sick.
>Imagine that. You are incapable of pointing to
> even one thing I have said that is a lie. You can't and you won't.
You lie about your vast "impossible" knowledge of incendiaries.
>
> And you have ONLY lied.
Nope.
I just post the researched facts which you continually snip by people
that do more than spew lies through dots on a screen.
http://www.journalof911studies.com
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
knews4...@yahoo.com
And also to do it while throwing debris weighing tons hundreds of
feet.
From:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
>
> ~ BG
And the Chinese video shows that buildings don't collapse "globally"
when they blow out a few floors.
It doesn't matter that the "buildings weren't the same."
It is doubtful that the Chinese building was any more redundant than
the WTC.
The building superstructure itself was likely similar to what would be
the core structure in the Towers. The towers had 47 core columns tied
together. The whole Chinese building drops 1 or two stories and stays
standing intact and standing.
And anyone who looks at the WTC videos can see that the lower floors
of the sections above where the plane hit ALSO DISINTEGRATED UPWARD
which really LEFT NOTHING but dust that supposedly caused the other 80
plus stories to disintegrate at near free fall speed.
Where are the alleged "pancakes?" Where are the huge floor sections?
From where did the energy come to turn everything not steel into
micron sized dust while destroying the steel superstructure and outer
steel shell into "pick-up sticks?"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was
Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the
World Trade Centre
could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report,
namely damage from plane impact and fire. 1 The bases of these
arguments include the rapidity
and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of the steel supports, 3 and
the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the initiating
event in the official explanation,
the sudden collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot
enough. 5 This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report
itself.
There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based
simply on the behaviour of
hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of
the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the
first stage one storey,
damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower
above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second
stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section
to disintegrate. This material
adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence
all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are
some damaged columns,
some fire, and a claimed lack of fireproofing. Given the substantial
safety factor in the building
design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the
buildings at risk without the
fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that
according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST
report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the
strongest case for the official
theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot.
The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel
gets hot enough that it
cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At
this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact,
hence most of the
columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are
continuous, passing up and
down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of
the columns between
attachments is too short for buckling to occur. 8 Failure must
therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they
shorten, will become wider,
which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will
increase, which is not obvious. It is
well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as
the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is
pronounced at the
temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below.
9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow
and the rate will depend on
the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset
both the significant increase
in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if
collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved
down slowly and only
continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow,
protracted, and sagging collapse was
not observed however with either tower.
Iarnrod
Bzzzzttt! Wrong, retardo. Snipping your disproven lies is a public
service. Don't worry though, your kookrants remain for all to see in
your own posts, to embarrass your stupid ass for all time.
> You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
Yet you cannot ever seem to point to one single thing I have said that
you "think" is a lie while I prove that everything you say IS a lie.
Funny how that works in your pea-brain.
> > > You've done nothing but spew more lies again.
>
> > Yet I have never lied.
>
> Yes you have.
Nope. not once. You can't even allege one thing I have said that is a
lie.
> It's all you have.
Yes, truth is all I have and all I need to kick your stupid kooker
ass.
> You are pathological.
> Get help.
> You are sick.
All projection of course since between the two of us, i am the one
speaking complete truth while you are spouting physically impossible
kookshit proven wrong years ago.
> >Imagine that. You are incapable of pointing to
> > even one thing I have said that is a lie. You can't and you won't.
>
> You lie about your vast "impossible" knowledge of incendiaries.
How so, kooker? Be specific now. Let's hear more about your gravity
defying thermite. <chuckle>
> > And you have ONLY lied.
>
> Nope.
Yep. I have thoroughly proven that to be the case.
> I just post the researched facts
No you don't; you post debunked and disproven physically impossible
nutbaggery.
> http://www.journalof911studies.comhttp://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Um, kook? Thermite is physically incapable of producing the building
collapses that occurred on 9/11. You can't just throw out a non-
existent device like your cartoon magic "nano-thermite" and expect the
world to bow to you. It doesn't work that way; thermite doesn't do
what was done.
Get real.
knews4...@yahoo.com
And again you lie.
Troll.
Iarnrod
Name one, asshole.
You can't and you won't.
Because it is YOU who is lying, as I have thoroughly proven. FACT.
Peter Webb
You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide
no alternative explanation.
Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, lets
hear it.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f7fc4e9-cf15-4bf0...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 2:59 pm, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
> >And this load of many dead, CIA/Mossad links proves that you can spew
> >useless links.
>
> Google, wikipedia, slate magazine, amazon.com, The San Francisco Gate,
> Scientific American, and the New York Times are all CIA/Mossad front
> operations? I assume you can prove that? How would you like a pulitzer
> prize?
>
> Also note - most of those links aren't dead. You see, you can't come here
> and post links to crap which you claims prove something, and then say some
> other links DON'T prove something. You've been playing this "I'm just
> posting a link, I don't have to prove it" game in a number of newsgroups
> for years, and it still doesn't mean shit. Give up. *
> --
> * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
> like corkscrews.
From:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by
US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL)
(Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that
--
______________________________________
The Lawrence Livermore Laboratories also developed a suitcase sized nuke.
Therefore that is what was used in 9/11.
knews4...@yahoo.com
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks.
>
> You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide
> no alternative explanation.
>
Here is a recent example from the latest research.
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
> Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, lets
> hear it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com
www.ae911truth.org
CIA/Mossad patsies told what to do by CIA asset/Bush/Carlyle business
partner USAma bin Laden.
5-6 military "Hijacked plane exercises" being run on 9-11.
Radio controlled planes.
NORAD stand down.
Controlled demolition of white elephant buildings.
Controlled demolition of WTC7 containing IRS,SEC,FBI,CIA,offices and
NYC Bunker.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Where is the Pentagram Plane?
The (Anti) Patriot Act.
"Perpetual "War on Terra.""
Full body scanners at the "loading dock" for the sheep.
How about wars for Empire/Oil for starters?
How about going after Al CIAda in Iraq?
Gee but they aren't there with those WMD?
Darwin123
> On Jan 8, 4:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:02 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 9:33 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 9:10 pm, knowsknoth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 7:48 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 7, 6:33 pm, knowsknoth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 7, 5:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >Denial, spew, lie, denial, spew, lie, arm wave, denial, claim of proof without proof, >arm wave, lie, denial, spew, arm wave, lie, spew, ad infinitum...
>
> > > > > > From you, of course, since you cannot confront the TRUTH that all of
> > > > > > your psychically impossible claims have been proven FALSE!!!
>
> > > > > > <sips Victory Iced Tea>
>
> Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with
> evaluation of the
> fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative
> materials” (NIST 2005). Such
> alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites
> substituted for intumescent
> paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems
> quite possible that
> this kind of substitution could have been made with few people
> noticing.
I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was
driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people
decided to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the
coincidence of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned
demolition" of towers, that troubles me.
1) Who were flying the airplanes, and why?
2) How did they coordinate so well with the people who sprayed this
thermite in the right places?
3) Are we suggesting that the terrorists who took over the
airplanes were fanatical CIA agents, ready to die for George Bush,
Jr.?
4) Are we suggesting that these same people are quietly working
for Obama, or that Obama is covering up for the Bush administration?
Since it is so easy to spray thermite onto steel beams covertly,
I have a final question:
5) How do you know it wasn't Arab terrorists who sprayed thermite
onto the steel beams in the towers?
Doesn't have to be Bush or the CIA, you know. Anyone with a
spray can could have done it. Look at all the graffiti on subways.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:be0039b9-96f8-4a9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 3:48 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks.
>
> You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide
> no alternative explanation.
>
You clearly don't read much.
Here is a recent example from the latest research.
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
> Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so,
> lets
> hear it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com
www.ae911truth.org
CIA/Mossad patsies told what to do by CIA asset/Bush/Carlyle business
partner USAma bin Laden.
________________________________
So the US government was responsible, but they were acting under Osama Bin
Laden's instructions. Did Al Queda play any other part in 9/11 ?
5-6 military "Hijacked plane exercises" being run on 9-11.
Radio controlled planes.
____________________________________
Tell me about this. How and who installed the radio controls? Were their
real pilots on board? Were there hijackers on board?
NORAD stand down.
Controlled demolition of white elephant buildings.
_______________________________
Explain which floors were wired with explosives, and how and when this was
done.
Controlled demolition of WTC7 containing IRS,SEC,FBI,CIA,offices and
NYC Bunker.
_____________________________
Just explain to me exactly which buildings and which floors were wired with
explosives, exactly what these explosives were, the quantities required, how
they were placed in the buildings, and how they were detonated. Or at least
some plausible story explaining all this.
knews4...@yahoo.com
From:http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-
criminal-network-is-responsible.html#ML
Precision Guided Plane Anyone?
The plane hitting WTC North Tower
The first plane to hit the WTC (North Tower) hit the computer room of
Marsh & McClennan, which had recently acquired Kroll Associates, which
was owned by son of AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg & Jules Kroll. Precision
guidance equipment in office?
Who Could Possibly Remote Control Planes into the Towers?
Dov Zakheim's System Planning Corporation – remote airplane control
technology
The SPC Corporation provided the flight termination system and command
transmitter system, the technology that allows planes to be remote
controlled should the pilots be incapacitated or the plane hijacked.
Rabbi Dov Zakheim was the appointed Undersecretary of Defense and
Comptroller from 2001 to 2004 under the George W. Bush administration.
Zakheim is the man responsible for the $2.6 TRILLION that went missing
from the Pentagon books announced one day before 9/11. The story was
buried under 9/11's rubble, and forgotten about completely.
Coincidentally, the specific section of the Pentagon that was "hit" or
"blown up" contained the years budgetary information, as well as
accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts who would have been able
to track where that money ended up.
In May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his
firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the
investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade
Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the
security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center.
According to the SPC website, a recent customer at that time was Eglin
AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in
Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32
Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease
agreement.
Considering his access to Boeing 767 tankers, remote control flight
systems, and his published views in the PNAC document, it seems very
likely he is in fact a key figure in the alleged terrorist attacks in
New York City on September 11, 2001. (Source)
Iarnrod
> On Jan 10, 3:48 pm, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks.
>
> > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide
> > no alternative explanation.
>
> You clearly don't read much.
>
> > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, lets
> > hear it.
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.comwww.ae911truth.org
>
> CIA/Mossad patsies told what to do by CIA asset/Bush/Carlyle business
> partner USAma bin Laden.
> 5-6 military "Hijacked plane exercises" being run on 9-11.
> Radio controlled planes.
> NORAD stand down.
> Controlled demolition of white elephant buildings.
> Controlled demolition of WTC7 containing IRS,SEC,FBI,CIA,offices and
> Where is the Pentagram Plane?
> The (Anti) Patriot Act.
> "Perpetual "War on Terra.""
> Full body scanners at the "loading dock" for the sheep.
>
> How about wars for Empire/Oil for starters?
> How about going after Al CIAda in Iraq?
> Gee but they aren't there with those WMD?
BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Oh, BWAHAAAHAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAA!!!! Holy CRAP!! Thanks for the laugh,
knowsknothing!!
Not one shred of evidence to support any of that, of course, but you
never let that stop you! In fact, you don't let the proven fact that
your claims are physically impossible stop you either!! TOO FUCKIN'
FUNNY!! This is why we love having you around posting here. You are so
good for a laugh!! Please, never stop and please, never learn anything.
Iarnrod
Knowsknothing also ignores the FACT that thermite is physically
incapable of producing what happened on 9/11. He believes thermite can
defy gravity,
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was
> driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people decided
> to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the coincidence
> of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned demolition" of
> towers, that troubles me.
Without consulting the fringe my take on 9/11 is that the perps are
pretty much as described however the puppeteers have remained hidden.
It is not necessary that those responsible be in the terrorist trenches
only that they have means to direct the weapon.
For instance the three middle-eastern men celebrating atop their office
building as the towers fell were later found to be Mossad agents who
escaped to Israel.
How did 19 different men gain access simultaneously? That is not going
to happen, especially when some were on watch lists, without the path
being cleared before them. Read up on the Reichstagg fire.
Nor is it possible for an airliner to be out of communication for so long
in the Washington-New York corridor without interceptors being launched.
It is simply not possible for so many failures to simultaneously occur.
--
Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's God Do You Kill For?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iarnrod
Too bad those planes are completely physically incapable of being
remotely controlled, kook. PROVEN FACT.
Oh wait, I forgot... anything you can't get around because it's not
possible is really made possible by just pretending the government has
all this soooper dooooper secret stuff that explains everything you
can't explain. Like silent and invisible explosives and gravity
defying thermite.
knews4...@yahoo.com
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:be0039b9-96f8-4a9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 10, 3:48 pm, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks.
>
> > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide
> > no alternative explanation.
>
> You clearly don't read much.
I don't know "exactly" because only the people responsible know
exactly how they did it.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:30:56 -0800, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was
> > driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people decided
> > to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the coincidence
> > of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned demolition" of
> > towers, that troubles me.
>
> Without consulting the fringe my take on 9/11 is that the perps are
> pretty much as described however the puppeteers have remained hidden.
>
> It is not necessary that those responsible be in the terrorist trenches
> only that they have means to direct the weapon.
>
> For instance the three middle-eastern men celebrating atop their office
> building as the towers fell were later found to be Mossad agents who
> escaped to Israel.
That is completely false. This did not happen.
> How did 19 different men gain access simultaneously?
They didn't.
> That is not going to happen,
Indeed, it didn't happen.
> especially when some were on watch lists,
They were not on watch lists. You are making stuff up.
> without the path
> being cleared before them. Read up on the Reichstagg fire.
Read up on reality.
> Nor is it possible for an airliner to be out of communication for so long
> in the Washington-New York corridor without interceptors being launched.
That of course is a lie. You watch too much teevee and think life is
like a Hollywood studio. Real life isn't like that. It is unscripted.
By the time FAA got a handle on what was happening and alerted NORAD,
it was way too late.
> It is simply not possible for so many failures to simultaneously occur.
It is, of course, because this is real life.
Iarnrod
No buildings were "wired," knowsknothing. You're just making stuff up.
No floors exploded, no explosives went off. This is observable and
undeniable FACT.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a
satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go
off when the planes hit.
Iarnrod
wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
The problem with your theory is you used "president" and "mind." Those
two could never be used in the same sentence when talking about Bush.
Peter Webb
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hie7i1$n6b$9...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:30:56 -0800, Darwin123 <drose...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was
>> driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people decided
>> to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the coincidence
>> of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned demolition" of
>> towers, that troubles me.
>
> Without consulting the fringe my take on 9/11 is that the perps are
> pretty much as described however the puppeteers have remained hidden.
>
> It is not necessary that those responsible be in the terrorist trenches
> only that they have means to direct the weapon.
>
> For instance the three middle-eastern men celebrating atop their office
> building as the towers fell were later found to be Mossad agents who
> escaped to Israel.
>
> How did 19 different men gain access simultaneously? That is not going
> to happen, especially when some were on watch lists, without the path
> being cleared before them. Read up on the Reichstagg fire.
>
> Nor is it possible for an airliner to be out of communication for so long
> in the Washington-New York corridor without interceptors being launched.
>
> It is simply not possible for so many failures to simultaneously occur.
>
> --
> Curly
OK.
Now please document your alternative explanation in detail, so we can
compare it to the official story to see which is more plausible.
You can start with explaining whether there were hijackers on board, and who
they were.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:014c8545-68dc-4255...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
____________________________
OK, do you have a better theory than the official explanation? Or is the
official explanation the most plausible theory you know of?
Peter Webb
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36bb4a44-f4cf-445b...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
_________________________________
Whereas your theory is as follows:
knews4...@yahoo.com
The "official" explanation is full of holes.
It is NOT plausible in any way.
You haven't been reading for 10 years.
Spend a few months reading about 9-11 and who likely did it and why.
The "most plausible" is that it was an inside job by the CIA/Mossad/
Zionist/Bush/PNAC/Carlyle cabal.
They had the motive.
They had the means.
They had the opportunity.
They had the media to spread their "conspiracy theory."
knews4...@yahoo.com
Try getting up to speed with long term research.
http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-criminal-network-is-responsible.html#ML
Then decide for yourself.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afa39764-255d-49e2...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________
If you know of a more plausible explanation than the official one, why don't
you share it with us?
Peter Webb
> > _____________________________
> > Just explain to me exactly which buildings and which floors were wired
> > with
> > explosives, exactly what these explosives were, the quantities required,
> > how
> > they were placed in the buildings, and how they were detonated. Or at
> > least
> > some plausible story explaining all this.
>
> I don't know "exactly" because only the people responsible know
> exactly how they did it.
>
> ____________________________
> OK, do you have a better theory than the official explanation? Or is the
> official explanation the most plausible theory you know of?
Try getting up to speed with long term research.
http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-criminal-network-is-responsible.html#ML
Then decide for yourself.
____________________________________
I can't see an alternate theory explained on this website. So lets start
with a simple question. In your alternate hypothesis, were there hijackers
aboard the planes?
Androcles
"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36bb4a44-f4cf-445b...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
Well, ok. I've put my tinfoil helmet back on, they protect against stupidity
as well as minds.
The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and the President was able
to use stupidity control.
Conspiracy theorists are really very intelligent people but they've
been trained since birth not to wear their tinfoil helmets and are highly
susceptible to stupidity attacks from the President. How many people
voted for him that were not wearing their tinfoil helmet, huh?
It's all down to Freudian sex, girls don't make passes at guys wearing
tinfoil helmets.
knews4...@yahoo.com
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > _____________________________
> > > Just explain to me exactly which buildings and which floors were wired
> > > with
> > > explosives, exactly what these explosives were, the quantities required,
> > > how
> > > they were placed in the buildings, and how they were detonated. Or at
> > > least
> > > some plausible story explaining all this.
>
> > I don't know "exactly" because only the people responsible know
> > exactly how they did it.
>
> > ____________________________
> > OK, do you have a better theory than the official explanation? Or is the
> > official explanation the most plausible theory you know of?
>
> Then decide for yourself.
>
> ____________________________________
> I can't see an alternate theory explained on this website.
I told you to read or watch David Ray Griffin.
>So lets start
> with a simple question. In your alternate hypothesis, were there hijackers
> aboard the planes?
Maybe.
There could have been patsies/guys thinking they were going to hijack
planes.
The planes were likely remote controlled.
The pilots and passengers could have been gassed into submission.
The actual flights may have been ditched at sea.
No one will likely ever know with all the NORAD false radar blips
during the MILITARYexercises going on the VERY SAME TIME.
The perpetrators could not let anything happen on the planes due to
human error.
Jumbo jets have been remote controlled for years.
This is the technology used on Predator Drones.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=david+ray+griffin&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=David+ray+gr&fp=4b0e053116aeea03
What I believe matters little.
I am not a well financed researcher.
I am not writing a book.
I haven't believed the government's fairy tale since Day One.
Steel high rises do not collapse into dust from "office" fires.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=wtc+fire+temperature&aq=f&aqi=&oq=wtc+fire+temperature&fp=aa0e561cd8821793
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
> AllYou! wrote:
>
>> I'll indulge your continuing obession with me for a little bit
>> here, mostly because I'm bored...
>
> No thanks. Your bait stinks. You are still a nitwit....
How can it be MY bait when;
A) YOU were the one who sought ME out to respond to one of MY posts,
and;
B) YOU were the one who brought up that thread that you're now not
willing to discuss?
I'm simply following up on YOUR comments in YOUR post to me wherein
I was having an exchange with someone else having nothing to do with
YOU!
You have an extrordinarily distorted idea of baiting, among other
things. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll indulge your continuing obession with me for a little bit here,
mostly because I'm bored, to reiterate that I never said that I was
special. What I said is that if someone thinjs that a reasonable
and rational debate is to engage in dueling links, then I'll ignore
them, as I've pretty much done with you, or I'll simply show them
how silly they're being by posting my own set of links in response
to their links, and call it a day. My choice.
Of course, there are circumstances where posting a link to a site in
order to substantiate a claim is appropriate. But once the debate
sinks to the level where that's all that's being done, then it's
rather useless.
And whereas you brought up the thread about where YOU, out of the
bluse, asked me about my thoughts on the monetary system, it was
YOU, who quickly reduced that exchange to nothing more than
name-calling and insults just because I disagreed with you. Here's
your response to my very first response to you, and then you took it
down hill from there...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> The value of gold and silver is not in the 'shininess'. It is in
>> the scarcity. The point of making it money is that man can not
>> control the supply, nature does.
> That's irrelevant.
No, it is not.
> Man controls its value. If there were no intellect, gold would
> just be gold.
That was just plain dumb. But, if you had some gold you would like
to
send me, it would be fitting!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, if ever you have anything of substance to post to me, and if
ever you can control your juvenile instincts long enough to refrain
from undue acrimony, I might very well engage you is some debate or
other. But until then, move along, please.
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&mode=related&search=
http://jowenko.nl/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_equations_falling.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
Androcles
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e3b42ebf-15d3-466b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
What I believe matters little.
I am not a well financed researcher.
I am not writing a book.
I haven't believed the government's fairy tale since Day One.
Steel high rises do not collapse into dust from "office" fires.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=wtc+fire+temperature&aq=f&aqi=&oq=wtc+fire+temperature&fp=aa0e561cd8821793
==============================================
Pretty good at saying what you are not, aren't you?
What you are not is intelligent.
Steel high rises collapse when planes loaded with fuel hit them, which
is tad more than a waste paper basket office fire.
What you are is an opinionated ignorant dumbfuck, which is a tad
less intelligent than a simpleton.
What you believe matters NOT AT ALL.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Iarnrod
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Bush was out of his mind. He could not use "mind control" to beam a
satellite command to blow up the buildings.
Do you think that he could have done that?
Iarnrod
You have yet to name one, kook.
> It is NOT plausible in any way.
Lie, of course. It is the only finding that is in fact completely
consistent with every single bit of evidence, physics, witnesses,
facts, etc. You cannot name one single thing wrong with it. Despite
years to challenge it you have yet to come up with one thing.
> You haven't been reading for 10 years.
You haven't been thinking for 10 years.
> Spend a few months reading about 9-11 and who likely did it and why.
We already know. The people who admitted doing it did it. Fully
suported by all the evidence.
> The "most plausible" is that it was an inside job by the CIA/Mossad/
> Zionist/Bush/PNAC/Carlyle cabal.
BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! That's not only the LEAST plausible, it's not even
possible.
> They had the motive.
Nope.
> They had the means.
Nope.
> They had the opportunity.
Wrong.
> They had the media to spread their "conspiracy theory."
BWAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!! True kooktardery at its best!
Thanks for starting my morning with a laugh, knowsknothing!
Iarnrod
> On Jan 11, 1:24 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > _____________________________
> > > > Just explain to me exactly which buildings and which floors were wired
> > > > with
> > > > explosives, exactly what these explosives were, the quantities required,
> > > > how
> > > > they were placed in the buildings, and how they were detonated. Or at
> > > > least
> > > > some plausible story explaining all this.
>
> > > I don't know "exactly" because only the people responsible know
> > > exactly how they did it.
>
> > > ____________________________
> > > OK, do you have a better theory than the official explanation? Or is the
> > > official explanation the most plausible theory you know of?
>
> > Try getting up to speed with long term research.http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-criminal-...
> > Then decide for yourself.
>
> > ____________________________________
> > I can't see an alternate theory explained on this website.
>
> I told you to read or watch David Ray Griffin.
For a laugh.
Griffin has been completely debunked. Sorry.
> >So lets start
> > with a simple question. In your alternate hypothesis, were there hijackers
> > aboard the planes?
>
> Maybe.
BWAHAAAAHHAAAAA!!!! Their corpses are "maybe?"
> There could have been patsies/guys thinking they were going to hijack
> planes.
They did.
> The planes were likely remote controlled.
That's a physical impossibility. Sorry. Boeing jetliners are not
capable of remote control.
> The pilots and passengers could have been gassed into submission.
How were they talking until the crashes?
> The actual flights may have been ditched at sea.
Before or after they hit the buildings? Where was this on the radar
tracks?
Oh, I forgot, your "konspiracy" includes about 25,000 people in on the
coverup!
> No one will likely ever know with all the NORAD false radar blips
> during the MILITARYexercises going on the VERY SAME TIME.
Military exercises are going on 24/7, kook.
> The perpetrators could not let anything happen on the planes due to
> human error.
Like the passengers forcing the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania
before it could reach Washington?
> Jumbo jets have been remote controlled for years.
Sorry but it is a complete physical impossibility.
> This is the technology used on Predator Drones.http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=david+ray+griffin&aq=0&aqi=g...
A Boeing 757 and 767 is not a Predator Drone, dearie.
They are not built with any capability for such a thing.
> What I believe matters little.
THAT is the FIRST true thing you have ever said.
> I am not a well financed researcher.
You're not a researcher at all. You're a gullible kookspew-swallowing
sheeple.
> I am not writing a book.
The reading world thanks God for that!
> I haven't believed the government's fairy tale since Day One.
Because you are a proven stupid dope. You use ad hominem to reject
truth.
> Steel high rises do not collapse into dust from "office" fires.
Since that's not what happened on 9/11, so what?
Androcles
That's a physical impossibility. Sorry. Boeing jetliners are not
capable of remote control.
===========================================
Ahem... they most certainly are. NASA had a plane in 1985
that was used as a test vehicle for that very purpose. The
development of the drone was carried out with extensive
testing of a plane flown by remote control, with a pilot who
could override it if anything when wrong, and the cabin
was loaded with all manner of test equipment operated
by engineers. That plane was a converted passenger liner,
a B737. Not that that had anything to do with 9/11, but your
statement is very incorrect.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 11, 8:09 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 1:24 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > Just explain to me exactly which buildings and which floors were wired
> > > > > with
> > > > > explosives, exactly what these explosives were, the quantities required,
> > > > > how
> > > > > they were placed in the buildings, and how they were detonated. Or at
> > > > > least
> > > > > some plausible story explaining all this.
>
> > > > I don't know "exactly" because only the people responsible know
> > > > exactly how they did it.
>
> > > > ____________________________
> > > > OK, do you have a better theory than the official explanation? Or is the
> > > > official explanation the most plausible theory you know of?
>
> > > Try getting up to speed with long term research.http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/2009/09/jewish-criminal-...
> > > Then decide for yourself.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > I can't see an alternate theory explained on this website.
>
> > I told you to read or watch David Ray Griffin.
>
> For a laugh.
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=david+ray+griffin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> Griffin has been completely debunked. Sorry.
>
You are fucking looney.
You are a liar.
You are a troll.