Re-investigate 9-11 says Washington Post
knews4...@yahoo.com
There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says. The
group's petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to
members of Congress.
"Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,'
U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires
those with evidence of treason to act," Mr. Gage says. "The
implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial."
Stay tuned for more in this space.
knews4...@yahoo.com
On Feb 23, 2:40 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70...
P. Maffia
It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had gathered
some signatures from idiots like you, made preposterous statements having no
basis in fact or reality and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash of the
completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by losers of which you
are more than a prime example.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b19ed74c-4198-4cd9...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be reinvestigated.
>
> It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had gathered
> some signatures from idiots like you, made preposterous statements having no
> basis in fact or reality and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>
> The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash of the
> completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by losers of which you
> are more than a prime example.
>
>
> news:b19ed74c-4198-4cd9...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70...
>
> > There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
> > material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says. The
> > group's petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to
> > members of Congress.
>
> > "Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,'
> > U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires
> > those with evidence of treason to act," Mr. Gage says. "The
> > implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
> > forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial."
>
> > Stay tuned for more in this space.
Funny they didn't say anyone was a Kook or smear them.
Funny they didn't have any answers either.
I guess a paper only has an agenda when it is pro government?
Al Dykes
knews4u2chew doesn't know the difference between the Washington Post
and the Moonie Times.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Surfer
wrote:
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns
>
>There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
>material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says.
>
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
"........One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it
looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion
firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all
around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the
building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required
more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a
derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through
by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of
steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no
way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like
WTC was......"
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:40:49 -0800 (PST), knews4u2c...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70...
>
> >There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
> >material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says.
>
> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
>
> "........One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it
> looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion
> firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all
> around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the
> building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required
> more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a
> derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through
> by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of
> steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no
> way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like
> WTC was......"
Why does everyone insist that there is only "one way" to set up a
building for demolition?
http://www.bollyn.com/home
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:40:49 -0800 (PST), knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-
beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns
>>
>>There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
>>material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says.
>>
>>
> http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
>
> "........One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked
> like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly
> requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the
> building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without
> anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just
> explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building
> planning an event.
True. Research "Marvin Bush," Securicom, SDS, "Dov Zakheim," "KuWam,"
"Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah" and "HCC Insurance."
Connect the dots.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
Democrats: Party Without a Spine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition Zone
> Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be reinvestigated.
>
> It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had gathered
> some signatures from idiots like you, made preposterous statements having no
> basis in fact or reality and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>
> The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash of the
> completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by losers of which you
> are more than a prime example.
But media circuses like this create money.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
If it is so easily debunked it should be good for millions in
advertising.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Iarnrod
It was already debunked. Sorry.
VFW
<b68fa60d-948b-4f6e...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:26锟絘m, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 9:13锟絘m, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 7:15锟絧m, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be
> > > > reinvestigated.
> >
> > > > It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had
> > > > 锟絞athered
> > > > some signatures from idiots like you, made preposterous statements
> > > > having no
> > > > basis in fact or reality and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
> >
> > > > The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash of the
> > > > completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by losers of which
> > > > you
> > > > are more than a prime example.
> >
> > > But media circuses like this create money.
> >
> > Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
> > If it is so easily debunked it should be good for millions in
> > advertising.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/0000000
> > 2/000...
>
> It was already debunked. Sorry.
this just in'
The Rest of the story
It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4
seconds, quoting US engineer Neel Ginson: "In order to bring down this
kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been
artificially exploded outwards." Ginson added that, looking closely, one
can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the
floors are reached by the collapse line. The fact that the towers were
the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of
fire, he added, was even admitted by NIST (the National Institute of
Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official
reports).
http://countercurrents.org/woodworth250210.htm
--
Money; What a Concept !
Iarnrod
> In article
> <b68fa60d-948b-4f6e-866d-d7148a4a2...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 10:26 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 9:13 am, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be
> > > > > reinvestigated.
>
> > > > > It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had
> > > > > some signatures from idiots like you, made preposterous statements
> > > > > having no
> > > > > basis in fact or reality and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>
> > > > > The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash of the
> > > > > completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by losers of which
> > > > > you
> > > > > are more than a prime example.
>
> > > > But media circuses like this create money.
>
> > > Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
> > > If it is so easily debunked it should be good for millions in
> > > advertising.http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/0000000
> > > 2/000...
>
> > It was already debunked. Sorry.
>
> this just in'
> The Rest of the story
> It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4
> seconds,
Umm, dipshit, steel was not pulverized. Try again.
Why do you kooks always make shit up?
> quoting US engineer Neel Ginson: "In order to bring down this
> kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been
> artificially exploded outwards."
Well that's a lie then because as the entire world can plainly see, no
such thing happened. There were no artificial explosives. None. Nada.
This is plain fact that cannot be detoured around. All controlled
demolition theories FAIL at the starting point because it is plainly
observable that there are no explosives going off at collapse
initiation.
>
Ginson added that, looking closely, one
> can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the
> floors are reached by the collapse line.
That is a hallucination. No such thing is occurring. And even if it
did, isolated small explosions are not capable of bringing down an
intact building like that. FACT. Each floor would have to be exploded,
undfer your theory, because if you want to say that only a few would
be needed and the dynamic crushing weight of the rest of the mass
would do the remainder, then you undercut your own statement that only
articial explosives could do this and you support NIST which says, of
course, it was the dynamic loading of the upper floors that crushed
the building beneath.
You just argued your own case onto the trash heap, kooker. The fact
that the towers were.
> the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of
> fire, he added, was even admitted by NIST (the National Institute of
> Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official
> reports).http://countercurrents.org/woodworth250210.htm
He forgot about the airplane crashes of course.
These were not the first steel framed buildings in the world to
collapse because of fire. They collapsed because of devastating
structural damage inflicted by two 500+ mph jetliner crashes and
fires.
The FIRST steel framed building to collapse due ONLY to fire was
Windsor Tower.
Stop pretending there were no plane crashes.
knews4...@yahoo.com
You are pathological.
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
Here is help.
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-pathological-lying-treated.htm
> The FIRST steel framed building to collapse due ONLY to fire was
> Windsor Tower.
>
Hardly.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
> Stop pretending there were no plane crashes.
Stop lying.
The damage of the planes was not significant enough to cause
compromise of the inner and outer columns
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
AllYou!
news:1abe7bae-eda8-41b7...@t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Feb 26, 9:13 am, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be
>>> reinvestigated.
>>
>>> It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you, had
>>> gathered some signatures from idiots like you, made
>>> preposterous statements having no basis in fact or reality and
>>> submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>>
>>> The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash
>>> of the completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by
>>> losers of which you are more than a prime example.
>>
>> But media circuses like this create money.
>
> Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
He's done quite a good job of that all by himself.
AllYou!
news:2c2be306-7a10-4bbe...@g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
What makes you think that?
Iarnrod
Holy SHIT, you're a delusional kook. You think it's a lie that 1) two
jetliners smashed into the towers and 2) the statement you cited
abogve left that out? I mena, even for a proven pathological liar like
YTOU that's pretty seriously delusional!
So you're a NO PLANES KOOK!! BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAA!!!!
Tell us, knowsknothing, how did the people live on the scene manage to
see planes?
> You are pathological.http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
I just PROVED that you are a kook.
> Here is help.http://www.wisegeek.com/how-is-pathological-lying-treated.htm
You ought to avail yourself of it.
By the way, you STILL have not managed even to allege one single thing
I have said that is a lie. You can't and you won't.
> > The FIRST steel framed building to collapse due ONLY to fire was
> > Windsor Tower.
>
> Hardly.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
You mean there was one BEFORE Windsor Tower? OK. So you prove yourself
wrong again. Windsor Tower was NOT the first. But its entire steel
framed portion DID completely collapse; this much is for certain
proven FACT.
> > Stop pretending there were no plane crashes.
>
> Stop lying.
You think it's a lie that there were plane crashes? Then what happened
to the planes?
> The damage of the planes was not significant enough to cause
> compromise of the inner and outer columns
That of course is a flat out lie. Saying it doesn't make it so.
But wait, are you now admitting there were plane crashes? Are you
smoking crack right now? Which is it?
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 27, 1:28 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 7:52 pm, VFW <george...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > this just in'
>> > The Rest of the story
>> > It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4
>> > seconds,
>>
>> Umm, dipshit, steel was not pulverized. Try again.
>>
>> Why do you kooks always make shit up?
Stoopid kooktards. Trying to rewrite history.
Go to the New York State Museum in Albany, NY. They have, in their 9/11
exhibit, two columns from the towers, one each from the north & south
towers, plus smaller bits (including a beam with an embedded airplane part).
You can look at them and I think even touch them. They're obviously bent
and twisted, with heat damage, but they certainly aren't pulverized.
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Things pulverized at the WTC.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+pulverized&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:1abe7bae-eda8-41b7...@t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 27, 2:55 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> >On Feb 27, 1:28 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 26, 7:52 pm, VFW <george...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > this just in'
>> >> > The Rest of the story
>> >> > It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4
>> >> > seconds,
>>
>> >> Umm, dipshit, steel was not pulverized. Try again.
>>
>> >> Why do you kooks always make shit up?
>>
>> Stoopid kooktards. Trying to rewrite history.
>>
>> Go to the New York State Museum in Albany, NY. They have, in their 9/11
>> exhibit, two columns from the towers, one each from the north & south
>> towers, plus smaller bits (including a beam with an embedded airplane part).
>> You can look at them and I think even touch them. They're obviously bent
>> and twisted, with heat damage, but they certainly aren't pulverized.
>Things pulverized at the WTC.
Well, yes, all that drywall certainly did, producing those famous dust
clouds. But remember, we're discussing an extremely kooktarded question,
asking "what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4 seconds".
I'm sure the questioner wasn't looking for an answer, but was instead
planting the seed of a lie, hoping some readers would actually believe
such a kooktarded thing actually happened, as it was worded as if it were
a fact.
knews4...@yahoo.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 27, 2:44 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/columns.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/bazantzhou.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DemolitionWTC.htm
Darwin123
>
> > The FIRST steel framed building to collapse due ONLY to fire was
> > Windsor Tower.
>
>
> > Stop pretending there were no plane crashes.
>
> Stop lying.
> The damage of the planes was not significant enough to cause
> compromise of the inner and outer columns
The claim of NIST isn't that the planes "compromised" the inner
and outer columns. The planes "compromised" only the insulation that
protected the steel beams. The fire vould only melt the beams after
the planes exposed the steel.
The reasons that other skyscrapers haven't collapsed from fire
alone is that the insulation protected the beams. Usually, the
accident that causes the fire doesn't strip the insulation.
knews4...@yahoo.com
There is no proof of large amounts of insulation being dislodged.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
> The reasons that other skyscrapers haven't collapsed from fire
> alone is that the insulation protected the beams. Usually, the
> accident that causes the fire doesn't strip the insulation.
"Office fires" don't make buildings collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
VFW
<fa8eea5d-0f6c-4038...@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
and;
Thus, the average person's awareness of what an explosion is supposed to
look and sound like is based on the movies and low velocity explosives
only. In not knowing what high velocity explosives sound like or feel
like (as the shock wave moves through the earth), many people might not
understand what they heard or felt on 9/11/2001.
for the rest of the story;;
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_cutter.html
VFW
VFW <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
and;
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DemolitionWTC.htm
Iarnrod
Steel was not one of those things, shit-for-brains.
Wake the fuck up and stop smoking crack.
Iarnrod
Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been conclusively proven
to be a physical impossibility. Sorry, knowsknothing, you'll have to
go back to the kooker drawing board.
Iarnrod
I hate to burst your bubble,shit-for-brains, but none of those links
is to FEMA.
And what the hell makes you "think" FEMA had anything to say about the
building damage from the planes? That was NIST's area. You can't even
keep your own lies straight. Typical of a pathologically lying nutbag
like you whose every utterance has been proven wrong.
Iarnrod
>
> > The reasons that other skyscrapers haven't collapsed from fire
> > alone is that the insulation protected the beams. Usually, the
> > accident that causes the fire doesn't strip the insulation.
>
> "Office fires" don't make buildings collapse.http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
A lie of course.
See: Windsor Tower. Q.E.D.
Michael Moroney
>Thus, the average person's awareness of what an explosion is supposed to
>look and sound like is based on the movies and low velocity explosives
>only. In not knowing what high velocity explosives sound like or feel
>like (as the shock wave moves through the earth), many people might not
>understand what they heard or felt on 9/11/2001.
>for the rest of the story;;
Exactly right, and this disproves the kooktards' claims there were any
demolition explosions in the towers. While many people associate the
"BOOOOM" they see in movies with high explosives, actual high explosives
make an extremely loud CRACK sound, like striking sheet metal very hard.
No such sounds were heard on any of the thousands of videos shot that day.
(occasionally some kooktard will trot out a video with an incorrect
"BOOOM!" type of explosion and claim it as "proof" of controlled
demolition)
The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD. If they were there, there
would be no mistake to their presence. Esp. ones large enough to bring
down the towers. Consider the fact that the 1993 bombing used 1500 pounds
of explosives but did NO structural damage to the frame of the towers.
That was heard all over lower Manhattan.
Here's a perfect example of a REAL controlled demolition and what the high
explosive charges sound like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ.
Imagine how LOUD that must have been. Compare how loud the sounds of the
explosives to the voice in the video next to the camera. That building was
a fraction of the size of the towers.
cop welfare
they got so much blood on their hands...
i think all this techno/structure analysis scientific proof business
is a red herring.
a 'strawman" or something in that neighborhood,
there's plenty of easy to understand accessible video around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=PlayList&p=0218920EB705894F&index=27
cop welfare
and check this bit of insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I
cop welfare
wrote:
here's a "kooktard" for you.
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I
enjoy!
yuck yuck yuck
yuck yuck yuck
yuck yuck yuck
yuck yuck yuck
cop welfare
>
> - Show quoted text -
whassamatter?
cop welfare
>
> - Show quoted text -
can't figger it out?
VFW
<71831c8a-ac8f-4a83...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
cop welfare <cop.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <362lo5p3s01pdt43i...@4ax.com>,
Johnny Asia <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the
> evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by
> an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen
> nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech
> explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
>
> Before we yell �conspiracy theory,� we should be aware that the
> architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory.
> They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This
> evidence is not going to go away.
>
> If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the
> 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then
> we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the
> Commission�s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which
> they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when
> they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided
> over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow,
> a member of President George W. Bush�s transition team and Foreign
> Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State
> Condi �Mushroom Cloud� Rice.
>
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24872.htm
>
>
> The Road to Armageddon
>
> By Paul Craig Roberts
>
> February 26, 2010 "Information Clearing House' --- The Washington
> Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the
> Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and
> favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to
> learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper�s
> website for the past three days was the �Inside the Beltway� report,
> �Explosive News,� about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US
> and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11
> Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
>
> I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press
> conference seriously.
>
> How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate
> into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers
> suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low
> temperature fires? �A thousand architects and engineers want to know,
> and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the
> destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,� reports the Washington
> Times.
>
> The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded
> that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology provided �insufficient,
> contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the
> towers� destruction� and are �calling for a grand jury investigation
> of NIST officials.�
>
> The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the
> architects and engineers said: �Government officials will be notified
> that �Misprision of Treason,� U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious
> federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
> The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
> forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.�
>
> There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main
> press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that
> organization, announced the firefighters� support for the architects
> and engineers� demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was
> made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three
> buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.
>
> Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved
> and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that
> there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and
> experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video
> evidence of explosions.
>
> Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the
> evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by
> an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen
> nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech
> explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
>
> Before we yell �conspiracy theory,� we should be aware that the
> architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory.
> They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This
> evidence is not going to go away.
>
> If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the
> 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then
> we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the
> Commission�s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which
> they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when
> they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided
> over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow,
> a member of President George W. Bush�s transition team and Foreign
> Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State
> Condi �Mushroom Cloud� Rice.
>
> There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the
> government tells them no matter how many times they know the
> government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten
> Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons
> of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al
> Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the
> non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the
> next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of
> the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the
> government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that
> outwitted the entire Western world.
>
> Moreover, it doesn�t matter to these Americans how often the
> government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of
> Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on
> him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible
> American public of bin Laden�s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the
> videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then
> suddenly last year a new 9/11 �mastermind� emerged to take bin Laden�s
> place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded
> 183 times until he confessed to mastermining the 9/11 attack.
>
> In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted
> evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal
> system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican
> federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S.
> Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as
> the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists
> pulled off 9/11.
>
> If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed,
> they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant,
> capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, �V for Vendetta.� Sheik
> Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those
> of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel�s Mossad. No
> intelligence service on earth or all of them combined was a match for
> Sheik Mohammed.
>
> Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick
> Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force,
> and Air Traffic Control.
> He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He
> caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail,
> allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while
> the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get
> aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.
>
> Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified
> pilots.
>
> Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to
> prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would
> show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting
> the Penagon.
>
> How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that
> matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?
>
> If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the
> incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into
> confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the
> government�s conspiracy theory.
>
> What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the
> 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a
> culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone
> waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.
>
> The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed
> against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on
> terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary
> Janet Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now
> as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course,
> are people who get in the way of the government�s agenda, such as the
> 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be
> 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?
>
> Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11
> skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions
> that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them
> at all cost.
>
> Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only
> provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they
> are on to something?
>
> Instead, why doesn�t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence
> that is presented and answer it?
>
> If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely
> kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and
> refute it. Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents
> and to set them up?
>
> Many Americans would reply that �their� government would never even
> dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying
> buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3,
> National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House
> Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its
> own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction
> of a capital crime is necessary. Just straight out murder.
>
> Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it
> can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch
> Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration
> for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power
> knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.
>
> Americans who think �their� government is some kind of morally pure
> operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation
> Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint
> Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American
> cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could
> gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The
> secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was
> declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review
> Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There
> are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James
> Bamford�s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:
>
> �Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman
> [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called
> for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying
> refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of
> violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and
> elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit;
> planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be
> blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as
> well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch
> their war.�
>
> Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the
> wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East
> required �a new Pearl Harbor.�
>
> For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay
> attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the
> government�s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched
> the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S.
> government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that
> border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S.
> intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through
> central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia.
> [see www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17709 ] U.S.
> envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is
> moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet
> Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and
> Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet
> republics under the guise of the ever-expanding �war on terror.�
>
> The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S.
> government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the
> Middle East and cutting China off from oil.
>
> This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be
> intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S.
> hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.
>
> The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political
> leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a
> direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in
> Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The
> Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American
> �superpower.�
>
> The morons in Washington are pushing the envelop of nuclear war. The
> insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The
> American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of �their�
> government, are facilitating this outcome.
>
>
>
>
> +
>
> Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
>
> Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
>
>
> http://johnnyasia.com
>
I'll share this with many. Thanks. g.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Corrected Subject
>
> On Feb 23, 2:40 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70...
>
> > There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite
> > group's petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to
> > members of Congress.
>
> > "Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,'
> > those with evidence of treason to act," Mr. Gage says. "The
> > implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
>
> > Stay tuned for more in this space.
The Road to Armageddon
By Paul Craig Roberts
Former Assistant Secretary to US Treasury
2-25-10
The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the
Bush/Cheney/ Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and
favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to
learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper's
website
for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report,
"Explosive
News", about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad
on
February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an
organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press
conference seriously. How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers
suddenly disintegrate into fine dust?
How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a
result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires?
"A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are *calling on
Congress to order a new investigation* into the destruction of the
Twin
Towers and Building 7", reports the newspaper.
The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded
that
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provided "insufficient,
contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the
towers' destruction" and are "calling for a grand jury investigation
of
NIST officials".
The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the
architects and engineers said: "Government officials will be notified
that "*Misprision of Treason*,' US Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious
Federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial".
There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main
press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that
organization, announced the firefighters' support for the architects
and
engineers' demands.
He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that
are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this
failure
constitutes a crime.
Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved
and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed.
He also reported that there exist more than one hundred first
responders
who heard and experienced *explosions* and that there is radio, audio
and *video evidence of explosions*.
Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the
evidence of Nano-Thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by
an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen
nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit.
*Nano-Thermite* is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechn ic capable of
instantly melting steel girders.
Before we yell "conspiracy theory," we should be aware that the
architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory.
They provide evidence that challenges the official theory.
This evidence is not going to go away.
If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the
9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then
we
have to include in this category both co-chairmen of the 9/11
Commission
and the Commission's legal counsel, all of whom have written books in
which they clearly acknowledge that they were lied to by Government
officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when
they
presided over the investigation conducted by the Executive Director,
Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush's transition team
and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush
Secretary of State Condi "Mushroom" Rice.
There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the
government
tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied
to
them.
Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare,
wars
based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent
Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan
participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian
nuclear
weapons that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war
of
aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population
still believes the fantastic story that the Government has told them
about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western
world.
Moreover, it doesn't matter to these Americans how often the
Government
changes its story.
For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush
regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after
video
was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden's
pronouncements. Experts dismissed these videos as fakes, but Americans
remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11
"mastermind" emerged to take bin Laden's place, the captive Khalid
Sheik
Mohammed, the detainee who was waterboarded 183 times until he
confessed
to masterminding the 9/11 attack.
In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted
evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal
system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican
federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S.
Constitution,
the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only
evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off
9/11.
If you consider the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they
are
simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable
superhero than V in the fantasy movie, "V for Vendetta". Sheik
Mohammed
outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all
U.S.
allies or puppets, including Israel's Mossad.
No intelligence service on earth, or all of them combined, was a match
for Sheik Mohammed.
Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick
Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force,
and Air Traffic Control. He caused Airport Security to fail four times
in one morning. He caused the state-of-the- art air defenses of the
Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course
all
morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was
unable to get aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.
Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified
pilots.
Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to
prevent
the Federal Bureau of Investigation from releasing the many
confiscated
videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked
airliner hitting the Penagon.
How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that
matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?
If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the
incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into
confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the
government's conspiracy theory.
What is going on here is that the US government has to bring the 9/11
mystery to an end. The Government must put on trial and convict a
culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone
waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.
The US government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against
its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror
from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now as big
a
concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people
who get in the way of the government's agenda, such as the *1,000
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.*
The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?
Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11
skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions
that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them
at
all cost.
Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only
provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they
are on to something?
Instead, why doesn't the US Government simply confront the evidence
that
is presented and answer it?
If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely
kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and
refute it.
Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set
them up?
Many Americans would reply that "their" government would never even
dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying
buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3,
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House
Intelligence
Committee that the US government can assassinate its own citizens when
they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime
is
necessary. Just straight out murder.
Obviously, if the US government can murder its citizens abroad it can
murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch
Davidians
were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no
legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power
knowing
that it could get away with it, which it did.
Americans who think "their" government is some kind of morally pure
operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation
Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American
cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the US could gain
domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The
secret
plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by
the
John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board.
It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are
numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James
Bamford's
book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:
"*Operation Northwoods*, which had the written approval of the
Chairman
[Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff,
called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats
carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave
of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and
elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit;
planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be
blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as
well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch
their war".
Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the
wars
of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required
"*a new Pearl Harbor*".
For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay
attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the
government's account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched
the neoconservative plan for US world hegemony.
As I write, the US government is purchasing the agreement of foreign
governments that border Russia to accept US missile interceptor bases.
The US intends to ring Russia with US missile bases from Poland
through
central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia.
US envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 2010 that al Qaida
is
moving into former Central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet
Union,
such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and
Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting US bases in these former Soviet
Republics under the guise of the ever-expanding "war on terror".
The United States has already encircled Iran with military bases. The
US
government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the
Middle East and cutting China off from oil.
This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be
intimidated by US anti-missile defenses and will acquiesce in US
hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.
*The US government is delusional.* Russian military and political
leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a
direct
threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian
war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese
are too confident to be bullied by a washed-up American "superpower" .
*The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war.*
The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. *The
American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of "their"
government, are facilitating this outcome.
*
http://www.opednews .com/articles/ The-Road- to-Armageddon- by-Paul-
Craig- Roberts-100225- 925.html*
AllYou!
news:bbeb30b6-1084-426d...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
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
Iarnrod
Bwahhhaaaaa!! Check YOU ... you are much more than a "bit" of
insanity. FACT.
Iarnrod
> On Feb 23, 2:41 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Corrected Subject
You should have corrected the lies in the post itself, knowsknothing.
Oh wait, that's right... you BELIEVE this stupid disproven crap.
> The Road to Armageddon
More like the road to Bellevue.
> By Paul Craig Roberts
> Former Assistant Secretary to US Treasury
And obvious kook.
> The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the
> Bush/Cheney/ Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and
> favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to
> learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper's
> website
> for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report,
> "Explosive
> News", about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad
> on
> February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an
> organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
Why would that surprise this delusional nitwit? 9/11 twooferism is a
huge rightwing anti-gubmint belief. Most 9/11 twoof kooks are
rightards. Figures the Moonie Times would feature it.
> I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press
> conference seriously.
ALL thinking people would be surprised that ANYBODY would take
seriously the disproven physically impossible claims made by A&E for
9/11 Delusions.
> How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers
> suddenly disintegrate into fine dust?
Uh, they didn't. False premise.
> How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a
> result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires?
False premise again.
Try "dynamic loading" and stop embarrassing your stupid kooker ass in
public.
> "A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are *calling on
> Congress to order a new investigation* into the destruction of the
> Twin
> Towers and Building 7", reports the newspaper.
Why? NIST fully explained it. Case closed.
> The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded
> that
> the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provided "insufficient,
> contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the
> towers' destruction" and are "calling for a grand jury investigation
> of
> NIST officials".
Yet they seem incapable of NAMING ONE THING that FEMA or NIST got
wrong. Funny, that.
> The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the
> architects and engineers said: "Government officials will be notified
> that "*Misprision of Treason*,' US Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious
> Federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
> The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
> forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial".
WAHAHAHAAAHHAAAHAHAAA!!! The implications may have a profound impact
on Gage's eventual course of treatment at a mental health facility!
Thanks for the fresh laughs this morning, knowsknothing!
knews4...@yahoo.com
Your lies grow.
You can't spew anything but deception and falsehoods.
Your myth is collapsing by the minute.
On Mar 1, 6:43 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:18 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2:41 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Corrected Subject
>
> You should have corrected the lies in the post itself, knowsknothing.
>
You have nothing but lies in your bag of tricks.
> Oh wait, that's right... you BELIEVE this stupid disproven crap.
>
> > The Road to Armageddon
>
> More like the road to Bellevue.
>
You should know.
I think that is from where you post.
> > By Paul Craig Roberts
> > Former Assistant Secretary to US Treasury
>
> And obvious kook.
>
Sure, sure, sure.
You are truly pathological.
http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
> > The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the
> > Bush/Cheney/ Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and
> > favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to
> > learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper's
> > website
> > for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report,
> > "Explosive
> > News", about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad
> > on
> > February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an
> > organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
>
> Why would that surprise this delusional nitwit? 9/11 twooferism is a
> huge rightwing anti-gubmint belief. Most 9/11 twoof kooks are
> rightards. Figures the Moonie Times would feature it.
>
Name calling loses.
You got a fact to dispute?
You got cite for any of your spew?
> > I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press
> > conference seriously.
>
> ALL thinking people would be surprised that ANYBODY would take
> seriously the disproven physically impossible claims made by A&E for
> 9/11 Delusions.
>
Got a cite for your "dis-proof?"
> > How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers
> > suddenly disintegrate into fine dust?
>
> Uh, they didn't. False premise.
>
Blind pathological lie noted.
> > How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a
> > result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires?
>
> False premise again.
>
Blind pathological lie noted.
> Try "dynamic loading" and stop embarrassing your stupid kooker ass in
> public.
>
But you ignore Conservation of angular momentum.
You ignore any evidence that you don't like.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
> > "A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are *calling on
> > Congress to order a new investigation* into the destruction of the
> > Twin
> > Towers and Building 7", reports the newspaper.
>
> Why? NIST fully explained it. Case closed.
>
You lie again.
NIST explained NOTHING.
> > The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded
> > that
> > the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US National
> > Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provided "insufficient,
> > contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the
> > towers' destruction" and are "calling for a grand jury investigation
> > of
> > NIST officials".
>
> Yet they seem incapable of NAMING ONE THING that FEMA or NIST got
> wrong. Funny, that.
>
Liar.
> > The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the
> > architects and engineers said: "Government officials will be notified
> > that "*Misprision of Treason*,' US Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious
> > Federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
> > The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
> > forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial".
>
> WAHAHAHAAAHHAAAHAHAAA!!! The implications may have a profound impact
> on Gage's eventual course of treatment at a mental health facility!
>
> Thanks for the fresh laughs this morning, knowsknothing!
Thanks for more of your lies and denials.
You are hopeless.
You are consumed by fear.
Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhNSHNyGd4
Iarnrod
> You've lost.
> Your lies grow.
> You can't spew anything but deception and falsehoods.
> Your myth is collapsing by the minute.
Really? The explain your continuing FAILURE to NAME ONE THING I have
said that is a lie! You can’t and you won’t, and each content-less
post you make is testimony to the TRUTH of my statement.
> On Mar 1, 6:43 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 1, 1:18 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 2:41 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Corrected Subject
>
> > You should have corrected the lies in the post itself, knowsknothing.
>
> You have nothing but lies in your bag of tricks.
Then why are you completely impotent when it comes to trying to name
one, coward?
> > Oh wait, that's right... you BELIEVE this stupid disproven crap.
>
> > > The Road to Armageddon
>
> > More like the road to Bellevue.
>
> You should know.
> I think that is from where you post.
Projection.
ALL my statements are proven FACT; ALL your statements are proven to
be lies. How do you manage to get around this FACT, knowsknothing?
> > > By Paul Craig Roberts
> > > Former Assistant Secretary to US Treasury
>
> > And obvious kook.
>
> Sure, sure, sure.
Yep, for certain.
> You are truly pathological.http://healthmad.com/mental-health/how-to-spot-a-pathological-liar/
Is that your home page, liar? BWAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!!!! PWNED!
> > > The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the
> > > Bush/Cheney/ Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and
> > > favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to
> > > learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper's
> > > website
> > > for the past three days was the "Inside the Beltway" report,
> > > "Explosive
> > > News", about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad
> > > on
> > > February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an
> > > organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
>
> > Why would that surprise this delusional nitwit? 9/11 twooferism is a
> > huge rightwing anti-gubmint belief. Most 9/11 twoof kooks are
> > rightards. Figures the Moonie Times would feature it.
>
> Name calling loses.
So you lose then, huh.
> You got a fact to dispute?
ALL the facts are on my side, kook, and your perpetual cowardly
failure to front even ONE ITEM from your kooker list of lies to put to
my TRUTH TEST is PROOF that you don’t even have faith in the lies you
embrace.
> You got cite for any of your spew?
It is called “reality.” You wouldn’t recognize it, of course.
> > > I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press
> > > conference seriously.
>
> > ALL thinking people would be surprised that ANYBODY would take
> > seriously the disproven physically impossible claims made by A&E for
> > 9/11 Delusions.
>
> Got a cite for your "dis-proof?"
Of course.
Try me.
NAME ONE CLAIM by A&E for 9/11 Delusions that you stupidly “think” is
true and I will show you how it is false.
Put that claim right here=========>
As I love to say since I am always right about this, “you can’t and
you won’t!”
Watch knowsknothing fulfill my prediction by failing again.
> > > How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers
> > > suddenly disintegrate into fine dust?
>
> > Uh, they didn't. False premise.
>
> Blind pathological lie noted.
BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Look at this “fine dust!” You are truly a nutbag!
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/pictures/images/world_trade_center_debris.jpg
Why, you could just sweep that up in a dustpan, couldn’t ya!
BWAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!! “Fine dust!” And the kook knowsknothing thinks *I*
am blind! Too fuckin’ funny!
> > > How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a
> > > result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires?
>
> > False premise again.
>
> Blind pathological lie noted.
By you of course. Fires=Not short lived, not isolated, not low
temperature. FACT. It’s just your bloviating.
> > Try "dynamic loading" and stop embarrassing your stupid kooker ass in
> > public.
>
> But you ignore Conservation of angular momentum.
No I don’t. you ignore gravity.
> You ignore any evidence that you don't like.
Unlike you I have ignored NOTHING. EVERY SINGLE BIT of evidence is
part of my claim. ALL of it supports me and NONE OF IT supports you.
That’s just a fact. Don’t believe me? The PUT UP OR SHUT UP!! NAME one
piece of evidence that supports you. “You can’t and you won’t!”
> > > "A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are *calling on
> > > Congress to order a new investigation* into the destruction of the
> > > Twin
> > > Towers and Building 7", reports the newspaper.
>
> > Why? NIST fully explained it. Case closed.
>
> You lie again.
Name one. You can’t and you won’t. What I have said is proven true,
and all evidence contradicts your claims.
> NIST explained NOTHING.
Read it and weep, pathological liar:
http://wtc.nist.gov/
Tell us SPECIFICALLY just ONE THING in there that you disagree with
and WHY and I shall school you the old way.
“You can’t and you won’t!”
> > > The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded
> > > that
> > > the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US National
> > > Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provided "insufficient,
> > > contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the
> > > towers' destruction" and are "calling for a grand jury investigation
> > > of
> > > NIST officials".
>
> > Yet they seem incapable of NAMING ONE THING that FEMA or NIST got
> > wrong. Funny, that.
>
> Liar.
Liar? That’s too fuckin’ funny for you to call me aliar for saying you
seem incapable of naming one thing while you are in fact POROVING ME
CORRECT by once again failing to NAME ONE THING!! BWAAHAHAHAAA!!
You’re like some kooker autobot just churning out your arm-waving
denials without regard to what you’re replying to! I say that you
aren’t naming one thing; you could prove me a liar by NAMING ONE
THING, yet you can’t and you won’t.
> > > The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the
> > > architects and engineers said: "Government officials will be notified
> > > that "*Misprision of Treason*,' US Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious
> > > Federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
> > > The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the
> > > forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial".
>
> > WAHAHAHAAAHHAAAHAHAAA!!! The implications may have a profound impact
> > on Gage's eventual course of treatment at a mental health facility!
>
> > Thanks for the fresh laughs this morning, knowsknothing!
>
> Thanks for more of your lies and denials.
Name one.
> You are hopeless.
I AM hopeless about the prospects of you ever learning enough to feed
yourself on your own.
> You are consumed by fear.
Fear that you will stop posting your lunacy, forcing me to look
elsewhere for my daily laughs.
> Try this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhNSHNyGd4
Why? Sure didn’t seem to work for you!
BWAAAAAAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!
<sips Victory Iced Tea>
knews4...@yahoo.com
attempt spewed:
Same lies different day....
Didn't you say "no such thing as top down demolition."
You sure did.
Loser.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
min 1:15, top down demolition.
min 1:34, bodies pulverized
The truth clearly distresses you.
Learn EFT.
Get help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhNSHNyGd4
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:bbeb30b6-1084-426d...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 1:45 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >> Innews:1abe7bae-eda8-41b7...@t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
> >> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> >>> On Feb 26, 9:13 am, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should be
> >>>>> reinvestigated.
>
> >>>>> It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you,
> >>>>> had gathered some signatures from idiots like you, made
> >>>>> preposterous statements having no basis in fact or reality
> >>>>> and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>
> >>>>> The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a rehash
> >>>>> of the completely debunked, nonsense theories indulged in by
> >>>>> losers of which you are more than a prime example.
>
> >>>> But media circuses like this create money.
>
> >>> Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
>
> >> He's done quite a good job of that all by himself.
>
Sure he has.
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8857832629715387909&q=Jim+Fet...
>
> 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
AllYou!
news:ede992ec-6972-4ef9...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Mar 1, 4:59 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:bbeb30b6-1084-426d...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 1:45 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>> Innews:1abe7bae-eda8-41b7...@t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
>>>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 9:13 am, Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Hey, village Idiot! The Times did not say that 9-11should
>>>>>>> be reinvestigated.
>>
>>>>>>> It merely reported the story that another wacko, like you,
>>>>>>> had gathered some signatures from idiots like you, made
>>>>>>> preposterous statements having no basis in fact or reality
>>>>>>> and submitted his idiot petition to Congress.
>>
>>>>>>> The whole thing, perpetrated by the whacko, is just a
>>>>>>> rehash of the completely debunked, nonsense theories
>>>>>>> indulged in by losers of which you are more than a prime
>>>>>>> example.
>>
>>>>>> But media circuses like this create money.
>>
>>>>> Then why don't they make a circus of Jones' work?
>>
>>>> He's done quite a good job of that all by himself.
>>
>
> Sure he has.
That's what I said. He's done quite a good job of that [making a
circus of his own work] all by himself.
AllYou!
news:85080b55-fdef-4e72...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Why did you find it necessary to snip the very many places where
Iarnrod challenged you to show where s/he's posted even one lie?
Iarnrod
> On Mar 1, 9:35 am, Iiarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> in another desperate
> attempt spewed:
>
> Same lies different day....
Ah, that's the story of your life, proven liar.
> Didn't you say "no such thing as top down demolition."
> You sure did.
> Loser.
I win. Every time you post something you contradict yourself! You're
AMAZING! You're never even right ACCIDENTALLY!
> http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
> min 1:15, top down demolition.
Thanks for the video proof that this is not what happened on 9/11. Did
you fail to note the FACT that these other instances used EXPLOSIVES
on each floor? FACT: There were no explosives used in the WTC
collapses. This is observable, true, and incontrovertible FACT.
> The truth clearly distresses you.
BWAHAHAHAAAHHAAAAA!!!! The only distress I have is busting my gut
laughing at how you stupidly post things that prove I am correct.
> Learn EFT.
> Get help.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhNSHNyGd4
It sure did nothign for you, kookbag!
Iarnrod
> Innews:85080b55-fdef-4e72...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 9:35 am, Iiarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> in another
> > desperate attempt spewed:
>
> > Same lies different day....
>
> > Didn't you say "no such thing as top down demolition."
> > You sure did.
> > Loser.
>
> >http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
> > min 1:15, top down demolition.
> > min 1:34, bodies pulverized
>
> > The truth clearly distresses you.
>
> > Learn EFT.
> > Get help.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhNSHNyGd4
>
> Why did you find it necessary to snip the very many places where
> Iarnrod challenged you to show where s/he's posted even one lie?
>
Because he has no claim to make that won't fall apart at the first
instant.
Henry
> The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Explosions
Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many
recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on
this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where
noted otherwise.
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just
remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they
blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around
like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We
were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun,
but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that
-- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We
heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is
coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were
talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud
explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At
that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me,
knocked my helmet off.
Interview, , New York Times
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I
guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell
on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's
the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a
secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was
an explosion.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation
explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and
then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a
second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general,
everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when
[the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then
the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was
scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where
my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in
time.
Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from
building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there
were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We
realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors
collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course
after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like
in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you
kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you
were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now
you're very familiar with it.
Interview, 01/25/02, New York Times
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start
walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up,
from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I
thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off.
The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody
who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and
and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are
they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I
turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion
and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage
again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started
running behind them, and we get to the door.
Interview, 01/23/02, New York Times
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World
Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It
appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials
shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay
before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Interview, 10/31/01, New York Times
James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I
looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu.
Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of
the floors before it actually collapsed.
Interview, 12/30/01, New York Times
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two
started to come down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden
someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like
it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to
pancake one on top of the other.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each
popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out
of the building and then it would just go all around the building on
both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the
explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all
around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise
and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of
fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted
explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see
two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor
blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on
the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there,
it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and
realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the
windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew
out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming
off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole
thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud
rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the
entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the
entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became
tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was
starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking
garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an
explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista
International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up.
I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.
Interview, 11/09/01, New York Times
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I
heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two
towers was starting to come down.
...
When the dust started to settle, I headed back down towards the World
Trade Center and I guess I came close to arriving at the corner of Vesey
and West again where we started to hear the second roar. That was the
north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and
myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive -
bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved
wrong.
...
The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing
that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I
said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's
about it. Any questions?
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer
of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three
or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was
interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud
of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green
clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster
than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the
street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down.
Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much
further.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very
close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was
burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of
the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both
sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of
the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said,
like the top of a volcano.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
North Tower:
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because
he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as
I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like
three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and
ran north.
Interview, 01/09/02, New York Times
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is
with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but
for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the
Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never
mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level
flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I
thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have
been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw
a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you
mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I
thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye
level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way.
I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but
somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
That's basically where we were. Then a large explosion took place. In my
estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not
know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off. I was, I
believe, ahead of the rest of the firefighters and officers there. I
made it to the corner, and I took about four running steps this way when
you could feel the rush of the wind coming at you. I believed that that
was a huge fireball coming at the time.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we
got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the
building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on
the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.
...
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of
noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up
speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times
Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command]
Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off
straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously
we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary
explosives or more planes or whatever.
Interview, 12/03/01, New York Times
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were walking into darkness. As we walked through those revolving
doors, that's when we felt the rumble. I felt the rumbling, and then I
felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my
mind it was a bomb going off. The pressure got so great, I stepped back
behind the columns separating the revolving doors. Then the force just
blew past me. It blew past me it seemed for a long time. In my mind I
was saying what the hell is this and when is it going to stop? Then it
finally stopped, that pressure which I thought was a concussion of an
explosion. It turns out it was the down pressure wind of the floors
collapsing on top of each other. At that point everything went black,
and then the collapse came. It just rained on top of us. Everything
came. It rained debris forever.
Interview, 12/12/01, New York Times
Julio Marrero -- E.M.T. (F.D.N.Y.)
I was screaming from the top of my lungs, and I must have been about ten
feet away from her and she couldn't even hear me, because the building
was so loud, the explosion, that she couldn't even hear me. I just saw
everybody running; and she saw us running, and she took off behind us.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Orlando Martinez -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
There was an explosion and after we started running, I was able to make
it to Chambers and West, where I only saw one EMT, EMT Vega. She is new
here. She was the only EMT I saw from the station and with all the cops
and everybody else running, rescue workers. I grabbed her and I said
just stay with me. We will try to get out of here.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Linda McCarthy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
So when that one went down. I thought the plane was exploding, or
another plane hit. I had no idea it was coming down. But I couldn't see
it gone, because I couldn't see it really in the first place with all
the smoke.
Interview, 11/28/01, New York Times
James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler
exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is
coming at us, so we're running. Everyone is, firemen, PD, everyone is
running away from the World Trade Center, up Vessey Street. This is
North End, we was running around Vessey and around North end to get away
from the first smoke.
Interview, 10/12/01, New York Times
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the
building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops.
Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the
building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Interview, 12/11/01, New York Times
Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) []
I was standing kind of on the edge of where our elevator bank met the
big elevator bank. That was when the - I determined that's when the
north tower collapses. We are standing there and the first thing that
happened, which I still think is strange to me, the lights went out.
Completely pitch black. Since we are in that core little area of the
building, there is no natural light. No nothing, I didn't see a thing.
I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom
boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At
the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom
boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___,
that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of
a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with
the train coming at you.
Interview, 12/05/01, New York Times
Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and
someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all
the windows domino -- you know, dominoeing up and then come down. We
were right in front of 6, so we started running and how are you going to
outrun the World Trade Center? So we threw our tools and I dove under a
rig.
Interview, 10/09/01, New York Times
Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an
explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it
was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane
exploding, whatever.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Juan Rios -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I was in the back waiting, you know, so we could wait for patients and I
was hooking up the regulator to the O-2, when I hear people screaming
and a loud explosion, and I heard like "sssssssss..." the dust like
"sssssssss..." So I come out of the bus, and I look and I see a big
cloud of dust and debris coming from the glass...
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Michael Ober -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air,
and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it
looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building
was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely
outside of it. I was sitting there looking at it. I just never thought
they would ever come down, so I didn't think they were coming down. I
just froze and stood there looking at it.
Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times
Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Mike Mullan walked one flight up, and then the most horrendous thing
happened. That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous
explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook. Everything went black.
The wind rushed, very slowly [sound], all the dust, all the -- and
everything went dark.
Interview, 01/22/02, New York Times
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
Then that's when -- I kept on walking close to the south tower, and
that's when that building collapsed.
...
It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see
professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and
then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because
I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I
saw the building coming down.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were
just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the
south tower, which, according to this map, this exposure just blew out
the flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor
after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when
it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked
like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Interview, 12/10/01, New York Times
Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up
above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower
tilt, start to twist and lean.
...
I was assisting in pulling more people out from debris, when I heard the
second tower explode. When I tried to evacuate the area, by running up
Fulton, got halfway up.
Interview, 10/10/01, New York Times
Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white
powder, papers, flying everywhere. We sat put there for a few minutes.
It kind of dissipated.
...
That's when we heard this massive explosion and I saw this thing rolling
towards us. It looked like a fireball and then thick, thick black smoke.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The best I can remember, we were just operating there, trying to help
out and do the best we could. Then we heard a loud explosion or what
sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start
coming down. Crazy.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could
hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on
top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the
beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I
will never forget.
Interview, 11/01/01, New York Times
Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in
that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick
glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large
section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an
explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had
to go.
...
Within a few moments, I regrouped with Bruce Medjuck and I asked him to
tell them on the radio to send us MTA buses to get people out. That
didn't happen. But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up
which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the
- what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
Interview, 10/30/01, New York Times
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this
is when the second tower started coming down.
Interview, 10/25/01, New York Times
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
The next thing I heard was Pete say what the f___ is this? And as my
eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,
somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a
secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the
building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to
collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the
floor that let go.
Interview, 10/23/01, New York Times
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds
and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day
sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or
eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just
actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of
just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
...
At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to
my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know
that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.
Interview, 01/17/02, New York Times
Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
Our guy went in with 13 truck, and he was coming down with the guy from
13 truck to bring the elevator to us, and when he was either going up or
coming down the elevator, that's when the south tower collapsed, and it
sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I
guess it was all just stuff coming down, and then we got covered with
rubble and dust, and I thought we'd actually fallen through the floor
into like the PATH tubes, because it was so dark you couldn't see
anything, and from there it was a little hazy from there on.
Interview, 01/10/02, New York Times
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was
coming down right on top of us, so we ran up West Street. We ran a
little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud and we hid behind a
white Suburban.
...
Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West
Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the
street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You
couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the
military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you
heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet
above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs
going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> knews4...@yahoo.com writes:
>> Things pulverized at the WTC.
>
> Well, yes, all that drywall certainly did, producing those famous dust
> clouds.
You "think" the poured concrete floors were made of
drywall? That's funny...
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD.
> Explosions
[snip hundreds of lines of out-of-context crap]
As I said, CD explosions are LOUD. Imagine how LOUD a charge would need
to be to cut a lower column in one of the towers! Then ask yourself why
none of the THOUSANDS of videos recorded that day recorded those LOUD
explosions!
Sure, the firefighters heard all the booms and rumbles as sections of
ceilings or the odd beams fell in the failing towers. Maybe even a
boom from a ruptured gas line catching fire. I'm talking about the LOUD
controlled demolition charges!
Why didn't all those videos record those demolition charges? Either:
1) Magic silent (and invisible) explosives;
2) There simply weren't any demolition charges.
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> knews4...@yahoo.com writes:
>>> Things pulverized at the WTC.
>>
>> Well, yes, all that drywall certainly did, producing those famous dust
>> clouds.
> You "think" the poured concrete floors were made of
>drywall? That's funny...
No, I think the walls were. I see you were too stooopid to get a clue
from the term "dryWALL". Ever see how dusty that stuff is?
But ChewToy was claiming the steel columns were dust... how stupid
is that? Esp. since the news showed all those beams and columns at
"Ground Zero" for days afterwards...
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Incendiaries do not have to go boom.
Nano- thermite can cut through girder steel in an instant.
The heat creates huge hot gas balls.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Iarnrod
> On Mar 8, 3:46 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> > >Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD.
> > > Explosions
>
> > [snip hundreds of lines of out-of-context crap]
>
> > As I said, CD explosions are LOUD. Imagine how LOUD a charge would need
> > to be to cut a lower column in one of the towers! Then ask yourself why
> > none of the THOUSANDS of videos recorded that day recorded those LOUD
> > explosions!
>
> > Sure, the firefighters heard all the booms and rumbles as sections of
> > ceilings or the odd beams fell in the failing towers. Maybe even a
> > boom from a ruptured gas line catching fire. I'm talking about the LOUD
> > controlled demolition charges!
>
> > Why didn't all those videos record those demolition charges? Either:
> > 1) Magic silent (and invisible) explosives;
> > 2) There simply weren't any demolition charges.
>
> Incendiaries do not have to go boom.
Incendiaries were not present.
> Nano- thermite can cut through girder steel in an instant.
No. It cannot.
> The heat creates huge hot gas balls.
You're a huge hot gas ball.
Thermite is physically incapable of producing what happened on 9/11.
Simply put, it could not have happened the way you suggest.
knews4...@yahoo.com
subject heading and spewed.:
> On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, knowsmeothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 3:46 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:
>
> > > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> > > >Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD.
> > > > Explosions
>
> > > [snip hundreds of lines of out-of-context crap]
>
> > > As I said, CD explosions are LOUD. Imagine how LOUD a charge would need
> > > to be to cut a lower column in one of the towers! Then ask yourself why
> > > none of the THOUSANDS of videos recorded that day recorded those LOUD
> > > explosions!
>
> > > Sure, the firefighters heard all the booms and rumbles as sections of
> > > ceilings or the odd beams fell in the failing towers. Maybe even a
> > > boom from a ruptured gas line catching fire. I'm talking about the LOUD
> > > controlled demolition charges!
>
> > > Why didn't all those videos record those demolition charges? Either:
> > > 1) Magic silent (and invisible) explosives;
> > > 2) There simply weren't any demolition charges.
>
> > Incendiaries do not have to go boom.
>
> Incendiaries were not present.
>
> > Nano- thermite can cut through girder steel in an instant.
>
> No. It cannot.
>
> > The heat creates huge hot gas balls.
>
> You're a huge hot gas ball.
>
> Thermite is physically incapable of producing what happened on 9/11.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
> Simply put, it could not have happened the way you suggest.
Yet it did.
Iarnrod
failure:
> On Mar 8, 8:22 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> once again kicked knowsknothing's stupid kooker ass:
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:51 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 3:46 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> writes:
> > > > >Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >> The high explosive demolition charges are LOUD.
> > > > > Explosions
>
> > > > [snip hundreds of lines of out-of-context crap]
>
> > > > As I said, CD explosions are LOUD. Imagine how LOUD a charge would need
> > > > to be to cut a lower column in one of the towers! Then ask yourself why
> > > > none of the THOUSANDS of videos recorded that day recorded those LOUD
> > > > explosions!
>
> > > > Sure, the firefighters heard all the booms and rumbles as sections of
> > > > ceilings or the odd beams fell in the failing towers. Maybe even a
> > > > boom from a ruptured gas line catching fire. I'm talking about the LOUD
> > > > controlled demolition charges!
>
> > > > Why didn't all those videos record those demolition charges? Either:
> > > > 1) Magic silent (and invisible) explosives;
> > > > 2) There simply weren't any demolition charges.
>
> > > Incendiaries do not have to go boom.
>
> > Incendiaries were not present.
>
> > > Nano- thermite can cut through girder steel in an instant.
>
> > No. It cannot.
>
> Liar.
How come you cannot prove your claim then, shit-for-brains?
You are the liar. FACT that I have proven repeatedly.
> > > The heat creates huge hot gas balls.
>
> > You're a huge hot gas ball.
>
> > Thermite is physically incapable of producing what happened on 9/11.
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...
False premise.
> > Simply put, it could not have happened the way you suggest.
>
> Yet it did.
No, it did not. It happened the way NIST proved it did. Q.E.D. Your
claims cannot even occur on planet Earth.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Iarnrod
knews4...@yahoo.com
Peter Webb
For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
claimed?
I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
the twin towers, Pentagon, and the field in Philadelphia?
knews4...@yahoo.com
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> claimed?
>
> I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> the twin towers,
Remote controlled jets.
>Pentagon,
Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>and the field in Philadelphia?
Can't say.
Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> claimed?
>
> I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> the twin towers,
Remote controlled jets.
__________________________________
Were there pilots and aircrew aboard? Passengers? Hijackers? (In your
opinion). How did the people remotely controlling the aircraft see where
they were going?
>Pentagon,
Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
_____________________________________
What happened to the people on the flight manifest who were supposedly in
the plane?
>and the field in Philadelphia?
Can't say.
Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
________________________________
Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
AllYou!
news:94544671-fffc-4bf8...@t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Wrong again.
Henry
> As I said, CD explosions are LOUD.
Which is why they were heard during the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just
remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they
blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around
like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times
> Why didn't all those videos record those demolition charges?
They all do show them. Why do you refuse to get informed
before you rant?
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many ?frequently asked questions?,
NIST?s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
?puffs of dust?, and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying ?NIST?s findings do not support the ?pancake
theory? of collapse.? In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying ?the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it?much like the action of a piston?forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially.?[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST?s current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the ?enclosed cylinder? of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It?s difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST?s new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
Henry
> Henry <9-11...@experts.org> writes:
>
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> knews4...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>>> Things pulverized at the WTC.
>>> Well, yes, all that drywall certainly did, producing those famous dust
>>> clouds.
>> You "think" the poured concrete floors were made of
>> drywall? That's funny...
> No, I think the walls were.
You said the dust clouds were produced by drywall.
That's very silly. The dust clouds were produced
by pulverizing over 100 floors of poured concrete
with high explosives. Do try to keep up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
Henry
> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> claimed?
No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
Iarnrod
> NIST is covering up. Q.E.D.
No it isn't. You cannot NAME ONE THING that it is, kook. you can't and
you won't because you are a pathological liar.
Q.E.D.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > claimed?
>
> > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> > the twin towers,
>
> Remote controlled jets.
That is not physically possible. Sorry. Try again, dearie.
> >Pentagon,
>
> Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
Not possible. Sorry. What about the hundreds of people who saw the
American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon?
> >and the field in Philadelphia?
>
> Can't say.
Smoke some more crack and I am sure you'll think of something!
BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAA!!!
> Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
Why not? Afraid?
Iarnrod
<9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> >>>> Things pulverized at the WTC.
> >>> Well, yes, all that drywall certainly did, producing those famous dust
> >>> clouds.
> >> You "think" the poured concrete floors were made of
> >> drywall? That's funny...
> > No, I think the walls were.
>
> You said the dust clouds were produced by drywall.
> That's very silly.
Really? On your Planet Kookton, drywall doesn't produce dust when it
breaks up? How does it manage this anti-physics phenomenon, Hankie the
Self-Admitted Fired Janitor?
> The dust clouds were produced
> by pulverizing over 100 floors of poured concrete
> with high explosives.
That is not physically possible. First, no high explosives went off.
That is proven fact. Second, high explosives do not pulverize
concrete, they would break it apart into chunks.
> Do try to keep up.
You are way way distant in our rear-view mirror, Fired Janitor.
Strabo
>
> <knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>>
> Can't say.
> Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> ________________________________
> Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
>
Seen any bodies?
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > claimed?
>
> > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> > the twin towers,
>
> Remote controlled jets.
>
> __________________________________
> Were there pilots and aircrew aboard? Passengers? Hijackers? (In your
> opinion).
Maybe.
No way to tell.
The planes and contents exploded on impact in a fireball.
>How did the people remotely controlling the aircraft see where
> they were going?
Video cameras on board looking forward.
Look at "smart" bomb video.
They are guided by internal video cameras.
Also there were choppers in the air at the WTC that may have had the
controllers on board.
Could have all been done by GPS from a satellite.
>
> >Pentagon,
>
> Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>
> _____________________________________
> What happened to the people on the flight manifest who were supposedly in
> the plane?
>
Dead in the crashes or ditched at sea.
> >and the field in Philadelphia?
>
> Can't say.
> Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> ________________________________
> Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
People who "thought" they were hijackers may have been.
They were not on the original manifests.
Iarnrod
> Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why, yes, and so did the coroner who ID'd them. Maybe you should
subscribe to a newspaper or sumptin' eh?
Iarnrod
> On Mar 9, 3:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
>
>
>
> > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > > claimed?
>
> > > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> > > the twin towers,
>
> > Remote controlled jets.
>
> > __________________________________
> > Were there pilots and aircrew aboard? Passengers? Hijackers? (In your
> > opinion).
>
> Maybe.
> No way to tell.
Actually there is. Body parts. Effects.
> The planes and contents exploded on impact in a fireball.
That is what killed them. Many body parts were recovered.
> >How did the people remotely controlling the aircraft see where
> > they were going?
>
> Video cameras on board looking forward.
Not possible. You watch too much Hollywood, kook.
> Look at "smart" bomb video.
> They are guided by internal video cameras.
> Also there were choppers in the air at the WTC that may have had the
> controllers on board.
Pure kookery. It is not physically possible to remotely control a
passenger jet.
> Could have all been done by GPS from a satellite.
No, actually that is not a physical possibility. Again, you think
movies are real life.
You poor poor kook.
> > >Pentagon,
>
> > Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>
> > _____________________________________
> > What happened to the people on the flight manifest who were supposedly in
> > the plane?
>
> Dead in the crashes or ditched at sea.
How come the radar track shows it crashing into the Pentagon having
never gotten close to the ocean?
> > >and the field in Philadelphia?
>
> > Can't say.
> > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> > ________________________________
> > Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
>
> People who "thought" they were hijackers may have been.
> They were not on the original manifests.
Yes they were. You're lying again. I can tell you're lying because
you're posting!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 9, 12:42 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > > claimed?
>
> > > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> > > the twin towers,
>
> > Remote controlled jets.
>
> That is not physically possible. Sorry. Try again, dearie.
And because YOU say so?
Nice arm wave.
http://www.rense.com/general63/secnd.htm
http://www.masternewmedia.org/2001/10/31/commercial_jet_pilots_analysis_of.htm
>
> > >Pentagon,
>
> > Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>
> Not possible. Sorry.
Nice arm wave.
>What about the hundreds of people who saw the
> American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon?
>
What about the people who saw a "small commuter jet?"
> > >and the field in Philadelphia?
>
> > Can't say.
>
> Smoke some more crack and I am sure you'll think of something!
>
> BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAA!!!
>
Looking in the mirror again?
> > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> Why not? Afraid?
Afraid of your lies again?
And loser lying thread subject changes?
Yes, you are pathological.
http://www.google.com/search?q=pathological+liar+symptoms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
As to flt 93 they haven't shown anything substantial.
It doesn't look like many other jet crashes with big chunks of
airplane, seats, luggage, bodies.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 9, 7:01 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 12:42 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > > > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > > > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > > > claimed?
>
> > > > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
> > > > the twin towers,
>
> > > Remote controlled jets.
>
> > That is not physically possible. Sorry. Try again, dearie.
>
> And because YOU say so?
No, moron, because BOEING says so. BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
You need to learn in life, dearie, that just because you can say
something doesn't make it real. You can say "they flew remote control
planes" but IRL they do not exist, not in the passenger jetliner
fleet.
> Nice arm wave.
And I whacked you right across your stupid face with it too!
> > > >Pentagon,
>
> > > Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>
> > Not possible. Sorry.
>
> Nice arm wave.
And true. No retort. I win.
> >What about the hundreds of people who saw the
> > American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon?
>
> What about the people who saw a "small commuter jet?"
They obviously did not get as clear a view or only a brief one,
compared with the ones who saw "American Airlines" on the 757. The
black boxes from that plane were found in the debris, idiot.
Did Dick Cheeeeeeeney sneak over and toss them there after he had the
passengers slaughtered off site?
> > > >and the field in Philadelphia?
>
> > > Can't say.
>
> > Smoke some more crack and I am sure you'll think of something!
>
> > BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAA!!!
>
> Looking in the mirror again?
No, laughing at your stupid kooker ass.
95% of the plane itself, the black boxes AND passenger body parts were
recovered from the Shanksville crash site, you stupid buffoon. EXPLAIN
THAT.
> > > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> > Why not? Afraid?
>
> Afraid of your lies again?
Name one lie. You cannot and you will not because you are afraid of
the ass-whuppin' I would administer to you on it.
> And loser lying thread subject changes?
Huh? Look, shithead, this is usenet. When *I* post, I have absolute
freedom to do any damn thing I want to call attention to your repeated
lying. I will change it if and when I want. Got it? Good.
> As to flt 93 they haven't shown anything substantial.
Except the passenger body parts, 95% pf the plane parts and the black
boxes and the radar tracking and the eyewitnesses...
BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
> It doesn't look like many other jet crashes with big chunks of
> airplane, seats, luggage, bodies.
Because it drilled into the fuckin' ground, you nitwit. Look up the
1993 Colorado Springs crash, and apologize for being an ignorant fool.
knews4...@yahoo.com
subject header and spewed:
> On Mar 9, 10:43 am, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> > Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
> > > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > <snipped>
> > > Can't say.
> > > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
>
> > Seen any bodies?
>
> Why, yes,
Cite?
and so did the coroner who ID'd them.
Cite?
>Maybe you should
> subscribe to a newspaper or sumptin' eh?
http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/2006/08/yet-another-plane-crash-leaves.html
Iarnrod
wrote:
> On Mar 9, 11:58 am, Mighty Iarnrod kicked this fool's ass repeatedly:
> > On Mar 9, 10:43 am, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> > > Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > > > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
> > > > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > > <snipped>
> > > > Can't say.
> > > > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
>
> > > Seen any bodies?
>
> > Why, yes,
>
> Cite?
Coroner's report, idiot.
When will you learn that unlike you, I always know what I am talking
about?
> > and so did the coroner who ID'd them.
>
> Cite?
Coroner's report, idiot.
How can you klaim to be a 9/11 kooker and not know the basic stuff
that you need to arm-wave in denial?
Peter Webb
"Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
news:hn5lpl$qb9$3...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
>> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
>> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
>> claimed?
>
> No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
So what was it, and where are the people who are supposed to be on the
flight? How do you explain that people who were supposed to be on the flight
called their homes and said they were on board the plane, and it was being
hijacked, and that none of these people have ever been seen alive since? How
do you explain that their bodies were found at the crash site and confirmed
through DNA evidence?
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d83e73b-a0e7-4223...@x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 11:58 am, Ioonrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote his lying
subject header and spewed:
> On Mar 9, 10:43 am, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> > Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
> > > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > <snipped>
> > > Can't say.
> > > Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > Do you believe there were hijackers aboard?
>
> > Seen any bodies?
>
> Why, yes,
Cite?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/national/main502203.shtml
Hope this link helps. Remains of 44 people found, as per Flight 93's
manifest. All positively identified by DNA, fingerprints and dental records.
Bodies returned to families.
Peter Webb
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca7d82d5-df0d-4849...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 9, 3:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ceb461e9-a46e-40a8...@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > claimed?
>
> > I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed
> > in
> > the twin towers,
>
> Remote controlled jets.
>
> __________________________________
> Were there pilots and aircrew aboard? Passengers? Hijackers? (In your
> opinion).
Maybe.
No way to tell.
The planes and contents exploded on impact in a fireball.
___________________________________
Why won't you give me your opinion?
Or after all your research you don't even have an opinion on whether there
were hijackers on board the plane?
Here are three scenarios. Which one do you think most likely, or have you a
fourth scenario which you believe to be even more plausible:
1. There were hijackers on board and the flew the jets into the twin towers
which caused them to collapse.
2. There were hijackers on board, but they did not fly the planes into the
buildings, this was done by remote control, and this caused the buildings to
collapse.
3. They were hijackers on board, but they did not fly the planes into the
buildings, this was done by remote control, but this did not cause the
buildings to collapse, the buildings collapsed due have been previously
wired with explosives.
I just want your opinion on the basic facts. Which of the above do you
believe is the "truth", or do you have a different scenario in mind
entirely?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Peter Webb wrote:
> > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
> > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > claimed?
>
> No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
It says more likely shot down because of 8 mile debris field.
> --
>
> "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
> Albert Einstein.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/
> http://www.ae911truth.org
Here is a better discussion but read the whole thing.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread383114/pg1
Some planes do more or less shatter on impact.
They don't go into the ground like it is quicksand.
Lockerbie was mid air explosions so big pieces.
An intact jet could nose dive in but you'd have pieces everywhere.
It wouldn't just melt into the ground.
There still should be a few semi loads of debris from a jumbo and
luggage no matter how small the pieces after impact.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 9, 6:29 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:> Peter Webb wrote:
> > > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
> > > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > > claimed?
>
> > No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> > http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
> It doesn't really say no plane.
> It says more likely shot down because of 8 mile debris field.
Make up your stupid fuckin' mind, nutbag. Either it was a tiny compact
hole in the ground with no evidence of a plane crash, or it was a
debris field spread over eight miles.
Both are wrong by the way. Some light insulation and paper blew on the
breeze about two or so miles, not eight. It wa an eight-mile drive
around the lake to get to that point, but two miles as the crow, or
debris, flies.
> They don't go into the ground like it is quicksand.
So you haven't been smart enough to check the Colorado Springs United
crash like I told ya, huh, kook? You're wrong.
> Lockerbie was mid air explosions so big pieces.
> An intact jet could nose dive in but you'd have pieces everywhere.
> It wouldn't just melt into the ground.
> There still should be a few semi loads of debris from a jumbo and
> luggage no matter how small the pieces after impact.
There was, from Flight 93. 95 perent of the plane was recovered and
taken to a warehouse for re-assembly in the investigation, you stupid
kooker.
Strabo
Certified reports and pictures if you have them. Otherwise we'll just
categorize the claim with Obama'a birth certificate.
Strabo
Nope, no bodies there. Just the claim that pieces parts were found
and examined.
It's interesting that there is not a report of at least one visually
intact body found among the four aircraft incidents.
The number of lies, disinformation and coverups makes news reports
worthless.
Strabo
> On Mar 9, 1:58 pm, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 7:01 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 12:42 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 8, 10:56 pm, "Peter Webb"
>>>> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>>>>> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
>>>>> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
>>>>> claimed?
>>>>> I do, but I am interested in your opinion. What do *you* think crashed in
>>>>> the twin towers,
>>>> Remote controlled jets.
>>> That is not physically possible. Sorry. Try again, dearie.
>> And because YOU say so?
>
> No, moron, because BOEING says so. BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
>
> You need to learn in life, dearie, that just because you can say
> something doesn't make it real. You can say "they flew remote control
> planes" but IRL they do not exist, not in the passenger jetliner
> fleet.
>
And saying that the 9/11 report is true does not make it so.
>
>> Nice arm wave.
>
> And I whacked you right across your stupid face with it too!
>
>>>>> Pentagon,
>>>> Remote controlled smaller jet carrying a missile or drone missile.
>>> Not possible. Sorry.
>> Nice arm wave.
>
> And true. No retort. I win.
>
>>> What about the hundreds of people who saw the
>>> American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon?
>> What about the people who saw a "small commuter jet?"
>
> They obviously did not get as clear a view or only a brief one,
> compared with the ones who saw "American Airlines" on the 757. The
> black boxes from that plane were found in the debris, idiot.
>
Really? And have you seen these black boxes or heard the tapes?
>
> Did Dick Cheeeeeeeney sneak over and toss them there after he had the
> passengers slaughtered off site?
>
>>>>> and the field in Philadelphia?
>>>> Can't say.
>>> Smoke some more crack and I am sure you'll think of something!
>>> BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAA!!!
>> Looking in the mirror again?
>
> No, laughing at your stupid kooker ass.
>
> 95% of the plane itself, the black boxes AND passenger body parts were
> recovered from the Shanksville crash site, you stupid buffoon. EXPLAIN
> THAT.
>
>>>> Haven't seen one decent picture of wreckage.
>>> Why not? Afraid?
>> Afraid of your lies again?
>
> Name one lie. You cannot and you will not because you are afraid of
> the ass-whuppin' I would administer to you on it.
>
>> And loser lying thread subject changes?
>
> Huh? Look, shithead, this is usenet. When *I* post, I have absolute
> freedom to do any damn thing I want to call attention to your repeated
> lying. I will change it if and when I want. Got it? Good.
>
>> As to flt 93 they haven't shown anything substantial.
>
> Except the passenger body parts, 95% pf the plane parts and the black
> boxes and the radar tracking and the eyewitnesses...
> BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
Now that's a lie.
Show us an identifiable body, black box or aircraft part.
Keep good notes. You'll need them for your hearing.
<snipped>
Strabo
It's been shown that some phone call reports were made up.
We've seen no credible pictures of identifiable bodies, black boxes or
aircraft parts.
Androcles
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:mjIln.6619$3D3....@newsfe19.iad...
Now you no longer exist:
*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.
Peter Webb
So whose body parts do you think they found, that had the same DNA as the
people who were supposed to be on the flight?
And what happened to the people who were supposed to be on the plane? If
they didn't die on board the plane, what happened to them?
Peter Webb
You haven't answered my questions.
If the people that were supposed to be on these flights, where are they now?
How come the DNA of many of them were found at the crash site, and others
through Dental records and X Rays?
What is your explanation? What do you believe to be the TRUTH ?
Iarnrod
Use your Googles, stupid shithead. They're all over the net. Are you
brain-damaged?
> Otherwise we'll just
> categorize the claim with Obama'a birth certificate.
So completely true! Thanks, kook!
Iarnrod
Um, why do you "think" any of the bodies would remain intact?
Are you brain damaged? Wait, yes you are!
> The number of lies, disinformation and coverups makes news reports
> worthless.
Arm-flailing kooker denial doesn't cut it, moron. Try again.
Iarnrod
> >> On Mar 9, 7:01 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 9, 12:42 am, knowsknothing...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
> >>>>> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> >>>>> claimed?
> >>>>> the twin towers,
> >>>> Remote controlled jets.
> >>> That is not physically possible. Sorry. Try again, dearie.
> >> And because YOU say so?
>
> > No, moron, because BOEING says so. BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
>
> > You need to learn in life, dearie, that just because you can say
> > something doesn't make it real. You can say "they flew remote control
> > planes" but IRL they do not exist, not in the passenger jetliner
> > fleet.
>
> And saying that the 9/11 report is true does not make it so.
I didn't contend that it did, fuzznuts.
It's the proven FACTS that make it true,
You are completely impotent when it comes to NAMING ONE THING in the
official reports that is wrong. You can't and you won't because you're
stupid and have nothign but arm-flailing denial gong for you.
Try to name one thing in the official findings that is wrong. Go
ahead, I dare you.
> >>> What about the hundreds of people who saw the
> >>> American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon?
> >> What about the people who saw a "small commuter jet?"
>
> > They obviously did not get as clear a view or only a brief one,
> > compared with the ones who saw "American Airlines" on the 757. The
> > black boxes from that plane were found in the debris, idiot.
>
> Really? And have you seen these black boxes or heard the tapes?
Yes.
More arm-flailing denial!! Too fuckin' funny, kook! You are very
amusing this morning! Thanks!
> >> And loser lying thread subject changes?
>
> > Huh? Look, shithead, this is usenet. When *I* post, I have absolute
> > freedom to do any damn thing I want to call attention to your repeated
> > lying. I will change it if and when I want. Got it? Good.
>
> >> As to flt 93 they haven't shown anything substantial.
>
> > Except the passenger body parts, 95% pf the plane parts and the black
> > boxes and the radar tracking and the eyewitnesses...
> > BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
> Now that's a lie.
Nope. It's the PROVEN FACT and your arm-waving denial only makes you
look like the pathetic loser that you are.
> Show us an identifiable body, black box or aircraft part.
Hey Cleopatra, Queen of Denial, use yer googles. This is WELL KNOWN
FACT.
> Keep good notes. You'll need them for your hearing.
Your insanity hearing, where I will testify to the brain-damaged
claims you've been making.
> <snipped>
Your surrender through lack of ability to retort and resultant
cowardly snippage is accepted, fool.
Iarnrod
> >news:hn5lpl$qb9$3...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> >> Peter Webb wrote:
> >>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> >>> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> >>> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> >>> claimed?
>
> >> No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
> > So what was it, and where are the people who are supposed to be on the
> > flight? How do you explain that people who were supposed to be on the
> > flight called their homes and said they were on board the plane, and it
> > was being hijacked, and that none of these people have ever been seen
> > alive since? How do you explain that their bodies were found at the
> > crash site and confirmed through DNA evidence?
>
> It's been shown that some phone call reports were made up.
No it hasn't. Not the official reports. They are verified true and
proven.
> We've seen no credible pictures of identifiable bodies, black boxes or
> aircraft parts.
Take a fuckin' look then for once in your pathetic stupid life,
ignoramus:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html
Strabo
No, all you have is cheap words from expensive sources.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 10, 1:03 am, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > > "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
> > >news:hn5lpl$qb9$3...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> > >> Peter Webb wrote:
> > >>> Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
>
> > >>> For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > >>> Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > >>> claimed?
>
> > >> No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> > >> http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
> > > So what was it, and where are the people who are supposed to be on the
> > > flight?
Even if they were all it proves is that one of four targets didn't get
hit by the attack.
It was likely supposed to hit WTC -7 but didn't get there so they had
to demolish it without a jet hit.
>How do you explain that people who were supposed to be on the
> > > flight called their homes and said they were on board the plane, and it
> > > was being hijacked, and that none of these people have ever been seen
> > > alive since?
Even if they were on the plane the debris field proves it was coming
apart before long before hitting the ground.
It was likely shot down.
Witness saw a military fighter.
Debris was 14 miles away.
>How do you explain that their bodies were found at the
> > > crash site and confirmed through DNA evidence?
And they matched the DNA from the hijackers too???
>
> > It's been shown that some phone call reports were made up.
>
> No it hasn't. Not the official reports. They are verified true and
> proven.
>
Liar.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
And even if the phone calls were real it doesn't eliminate the
possibility that the jet were under remote control.
And YES fly by wire WAS ON JUMBO JETS BEFORE 9-11.
> > We've seen no credible pictures of identifiable bodies, black boxes or
> > aircraft parts.
>
> Take a fuckin' look then for once in your pathetic stupid life,
> ignoramus:
>
> http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecut...
Moron.
Give a cite not some laundry list of receipts.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 9, 6:55 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 6:29 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:> Peter Webb wrote:
> > > > Time for you to tell us what *you* think happened on 9/11.
> > > > For example, do you think the objects that flew into the twin towers,
> > > > Pentagon, and a field in Philapdelphia were the planes the government
> > > > claimed?
>
> > > No plane crashed in a field in Philadelphia on 9-11-01.
>
> > > http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/
>
> > It doesn't really say no plane.
> > It says more likely shot down because of 8 mile debris field.
>
> Make up your stupid fuckin' mind, nutbag. Either it was a tiny compact
> hole in the ground with no evidence of a plane crash, or it was a
> debris field spread over eight miles.
>
> Both are wrong by the way.
Liar.
plonk
knews4...@yahoo.com
Your lack of any cites to reference your claims make you the loser
again.
knews4...@yahoo.com
I don't believe this for 1 second.
Unless of course you are Mossad.
> > More arm-flailing denial!! Too fuckin' funny, kook! You are very
> > amusing this morning! Thanks!
>
> >>>> And loser lying thread subject changes?
> >>> Huh? Look, shithead, this is usenet. When *I* post, I have absolute
> >>> freedom to do any damn thing I want to call attention to your repeated
> >>> lying. I will change it if and when I want. Got it?
The only liar here is you.
>Good.
No it sucks.
We get no where which is just your job to obfuscate.
> >>>> As to flt 93 they haven't shown anything substantial.
> >>> Except the passenger body parts, 95% pf the plane parts and the black
> >>> boxes and the radar tracking and the eyewitnesses...
> >>> BWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
> >> Now that's a lie.
>
> > Nope. It's the PROVEN FACT and your arm-waving denial only makes you
> > look like the pathetic loser that you are.
>
> >> Show us an identifiable body, black box or aircraft part.
>
> > Hey Cleopatra, Queen of Denial, use yer googles. This is WELL KNOWN
> > FACT.
>
> No, all you have is cheap words from expensive sources.
>
He has no sources only claims.
http://www.unitedflight93.com
>
>
> >> Keep good notes. You'll need them for your hearing.
>
> > Your insanity hearing, where I will testify to the brain-damaged
> > claims you've been making.
>
> >> <snipped>
>
> > Your surrender through lack of ability to retort and resultant
> > cowardly snippage is accepted, fool.
Let's say that everything the government says about 93 is true.
It doesn't prove the hijackers (where's the matching DNA from?) were
not patsies.
It doesn't explain WTC-7's near free fall collapse.
It doesn't explain how 4 hijacked jets evaded the most sophisticated,
expensive, TESTED air defense organization in the WORLD.