Re: Why wasn't Bin Laden captured and tried for 911?
John Smith
> "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1c268d8f-4966-464c...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 9:51 pm, joeturn<joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>>
>> criminals<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>>> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
>>
>> He has been dead for years!
>
> I realize that. I don't think obama killed him over the weekend, but
> he says he did and now he has to explain why he destroyed the evidence.
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> He did explain. You just didn't like his answer.
>
>
Yeah, I don't remember the words exactly, so I paraphrase here, "THE
DAMN DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!"
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> On 03 May 2011 06:28:44 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> criminals<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>> promote Obama.
>>
>> Kook.
>
>
> The failure to release the photos and videos in a timely fashion feeds
> conspiracy theories. Let's get the stuff out and be done with it.
We can never be sure now. The fake videos and all however, it really
doesn't matter, this is going to have zero effect on your life, or
anyone elses ...
As always, there are real problems, and there are non-problems. A real
problem is getting obama to show a real birth certificate, 9/11 inside
job, etc.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
> Actually you have that backwards, controlled demolition results in
> catastrophic structural failure, but not all catastrophic structural
> failures result from controlled demolition.
>
> IOW, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
>
> Which still does not answer my question. If it wasn't suppose to fall
> down, in what direction was it suppose to fall?
>
>
No. But, you do.
A building doesn't fall through itself. You can't find another example
of such a fine example of controlled demolitions.
Any other method resulting in a collapse would have large sections
falling to one side or another, even multiple sides ...
If you can't realize that, take a few physics and engineering classes
and the realization of what kind of idiots spout such tripe as yours
will suddenly force an epiphany on you!
As, right now, when you speak to those educated in the sciences and
engineering you sound like a complete buffoon! Go post your fantasy
crap in a physics NG and have them explain it to you ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> The laws of physics are a wee tad different on her planet.
Must be, as a greatly intensified gravitational field, such as you would
find on a planet with much more mass than earth, would make such "earth
free falls speeds" rather common place non-controlled-demolition
collapses, on her planet.
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsfid$abd$7...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 2:06 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually you have that backwards, controlled demolition results in
>> catastrophic structural failure, but not all catastrophic structural
>> failures result from controlled demolition.
>>
>> IOW, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
>>
>> Which still does not answer my question. If it wasn't suppose to fall
>> down, in what direction was it suppose to fall?
>>
>>
>
> No. But, you do.
>
> A building doesn't fall through itself.
Let's see. An object will move based on the forces acting upon it. Simple
physics.
In any building the largest force typically acting upon it is gravity.
Gravity acts downwards.
So why exactly shouldn't it's primary direct of movement be downwards as a
result of the largest force acting upon it?
> You can't find another example of such a fine example of controlled
> demolitions.
I can find any number of them. However, what is interesting about them, is
the rather distinctive audio signature which is missing from the events of
9/11.
> Any other method resulting in a collapse would have large sections falling
> to one side or another, even multiple sides ...
Catastrophic structural failure.
You do know what that is, right?
> If you can't realize that, take a few physics and engineering classes and
> the realization of what kind of idiots spout such tripe as yours will
> suddenly force an epiphany on you!
Well given I have, and the engineering classes were structural engineering,
and by trade I am involved in steel fabrication. I have a pretty solid
grounding in steel structures, their design, fabrication, erection and
failure modes.
So once again, I ask if it wasn't controlled demolition then what direction
were the buildings suppose to collapse in?
What makes downwards an unreasonable direction of structural failure?
John Smith
> ...
> So once again, I ask if it wasn't controlled demolition then what
> direction were the buildings suppose to collapse in?
>
> What makes downwards an unreasonable direction of structural failure?
>
>
All uneducated people end up asking me that same question, "Why can't
you explain to me in five-minutes what it took you twelve-years?"
I think the answer is obvious.
Here is a guy with the patience, software and education which has taken
pity on the less educated and is willing to expend his time education
others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiwEGPMxBDI
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Apparently.
Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
For more, visit your local jr college and have a chat with a physics
instructor ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsfoo$abd$8...@dont-email.me...
Actually most reasonably dense objects will fall at near free fall speeds,
and a catastrophic structural failure will tend to result in a collapse at
near free fall speeds.
See, it's sort of like building a house of cards with a heavy weight on top.
When that house of cards collapses that weight is going to reach the table
at near free fall speeds.
Now you say, that's not realistic a skyscraper isn't a house of cards.
However, structurally it is. It is designed and built JUST strong enough to
allow for any expected loads and a small bit extra for unexpected loads. As
such it is very much a house of cards once a large enough collapse occurs
because the allowable live (ie dynamic) load is a fraction of the dead (ie
static) load and as such will simply crush the structure like a house of
cards. So once you get large loads in motion.....they tend to remain in
motion. Inertia is a killer. I think some 15-20 stories in motion would
tend to qualify as a extremely massive live load which is not going to be
offered any significant resistance by the remaining structure.
That's why you can snap a chain rated at 10,000 pounds pulling a 2,000 pound
car out of a ditch, and that failure doesn't occur gradually either.
So, no, there is nothing about the direction or rate of collapse which is
contrary to physics or what could reasonably be expected given a
catastrophic failure. Indeed shortly after 9/11 a structural engineering
trade journal did a complete analysis of the collapse, failure modes, etc.
and oddly enough despite the bulk of their readership being structural
engineers and so on, there was no massive outcry from the readership that
this was contrary to physics, structural design, normal failure modes, or
anything other than an expected result of the known damage done.
However, as I tell those who claim they have the "truth", I'm willing to
look at your evidence. So pick your best piece of proof that proves the
collapse was another other than ordinary, back it up with all known facts,
along with a complete analysis that proves it couldn't have occurred
naturally and I'll look it over and see if it holds up. If you can't do this
with a single detail that conclusively proves your claims, then there is no
need to bother with the rest of it, since if your best piece of 'proof'
can't hold up, then neither can the rest.
The balls in your court. Pick your best piece of evidence and make your
case. No one else has been able to do so despite claiming to know all but
it, but maybe you will be the first to make a conclusive case on some
detail.
John Smith
> ...
> The balls in your court. Pick your best piece of evidence and make your
> case. No one else has been able to do so despite claiming to know all
> but it, but maybe you will be the first to make a conclusive case on
> some detail.
>
>
There are no credible scientists who will argue ...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
The comments and thoughts of those without firm educations in the fields
involved are just babbling morons ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsikt$nsq$2...@dont-email.me...
Sorry, I fail to see anything in the video that indicates a normal natural
catastrophic structural failure did not occur. By his own numbers there is
some resistance, and that resistance is consistent within the realm of a
catastrophic structural collapse of this magnitude. When enough of the
building obtains a velocity, it will simply crush the structure under the
shear force of inertia and the counter resistance will be minor. As such,
there is nothing in the video that contradicts physics nor what one would
expect to observe given a catastrophic structural failure.
If this is your best evidence, then you don't have much of a case.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Apparently.
>
> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
cuh...@webtv.net
I just now saw a video clip of 'it' on TV news.
cuhulin
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsj9d$nsr$1...@dont-email.me...
I accept you can't support your claim as called for and instead produce a
website that relies upon appearances and unsupported assertions.
And another debunker shows he has no proof for his claims.
John Smith
>> ...
>> The comments and thoughts of those without firm educations in the
>> fields involved are just babbling morons ...
>
> I accept you can't support your claim as called for and instead produce
> a website that relies upon appearances and unsupported assertions.
>
> And another debunker shows he has no proof for his claims.
>
>
If you bother to look, there is a multitude of links on the left which
deal will most aspects.
It would take a learned person days, perhaps weeks to review them and
follow up, with other links, to gain an education.
The uneducated need only moments, of course ... how to you think they
got their fine educations?
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions. Now and then
such accidents occur, under much more controlled conditions than where a
planes damage is a variance factor.
Like I say, check it out, find credible scientists and engineers. Post
their conclusions here, it will dawn upon you what is what ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
>
ROFLOL!!!
It embarasses me to have to point this out to you. But, I offer you
credible people and materials, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage (a REAL
architect), etc.
For example, here is a partial list of some:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
You, in turn, offer me such notable minds as:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson
Really, you can't recognize shoddy logic, evidence, proof, fabrications,
etc. when you see them?
Come back with some of notable mention and their papers ... please don't
embarrass me for you, again!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
It embarasses me to have to point this out to you. But, I offer you
credible people and materials, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage (a REAL
architect), etc.
For example, here is a partial list of some:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
You, in turn, offer me such notable minds as:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson
Really, you can't recognize shoddy logic, evidence, proof, fabrications,
etc. when you see them?
Come back with some of notable mention and their papers ... please don't
embarrass me for you, again!
Again, a credible site, real scientists, engineers, architects:
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 5/3/2011 6:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals"
> >news:1c268d8f-4966-464c...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 2, 9:51 pm, joeturn<joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 2, 11:47 pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>
> >> criminals<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>
> >>> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
>
> >> He has been dead for years!
>
> > I realize that. I don't think obama killed him over the weekend, but
> > he says he did and now he has to explain why he destroyed the evidence.
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> > He did explain. You just didn't like his answer.
>
> Yeah, I don't remember the words exactly, so I paraphrase here, "THE
> DAMN DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK!"
>
> ROFLOL
>
> Regards,
> JS
-wrt- Why wasn't Bin Laden captured and tried for 911?
Cause... Dead Men Do Not Tell All !
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Early Years 'pre' Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Fighting the Afghanistan War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Mujahideen in Afghanistan
and the CIA Connection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the founding of al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
Osama bin-Laden the Post 9/11 Years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-osama-tells-all-:-stop-him-says-obama-
If 'Captured Osama Was Ready To Tell All : About
His Many Western Friends : The US Connection !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
-stop-him-!-says-obama- -stop-him-!-says-obama-
Dead Islam-O-Fascists Do Not Talk and Tell All !
-bush-says-yeah-do-it-!- -bush-says-yeah-do-it-!-
The Dirty 'Big' Nasty Secrets Die With Osama [.]
-cheney-says-shotgun-!-shoot-him-right-up...-
and that is the way 'i' see it ~ RHF
.
-corrected-history- Will Talk About Osama cia-Laden
-revised-history- Will Talk About al-Cia-da
.
.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsobi$da3$2...@dont-email.me...
Yea, and I'm a real structural engineer, which BTW counts for a hell of a
lot more than doesn't an architect. See, and architect makes pretty
buildings....a structural engineer figures out how to actually build that
pretty design.
> For example, here is a partial list of some:
>
> http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Logical fallacy, appeal to numbers.
Sorry, but just because others believe it, doesn't make it true.
Now, I'm offering you a chance to make your case. Pick your best specific
piece of evidence and prove your case for it. If you can't....then there is
no point in proceeding because if you can't prove you have a case with your
best piece of evidence, then your case is doomed to fail no matter how much
crap you try to drag out.
Now, I will admit you brought this out before I indicated you should use
your best evidence with a specific issue, so I'm willing to consider the
possibility this wasn't your best evidence. However, if you can't make your
case with your next one, then you will have failed to prove there is any
basis in fact at all for your case.
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
I have been had! By a child most likely ... the shame of it ... an
imaginary engineer gives me evidence and proofs developed by:
ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson.
ROFLOL!!!
... plonk ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsm9n$7nj$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 3:51 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>> The comments and thoughts of those without firm educations in the
>>> fields involved are just babbling morons ...
>>
>> I accept you can't support your claim as called for and instead produce
>> a website that relies upon appearances and unsupported assertions.
>>
>> And another debunker shows he has no proof for his claims.
>>
>>
>
> If you bother to look, there is a multitude of links on the left which
> deal will most aspects.
Sorry, you were asked to present your best evidence. You posted a link
presumably to the best evidence that exists. I found claims about what it
appeared to be and a lot of unsupported assertions. If this is the best that
exists....then there is hardly any reason to look around because everything
else can only be worse.
>
> It would take a learned person days, perhaps weeks to review them and
> follow up, with other links, to gain an education.
Sorry, that's why I asked you to present your best evidence. Presumably you
have done all this and can point out a specific detail that proves you have
a case.
Instead you couldn't do so. Now if you've spent days or even weeks on just
this site (and presumably months looking at others) then you should know
where to find the best single example of proof.
You failed. So why should I waste my time looking around for something
better when YOU couldn't find it?
> The uneducated need only moments, of course ... how to you think they got
> their fine educations?
Takes me only a moment to look at the lack of any conclusive proof in your
BEST evidence, and decide you don't have a case.
Maybe you should have picked a better piece of evidence, but then that's
what you were asked to do. If appearances and unsupported assertions is the
BEST evidence you can produce, then why should I waste more time with it, or
you?
So to sum it up.
You were asked to present your best evidence.
Your best evidence consisted of claims about appearances and unsupported
assertions
Your best evidence fails to get off the pad as there is no proof of anything
presented.
Conclusion, if your best is this bad, then there is no need to bother with
your conspiracy theories.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsmfq$7nj$3...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/4/2011 3:25 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>> news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Apparently.
>>>
>>> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>>>
>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
>>
>> http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
>
> Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions
Sorry, I've looked before and see no reason to do YOUR homework for you.
It's up to you to present any proof to prove your case. So far your best
proof has been assertions of appearances and unsupported assertions.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsq9d$kde$1...@dont-email.me...
So much for another 9/11 conspiracy theory wackjob, when asked to prove his
case with FACTS...he runs away.
John Smith
If you wished to carry on conversation, you should have behaved like an
engineer instead of child starting out with fraudulent data ... it can
only go downhill from there as your arguments and proof get more and
more preposterous!
Say hi to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B.
Benson when you see them. I am sure they will now take up your argument
with you!
... plonked in this thread too ...
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
>
> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:ipsmfq$7nj$3...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/4/2011 3:25 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ipsj40$nsq$4...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 5/4/2011 2:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Some offer "quick start educations", for free!
>>>>
>>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html
>>>
>>> http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
>>
>> Fire up youtube and investigate controlled demolitions
>
> Sorry, I've looked before and see no reason to do YOUR homework for you.
> It's up to you to present any proof to prove your case. So far your best
> proof has been assertions of appearances and unsupported assertions.
>
>
Translation: You can't find any so you PUNT!
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsqmo$kde$3...@dont-email.me...
I did. I asked you to prove your case with your best evidence.....you were
the one that failed to do so.
You were the one that asserted credentials were somehow relevant to the
facts presented.
You were the one that made claims you couldn't back up.
>it can only go downhill from there as your arguments and proof get more and
>more preposterous!
Well, I've seen your type come, and I've seen them go, and NONE could make
any reasonable effort to prove their case on a specific item. They either
threw out a website (like you did) and expect me to research the whole site
and all the claims in the hopes there was something that supported your
claims. IOW, doing your homework. Or they would produce a massive multitude
of items in the hope that the shear volume would somehow carry their claims.
Yet when one item was picked out and proven to be false, incomplete,
inconsistent, or otherwise failed to prove the claims made about it, their
only response was to simply point to something else and claim that I hadn't
disproven everything. As if their ability to make their case depended upon
others showing the flaws in their case rather than producing a solid case
from the start.
> Say hi to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B.
> Benson when you see them. I am sure they will now take up your argument
> with you!
Damn, got your ass kicked by that many people and you still haven't figured
out how to present a better case.
Makes it sound like any attitude you got at the start was perfectly
justified given you have a history of making claims you can't support.
>... plonked in this thread too ...
So run away since you can't be bothered to prove that even a single point of
yours is actually true and contradicts the official findings.
IOW, you can't support your case even in one detail.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsqrt$kde$4...@dont-email.me...
Nope, simply how it works. You make claims, it's up to you to prove them.
You were given the chance to do so, and you told me I should do your work
for you.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. It's not up to me to prove your claims
are true....that's your job.
John Smith
As I said, the links on the one website, alone, should have kept a REAL
engineer busy a month ... especially taking into consideration that a
REAL engineer would have written the architects, engineers and
scientists, gotten samples and confirmed what he was able ... you my
fraudulent little "engineer" are a FRAUD!
... GLOBAL SERVER PLONK ENACTED! WARNING WILL ROBINSON! ...
ROFLOL!!!
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:ipsruj$kde$8...@dont-email.me...
Perhaps, but since you gave me no valid reason to spend my time going
through them, then it doesn't matter how many links there are. You were
asked to present your best evidence. You, who supposedly have already gone
through these links as well as other websites chose to pick as your best
evidence a link to one page that simply talked about appearances and made
unsupported assertions. If that is your best evidence then when you
supposedly have already looked all through this website and others, why
should I waste my time looking for something that is quite likely not there?
If it were you would have presented it as your best evidence.
See, you have to give me a reason to look at the other links. You didn't.
Nor am I under any obligation to go looking around for the evidence to
support your claims. That's your job.
... especially taking into consideration that a
> REAL engineer would have written the architects, engineers and scientists,
> gotten samples and confirmed what he was able ... you my fraudulent little
> "engineer" are a FRAUD!
I have, long before you ever showed up here. I've done my research, I've
found nothing that seriously challenges the official findings. You asserted
there is evidence out there that does. I offered to look at an example of
your best evidence. If failed miserably to establish any errors in the
official findings.
Hell, it failed to even attempt to prove it's own assertions.
Now, given this why should anyone, even an engineer waste their personal
time looking for something they couldn't find before and which you can't
even show when requested to do so?
I've been unable to find any conclusive evidence that any of the collapses
involved controlled demolition, and no one has ever been able to present
even a single conclusive piece of evidence to support it, or to even
seriously challenge the findings of the official report.
So when someone like you comes forward claiming it was controlled
demolition, then I expect to see them produce facts of that when asked to do
so. Conclusive facts. Irrefutable facts. Clear evidence that directly
contradicts natural occurrence.
Once again, you showed those who believe in this conspiracy theory can not.
Either you have no such evidence, or more likely, it was never there to
begin with.
> ... GLOBAL SERVER PLONK ENACTED! WARNING WILL ROBINSON! ...
Yea, keep running away. Show everyone how you can sit down and PROVE your
claims with actual facts, proof or even solid evidence, instead of running
away from the one person willing to give your presentation of these things
any consideration.
Pick a single specific issue that directly contradicts the official
findings, natural causes and/or proves controlled demolition and you will
have my full attention.
Run away and you're just another idiot with a conspiracy theory and the
inability to even check his own claims against the facts.
Krypsis
>
> ROFLOL!!!
>
> Regards,
> JS
>
hey, you plonked him, remember? That means you shouldn't have read his
response. The fact that you did read his response, and reply, means that
all your "plonking" just makes you a wanker. You really don't filter out
anyone as you have an insane desire to see what unfolds out of the
bullcrap you post.
Krypsis
ps Don't forget to plonk me too! ROFLOL
Mr. Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel.
> hey, you plonked him, remember? That means you shouldn't have read his
> response. The fact that you did read his response, and reply, means that
> all your "plonking" just makes you a wanker. You really don't filter out
> anyone as you have an insane desire to see what unfolds out of the
> bullcrap you post.
>
> Krypsis
>
> ps Don't forget to plonk me too! ROFLOL-
Do you ever post anything other than your pathetic whinging and
whining?
Iarnrod
> On 5/05/2011 10:45 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 5/4/2011 5:40 PM, Scout wrote:
>
> >>news:ipsqmo$kde$3...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 5/4/2011 5:18 PM, Scout wrote:
>
Johnny KQQK does not know what plonking actually means. he just types
the word "plonk" because he's seen his many betters do that. He thinks
it's a magical incantation, just like his cartoon magic "controlled
demolition" delusions.
John Smith
> ...
> Unfortunately, two innocent bystander were murdered by US Navy Seal
> team.
> Where is the justice on that?
Difficult to imagine anyone "innocent" would lives with, or visits,
osama ... birds of a feather flock together and all that ...
Regards,
JS
Red Cloud
Obama team said that one woman and child stand next to OBL were
killed.
A woman and child are member of Al Queda terrorist~~~
*us*
<iar...@yahoo.com> failed, flailed and foamed in impotent bushkultie kooker rage:
>... KQQK... delusions.
You believe Bush and Cheney were just too nice to
bring on a false-flag attack to launch war crimes,
don't you.
On Thu, 5 May 2011 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT), "Craves Fascist Iarnrod Up Gaping Ass"
<iar...@yahoo.com> failed, flailed and foamed in impotent bushkultie kooker rage:
>On May 5, 1:30 am, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, two innocent bystander were murdered by US Navy Seal
>> team.
>
>No they weren't.
You lie.
Nobody there had been found guilty of anything in any court.
Your ilk doesn't insist on real justice.
The real perps were 'incompetent' all the way to their
offshore accounts.
The claim of "incompetence" is ludicrous.
"...incompetence cannot explain the suppression of efforts to prevent the attacks."
http://www.oilempire.us/911.html
See also:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/links.htm
"Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect
in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role"
The bushkultie hasn't contacted CNN to demand a retraction.
See also:
Huge problems with the NIST report:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html
See also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm
And:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/NIST_911_Cover-Up/
cuh...@webtv.net
Iarnrod
John Smith
> * US * wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2011 07:50:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> idiotically
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The usual descriptions of sights and sounds of any building undergoing
>>> a collapse
>>
>>
>> When demolished ...
>
> That's what happens when very large airliners filled with fuel crashes
> into them at 500 Kts, you retard.
> They get demolished.
The aircraft didn't cause the fall. The plane hit the building, the
buildings stood. The fuel was splashed about, burnt off in ~15 mins.
and the buildings stood. Once the fuel was burnt off, all you were left
with was a "normal" high-rise fire.
Regards,
JS
Jah Wobble
Right.. and NOTHING in the building was flamable and the sprinklers were
in perfect working order.
You retard.
I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building so precise and so
undercover, that the THOUSANDS of people that work there 24/7, never saw
anything going on. Any idear, you retard?
Burnt off in 15 minutes!
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!
John Smith
> ...
> Right.. and NOTHING in the building was flamable and the sprinklers were
> in perfect working order.
> You retard.
>
> I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building so precise and so
> undercover, that the THOUSANDS of people that work there 24/7, never saw
> anything going on. Any idear, you retard?
>
> Burnt off in 15 minutes!
> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!
Normal high-rise fires containing all that NEVER melt iron nor leave
nano thermite residue.
"Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted.
How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex,
which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow
or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the
buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC,
we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger
brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec),
the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is
important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P.
Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company
called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center,
United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be
outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002
(Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm
Again, get used to using Google, there are other "building
upgrades/updating/maintenance" which would have allowed the planting of
incendiaries.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
>> Burnt off in 15 minutes!
>> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!
> ...
Well, I am with you, I frequently laugh at anything FEMA/NIST says, also ...
However, I do believe they are right on, at least, this single point:
"It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the
buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet
fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the
other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple
explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor (Jones,
2005). Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the
use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a
plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated."
Fire up google and see how many disagree with Dr. Shyam Sunder!
Regards,
JS
Jah Wobble
You are insane, and a retard.
You conspiracy retards are amusing at least.
Jah Wobble
Like you, he is a retard if you think we tossed the trade center, the
pentagon, and the plane in PA, faked the moon landing, and etc..
Yer a retard, get over it.
Iarnrod
> It embarasses me to have to point this out to you. But, I offer you
> credible people and materials, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage (a REAL
> architect), etc.
BWAHHAHHAHAHA!! Well, it rightfully OUGHT to embarrass you to have to
offer nutbags like Jones and Gage, both of whom have been thoroughly
proven to be wrong and their claims to be physical impossibilities!
Iarnrod
> > ... plonk ...
>
> So much for another 9/11 conspiracy theory wackjob, when asked to prove his
> case with FACTS...he runs away.
Johnny KQQK will ALWAYS run away and fail to NAME ONE THING, as I have
been asking him to do for months and which you asked him to do. It
forces Johnny KQQK to run away.
Oh and by the way, he doesn't actually plonk anyone, he just types the
word "plonk" thinking that means something but which he does not know.
cuh...@webtv.net
they were looking at porn.After all, most of them do.
cuhulin
John Smith
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>>
>> ...
>> Well, I am with you, I frequently laugh at anything FEMA/NIST says,
>> also ...
>>
>> However, I do believe they are right on, at least, this single point:
>>
>> "It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
>> explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit
>> the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated:
>> "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field,
>> 2005) On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible
>> and simple explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor
>> (Jones, 2005). Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found
>> for the use of explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as
>> a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated."
>>
>> Fire up google and see how many disagree with Dr. Shyam Sunder!
>
> Like you, he is a retard if you think we tossed the trade center, the
> pentagon, and the plane in PA, faked the moon landing, and etc..
> Yer a retard, get over it.
Final answer, huh?
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> * US * wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ... retard.
>>
>>
>> That must be why you have no idea that the temps
>> from the fires weren't enough to cause collapses.
>>
>>
>>> I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building ...
>>
>>
>> You're too stupid to look it up, aren't you.
>
> I'm smart enough to know that there weren't any, you retard.
John Smith
Actually, they have my home bugged and with cameras. They were just
viewing the footage of me and the wife in the shower ... but don't worry ...
I found the damn shower cam and ripped it out!
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT), "Craves Fascist Iarnrod Up Gaping Ass">> On May 4, 10:41 am, * US * wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2011 05:31:09 -0700 (PDT), "Craves Fascist Iarnrod Up Gaping Ass"<iar...@yahoo.com> failed, flailed and foamed in impotent bushkultie kooker rage:
>>>> ... he was alive on Sunday ...
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> OK. Easy.
>>
>> http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115241936984209.html
>
> Why do you imagine that that would be proof of
> the identity of the murder victim?
>
> Do you believe the part where George W. Bush
> says the murder would somehow be 'justice'?
>
> 9/11 was an inside job:
> ...
It is bizarre, on a high level, to say the least.
Remember all the claimed "allies" when we "went to war" with iraqi,
because of "the big bad terrorists?"
None of them would want to view the actual corpse? None would request a
piece of the body for DNA and an absolute independent verification?
VERY STRANGE me thinks!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
> You certainly don't want the real perpetrators to see justice.
>
>> Smoking crack again...rightard Bush-lover...
>
> That explains your posts insisting that murders would be justice.
> ...
WARNING!
When the legend in its' own mind, the irantard, responds, you should
take care and step back from the monitor.
The sheer amount of spittle being spewed forth form the rabidly foaming
mouth of the insane beast can take one by surprise, and ruin ones
favorite shirt!
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
Dolphins will run any sekert cameras off.
SCARHEAD MOFO POS! had the American Flag removed from Ground Zero
moments before his Stupid Staged photo op.
http://www.standeyo.com
cuhulin
John Smith
Well, when I learned about the cam, I started closing the curtain, just
to drive them nuts and focus their attention on the curtain.
Then, I would quickly stick my dolphin out of a crack in the curtains!
I wish I could have seen the look on hill-bill-a-ries face! :-)
Regards,
JS
Jah Wobble
I pretty much nailed it, yup.
Joe from Kokomo
> None of them would want to view the actual corpse? None would request a
> piece of the body for DNA and an absolute independent verification?
The 5/6/11 Wall Street Journal reported that Al-Qaeda accepts the fact
that bin Laden is D-E-A-D. Good enough for Al-Qaeda but not good enough
for "John Smith". BWAHAHAhahaha...
How long do you want to keep flogging this dead horse? (no pun intended)
Oh, wait...I know:
As long as it fills your pathological need to troll and to keep getting
attention. 2077 posts when I use my news reader to search for posts by
'John Smith'.
Pitiful... :-(
John Smith
>> ...
>> Final answer, huh?
>
> I pretty much nailed it, yup.
ROFLOL
Magic morons ... how unique!
You nailed it if your text is, somehow, going to take a turn based in logic:
Regards,
JS
joeturn
> John Smith wrote:
> > On 5/6/2011 10:17 AM, Jah Wobble wrote:
>
> >> * US * wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2011 07:50:00 -0700 (PDT), harry k
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> The usual descriptions of sights and sounds of any building undergoing
> >>>> a collapse
>
> >>> When demolished ...
>
> >> That's what happens when very large airliners filled with fuel crashes
> >> into them at 500 Kts, you retard.
> >> They get demolished.
>
> > The aircraft didn't cause the fall. The plane hit the building, the
> > buildings stood. The fuel was splashed about, burnt off in ~15 mins.
> > and the buildings stood. Once the fuel was burnt off, all you were left
> > with was a "normal" high-rise fire.
>
> Right.. and NOTHING in the building was flamable and the sprinklers were
> in perfect working order.
> You retard.
>
> I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building so precise and so
> undercover, that the THOUSANDS of people that work there 24/7, never saw
> anything going on. Any idear, you retard?
>
> Burnt off in 15 minutes!
>
> - Show quoted text -
One plane load of diesel fuel could not have been enough to get all
the verticle support columns to give away simultaneously through out
the buildi to create a verticl collapse in the buildings footprints!
The explosives were built into all the towers during their
construction!
Listen to the architect's interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV1mBavoQzE&feature=player_embedded
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
You forgot to mention the OKC bombing,The Davidians Compound in
Waco,The Jonestown Massacre,The Contra Affairs,The Gulf of Tonka
incident,the bay of pigs,Pearl Harbor,WWI and WWII were all created by
the CIA/illuminatini
Jah Wobble
Well, then it's gotta be true....even though that flaky retard had
nothing to do with it.
Jah Wobble
> On 5/7/2011 5:57 AM, Jah Wobble wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>> Final answer, huh?
>>
>>
>> I pretty much nailed it, yup.
>
>
> ROFLOL
> You nailed it if your text is, somehow, going to take a turn based in
> logic:
You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass, you retard.
John Smith
Logic and reason stand on their own, they only need a voice/media of
expression:
In the above example, even the deniers come around, eventually!
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
Krypsis
Minor correction. jet aircraft do NOT use diesel fuel. They don't even
use gasoline or avgas. What do they use? Humble old kerosene.
Admittedly, it's power kerosene but it's still kerosene.
> the verticle support columns to give away simultaneously through out
> the buildi to create a verticl collapse in the buildings footprints!
>
> The explosives were built into all the towers during their
> construction!
>
> Listen to the architect's interview
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV1mBavoQzE&feature=player_embedded
These jerks on the video look like they're trippin'. Actually, from your
comments, I'd say you're doing a bit of trippin' too!
Krypsis
John Smith
> ...
> Minor correction. jet aircraft do NOT use diesel fuel. They don't even
> use gasoline or avgas. What do they use? Humble old kerosene.
> Admittedly, it's power kerosene but it's still kerosene.
> ...
For all intents and purposes: kerosene = No. 1 Diesel = Jet Fuel
There are minor differences, as an example:
http://www.combinedoil.com/pdf/MAP_No.1%20Diesel%20fuel%20is%20not%20Kerosene.pdf
My grandfather used to use No. 1 Diesel in kerosene lamps and kerosene
heaters for barns and smudge pots to keep plants in the fields from
freezing ... in the home he only used kerosene, said it was because it
was "deodorized No. 1 Diesel."
Now-a-days? Who knows ...
Regards,
JS
Jah Wobble
My bad.
But I did include "etc.", so that he could use his rather fasinating
imagination.
Jah Wobble
^^^^^^^
You spelled retards wrong, you retard.
Jah Wobble
It was supposed to be funny....and by golly, it was!
John Smith
>> ...
>>>> You nailed it if your text is, somehow, going to take a turn based in
>>>> logic:
>>>
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass, you retard.
>>
>>
>> Logic and reason stand on their own, they only need a voice/media of
>> expression:
>>
>> http://www.ustruthmovement.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:national-institute-of-standards-and-technology-john-gross-911-lead-investigator-shyam-sunder-wtc-7-collapse-nist-finally-admits-freefall&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
>>
>>
>> In the above example, even the deniers come around, eventually!
> ^^^^^^^
> You spelled retards wrong, you retard.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denier
1de·ni·er
noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)r, dē-\
Definition of DENIER
: one who denies <deniers of the truth>
ROFLOL
It just keeps getting better and better!
Regards,
JS
Jah Wobble
Thanks for proving my point, you retard.
Why do you deny it, you retard?
John Smith
ROFLOL!!!
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
use as diesel fuel for Bulldozers, if they didn't have any regular
diesel fuel.
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
latest agenda to wage Wahr (it's Wahr ~ Sam Nunn of Georgia) on
Pakistan, and Syria, and who knows how many more Countries?
cuhulin
Ray Fischer
>On 5/6/2011 11:14 AM, Jah Wobble wrote:
>
>> ...
>> in perfect working order.
>> You retard.
>>
>> I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building so precise and so
>> undercover, that the THOUSANDS of people that work there 24/7, never saw
>> anything going on. Any idear, you retard?
>>
>> Burnt off in 15 minutes!
>> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!
>
>nano thermite residue.
The residues of thermite are iron and aluminum oxide. THE most
common metals used in high-rise construction.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
but if they have been combined with barrium they form sphears which is
a tale tell sign of thermate use.
Jon Bobble spell check that for me mine is broken TIA<I;-)
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please explain how my comments makes you think of tripping.How often
do you do this? Is it a problem or have you not sold your soul yet to
support your habbit?
John Smith
> ...
> The residues of thermite are iron and aluminum oxide. THE most
> common metals used in high-rise construction.
>
ROFLOL
Too bad that morons like you have to have it pointed out that the
military and building demolition experts can't use building materials to
create explosions!
That statement of yours is one of the most moronic I have yet heard, to
date!
Super nano-thermite, as found in the dust of the WTC demolitions is only
found in a laboratory, which then sells it to military and other
licensed, and controlled, users!
Military grade thermite is not created in buildings falling ... it a
left over residue of controlled demolitions.
Fooling morons to believe anything else is certainly not productive ...
well, unless you are attempting the title of, "Leader of the Moron Pack."
ROFLOL You are priceless ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> On 5/6/2011 11:14 AM, Jah Wobble wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Right.. and NOTHING in the building was flamable and the sprinklers were
>>> in perfect working order.
>>> You retard.
>>>
>>> I wonder who placed the demolitions in the building so precise and so
>>> undercover, that the THOUSANDS of people that work there 24/7, never saw
>>> anything going on. Any idear, you retard?
>>>
>>> Burnt off in 15 minutes!
>>> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!
>>
>> Normal high-rise fires containing all that NEVER melt iron nor leave
>> nano thermite residue.
>
> The residues of thermite are iron and aluminum oxide. THE most
> common metals used in high-rise construction.
>
All the elements which the human body is built of exists in the dirt.
That does not mean you should expect to find humans living underground,
in the dirt, nor that those elements will suddenly interact and create a
human body.
Themite/thermate is created in labs ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> but if they have been combined with barrium they form sphears which is
> a tale tell sign of thermate use.
>
> Jon Bobble spell check that for me mine is broken TIA<I;-)
The properties exhibited by thermite bear a signature which absolutely
proves it to be man made.
For example: You can stack a bunch of rocks together and form a wall.
Or, men can cut, polish, etc. rocks into geometric shapes and build a wall.
You will NEVER be likely to confuse the two stone walls, nor lack
ability to recognize the difference between the two ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Doesn't a lot of farm equipment actually run on No. 1 diesel? It is
exempt from fuel taxes, or used to be?
I think in past times truckers used to be caught with tanks full of No.
1 Diesel, to avoid the fuel taxes. If I remember correctly, the fines
were so steep a trucker could lose his rig in fines and court costs!
But, things may have changed by now ...
Regards,
JS
Ray Fischer
>On 5/7/2011 12:57 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The residues of thermite are iron and aluminum oxide. THE most
>> common metals used in high-rise construction.
>>
>
>ROFLOL
>
>Too bad that morons like you have to have it pointed out that the
>military and building demolition experts can't use building materials to
>create explosions!
Too bad that insane conspiracy trolls like yourself have no regard
for the truth.
Scout
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80fbb058-5296-4598...@b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Really? Collapse into the building's footprint you say?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c230/Scout_tpg/wtc_collapse2a.jpg
I don't think so.
Once you have any idea of the facts, then maybe you can try again.
John Smith
> ...
> Too bad that insane conspiracy trolls like yourself have no regard
> for the truth.
>
It is insane attempting to pass off a bad fraud of a birth certificate.
Any damn fool should know better. I pity the poor fools who can't
check that out for themselves!
It is insane to use a modified controlled demolition on the WTC and
expect everyone to be stupid enough to not notice. I mean, what were
they thinking? The only explanation is that morons expect everyone else
to be a moron and can't see the differences!
Physicists, scientists, engineers and architects are going to see
something suspicious when looked at closely, and they did -- which is
exactly why you can't find any credible, credentialed, respected and
honest ones who will NOT ask for an investigation, even the lead person
on the phony investigation admits another comprehensive investigation
dealing with the points ignored should be conducted ... the morons who
did that false flag are insane alright!
Problem is, the real criminals are the public servants who influence the
criminal courts ... and that is taking awhile to work out ...
DUH!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article
> <57c92a41-2670-4447...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We all know why. No evidence. All the evidence points to inside job.
>>
>> Now it's - Dead men tell no tales.
>
>
> Works for me, especially against idiot conspiracy nutcases.
>
>
> snicker
Post all that credible evidence again, you seem to have forgotten to
include it in all your other posts ...
Funny, but all I can find are posts of yours with inane and moronic
remarks composing the entire posts! Surely, we have all missed your
great words of wisdom, top notch research, concrete facts, proofs and
lab results proving your text. As, I am afraid without, your posts
build up like a bums trash in an alley ...
Regards,
JS
Brenda Ann
"joeturn" wrote in message
news:9a428be6-ebd7-438b...@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Well just think they were put in the buildings in 1963 it a wonder
they all followed sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made dudes
out on them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, now THAT would be a good trick, since groundbreaking took place in
Aug, 1966, with completion of the first tower in December, 1972 and the
second in July of 1973.
joeturn
Very true and THERMATE was the military patented grade of THERMITE
used for incenterary devices in WWII super quick cutting through armor
joeturn
wrote:
> "joeturn" wrote in message
>
> news:9a428be6-ebd7-438b...@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Well just think they were put in the buildings in 1963 it a wonder
> they all followed sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made dudes
> out on them!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, now THAT would be a good trick, since groundbreaking took place in
> Aug, 1966, with completion of the first tower in December, 1972 and the
> second in July of 1973.
Thank you very much for pointing out my error,but I'm sure you could
see what I meant lets just say prior to 1978 that will corect the
trick part. Your apoligy has been accepted.
John Smith
> ...
> Well just think they were put in the buildings in 1963 it a wonder
> they all followed sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made dudes
> out on them!
Hey, DUDE!
That is spelled dud (duds), no offense meant ... but, a bunch of dudes
hanging around in the walls, since 1963, would make for an interesting
discussion also ... :-)
Regards,
JS
joeturn
wrote:
> "joeturn" <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well just think they were put in the buildings in durring their
construction from 1966 through 1973 it's a wonder they all followed
sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made duds out of all them!
Thanks to John Smith the spell checker!
joeturn
When did jimmy hoffa come up missing?
John Smith
The union president of the Teamsters who they dissolved in sulfuric acid
and flushed down a drain?
" ... disappeared at, or sometime after, 2:45 pm on July 30, 1975, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa
Regards,
JS
Brenda Ann
"joeturn" wrote in message
news:5e684898-fdf5-471a...@w24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm......
"James Riddle "Jimmy" Hoffa (born February 14, 1913 – disappeared July 30,
1975"
Maybe he was in one of those sub-basements that were finished later on...
John Smith
ROFLOL ...
Brenda, you just have to aggravate, don't cha'?
Takes one to know one ... :-)
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Well just think they were put in the buildings in durring their
> construction from 1966 through 1973 it's a wonder they all followed
> sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made duds out of all them!
>
> Thanks to John Smith the spell checker!
>
>
DUDE!
They were dropped in during the computer/network upgrade ... security
was lax, varoious employees remarked on this ...
Part One - Tenants
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
Part Two - Security
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html
Part Three - Convergence
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html
Part Four - Cleanup
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
Dig him up and bury him again.
cuhulin
Iarnrod
> On 5/7/2011 7:46 PM, joeturn wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Well just think they were put in the buildings in durring their
> > construction from 1966 through 1973 it's a wonder they all followed
> > sequence the gavanic corrosion could have made duds out of all them!
>
> > Thanks to John Smith the spell checker!
>
> DUDE!
>
> They were dropped in during the computer/network upgrade
No they weren't. FACT. In any case, no explosives went off. FACT. Your
theory is utter disproven 100% bullshit, disproven on its face.