September 11 Hijackers are Alive And Well

In article <fnkl01$mms$4@aioe.org>, johnoneill@dmail.com says...
>
> "BDK" <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote in message news:MPG.22071a9d572088f98c1ec@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <fnjfsn$24c$1@aioe.org>, johnoneill@dmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:joCdnXl7SegUqgDanZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> > "911review.org" <brad.team8@gmail.com> wrote in a message
> >> >
> >> >> Hijackers Alive And Well
> >> >
> >> > All of the 19 hijackers in the Osama Bin Ladin video "The 19 Martyrs" are dead. That's how they became martyrs.
> >> >
> >> > In the 6+ years since 9/11, none of the dead hijackers has been seen alive. There have been no new photographs
> >> > taken
> >> > of the dead hijackers. There is no evidence any of the dead hijackers are anything but dead.
> >> >
> >> > The very old 9/11 kook myth that some of the dead hijackers are still alive was based on a single, erroneous BBC
> >> > story,
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting how John Pindelski finds that particular BBC story to be 'erronous',
> >> but the BBC story in which a BBC reporter reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes
> >> before it actually did...
> >>
> >> That does not catch the attention of our 'sane' John Pindelski.
> >>
> >> which indicated some people with
> >> > the same names as some of the dead hijackers were still alive. It's true. Those people are, in fact, still alive,
> >> > but
> >> > none of them were the dead hijackers from 9/11.
> >> >
> >> > The story was based on the FBI's preliminary release of the hijackers names, which did not include pictures. When
> >> > the
> >> > FBI released photographs of the actual, dead hijackers, it became clear these were not the same men. One of the key
> >> > indicators was that these men were alive, whereas the dead hijackers were dead - a clear and obvious difference.
> >> > Only
> >> > someone with an extremely low IQ would not be able to tell the difference between a living person, and a dead
> >> > person
> >> > with the same name.
> >> >
> >> > Likewise, although Jim Smith died in 1964, the other thousands of Jim Smith's are, miraculously to some, still
> >> > alive.
> >> > Additionally, there is a Jim Smith Lake, which is also not dead, nor is it a living human - it's a lake. Obviously,
> >> > to
> >> > some of the 9/11 chowderheads, every Jim Smith is a lake.
> >>
> >> John Pindelski is telling the truth? He should be trusted?
> >>
> >> Yeah, only if you were braindead.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Even for you, that's a jump.
>
> Sure, BDK, sure. Keep comforting yourself...

I'll keep laughing at you, that's for sure. I don't need any comforting,
but thanks anyway.

BDK
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message....

> In the 6+ years since 9/11, none of the dead hijackers has been seen alive.

Of course you can't see the _dead_ ones.... but several of the "alleged" or
otherwise FBI 'named' hi-jackers have been seen.

> There have been no new photographs taken of the dead hijackers.

You wouldn't kid me, would you?

> There is no evidence any of the dead hijackers are anything but dead.

That usually happens with DEAD people.
 
In article <gIidnc0w_pFTPwPanZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@comcast.com>,
John P. <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Dumbass" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>>> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>
>>> Why do you think every time a reporter says
>>> something stupid, someone told him or her to say it?
>
>> So, you're saying that those two reporters, from CNN and BBC, made it up?
>
>Nope, you poor, illiterate moron. I wasn't saying anything. I was asking you
>a question. The question is: Why do you think every time a reporter says
>something stupid, someone told him or her to say it?
>



If everyone in the "Truth Movement" suddenly learned the meaning of
metaphor and simile, the Truth Movement told disappear in a puff of
smoke.

And it would be a good thing.


--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:U%pnj.2883$Sa1.80@news02.roc.ny...
> johnoneill wrote:
>
>> "Ed" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e83654fd-3529-4416-a0e7-44cfd7d61d97@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 28, 8:16 am, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>>>
>>>>johnoneill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Animal02" <Wherewere...@Wednsday.com> wrote in messagenews:rZidnQRWOMjs2wDanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>>
>>>>>>"johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fnjfsn$24c$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>>>>>"John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:joCdnXl7SegUqgDanZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>>"911review.org" <brad.te...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hijackers Alive And Well
>>>
>>>>>>>>All of the 19 hijackers in the Osama Bin Ladin video "The 19 Martyrs" are dead. That's how they became martyrs.
>>>
>>>>>>>>In the 6+ years since 9/11, none of the dead hijackers has been seen alive. There have been no new photographs
>>>>>>>>taken of the dead hijackers. There is no evidence any of the dead hijackers are anything but dead.
>>>
>>>>>>>>The very old 9/11 kook myth that some of the dead hijackers are still alive was based on a single, erroneous BBC
>>>>>>>>story,
>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting how John Pindelski finds that particular BBC story to be 'erronous',
>>>>>>>but the BBC story in which a BBC reporter reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes
>>>>>>>before it actually did...
>>>
>>>>>>Hey clueless....that story was erroneous too.
>>>
>>>>>Care to explain?
>>>
>>>>They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the background. The report that it had collapsed
>>>>was obviously erroneous.
>>>
>>>>Follow the logic, Einstein?
>>>
>>>Yeah, Oppenheimer. I follow your logic. Too ****ing bad your 'logic' stops
>>>there. And it is funny to see you 'making a point' and falling into my little trap,
>>>Vandar.
>>>
>>>Ok.
>>>
>>>They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
>>>background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>>>
>>>Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>>>
>>>Care to explain, brainiac?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> I obviously don't have an exact name. But it would appear somone made
>> an announcement that WTC7 was in immenant (sp) danger of collapse and
>> the reporter thought it had happened already.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So, the BBC reporter was standing right in front of WTC7,
>
> The BBC reporter was uptown from WTC 7, and it was behind her. She wasn't standing right in front of it.

Haha, Vandar fell again into my trap. And, as usual, unaware of it... he tries
to make an argument of it!

Sweet!

NO ****, Vandar? She was not exactly in front of WTC7?

No ****!

>> and I think CNN reporter was ****ing LOOKING at WTC7 as he made that
>> report!
>>
>> So, let me guess, EddieLiarboy... a 'coincidence'?
>>
>> How indicative!
>
> Prior to 9/11, could you have picked WTC 7 out of the skyline?

Of course, Vandar. Who could have missed it? 47 storeys, came down in
approximately 7 seconds!
 
"Ed" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d6ef25f8-ebf0-4b9b-8284-4a195a23b198@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e83654fd-3529-4416-a0e7-44cfd7d61d97@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 28, 8:16 am, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
> > > johnoneill wrote:
> > >> "Animal02" <Wherewere...@Wednsday.com> wrote in messagenews:rZidnQRWOMjs2wDanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>
> > >>>"johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fnjfsn$24c$1@aioe.org...
>
> > >>>>"John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:joCdnXl7SegUqgDanZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > >>>>>"911review.org" <brad.te...@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > >>>>>>Hijackers Alive And Well
>
> > >>>>>All of the 19 hijackers in the Osama Bin Ladin video "The 19 Martyrs" are dead. That's how they became martyrs.
>
> > >>>>>In the 6+ years since 9/11, none of the dead hijackers has been seen alive. There have been no new photographs
> > >>>>>taken of the dead hijackers. There is no evidence any of the dead hijackers are anything but dead.
>
> > >>>>>The very old 9/11 kook myth that some of the dead hijackers are still alive was based on a single, erroneous
> > >>>>>BBC
> > >>>>>story,
>
> > >>>>Interesting how John Pindelski finds that particular BBC story to be 'erronous',
> > >>>>but the BBC story in which a BBC reporter reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes
> > >>>>before it actually did...
>
> > >>>Hey clueless....that story was erroneous too.
>
> > >> Care to explain?
>
> > > They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the background. The report that it had
> > > collapsed
> > > was obviously erroneous.
>
> > > Follow the logic, Einstein?
>
> > Yeah, Oppenheimer. I follow your logic. Too ****ing bad your 'logic' stops
> > there. And it is funny to see you 'making a point' and falling into my little trap,
> > Vandar.
>
> > Ok.
>
> > They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
> > background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>
> > Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>
> > Care to explain, brainiac?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I obviously don't have an exact name. But it would appear somone made
> an announcement that WTC7 was in immenant (sp) danger of collapse and
> the reporter thought it had happened already.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, the BBC reporter was standing right in front of WTC7, and I think
> CNN reporter was ****ing LOOKING at WTC7 as he made that
> report!
>
> So, let me guess, EddieLiarboy... a 'coincidence'?
>
> How indicative!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd believe it was a serious error rather than believe they were
honestly screwing with people's heads. I mean, what's the point of a
conspiracy if you deliberately (sp) do something stupid like that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A 'serious error' done twice, Eddie?
 
"Ed" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:261cf798-dfa3-4cf4-9609-5baa4af2915b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e83654fd-3529-4416-a0e7-44cfd7d61d97@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...


>Did the building have "I am WTC7 and I haven't fallen yet!" written on
>it somewhere?

Wuahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie, you dumb ****!

YEAH, it had a BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS sign standing right there!

It was 47 storeys HIGH, moron!

Ahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie...

>I don't know where the CNN reporter was from,

Well, then, why the **** do you even bother 'explaining' ANYTHING,
if you haven't even seen the CNN video, retard?

Care to explain?

but how would a BBC
>reporter KNOW she was standing in front of the building she was
>reporting had fallen?

Errrrrm, like... she... was... a... ****ing... reporter, MAAAAYBE?

You do know what reporters do, Eddie moron?
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:gIidnc0w_pFTPwPanZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Dumbass" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>>> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>
>>> Why do you think every time a reporter says
>>> something stupid, someone told him or her to say it?
>
>> So, you're saying that those two reporters, from CNN and BBC, made it up?
>
> Nope, you poor, illiterate moron. I wasn't saying anything. I was asking you a question. The question is: Why do you
> think every time a reporter says something stupid, someone told him or her to say it?

So, reporting that WTC7 has collapsed, on both CNN and BBC is 'stupid'?

Haha... Pindelski, poor Pindelski...

>>> If you'd do some research, you find there were
>>> many erroneous reports in the 9/11 newscasts on 9/11.
>
>> Even if a reporter is standing right in front of the building that did not collapse,
>> although they are reporting that it has just collapsed?
>
> Even if? The fact that there were many erroneous reports on 9/11 will continue to exist as a fact, "even if" monkeys
> start to fly out of your ass.

Even if you're lying, and have been in these past 6 years, Johnny?
 
In article <fno38j$8bi$1@aioe.org>, johnoneill@dmail.com says...
>
> "Ed" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:261cf798-dfa3-4cf4-9609-5baa4af2915b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> > "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e83654fd-3529-4416-a0e7-44cfd7d61d97@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >Did the building have "I am WTC7 and I haven't fallen yet!" written on
> >it somewhere?
>
> Wuahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie, you dumb ****!
>
> YEAH, it had a BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS sign standing right there!
>
> It was 47 storeys HIGH, moron!
>
> Ahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie...
>
> >I don't know where the CNN reporter was from,
>
> Well, then, why the **** do you even bother 'explaining' ANYTHING,
> if you haven't even seen the CNN video, retard?
>
> Care to explain?
>
> but how would a BBC
> >reporter KNOW she was standing in front of the building she was
> >reporting had fallen?
>
> Errrrrm, like... she... was... a... ****ing... reporter, MAAAAYBE?
>
> You do know what reporters do, Eddie moron?
>
>
>

Damn, Aunt Flo, that one is weird, even for you.

The explanation is that the reporters screwed up.


Of course, that indicates a conspiracy to you.

Rave on.

BDK
 
On Jan 29, 3:33 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:261cf798-dfa3-4cf4-9609-5baa4af2915b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 28, 2:04 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e83654fd-3529-4416-a0e7-44cfd7d61d97@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >Did the building have "I am WTC7 and I haven't fallen yet!" written on
> >it somewhere?
>
> Wuahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie, you dumb ****!
>
> YEAH, it had a BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS sign standing right there!
>
> It was 47 storeys HIGH, moron!
>
> Ahahahaha, Eddie, Eddie...
>
> >I don't know where the CNN reporter was from,
>
> Well, then, why the **** do you even bother 'explaining' ANYTHING,
> if you haven't even seen the CNN video, retard?
>
> Care to explain?
>
> but how would a BBC
>
> >reporter KNOW she was standing in front of the building she was
> >reporting had fallen?
>
> Errrrrm, like... she... was... a... ****ing... reporter, MAAAAYBE?
>
> You do know what reporters do, Eddie moron?

I think I know a little bit more than you j o'n. I realize that a
woman from England isn't going to know one 47 story building from
another in a city she wasn't familiar with in a chaotic situation the
likes of which hadn't been seen since the Blitz!

No, I haven't seen the CNN video, but there's no reason for you to be
insulting about it! (Not that you seem to need a reason to be
insulting.) In fact, it doesn't seem that anyone here is too familiar
with this video. If you have a link, I would appreciate looking at it.
 
"Dumbass" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message

> It was 47 storeys HIGH, moron!

Good point Dumbass! All the other buildings in NYC are only like 3 or 4
stories tall. The only exceptions were WTC 7 and the two WTC towers. With
them gone, there are no tall buildings in NYC.

ROFLMAO!
 
In article <lqmdnS_Pv9tevD3anZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com>,
JohnP@nospam.com says...
> "Dumbass" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> > It was 47 storeys HIGH, moron!
>
> Good point Dumbass! All the other buildings in NYC are only like 3 or 4
> stories tall. The only exceptions were WTC 7 and the two WTC towers. With
> them gone, there are no tall buildings in NYC.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>
>
>

Amazingly stupid, even for Aunt Flo/DeMented.

BDK
 
johnoneill wrote:
> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>> johnoneill wrote:
>>> "Animal02" <Wherewereyou@Wednsday.com> wrote in message news:rZidnQRWOMjs2wDanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>>
>>>> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message news:fnjfsn$24c$1@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>> "John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:joCdnXl7SegUqgDanZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "911review.org" <brad.team8@gmail.com> wrote in a message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hijackers Alive And Well
>>>>>> All of the 19 hijackers in the Osama Bin Ladin video "The 19 Martyrs" are dead. That's how they became martyrs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 6+ years since 9/11, none of the dead hijackers has been seen alive. There have been no new photographs
>>>>>> taken of the dead hijackers. There is no evidence any of the dead hijackers are anything but dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very old 9/11 kook myth that some of the dead hijackers are still alive was based on a single, erroneous BBC
>>>>>> story,
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting how John Pindelski finds that particular BBC story to be 'erronous',
>>>>> but the BBC story in which a BBC reporter reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes
>>>>> before it actually did...
>>>> Hey clueless....that story was erroneous too.
>>>
>>> Care to explain?
>> They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the background. The report that it had collapsed
>> was obviously erroneous.
>>
>> Follow the logic, Einstein?
>
> Yeah, Oppenheimer. I follow your logic. Too ****ing bad your 'logic' stops
> there. And it is funny to see you 'making a point' and falling into my little trap,
> Vandar.
>
> Ok.
>
> They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
> background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>
> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>
> Care to explain, brainiac?

It's not hard to understand how it may have happened.

The BBC and every other news service in the world was stretched to
capacity, receiving dozens if not hundreds of sometimes conflicting
reports every single minute. If they reported WTC 7 had collapsed it was
either because a newswire or other source had reported it, or the
message that collapse was imminent was garbled during communication.

But this is too simple for some kooks. Much better to imagine the BBC
was in on this plot too right?
 
johnoneill wrote:

> So, the BBC reporter was standing right in front of WTC7, and I think
> CNN reporter was ****ing LOOKING at WTC7 as he made that
> report!

Do you think WTC7 was a popular and recognizable building? I doubt
anyone who didn't work in the proximity to it would have the slightest
clue what it looked like.

> So, let me guess, EddieLiarboy... a 'coincidence'?
>
> How indicative!

Wow, so two reporters who don't know what WTC7 looks like, report it has
collapsed, and this is evidence of what?
 
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnpr7h0116o@news1.newsguy.com...
> johnoneill wrote:
>> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>>> johnoneill wrote:

>> They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
>> background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>>
>> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>>
>> Care to explain, brainiac?
>
> It's not hard to understand how it may have happened.

Awwwwh, DO tell, 'Chunder'!

Am aaaaallll ears! Especially when you are 'explaining/debunking' things.

> The BBC and every other news service in the world was stretched to capacity, receiving dozens if not hundreds of
> sometimes conflicting reports every single minute.

Ok, and I guess you have something to back up your claims, right?

If they reported WTC 7 had collapsed it was
> either because a newswire or other source had reported it,

Reheheheheheally? Which newswire or other source would that be?

care to share that information with the rest of us maybe?

or the
> message that collapse was imminent was garbled during communication.

'Garbled'? Reheheheheheally?

So, it was garbled to both CNN and BBC?

Any more information on that **** up of the day, 'Chunder'?

Done, not once, but twice?

Anyway, always glad hearing from you. An 'expert' at making excuses for virtually
all of the ****ups and 'coincidences' from 9.11.2001, 'Chunder'.

>
> But this is too simple for some kooks. Much better to imagine the BBC was in on this plot too right?
 
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnprq5011ru@news1.newsguy.com...
> johnoneill wrote:
>
>> So, the BBC reporter was standing right in front of WTC7, and I think
>> CNN reporter was ****ing LOOKING at WTC7 as he made that
>> report!
>
> Do you think WTC7 was a popular and recognizable building? I doubt anyone who didn't work in the proximity to it would
> have the slightest clue what it looked like.

Hahaha, man you guys really do know how to find excuses for virtually
anything that has to do with 9/11.

Un****ingbeliveable!

>> So, let me guess, EddieLiarboy... a 'coincidence'?
>>
>> How indicative!
>
> Wow, so two reporters who don't know what WTC7 looks like, report it has collapsed, and this is evidence of what?

Wooow, woow... wait, wait a minute.

"... two reporters who don't know what WTC7 looks like..."

Ok, 'Chunder', I guess you have something to back up your claim about two
reporters not knowing how WTC7 looked like. I mean, like a statement,
dunno... a video where they say 'no, we didn't know how WTC7 looked like',
or a transcript of some sort...

Anything, Chunder?

Or are you just whistling dixie out of your arse like you usually do, huh?
 
In article <fnsfgc$kf1$2@aioe.org>, johnoneill <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnpr7h0116o@news1.newsguy.com...
>> johnoneill wrote:
>>> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>>>> johnoneill wrote:
>
>>> They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
>>> background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>>>
>>> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>>>
>>> Care to explain, brainiac?
>>
>> It's not hard to understand how it may have happened.
>
>Awwwwh, DO tell, 'Chunder'!
>
>Am aaaaallll ears! Especially when you are 'explaining/debunking' things.
>
>> The BBC and every other news service in the world was stretched to capacity, receiving dozens if not hundreds of
>> sometimes conflicting reports every single minute.
>
>Ok, and I guess you have something to back up your claims, right?
>
> If they reported WTC 7 had collapsed it was
>> either because a newswire or other source had reported it,
>
>Reheheheheheally? Which newswire or other source would that be?
>



So what? Some news reader got confused on a very confusing day.

WTC was on fire all day and and after 2PM the word went out that it
was beginning to fall. News services knew this because they monitor
the fire and police radios.

Anyone in NYC paying attention to the news broadcasts during the day
knew this. I did.

I saw one of these TV news reports well before WTC7 collapsed.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
(60 seconds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4

Nobody that was familiar with WTC7 before or on 9/11 thinks there is
anything man-made about the collapse.



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
johnoneill wrote:
> "Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnprq5011ru@news1.newsguy.com...
>> johnoneill wrote:
>>
>>> So, the BBC reporter was standing right in front of WTC7, and I think
>>> CNN reporter was ****ing LOOKING at WTC7 as he made that
>>> report!
>> Do you think WTC7 was a popular and recognizable building? I doubt anyone who didn't work in the proximity to it would
>> have the slightest clue what it looked like.
>
> Hahaha, man you guys really do know how to find excuses for virtually
> anything that has to do with 9/11.
>
> Un****ingbeliveable!

It's not an excuse Mr Retard.

>>> So, let me guess, EddieLiarboy... a 'coincidence'?
>>>
>>> How indicative!
>> Wow, so two reporters who don't know what WTC7 looks like, report it has collapsed, and this is evidence of what?
>
> Wooow, woow... wait, wait a minute.
>
> "... two reporters who don't know what WTC7 looks like..."

Yes. I expect most reporters haven't a clue what WTC7 looked like. Not
now and certainly not back then.

> Ok, 'Chunder', I guess you have something to back up your claim about two
> reporters not knowing how WTC7 looked like. I mean, like a statement,
> dunno... a video where they say 'no, we didn't know how WTC7 looked like',
> or a transcript of some sort...

You merely wish me to prove a negative again. You truly are one stupid
*******.

> Anything, Chunder?
>
> Or are you just whistling dixie out of your arse like you usually do, huh?

I'm pointing out the bleeding obvious to a kook. A particularly stupid kook.
 
johnoneill wrote:
> "Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnpr7h0116o@news1.newsguy.com...
>> johnoneill wrote:
>>> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>>>> johnoneill wrote:
>
>>> They reported WTC 7 had collapsed. WTC 7 was seen still standing in the
>>> background. The report that it had collapsed was obviously erroneous.
>>>
>>> Who told them that WTC7 has collapsed, Vandar aka Oppenheimer?
>>>
>>> Care to explain, brainiac?
>> It's not hard to understand how it may have happened.
>
> Awwwwh, DO tell, 'Chunder'!
>
> Am aaaaallll ears! Especially when you are 'explaining/debunking' things.
>
>> The BBC and every other news service in the world was stretched to capacity, receiving dozens if not hundreds of
>> sometimes conflicting reports every single minute.
>
> Ok, and I guess you have something to back up your claims, right?

It is self evident you retard. Or perhaps you think the BBC was having a
slow news day.

> If they reported WTC 7 had collapsed it was
>> either because a newswire or other source had reported it,
>
> Reheheheheheally? Which newswire or other source would that be?
>
> care to share that information with the rest of us maybe?

The burden of proof is on you since you appear to be claiming they had
foreknowledge. News reports, especially for breaking stories are filled
with errors, and it is the default position to assume it was an error in
this instance until you provide evidence to the contrary.

There is nothing unlikely or suspicious that they might have misreported
something.

> or the
>> message that collapse was imminent was garbled during communication.
>
> 'Garbled'? Reheheheheheally?
>
> So, it was garbled to both CNN and BBC?

Link to CNN report please.

> Any more information on that **** up of the day, 'Chunder'?
>
> Done, not once, but twice?

Gosh you mean two news outlets might pick up the same wire story and
misreport it?

> Anyway, always glad hearing from you. An 'expert' at making excuses for virtually
> all of the ****ups and 'coincidences' from 9.11.2001, 'Chunder'.

No excuses are required kook. You're the one making stupid outlandish
assertions.

>> But this is too simple for some kooks. Much better to imagine the BBC was in on this plot too right?

So was the BBC in on the plot?
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
9/11 pilot's mother 'believes he is alive in Guantanamo'
Replies
0
Views
30
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Afghan tourism bring reward as well as risk; government urges caution
Replies
0
Views
19
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Cook, bookkeeper and 'worst of the worst' held at Guantanamo: report
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Blast kills five soldiers and wounds four in Mali: army
Replies
0
Views
23
WorldNews
WorldNews
Y
Arabs, Muslims can sue U.S. officials over post-9/11 jail treatment
Replies
0
Views
22
Yahoo! News
Y
Back
Top