September 11 Hijackers are Alive And Well

In article <fnsfgd$kf1$3@aioe.org>, johnoneill <johnoneill@dmail.com> 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!
>
>>> 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?


johnoneill <johnoneill@dmail.com> has never been to NYC.

Unless you worked for one of the companies that was in WTC7, it was
easy to miss. Part of the problem is that when you are on the
sidewalk next to one of these big-box buildings and look up, they all
look the same. The streets around WTC7 were very narrow.

I love the way that people that have never seen a building higher than
20 floors, or more than a few big buildings in one place and have
never been to NYC, tell us what must have or can't have happened. I
suspect that johnoneill has never seen more than 100 sheep in one
place.


I'm a New Yorker that was familiar with lots of WTC. It's big, well
over 20 acres, and I never had reason to go into WTC7, which was off
to the side.

Years ago, I worked in the Empire State Building, a tower that is
distinctive and not surrounded by similar, tall buildings. It was not
unheard of to stand on the sidewalk and get asked by a tourist, where
was the ESB? You can't see these buildings, close up.

Most people don't know the names and address of buildings they walk by
every day.






--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"Dumbass Liar" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message

>> 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?

Yes Dumbass, he certainly does have something to back up his claim that
every news agency was stretched to capacity on 9/11. If you had something
more than a single digit IQ, you'd already know your answer. Those of us who
are educated and can think, all saw the events of 9/11 and noticed the news
agencies were all working around the clock on coverage all through that day
and for several days afterwards.

So what's your theory Dumbass? That George Bush decided he needed the staffs
of BBC and CNN to be among the tens of thousands of people in on his secret
conspiracy to collapse the towers to help Silverstein with his asbestos
problem in the towers in which there was no asbestos problem?
 
"BDK" <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2209915f406079a798c209@news.buckeye-express.com...
> 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.

Wait a minute, BDK. I know you get a hardon everytime you bitch and
moan how I am 'this or that', but just hold on a second.

How the **** is it possible for a BBC reporter to 'screw up'? Isn't
her job to get the facts straight? Let alone that BBC reporter... what
about the BBC anchor, who was clearly looking at the damn building
as he was talking to the reporter that was standing not far from the damn
building?

Ok, **** BBC. 'They made a mistake'.

Now, please DO explain, BDK, how come CNN made the same mistake?
Also reported that WTC7 has collapsed, when it didn't?

Where did they get that information? Whether being false or not.

Are you saying that both CNN and BBC reporters lied? Made that **** up?

Come on, BDK. You get so high and mighty, talking **** (and never ever
explaining/debunking anything at all) day in and day out... come on.

DO explain.

(it will be sooo funny and entertaining to watch BDK play dumb, as usual)

> Of course, that indicates a conspiracy to you.

No, far from it BDK. That alone indicates jack ****. BUT, along with other
information from that day, that 'mistake' cannot be seen as just an innocent
mistake.

I know it does to you, but you're a notorious liar of some 50+ years on his
back. Pityful excuse of a human being. So, what you say it doesn't really
matter.

You have shown to be a notorious liar. Many, many times. And I know you
know it, that's why you keep on lying. That's your thing.

Your parents failed you. probably were as obnoxious as you are.

Or maybe not. Now, if that is the case... I pity them. I really, really do.

> Rave on.

Awwwwh, another way for BDK to keep on deluding himself.

And in the end; running away from himself.

PS.
And it is funny how BDK thinks that he is a 'sane' person. Haha.
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:lqmdnS_Pv9tevD3anZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com...
> "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!

Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.

And you're laughing at me... what a jerkwad...
 
"Animal02" <Wherewereyou@Wednsday.com> wrote in message news:FaOdnc7CE_G14APanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message news:fnkl00$mms$2@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Animal02" <Wherewereyou@Wednsday.com> wrote in message news:g5udnSX7rqfoygDanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>>
>>> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message news:fnjhml$7gk$1@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "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?
>>>
>>> Only a cluless moron like yourself needs to have "they made an erroneous report" explained.
>>
>> No, I understand what you said the first time, AnimalLiar.
>>
>> Now, I'd like you to figure out who told BBC reporter that WTC7
>> has collapsed?
>
> You aren't very bright are you?
> Free hint for the clueless.......no one tod her, the information was muddled as it passed from person to person
>
>>
>> Do you have such information?
>>
>>>>> Poor cluless kook
>>>>
>>>> Haha, look who's talking!!!
>>>
>>> You the kook.
>>
>> It lloks like you're more of a kook than I have ever was, or ever will be.
>
> Only in your fantasies.

Sure, animal, sure...

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
In article <fnu21b$3tr$4@aioe.org>, johnoneill <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>"BDK" <BDK@magicsteel.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2209915f406079a798c209@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> 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.
>
>Wait a minute, BDK. I know you get a hardon everytime you bitch and
>moan how I am 'this or that', but just hold on a second.
>
>How the **** is it possible for a BBC reporter to 'screw up'? Isn't
>her job to get the facts straight? Let alone that BBC reporter... what


She screwed up. Other News channels got it right. Two NYC channels
have made it to the Internet. I saw the first one live, at about
5:00PM, 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed.


MSNBC: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294
NY1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:VqudnU57l9pa4D_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Dumbass Liar" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>
> >> 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?

> Yes Dumbass, he certainly does have something to back up his claim that
> every news agency was stretched to capacity on 9/11.

Yup... odd that a great deal of what was reported durning the first 48 hours
after the 'event' was relegated to the rabbit hole... never to be seen again.

> If you had something more than a single digit IQ,

You would remember those things instead of the next 6 months of
propaganda bombardment.

> <snippage> ......Silverstein with his asbestos
> problem in the towers in which there was no asbestos problem?

No asbestos problem ?!? Telling lies does nothing for your 'cause'.
 
In article <HAzoj.68258$75.42041@trnddc05>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:VqudnU57l9pa4D_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Dumbass Liar" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> >> 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?
>
>> Yes Dumbass, he certainly does have something to back up his claim that
>> every news agency was stretched to capacity on 9/11.
>
>Yup... odd that a great deal of what was reported durning the first 48 hours
>after the 'event' was relegated to the rabbit hole... never to be seen again.
>


Yup. And the "Truth Movement" shows no interest in actually looking at
the public record for the events of 9/11 and what people said and did
for several months, afterwards. Millions of American were involved,
first-hand or know someone that was. The "Truth Movement" says things
that contradict the immediate experience of the eyewithesses to the
events of 9/11.

What these people know is also remembered in the archives of the
newspapers and TV news stations at NYC, Washington D.C. and Western
Pennsylvania. It's there for the looking. I've seen most of it for
NYC and a good deal for Washington. What it says is consistent with
what I saw in NYC and what people I know that were even closer in NYC
and Washington.

Starting on 9/11 and daily, for months, the local daily newspapers and
TV news in Washington D.C., Western PA, and NYC reported on events
that were local to them and this archive is a huge public record for
what the first responders and eyewitnesses said they saw and did on
9/11. It reports what is now called the "standard story". There were
10s of thousands of first repsonders and millions of eyewitnesses that
saw those reports, daily. Anyone that wants to can get to those
archives via the Internet, now.

For the "Truth Movement" to convince people 6 years later of something
other than the "standard story", they have to explain how all that
reporting done by thouands of reporters in 100s of independent news
outfits got into the local daily news in a way that the local
eyewitnesses agreed with day by day but that the "Truth Movement" now
says never happened.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
In article <HAzoj.68258$75.42041@trnddc05>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:VqudnU57l9pa4D_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Dumbass Liar" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> >> 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?
>
>> Yes Dumbass, he certainly does have something to back up his claim that
>> every news agency was stretched to capacity on 9/11.
>
>Yup... odd that a great deal of what was reported durning the first 48 hours
>after the 'event' was relegated to the rabbit hole... never to be seen again.
>
>> If you had something more than a single digit IQ,
>
>You would remember those things instead of the next 6 months of
>propaganda bombardment.
>

Wrong. Those of us that saw WTC, the Pentagon or Shanksville have the
visions burned into the memory.

What we saw is consistent with what the estimated 70,000 first
responders and investigators saw and what is recorded in the massive
public record for the events of 9/11.

Lots of Americans know one or more of those 70,000 people. I know I do.

I love the fact that someone that only saw 9/11 via Twoofer websites
tried to tell eyewitnesses what they saw.





--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"Disneygeek" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bdd683d4-25b8-40a9-9c41-27da530cd3f6@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 10:02 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:lqmdnS_Pv9tevD3anZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com...
> > "Dumbass" <johnone...@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!
>
> Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.
>
> And you're laughing at me... what a jerkwad...


<_________

Yes, but only the Towers were distinctive. There was nothing to make
WTC7 stand out from WTCs 3 through 6 or most of the other tall
buildings in lower Manhattan.
_________>


Are you just a complete idiot, or is your job to tell lies ???

With towers 1 and 2 down, WTC7 was one of the three tallest bldgs in Manhattan.

Buildings 3 thru 6 were miniscule in comparison.


Bldg 3 = 22 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 4 = 9 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 5 = 9 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 6 = 7 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center


None of the above, in spite of their debris damage and two-day-long fires,
showed any signs of tendency to 'collapse'.
 
On Jan 31, 8:02 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:

> How the **** is it possible for a BBC reporter to 'screw up'?

And here we have it, gents and ladies. No single statement this moron
has made demonstrates his utter stupidity more clearly than this one.

How is it possible for a BBC reporter to screw up.

He "thinks" it's not possible for a person to be mistaken if that
person works for a news outlet.

Of course, without realizing it, this ass clown has contradicted
himself. If it's not possible for a news outlet to "screw up" then all
of the news reporting on the actual facts of 9/11 must also be
correct.

In other words, it's not possible, under this moron's own assumption,
for 9/11 to be an inside job even as he professes his loony belief
that it was.

How come whatever is left of his brain doesn't merely explode? It'd be
a "controlled demolition" pre-planted explosive I could actually
believe in!

> Isn't
> her job to get the facts straight? Let alone that BBC reporter... what
> about the BBC anchor, who was clearly looking at the damn building
> as he was talking to the reporter that was standing not far from the damn
> building?

This moron apparently also believes that the anchor can see the woman
and the buildings. If he had even been on TV he'd know the BBC anchor
is staring into a camera lens. There may be a monitor off to the side
but the anchor, when you see him looking straight at you, is staring
into a black lens, not a monitor.

Plus, this asswipe is assuming some clown blow dried hair model in
London even ever HEARD of WTC7 before that day let alone could pick it
out of the lower Manhattan skyline.

> Ok, **** BBC. 'They made a mistake'.

Yup. Obviously, idiot. WTC7 was still standing at the time so
obviously they made a mistake. What? Do you believe she was telling
the "truth?" How could that be? If you are correct that she could not
have made a mistake, then you obviously believe WTC7 already had
collapsed when she was saying so. So you must believe the image behind
her is, what, a holographic projection or something?? Yikes, could you
be any more stoopid?

> Now, please DO explain, BDK, how come CNN made the same mistake?

Cite.

> Where did they get that information? Whether being false or not.

Uh, moron, you've been informed of this repeatedly. The fire
department was putting out the word to clear the area because of the
building's instability and the obvious concern that it was going to
collapse due to the significant structural damage and the raging
unchecked fires. Everyone knew it. When it got passed down the line to
the on-air blow-dries, one woman from BBC mistakenly said it "had"
collapsed instead of "is expected to" collapse.

This is easy **** if you have a brain, so I guess that means it's
extremely difficult for you.

> BUT, along with other
> information from that day, that 'mistake' cannot be seen as just an innocent
> mistake.

Really? How so? No one else reported it but BBC. So if it wasn't an
innocent mistake, how come every news outlet in the world wasn't also
reporting this "information?" Again you contradict your own position.

> You have shown to be a notorious liar. Many, many times. And I know you
> know it, that's why you keep on lying. That's your thing.

Yet you've never been able to allege let alone demonstrate one single
lie by any of us who know the actual truth. How odd then that you
would rave on about other people "lying" when you have said nothing
but lies yourself.
 
On Jan 29, 3:26 pm, "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote:
> "Ed" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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?

Well, we know of one. You keep being asked for a cite to CNN making
the same error and so far you've ignored it.
But again, unless the building had "WTC7" printed on it in huge
letters, its entirely possible for two reporters not from this area to
not know the building hadn't yet collapsed.
 
"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!

> Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.

That's right Dumabss... but you were talking about WTC 7 being 47 stories
tall - as if that would somehow stand out in the NY skyline, among the many
other buildings of equal or greater height.

> And you're laughing at me...

I am constantly laughing at you, as I imagine is almost every other person
who reads your idiocy.

I thought it was your intention to provide comedic postings, pretending to
be a completely brain dead, mentally retarded loon.

Are you telling me you really are as stupid as you appear?
 
In article <fnuffe$8u2$3@aioe.org>, johnoneill <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote:
>
>"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:lqmdnS_Pv9tevD3anZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "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!
>
>Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.
>
>And you're laughing at me... what a jerkwad...



<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8137991504304840706>

<http://www.uwgb.edu/birds/wbba/species/audios/LOON__COMMON.MP3>


--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message...

> but you were talking about WTC 7 being 47 stories
> tall - as if that would somehow stand out in the NY skyline, among the many
> other buildings of equal or greater height.


Get an education dimwit.... you can't just pull this BS out of your ass.


With towers 1 and 2 down, WTC7 was one of the three tallest bldgs in Manhattan.

Buildings 3 thru 6 were miniscule in comparison.


Bldg 3 = 22 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 4 = 9 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 5 = 9 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

Bldg 6 = 7 stories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center


None of the above, in spite of their debris damage and two-day-long fires,
showed any signs of tendency to 'collapse'.
 
In article <XC9pj.1245$xE.412@trnddc01>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message...
>
>> but you were talking about WTC 7 being 47 stories
>> tall - as if that would somehow stand out in the NY skyline, among the many
>> other buildings of equal or greater height.
>
>
>Get an education dimwit.... you can't just pull this BS out of your ass.
>
>
>With towers 1 and 2 down, WTC7 was one of the three tallest bldgs in Manhattan.



I can't believe that after reading several of us listing the 100
tallest buildings in Manhattan, this idiot is posting the same crap,
again.

That's what makes the "truth Movement' what is is after 6 years of
making no progress. Nowhere.



WTC7 was 610 ft tall.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center


By this list, about 80 buildings are taller than WTC7 was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City





--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
"johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message
news:fnufff$8u2$4@aioe.org...
>
> "Animal02" <Wherewereyou@Wednsday.com> wrote in message
> news:FaOdnc7CE_G14APanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>
>> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fnkl00$mms$2@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Animal02" <Wherewereyou@Wednsday.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g5udnSX7rqfoygDanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>>>
>>>> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fnjhml$7gk$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "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?
>>>>
>>>> Only a cluless moron like yourself needs to have "they made an
>>>> erroneous report" explained.
>>>
>>> No, I understand what you said the first time, AnimalLiar.
>>>
>>> Now, I'd like you to figure out who told BBC reporter that WTC7
>>> has collapsed?
>>
>> You aren't very bright are you?
>> Free hint for the clueless.......no one tod her, the information was
>> muddled as it passed from person to person
>>
>>>
>>> Do you have such information?
>>>
>>>>>> Poor cluless kook
>>>>>
>>>>> Haha, look who's talking!!!
>>>>
>>>> You the kook.
>>>
>>> It lloks like you're more of a kook than I have ever was, or ever will
>>> be.
>>
>> Only in your fantasies.
>
> Sure, animal, sure...

<YAWN>

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message news:N9OdnQnU1cgeLTnanZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@comcast.com...
> "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!
>
>> Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.
>
> That's right Dumabss... but you were talking about WTC 7 being 47 stories tall - as if that would somehow stand out in
> the NY skyline, among the many other buildings of equal or greater height.

That BBC reporter, and that CNN reporter sure had good view, and could clearly
see WTC7, Pindelski...

>> And you're laughing at me...
>
> I am constantly laughing at you, as I imagine is almost every other person who reads your idiocy.

Well, that's just your imagination playing tricks on you, Pindelski.

You know, you ain't getting any younger...

Hah, and therein lies your problem(s), Pindelski.

But, that's another topic... or maybe not, huh?

> I thought it was your intention to provide comedic postings, pretending to be a completely brain dead, mentally
> retarded loon.

Awwwwwh, did I make you say that by exposing you as a liar, a hypocrite
and a genuine american asshole, Pindelski?

Oh my, oh my...

> Are you telling me you really are as stupid as you appear?

Heh, I ain't telling you jack ****, Pindelski.

Remember? You're just imagining it, Johnnyboy.

Heh, doesn't that bring a lot of good ol' memories, huh Pindelski?

You remember when you were about 12 yeras old, and you...
 
"Dumbass" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message


>>> Well, there was only one World Trade Center complex, Pindelski.

>> That's right Dumabss... but you were talking about WTC 7 being 47
>> stories tall - as if that would somehow stand out in the NY skyline,
>> among the many other buildings of equal or greater height.

> That BBC reporter, and that CNN reporter sure had good view, and could
> clearly
> see WTC7, Pindelski...

Let's start with this... The BBC reporter was standing in front of a shot of
WTC 7. There is no indication she was looking at a monitor which would have
clearly showed exactly what background was being shown behind her. I suspect
among the many things on which you are totally uneducated, the manner in
which things work in a television studio are likely an amazing mystery to
you.

Then, lets move into your own style of Dumbass 12 year old rebuttal.

Oh, so you can prove the BBC and CNN reporter knew what WTC 7 looked like?

Go ahead Dumbass. We're all waiting for you to show us a report that proves
the CNN and BBC reporters could identify WTC 7 visually.

Well, we're waiting Dumbass! Where's the report?

You can't find one, can you Dumbass? That's because there is no such report.

You lied about the BBC and CNN reporters just like you lie about everything
else.

Now everyone can see what a liar you are Dumbass. You have been exposed by
my cunning plan!

(Not a bad impersonation of you Dumbass, if I might say so)


> You know, you ain't getting any younger...

And you ain't getting any smarter.

I can understand how you being so young makes you feel inferior, but, it's
only projection that allows you to think I have a similar psychosis over my
age.

>> Are you telling me you really are as stupid as you appear?

> Heh, I ain't telling you jack ****, Pindelski.

Actually, by posting your mindless drivel, you're telling me everything.
You're obviously someone who could manage to fail an IQ test.

Here's an example of your "logic" in action;

1) You claim I am a master at disinformation
2) I provide you a link to a video on a page that also includes some videos
from which you can gain some additional knowledge about "me".
3) You go to the site I provided to you, and, amazingly, discover these
videos.
4) You are now convinced my last name is Pindelski

Pretty easy for a master of disinformation. So... is it? Or isn't it? You
have no idea. You were sucked in as easily as the 9/11 kook sites sucked you
in. You're not someone who has the ability to discern valid info from
invalid info. You'd readily buy a bridge or property on the side of a cliff.
You make the truly mentally retarded appear to be Einstein's by way of
comparison.

> Heh, doesn't that bring a lot of good ol' memories, huh Pindelski?
> You remember when you were about 12 yeras old, and you...

And I what? Acted like you?
No. I was never that stupid - not even as a newborn. Not even as a zygote.
I have hairs on my ass that are smarter than you Dumbass.
 

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