September 11 Hijackers are Alive And Well

"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.

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

Really? And that's your 'explanation' of how both BBC and CNN reported
WTC7 collapse, before it happened?

OMFG!
 
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnsjp601k1k@news3.newsguy.com...
> 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:

>> 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?

Good, Chunder, good. It seems you ain't as dumb as you appear to be.

Now, let the train of thoughts carry you up to the next question... go ahead,
you're a big boy, I know you can do it.

Here is a hint; "wire story".

Get back to me with your findings, Chunder.
 
"johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in....]

> 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'.
 
"John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote


> You lied about the BBC and CNN reporters

Wrong... Google it jello-brains... it's a well known fact.
 
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in....]
>
> > 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.

Hey moron, you've already been PROVEN wrong on this point. Can't you
read? Move on, clown.
 
On Feb 5, 8:13 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "johnoneill" <johnone...@dmail.com> wrote in....]
>
> > > 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.
>
> Hey moron, you've already been PROVEN wrong on this point. Can't you
> read? Move on, clown.

With his level of education and his 'special' flight training with
MSFS what else do you expect....
 
In article <zVIpj.64848$U12.6354@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm
says...
>
> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in....]
>
> > 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'.
>

Dayum SkyPileit, a list of the heights of buildings have been posted,
show that WTC7 wasn't "one of the three tallest buildings" in the area,
and yet you still claim it was!

WTF is wrong with you? Is it drugs, or a head injury?

BDK
 
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> "johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in....]
>
>
>>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.

Wow...
 
"johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in a message

>> 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.

> Really? And that's your 'explanation' of how both BBC and CNN reported
> WTC7 collapse, before it happened?

The BBC could have reported that WTC 7 flew away, and it would not make WTC
7 any more distinctive at 47 stories tall, buried among the other tall
buildings around it.

If you ever manage to get out of your mom's trailer in into a city, you
might, possibly, begin to grasp how indistinct WTC 7 would have been.
 
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in a message

>> 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.

> With towers 1 and 2 down, WTC7 was one of the three tallest bldgs in
> Manhattan.
> Buildings 3 thru 6 were miniscule in comparison.

Sky-Pile-It Dave thinks the WTC buildings were the only buildings in
Manhattan.

The rest of them must have all been previously destroyed when a plane get
sucked into the ground by flying.
 
johnoneill wrote:
> "Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:fnsjp601k1k@news3.newsguy.com...
>> 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:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Good, Chunder, good. It seems you ain't as dumb as you appear to be.
>
> Now, let the train of thoughts carry you up to the next question... go ahead,
> you're a big boy, I know you can do it.
>
> Here is a hint; "wire story".
>
> Get back to me with your findings, Chunder.

I'm still waiting for you to supply the CNN link.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think news organisations
broadcasting live while receiving flood of often conflicting news
reports are immune from making mistakes.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the BBC or CNN was
involved in whatever-the-hell-nefarious-other-plot you think happened.

If you allege that this is all some conspiracy, the burden of proof is
on you to demonstrate it. You can start by stating specifically what
conspiracy you're even bleating about. Can't you even manage that?
 
Disneygeek wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:26�am, Cardinal Chunder
> <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
> > johnoneill wrote:
> > > "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in messagenews:fnsjp601k1k@news3.newsguy.com...
> > >> johnoneill wrote:
> > >>> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in messagenews:fnpr7h0116o@news1.newsguy.com...
> > >>>> johnoneill wrote:
> > >>>>> "Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
> > >>>>>> johnoneill wrote:
> >
> > >>> 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?
> >
> > > Good, Chunder, good. It seems you ain't as dumb as you appear to be.
> >
> > > Now, let the train of thoughts carry you up to the next question... go ahead,
> > > you're a big boy, I know you can do it.
> >
> > > Here is a hint; "wire story".
> >
> > > Get back to me with your findings, Chunder.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to supply the CNN link.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think news organisations
> > broadcasting live while receiving flood of often conflicting news
> > reports are immune from making mistakes.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the BBC or CNN was
> > involved in whatever-the-hell-nefarious-other-plot you think happened.
> >
> > If you allege that this is all some conspiracy, the burden of proof is
> > on you to demonstrate it. You can start by stating specifically what
> > conspiracy you're even bleating about. Can't you even manage that?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I guess it is actually beyond him. I did a quick YouTube search and
> found this;
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
>
> Now, notice that the man is not certain. He states that WTC7 is on
> fire and either will collapse or has collapsed. This is supposed to be
> an hour before the actual collapse and we've heard that firefighters
> were concerned about the building "tilting and bulging" up to THREE
> hours before its collapse.

Excellent find, and proof positive that there was no great conspiracy.
Clearly, news outlets are being given the word that the WTC7 is in
imminent danger of collapse, the area is being cleared, and most of
all, this video definitely shows WTC7 fully engulfed in fire, top to
bottom. No wonder everyone knew it was sturcturally damaged to the
point of imminent collapse.

This proves no controlled demolition. I mean, LOOK at the building
smoking away for quite some time. CD would have been IMPOSSIBLE to
survice the impact of tens of thousands of toms of falling steel
debris from WTC1 and the subsequent raging fires.
 
Disneygeek wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:26 am, Cardinal Chunder
> <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
>> johnoneill wrote:
>>> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in messagenews:fnsjp601k1k@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>> johnoneill wrote:
>>>>> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in messagenews:fnpr7h0116o@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> johnoneill wrote:
>>>>>>> "Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:q6cnj.2990$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny...
>>>>>>>> johnoneill wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>> Good, Chunder, good. It seems you ain't as dumb as you appear to be.
>>> Now, let the train of thoughts carry you up to the next question... go ahead,
>>> you're a big boy, I know you can do it.
>>> Here is a hint; "wire story".
>>> Get back to me with your findings, Chunder.
>> I'm still waiting for you to supply the CNN link.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think news organisations
>> broadcasting live while receiving flood of often conflicting news
>> reports are immune from making mistakes.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the BBC or CNN was
>> involved in whatever-the-hell-nefarious-other-plot you think happened.
>>
>> If you allege that this is all some conspiracy, the burden of proof is
>> on you to demonstrate it. You can start by stating specifically what
>> conspiracy you're even bleating about. Can't you even manage that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I guess it is actually beyond him. I did a quick YouTube search and
> found this;
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
>
> Now, notice that the man is not certain. He states that WTC7 is on
> fire and either will collapse or has collapsed. This is supposed to be
> an hour before the actual collapse and we've heard that firefighters
> were concerned about the building "tilting and bulging" up to THREE
> hours before its collapse.

I can see our resident village idiot didn't want to supply the link. It
clearly shows the reporter is unsure if it had or was about to collapse
and eventually hedged on the latter. It's also clear that he hadn't a
clue which building was nr 7, nor did anyone in the studio.
 
In article <zVIpj.64848$U12.6354@trnddc06>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>"johnoneill" <johnoneill@dmail.com> wrote in....]
>
>> 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.



Why do you keep posting something that you've been shown is wrong.



--
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...

> Also, she
> mentions at several points that the area has been completely closed
> off,

Of course the area was closed off... no one could be allowed to see and
photograph the cut steel beams that were piled up on the ground. The few
pictures that have gotten out have proven to be devastating for the pundits
of the government story.

> so she's obviously working from sketchy informaion at best.

Of course she was working from 'sketchy' information... the building likely
was supposed to have come down earlier and the word had already been
passed among a few selects and spoon-fed to the remainder... and since
it hadn't been hit by a plane and no steel building had EVER fallen from
fires, of course there was "confusion" on the part of anyone with a brain.
 
In article <Dzlqj.110644$ds2.85578@trnddc05>,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>"Disneygeek" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
>> Also, she
>> mentions at several points that the area has been completely closed
>> off,
>
>Of course the area was closed off... no one could be allowed to see and
>photograph the cut steel beams that were piled up on the ground. The few
>pictures that have gotten out have proven to be devastating for the pundits
>of the government story.




Morgan is making **** up, yet again.

Thousands of workers and volunteers had access to the WTC site. There
was no restriction on photography for those people. What you say is
contrary to what thousands of people saw. I'm one of them. The reason
that the site was restricted to need is that it was f'cking dangerous.

Many of these people knew people that died on 9/11. You are implying
that all of these people could be told what to say and that they could
cooperate with a criminal cover-up that killed their friends.

Not everything is on the World Wide Web. Your library can get these
two books that discuss what is the best-photographed event in
history. Any serious investigator can get access to all these image.


_A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its
aftermath_ By Callaway

_Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11


Here are more books that document WTC and the cleanup. See for a list
of books and DVDs
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

_AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive_
By Joel Meyerowitz
http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/book_aftermath.asp
(images on web site)

FDNY Film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

The Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive


Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_
By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

By David Friend

Book: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
p.67. Steel spans buckled in 1975 fire.
(probably from NIST Interim Report May 2003, P.20)



Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/

...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
 
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:50:43 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>
>"Disneygeek" <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>
>> Also, she
>> mentions at several points that the area has been completely closed
>> off,
>
>Of course the area was closed off... no one could be allowed to see and
>photograph the cut steel beams that were piled up on the ground. The few
>pictures that have gotten out have proven to be devastating for the pundits
>of the government story.

You're such an idiot, skypileit. There were no "cut steel beams that
were piled up on the ground" from WTC7. If there were, I'm sure you
would provide a citation to the photographs. But, of course, you
won't.

>> so she's obviously working from sketchy informaion at best.
>
>Of course she was working from 'sketchy' information... the building likely
>was supposed to have come down earlier and the word had already been
>passed among a few selects and spoon-fed to the remainder... and since
>it hadn't been hit by a plane

But it was hit by large pieces of steel from the collapse of WTC1.
Just like the Verizon building that was next door to it.

> and no steel building had EVER fallen from
>fires, of course there was "confusion" on the part of anyone with a brain.

Lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Or do you think
that the fire retardent insulation that is required to be put on the
steel is just for show?
 

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