Guest johnoneill Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 "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! Quote
Guest johnoneill Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 "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 cock 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. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 "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'. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 "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. Quote
Guest Iarnrod Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 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. Quote
Guest george Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 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.... Quote
Guest BDK Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 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 Quote
Guest Vandar Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 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... Quote
Guest John P. Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 "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. Quote
Guest John P. Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 "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. Quote
Guest Cardinal Chunder Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 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 cock 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? Quote
Guest Iarnrod Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 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 cock 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; > > > > 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. Quote
Guest Cardinal Chunder Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 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$7d1.2684@news01.roc.ny... >>>>>>>> johnoneill wrote: >>>>> Any more information on that cock up of the day, 'Chunder'? >>>>> Done, not once, but twice? >>>> Gosh you mean two news outlets might pick up the same wire story and misreport it? >>> Good, Chunder, good. It seems you ain't as dumb as you appear to be. >>> Now, let the train of thoughts carry you up to the next question... go ahead, >>> you're a big boy, I know you can do it. >>> Here is a hint; "wire story". >>> Get back to me with your findings, Chunder. >> I'm still waiting for you to supply the CNN link. >> >> I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think news organisations >> broadcasting live while receiving flood of often conflicting news >> reports are immune from making mistakes. >> >> I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the BBC or CNN was >> involved in whatever-the-hell-nefarious-other-plot you think happened. >> >> If you allege that this is all some conspiracy, the burden of proof is >> on you to demonstrate it. You can start by stating specifically what >> conspiracy you're even bleating about. Can't you even manage that?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I guess it is actually beyond him. I did a quick YouTube search and > found this; > > > > Now, notice that the man is not certain. He states that WTC7 is on > fire and either will collapse or has collapsed. This is supposed to be > an hour before the actual collapse and we've heard that firefighters > were concerned about the building "tilting and bulging" up to THREE > hours before its collapse. I can see our resident village idiot didn't want to supply the link. It clearly shows the reporter is unsure if it had or was about to collapse and eventually hedged on the latter. It's also clear that he hadn't a clue which building was nr 7, nor did anyone in the studio. Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted February 6, 2008 Posted February 6, 2008 In article <zVIpj.64848$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 Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted February 6, 2008 Posted February 6, 2008 "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. Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted February 6, 2008 Posted February 6, 2008 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 shit 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 Quote
Guest DavidMorgan@m-a-m-s.com Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 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? Quote
Guest BDK Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 In article <j4kkq35kb496ad7f87a7d5tlu67b2g987n@4ax.com>, DavidMorgan@m- a-m-s.com says... > 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? > Ahh, the mind of Sky Pile-It...does it even exist? When I think of him, I think of a Hamster doing it's thing on the wheel. Compulsively running on it, like Sky Pile-It dave compulsively spouts claims that have been proven false over and over again. Not meaning to insult any Hamsters out there. BDK Quote
Guest Randy Belong Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 <DavidMorgan@m-a-m-s.com> wrote in message news:j4kkq35kb496ad7f87a7d5tlu67b2g987n@4ax.com... > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:50:43 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" > <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >> >> 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. Name one. Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 In article <BUMOj.76690$rd2.47056@pd7urf3no>, Randy Belong <rjbelong@hotmail.com> wrote: > ><DavidMorgan@m-a-m-s.com> wrote in message >news:j4kkq35kb496ad7f87a7d5tlu67b2g987n@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:50:43 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" >> <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. > >Name one. The steel side of the Madrid towers, for one. The concrete side survived. There was no structural concrete in the WTC towers. No other all-steel buildings in history was built with minimal fire-proofing, doused with thousands of gallons of fuel, set afire and allowed to burn for hours without any firefighting or sprinklers. WTC1, 2, and 7 were unique in that way. Nobody heard man-made demolition at WTC. There is no evidence for man-made explosions at WTC. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail Quote
Guest Vandar Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Randy Belong wrote: > <DavidMorgan@m-a-m-s.com> wrote in message > news:j4kkq35kb496ad7f87a7d5tlu67b2g987n@4ax.com... > >>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:50:43 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" >><findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: >> >> >>>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. > > > Name one. http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.