Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:Je%Qh.134538$_73.131854@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > In article <PeWQh.5353$i93.2535@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm > mumbled > > > The owner of a demolition company estimated it would 30 or 40 trained men to > > > wire that building in one day > So who was it Yiou mean who blew Building 7, WTC? If we knew for certain, there would be some sunrise hangings in Dodge City. Quote
Guest Roger Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 So? "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qta62.ks0.19.1@news.alt.net... > > Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/020407_b_Pilot.htm > Monday April 2, 2007 > > Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 > truth. The latest is Col. Guy S. Razer. > > Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Retired U.S. Air Force > fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew > combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons > School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. > > Col. Razer's statement: > > "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced > that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and > committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest > levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. > > The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit > by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were > pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on > fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's > collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. > Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in > which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched > the building collapse." > > We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military > took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States > against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired > does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it > is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to > justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have > to suffer to do it. > > We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, > and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those > of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were > given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust > is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of > treason!" > > > > > > > > > > Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <57j8bbF2dfekdU1@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> In article <57j0laF2c5e1nU2@mid.individual.net>, >> Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> In article <hcWQh.5352$i93.3709@trnddc05>, >>>> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: >>>>> "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message news:OnRQh.3025$F%1.2850@trnddc01... >>>>> >>>>>> Kooks like this colonel are highly significant by virtue of the fact that >>>>>> they are alone in coming to the proper conspiracy kook conclusion. >>>>> Alone ?!? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are the fool here.... resting within the remaining 22% of American fools >>>> >>>> Don't conflate the 27% support for Bush with any idea that 63% think >>>> moonbeams knocked down the WTC towers. >>>> >>> The airplanes and fires sure as Hell didn't. >>> >> >> >> Nobody with any expertise in construction or demolition agrees with >> you. >> > >Nobody? I happen to work construction, and demolition is one of my >specialties. > >Have sledge, will travel. > >Who do you work for, Al? Why do you so ferociously uphold the Official >Conspiracy Lies of 9/11? > >You don't really believe that bearded mystics in Afghanistan caused the >entire American Air Defense system to stand down, do you? > Don't change the topic [1]. Who flew the planes is a discussion that is seperate from the consequences of hijacking of 4 jumbo jets on 9/11. What difference does my motivation make? I'm not getting paid for this. I Make points based on real-world facts and experience. I call on the truthies to make unedited transcripts and videos of eny material the edit and use available so we can see if people really meant what the Truthies wasnt us to believe. [1] The hijackers weren't Afghanistan, they, like many other Islamisists wre Egyptian and N. Afican with an bunch of Arabians added. Clueless. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <%F1Rh.3431$WL4.1109@trnddc04>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote... > >> Al Dykes wrote: >> > >> > Nobody with any expertise in construction or demolition agrees with >> > you. > >> You don't really believe that bearded mystics in Afghanistan caused the >> entire American Air Defense system to stand down, do you? > >He's a nut case. Dick Cheney confused, misdirected, and otherwise >stood down the military and civilian ATC on 911. > > > I want to see the entire Bush Administration in jail for crimes that are based on fact and record. Unlike the Truth Movement, I'm actually working to at least get them out of power and make sure they don't return for a long time. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <2E1Rh.3430$WL4.3412@trnddc04>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >> Al Dykes spat forth in article <hcWQh.5352$i93.3709@trnddc05> >> > >> > Don't conflate the 27% support for Bush with any idea that 63% think >> > moonbeams knocked down the WTC towers. > >Not a chance..... a moonbeam is a helluva' lot smarter than George Bush. > > Agreed. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <57j8fkF2dfekdU2@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> In article <57j0pmF2c5e1nU3@mid.individual.net>, >> Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> In article <H7WQh.5349$i93.1790@trnddc05>, >>>> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: >>>>> "whofan" <dgbrewer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175707383.996207.168680@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Apr 4, 12:44 pm, "sandman" <sand...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/020407_b_Pilot.htm >>>>>>> Monday April 2, 2007 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 >>>>>>> truth. The latest is Col. Guy S. Razer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Retired U.S. Air Force >>>>>>> fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew >>>>>>> combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons >>>>>>> School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Col. Razer's statement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced >>>>>>> that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and >>>>>>> committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest >>>>>>> levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by >>>>>>> an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. >>>>>>> There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a >>>>>>> coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's collapse before >>>>>>> it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. >>>>>> On 911, reports that WTC7 appeared as though it could collapse at any >>>>>> moment started airing at around noon or 1pm. Reporters knew it would >>>>>> collapse just by the perilous appearance of the building....it wasn't >>>>>> a matter of if it would collapse, it was when. >>>>> You too, are a shill idiot. Never before in history, nor since 911, has ANY >>>>> steel framed scyscraper EVER collapsed from fire and minor surface >>>>> damage. >>>>> >>>>> There is no way humanly possible, given that no precedent had EVER been >>>>> previously set (other than the twin towers earlier that day) in history, that >>>>> ANYONE could have predicted or anticipated such a collapse. You are >>>>> a lying fool. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When rangefinders pointed at WTC7 showed the builing shifting, NYFD >>>> knew it was comming down. By 5PM there were lots of people watching. >>>> >>> Rangefinders? LOL, but you imagine that rangefinders are normally used >>> in firefighting? >>> >> >> For a potential building collapse, yes. >> > >Why would anyone imagine that a fire would cause WTC 7 to collapse? > >> >> >>> Besides, that doesn't explain why the building took a perfect dive >>> into its own basement. Nothing does, except for the obvious... >> >> >> What else was it going to do? It was about as wide as it was high. It >> burned out internally. >> > >That's crap. That's not how an uncontrolled structural failure happens >at all. Why do you lie so much? >> There was no "big hand" pushing it over. >> >Gravity acts like a big hand, unless every single support fails >simultaneously, or at least a sufficient number of strategically >selected ones do. Another Truthie that never passed a physics course. WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the structural steel. WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of ft. WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it subject to failure from all of the above. [2] Don't let this bit of factual analysis disuade you from posting "truth Movemnt" crap all over Usenet, possibly under multiple handles, in the future. Have a nice day. [2] http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <Je%Qh.134538$_73.131854@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <PeWQh.5353$i93.2535@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm >mumbled > > >> > The owner of a demolition company estimated it would 30 or 40 trained men to >> > wire that building in one day > > >So who was it > Jowenko. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 In article <57j8lrF2dfekdU3@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> In article <57j114F2c5e1nU4@mid.individual.net>, >> Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >>> ORIGINAL POSTLIST RESTORED >>> >>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>> In article <R3WQh.18334$PL.2350@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>>> Ben Turner <BenTurner@notvalid.address> wrote: >>>>> Scotius wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It was probably demolished because it's computers were being >>>>>> broken into. Do some real research. See if you can find out what >>>>>> satellites were over Manhattan at the time of the attacks. I did. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There were scores of financial transfers going on when Building 7 went down. >>>>> The recovered hard drives are being reconstructed and they are beginning to >>>>> get a good handle on where the money was being transferred and by whom. >>>> >>>> Of course there were. The financial companies in WTC did that for a >>>> living. You are insunuating that there was crime involved. >>>> >>> Obviously. >>> >>>> How so? >>>> >>> Insurance fraud and insider trading. Billions of dollars were involved. >>> >> >> Are you saying that the occuants knew they were about to blow up and >> made trade for their advantage instead of running out of the building? >> > >Why do you imagine that the trades were placed from inside the building, >you moron? Your spinning has disoriented you. > >> Are you saying that thousands of people inside the building knew, >> and nobody outside the building did, beforehand. >> > >There weren't thousands of people inside WTC 7 goofus. Why would anyone >believe that garbage? The fact that some people knew about the 9/11 >disaster beforehand is common knowledge. The Dancing jooz in Joisey >certainly were in the right place at the right time, with the right gear. >My My! Such a co-inky-dink! > "with the right gear", whatever that is. Please cite. I think you are elaborating on fact. Yes. There were some people seen in NJ. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4614ca28$0$9961$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > So? You must be a genuine, American, braindead, Couch-Potato. > "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:qta62.ks0.19.1@news.alt.net... > > > > Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth > > > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/020407_b_Pilot.htm > > Monday April 2, 2007 > > > > Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 > > truth. The latest is Col. Guy S. Razer. > > > > Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Retired U.S. Air Force > > fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew > > combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons > > School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. > > > > Col. Razer's statement: > > > > "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced > > that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and > > committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest > > levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. > > > > The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit > > by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were > > pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on > > fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's > > collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. > > Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in > > which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched > > the building collapse." > > > > We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military > > took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States > > against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired > > does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it > > is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to > > justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have > > to suffer to do it. > > > > We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, > > and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those > > of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were > > given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust > > is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of > > treason!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote
Guest Roger Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message news:H7aRh.5818$jZ3.5740@trnddc06... > > "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4614ca28$0$9961$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> So? > > You must be a genuine, American, braindead, Couch-Potato. Can't answer my question, I see. > > > >> "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:qta62.ks0.19.1@news.alt.net... >> > >> > Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth >> > >> > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/020407_b_Pilot.htm >> > Monday April 2, 2007 >> > >> > Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 >> > truth. The latest is Col. Guy S. Razer. >> > >> > Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Retired U.S. Air Force >> > fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew >> > combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter >> > Weapons >> > School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. >> > >> > Col. Razer's statement: >> > >> > "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% >> > convinced >> > that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and >> > committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest >> > levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. >> > >> > The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not >> > hit >> > by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were >> > pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on >> > fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the >> > building's >> > collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was >> > pre-planned. >> > Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession >> > in >> > which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched >> > the building collapse." >> > >> > We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military >> > took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United >> > States >> > against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have >> > retired >> > does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, >> > it >> > is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to >> > justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we >> > have >> > to suffer to do it. >> > >> > We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, >> > and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. >> > Those >> > of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were >> > given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that >> > trust >> > is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of >> > treason!" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <vv1Rh.3428$WL4.2549@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > And would you like that bow torch stuffed in your mouth, ear or up your > > ass ? > > > > I'll give you that choice. > > > You're not from America, are you? Nope, I'm from the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated. freaking morons can't even read headers -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <LB1Rh.3429$WL4.1835@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:Rd%Qh.134536$_73.79781@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > In article <_8WQh.5351$i93.3877@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm > > mumbled > > > > > > "whofan" <dgbrewer@gmail.com> wrote in message... > > > > > > > Just shows that even AF pilots can be kooks too. > > > > > > > > > Is there ANY proof you can offer (besides your shill mouthpiece) to couter > > > the facts of the matter? > > > Facts ? > > The world is still waiting for those. So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain any facts ? Thanks for letting us know. > > > or opinion ? > > Tank fixers can be kooks as well, if they buy anything other than an > implosion as applies to Building 7's so-called 'collapse'. So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one saw any evidence of the building being prepared. > > > "WTC 7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11 - updated" > < > > > The Science: Fires and Buildings: > 911 PHYSICS http://www.physics911.org > > WTC7 - THE HIDDEN STORY OF BUILDING: 7 http://www.wtc7.net > > http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html http://www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html > http://www.911tv.org http://www.911revisited.com/ > http://www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html > > Muslims suspend laws of physics: > http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html > http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm > > http://www.911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/usgs_hotspots.html > http://www.wtc7.net/background.html > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html > > > Casual commentary style reporting from March 28, 2006 > "Eliminating the Impossible" By Sheila Samples > http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_sheila_s_060329_9_2f11____eliminating_.htm -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <aI1Rh.3432$WL4.624@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:Je%Qh.134538$_73.131854@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > In article <PeWQh.5353$i93.2535@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm > > mumbled > > > > > The owner of a demolition company estimated it would 30 or 40 trained men to > > > > wire that building in one day > > > So who was it > > Yiou mean who blew Building 7, WTC? No you ditz. Who is the "explosives expert" you are citing above. > > If we knew for certain, there would be some sunrise hangings in Dodge City. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Defendario Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 Tankfixer wrote: > In article <LB1Rh.3429$WL4.1835@trnddc04>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm > mumbled >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:Rd%Qh.134536$_73.79781@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> In article <_8WQh.5351$i93.3877@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm >>> mumbled >>>> "whofan" <dgbrewer@gmail.com> wrote in message... >>>> >>>>> Just shows that even AF pilots can be kooks too. >>>> >>>> Is there ANY proof you can offer (besides your shill mouthpiece) to couter >>>> the facts of the matter? >>> Facts ? >> The world is still waiting for those. > > So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain > any facts ? And you know anything about /facts/ tinkerbell? LOL, don't make me sicc Peter Principle on you again! :-D > Thanks for letting us know. > >>> or opinion ? >> Tank fixers can be kooks as well, if they buy anything other than an >> implosion as applies to Building 7's so-called 'collapse'. > > So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one > saw any evidence of the building being prepared. > Who saw OJ murder Nicole, other than Ron and the dog? Ron's dead and the dog ain't telling, so you figure he didn't do it, hunh? Whatta maroon! > >> >> "WTC 7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11 - updated" >> < >> >> >> The Science: Fires and Buildings: >> 911 PHYSICS http://www.physics911.org >> >> WTC7 - THE HIDDEN STORY OF BUILDING: 7 http://www.wtc7.net >> >> http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html http://www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html >> http://www.911tv.org http://www.911revisited.com/ >> http://www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html >> >> Muslims suspend laws of physics: >> http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html >> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm >> >> http://www.911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/usgs_hotspots.html >> http://www.wtc7.net/background.html >> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html >> >> >> Casual commentary style reporting from March 28, 2006 >> "Eliminating the Impossible" By Sheila Samples >> http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_sheila_s_060329_9_2f11____eliminating_.htm > > -- > Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a > diet of static text and > cascading "threads." > Tinkerbell -- a dumbass Nasty Guard fuknob who needs to retire already ;D Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:JqhRh.19956$tD2.11151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... <chomp> > So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain > any facts ? > Thanks for letting us know. cut n paste from another thread: If the collapse of the building was an accident, why were ground zero personnel, firefighters and police told to vacate the area surrounding Building 7 in advance because the structure was to be brought down? SEE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm If the collapse did not involve the use of demolition charges, why did NYPD officer Craig Bartmer report bombs tearing down the building as he ran away from it? SEE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Why did WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein admit on a 2002 PBS documentary that WTC 7 was deliberately pulled? To "pull" is industry jargon for controlled demolition. Why has NIST changed its explanation for the collapse of Building 7 on several different occasions and why to this day has it still not come to a conclusion ? SEE: How can fire damage have caused the building (which had been structurally reinforced) to collapse in freefall when photos taken immediately before it fell show limited fires confined sporadically to just eight floors? SEE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm Why did news networks like CNN and BBC report the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before the building actually fell? SEE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm Why are news networks like Fox, CNN and MSNBC so eager to throw out ad hominem insults and employ smear tactics against Rosie O'Donnell simply for raising these kind of questions yet universally refuse to debate the cold hard facts surrounding Building 7? Why are enemies of free speech attempting to have Rosie O'Donnell thrown off the air simply for discussing this issue? Quote
Guest David Eduardo Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: > "sandman" <sandman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qta62.ks0.19.1@news.alt.net... > > > > Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth > > > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/020407_b_Pilot.htm > > Monday April 2, 2007 > > > > Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 > > truth. The latest is Col. Guy S. Razer. > > > > Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) - Retired U.S. Air Force > > fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew > > combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons > > School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. > > > > Col. Razer's statement: > > > > "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced > > that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and > > committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest > > levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. > > > > The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by > > an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. > > There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a > > coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's collapse before > > it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning > > evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states > > "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building > > collapse." > > > > We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took > > an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against > > all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not > > make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty > > to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter > > how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it. > > > > We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and > > who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us > > who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us > > had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only > > heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!" > > > Though I am happy to see any voice raised in opposition to the US corporate > political Coup D'Etat of 2000, deeply covered by the events of 911, this has > been going on for some time. > > http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ Come to my office in Glendale and I will gladly stuff my boot up your ass. Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <4615ba01$0$5744$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:JqhRh.19956$tD2.11151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ><chomp> > >> So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain >> any facts ? >> Thanks for letting us know. > >cut n paste from another thread: > >If the collapse of the building was an accident, why were ground zero >personnel, firefighters and police told to vacate the area surrounding >Building 7 in advance because the structure was to be brought down? > Huh? It was on fire for hours and they finally decided it was close to collapse. Here's 3 minutes of the south side of WTC7, which the Truthies never show us. WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the structural steel. WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of ft. WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it subject to failure from all of the above. [2] -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:ev4eh8$53m$1@panix5.panix.com... <snip> > Huh? It was on fire for hours and they finally decided it was close > to collapse. > > Here's 3 minutes of the south side of WTC7, which the Truthies never > show us. > > > 911%2Ecom%2FWTC7%2Ehtm > > > WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS > system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an > internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the > strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the > structural steel. As a fitter that has worked with high tensile steel [structural steel] for nearly 30 years I don't belive you. > WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of > ft. So? > WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power > substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it > subject to failure from all of the above. [2] Silverstein claimed on TV that, "a decision was made to ~pull~ the building". This flies in the face of your claim. The owner admitted/implied that it was a controlled demolition and yet you believe otherwise, why? What barrow do you have to push? What are you in denial of? Ned Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <4615bfde$0$16553$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >news:ev4eh8$53m$1@panix5.panix.com... > ><snip> > >> Huh? It was on fire for hours and they finally decided it was close >> to collapse. >> >> Here's 3 minutes of the south side of WTC7, which the Truthies never >> show us. >> >> >> > >911%2Ecom%2FWTC7%2Ehtm >> >> >> WTC7 had a huge tank of diesel fuel and a pump powered by a UPS >> system. [2] The pump delivered 50 gal/minute (from memory) to an >> internal fire that burned for hours. Sustaind heat removes the >> strength from concrete and the temps were high enough to weaken the >> structural steel. > >As a fitter that has worked with high tensile steel [structural steel] for >nearly >30 years I don't belive you. > >> WTC7 was hit by some very large beams from WTC2, falling hundreds of >> ft. > >So? > > >> WTC structure was unusual in that it was built over an existing power >> substation. This resulted in points in the structure that made it >> subject to failure from all of the above. [2] > > >Silverstein claimed on TV that, "a decision was made to ~pull~ the >building". >This flies in the face of your claim. The owner admitted/implied that it was >a controlled >demolition and yet you believe otherwise, why? becuase the building was on fire and beginning to warp. There was no reason to do anything but wait for the building to either fall or for the fires to burn themselves out. Either way it was a total loss. Why were explosives even needed? He's repeating the words of a fire chief. It wasn't his decision. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:ev4fo5$79i$1@panix5.panix.com... > becuase the building was on fire and beginning to warp. There was no > reason to do anything but wait for the building to either fall or for > the fires to burn themselves out. Either way it was a total loss. Why > were explosives even needed? Good question! If the fires caused the building to "warp" as you claim, it would have collapsed in that fashion [asymmetrically]. Instead it took a symmetrical 'swan-dive' into it's basement. A text book example of a controlled demolition. What barrow do you have to push? What are you in denial of? Ned Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <4615ba01$0$5744$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message > news:JqhRh.19956$tD2.11151@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > <chomp> > > > So you mean all those web sites you list below don't actually contain > > any facts ? > > Thanks for letting us know. > > cut n paste from another thread: > > If the collapse of the building was an accident, why were ground zero > personnel, firefighters and police told to vacate the area surrounding > Building 7 in advance because the structure was to be brought down? Because they had laser rangefinders painting it and could tell it was moving ? That it was unstable and might come down ? > > SEE: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm > > > If the collapse did not involve the use of demolition charges, why did > NYPD officer Craig Bartmer report bombs tearing down the building as > he ran away from it? Loud booms. That kind of thing happens when floors pancake on top of one another. > > SEE: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm > > > Why did WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein admit on a 2002 PBS > documentary that WTC 7 was deliberately pulled? To "pull" is industry > jargon for controlled demolition. Why has NIST changed its explanation > for the collapse of Building 7 on several different occasions and why > to this day has it still not come to a conclusion ? > > SEE: > I saw a kewl Hillery add on utube too. Must be true if its there > > > How can fire damage have caused the building (which had been > structurally reinforced) to collapse in freefall when photos taken > immediately before it fell show limited fires confined sporadically to > just eight floors? > > SEE: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm > > > Why did news networks like CNN and BBC report the collapse of WTC 7 > over 20 minutes before the building actually fell? > > SEE: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm > > > Why are news networks like Fox, CNN and MSNBC so eager to throw out ad > hominem insults and employ smear tactics against Rosie O'Donnell > simply for raising these kind of questions yet universally refuse to > debate the cold hard facts surrounding Building 7? > > Why are enemies of free speech attempting to have Rosie O'Donnell > thrown off the air simply for discussing this issue? No one needs to smear Rosie, she does just fine each time she opens her mouth. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <4615c4b2$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >news:ev4fo5$79i$1@panix5.panix.com... > > >> becuase the building was on fire and beginning to warp. There was no >> reason to do anything but wait for the building to either fall or for >> the fires to burn themselves out. Either way it was a total loss. Why >> were explosives even needed? > >Good question! >If the fires caused the building to "warp" as you claim, it would have >collapsed in that fashion [asymmetrically]. Instead it took a symmetrical >'swan-dive' into it's basement. A text book example of a controlled >demolition. > Read up on how it warped. The builing was only about twice as high as it is wide, there was no big hand to push it over. How else do you expect it to fall. Besides, there is no demolition expert that says that explosives explain the way WTC7 collapsed. WTC7 was cantileavered over a pre-existing power substation, Most discussions consider this a weakness in the frame that was compounded bythe protracted fire and made worse by teh damage from falling debris. See the pics here. http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest fagade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south fagade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south fagade.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[1] -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 In article <4615ca0b$0$9772$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:LBjRh.20018$tD2.6596@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ><snip> > >> > If the collapse of the building was an accident, why were ground zero >> > personnel, firefighters and police told to vacate the area surrounding >> > Building 7 in advance because the structure was to be brought down? >> >> >> Because they had laser rangefinders painting it and could tell it was >> moving ? >> That it was unstable and might come down ? > >Very unlikely. >But if you believe it that's ok. > What is "unlikely" ? -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:LBjRh.20018$tD2.6596@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... <snip> > > If the collapse of the building was an accident, why were ground zero > > personnel, firefighters and police told to vacate the area surrounding > > Building 7 in advance because the structure was to be brought down? > > > Because they had laser rangefinders painting it and could tell it was > moving ? > That it was unstable and might come down ? Very unlikely. But if you believe it that's ok. > > SEE: > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm > > > > > > If the collapse did not involve the use of demolition charges, why did > > NYPD officer Craig Bartmer report bombs tearing down the building as > > he ran away from it? > > Loud booms. > That kind of thing happens when floors pancake on top of one another. Agreed. Typical of a controlled demolition. > > SEE: > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm > > > > > > Why did WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein admit on a 2002 PBS > > documentary that WTC 7 was deliberately pulled? To "pull" is industry > > jargon for controlled demolition. Why has NIST changed its explanation > > for the collapse of Building 7 on several different occasions and why > > to this day has it still not come to a conclusion ? > > > > SEE: > > > > I saw a kewl Hillery add on utube too. > Must be true if its there As a conservative I don't approve of Hillery, but I doubt that she could be worse than Bush. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 6, 2007 Posted April 6, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message.... > So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one > saw any evidence of the building being prepared. No one on the ground saw any evidence before the first smart bomb hit Bagdad, either.... but it damned sure hit now didn't it? 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.