Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..

On 15 Sep 2007 11:40:57 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <hlSGi.737$6B2.374@trndny04>, Kinon O'Cann <nah RemoveThis @not.now> wrote:
>>Well, this is BS, but I've always wondered about that crash into the
>>Pentagon. Look at this chronology, and see if they mention a jet crashing
>>into the Pentagon:
>>
>>http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/
>>
>>And if a jet did hit the Pentagon, where's the wing damage? Seems like a
>>very narrow slice of damage for a jet with a 200' wingspan (guess).
>
>
>
> Put anything said in that website in the context of all the eye
> witnesses and phyical evidence. Especially that smoking hole in the
> Pentagon with all the 757 wreckage and the body parts, as witnessed by
> hundreds of first responders and who's DNA matches that of the family
> members of the people booked to ride on the plane.
>
> Details of engine parts found at Pentagon
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
>
> Black boxes recovered and analyzed
> http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
>
> Info on the tapes
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6068.shtml
>
> More eye witnesses same-day reporting
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
>
> Transcript of CNN broadcast of 1PM 9-11, eyewitness
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
>
> Perdue simulation of 757 impact
> http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
>
> DNA matches with family members matches all but one of Pax on Flt77
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer
>
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/9.11/index.html
>
> Video of Phanton hitting wall
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
>
>
>
> 89 eyewitnesses. Put any of them or any other name you come up with
> into this custom search ans see what they said. Everyone saw a plane
> flying at the pentagon. nobody saw that plane fly over teh pentagon and
> leave.
>
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
>
> Anderson Steve
> Anlauf Deb & Jeff
> Artman, Stuart ***
> Banton, Ralph
> Barbara
> Battle, David
> Bauer Gary
> Baxter, John, Col.
> Bease, Maurice
> Bell Mickey
> Benedetto Richard
> Biggert Judy
> Birdwell Brian
> Boger Sean ****
> Bouchoux Donald R.
> Bowman John
> Bradley, Pam
> Braman Chris
> Brennan, Donald
> Bright Mark
> Brooks, Chadwick
> Brown Ervin
> Bryceland, Frank
> Campo, Omar
> Candelario, Joseph
> Carroll, Susan
> Cissell James R.
> Clem, Dennis
> Cleveland Allen
> Clodfelter, George
> Close, Bernadette
> Cook Scott P.
> Cox, Richard (Arlington po)
> Creed Dan
> Damoose
> Day Wayne T.
> DeChiaro Steve
> Defina
> DiPaula Michael
> Dobbs Mike
> Donley, Daryl
> Dougherty Jill
> Dubill Bob
> Dyson, John
> Eberle Bobby Pilot
> Eiden Steve
> Elgas Penny
> Elhallan, Aziz Pilot
> Elliott Bruce
> Evey Walker Lee
> Faram Mark
> Flyler Kim
> Ford Ken
> Fortunato Don
> Foust, Barry (Arlington po)
> Frost Stephen S.
> Gaines Kat
> Gaskins, Fred
> Gerard, Steven
> Gerson, Mike
> Hagos Afework
> Hahr, Matt
> Harrington Joe
> Hemphill Albert
> Henson Jerry
> Hernandez, Eugenio
> Hovis Tom
> Hudson, Ed
> Hunt Bob
> Hurst, Joe
> Ingledue, Jim (VBFD)
> James, Isabel
> James, Michael
> Jarvis Will
> Johnson, Megan
> Jones, Eric
> Kaiser, Andrea
> Kean Terrance
> Keglovich, James
> Kelly, Lesley
> Khavkin D. S.
> Kirk Mark Steven
> Kizildrgli Aydan
> Kopf, Peter
> Krohn Charles H.
> Krug, Ann
> Lagasse William
> Le Grand, La Verne
> Leibner Lincoln
> Leonard, Robert
> Lyman, Mary
> Marra David
> Martinez Oscar
> Mason, Don
> McClain Tom
> McClellan Kenneth
> McCoy, Steve (eng. 101)
> McCusker Elaine
> McGraw Stephen
> McNair Phil
> Middleton William Sr.
> Milburn Kirk
> Mitchell Terry
> Mitchell, Mitch
> Mondul, Steve
> Moody Sheila
> Morin Terry
> Mosley James
> Munsey Christopher
> Murphy Peter M.
> Murray, Patty (Senator)
> Narayanan Vin
> Neri, Michael
> O'Keefe John
> Owens Mary Ann
> Pak, Zinovy
> Patterson Steve
> Perkal Don
> Perry, Scott
> Peterson Christine
> Petitt, Mark
> Pfeilstucker Daniel C. Jr
> Plaisted, Linda
> Powell, Reginald
> Probst Frank
> Ragland Clyde
> Ramey, Wanda
> Regnery Alfred S.
> Renzi Rick
> Riskus, Steve
> Robbins James S
> Rodriguez Meseidy
> Rosati Arthur
> Roser, John F.
> Royster, Joseph
> Ryan James
> Ryan, Darb (Vice Admir)
> Sabre, Qawly
> Schickler Rob
> Scott Don
> Seibert Tom
> Sepulveda Noel
> Shaeffer Kevin
> Sheuerman Philip
> Singleton Jack
> Skarlet
> Slater Mike
> Smiley, Elizabeth
> Smith, Dennis
> Snaman, Steve
> Snavel Dewey
> Sorenson, Kristopher Leigh
> Stanley, G.T.
> Stephens Levi
> Storage Tech. Employees
> Storti, Steve
> Stuart, Chris
> Sucherman Joel
> Sustern, Greta
> Sutherland Jim
> Tamillow Michael
> Taylor, Shari
> Terronez Tony
> Thompson Carla
> Thompson Phillip
> Ticknor Henry (minister)
> Timmerman Don "Tim" Pilot
> Tinyk, Michael
> Trapasso, Thomas
> Turner Ron
> Unidentified witness on video
> Vaughan, Clyde (Brig. Gen)
> Velasquez Jose
> Vera, Michael
> Wallace Alan
> Wallace Terry
> Walter Mike
> Washington, Rodney
> Wheelhouse Keith
> Winslow Dave
> Wright Don
> Wyatt Ian
> Wyatt, Ian
> Yates John
> Yeingst William
> Zakheim Madelyn

The truthers proved this was incorrect with grainy, out of perspective
photos, videos and a couple of crazy witnesses. They don't accept facts
that debunk their theory.

--
Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.

RocinanteREMOVETHIS RemoveThis @gmail.com
9/16/2007 1:52:00 AM
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:

>> Cutting charges go boom.
>>
>> Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM
>>
>> Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
>> tower.
>>
> Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about

You are an irrational kook.

Seek help.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer DeleteThis @sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

On Sep 15, 5:46 pm, Robert Sturgeon <rstu... RemoveThis @inreach.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
>
> EskWI... RemoveThis @spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> >In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat... RemoveThis @house.not> wrote:
>
> >> The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>
> >Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?
>
> >And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.
>
> Hell, Tom Clancy wrote about something very similar in a
> book. There was nothing far-fetched about it. The people
> in charge of airspace defense were caught off guard, but
> there was no reason they should have been. They just
> weren't paying attention to the all-too-obvious
> possibilities. I mean, really, TWO fighters ready on the
> ground in Massachusetts, to defend the entire northeast???


What enemy exactly did you expect to be defending against in 2001 that
required air force fighters to be ready on a few minutes notice to go
intercept? Canada? You have to make some reasonable decisions
about what the risks are and what resources it makes sense to use.
If the AF had hundreds of fighters sitting on the end of runways ready
to go on a moments notice, guys like you would be the first to say how
stupid that was. Plus, the hijackers could have just used planes
taking off from NYC airports, in which case they would have been at
the WTC in a few minutes.



>
> It's just like Pearl Harbor, which also shouldn't have come
> as such a surprise. The U.S. Navy had already run two
> wargames showing the power of carrier attack. The British
> had already sunk several Italian warships at Taranto using
> torpedoes, and Taranto was also "too shallow" to allow
> torpedo attack.
>
> The typical defense establishment just isn't very good at
> preparing for anything they haven't handled in the immediate
> past. The "next time" will also be something they should
> have seen coming, but didn't.

Why don't you tell us what that is, smart guy. It's easy to be a
Monday morning quarterback, isn't it?



Expecting them to is just
> expecting too much of them. They don't think outside the
> box. They don't even think inside the box, unless it's
> their own box.
>
> --
> Robert Sturgeon
> Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

On Sep 16, 6:23 am, "Jonathan" <Jonat... DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat... DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
> >> Harry K wrote:
> >>> On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" <Jonat... DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
> >>>> EskWI... DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> >>>>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat... DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
> >>>>>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
> >>>>>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>
> >>>>> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>
> >>>> So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
> >>>> Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
> >>>> of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
> >>>> enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
> >>>> possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
> >>>> always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
> >>>> there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
> >>>> nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
> >>>> the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to
> >>>> create doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that
> >>>> everything is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty
> >>>> lame and to try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that
> >>>> doubt what is fed to them.
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>> When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
> >>> for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
> >>> away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the
> >>> columns, cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord,
> >>> without anyone noticing then the sane people here will listen.
> >>> Until then your disbeif is flat kookery.
>
> >>> The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have
> >>> been big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that
> >>> long to prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.
>
> >>> Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
> >>> runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation,
> >>> you can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff
> >>> has been removed.
>
> >>> But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is
> >>> possible without being noticed.
>
> >>> Harry K
>
> >>> Harry K
>
> >> You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job
> >> done not me. Given enough time anything can be done and no
> >> explanation need be given. How much time was needed? Do you think
> >> this might have had to been planned over one weekend? Was every
> >> floor occupied and was anyone expecting something to happen and was
> >> everyone looking for something suspicious? How was it that 12
> >> terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the planes at
> >> the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did all
> >> this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that
> >> even when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass
> >> and did nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the
> >> part about placing charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so
> >> dumb to think otherwise? This whole 911 even happened and you obsess
> >> about some simple thing that could have easily have occurred. Man
> >> you are a stupid lot of asshats.
>
> >> If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to
> >> occur. Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or
> >> flying huge jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would
> >> have been the answer?
>
> >> Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
> > believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
> > building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.
>
> > Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
> > weekend.
>
> I have stated this but you don't seem to be able to keep up. Who said it
> had to be one weekend? Where do you get this BS from?
>
> > Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
> > maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
> > be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
> > impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
> > on the conspiracy.
>
> Are you still on that week end timetable? You have to know for sure the
> planting of explosives could not have ever occured to be sure but you don't
> even seem to have any clue about how much time was taken to plan 911. This
> could have been planned for years so why are you so limited in your
> thinking?
>
> > Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without> notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
> > throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
> > day with noone noticing.
>
> You are now an expert on this I see. You seem to be very simple minded and
> a fool. You are clueless.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The "one weekend" was from a post in this thread. I thought it was
from you. If you had any reading comprehension at all, you would see
that I have repeatedly stated it would take 'lots of time (months),
and lots of workers'. But then if you were to understand that, you
would have to give up on your moronic 'it was bombs' belief.

As to being an expert? No, just from using my eyes and ears, watching
the history channel programs on demo, common sense, reading, etc.
None of which you seem to apply.

So just when _do_ you plan to put forth a sensible explanation of how
the charges were planted without notice?

Harry K
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:44:23 -0700, trader4 DeleteThis @optonline.net
wrote:

>On Sep 15, 5:46 pm, Robert Sturgeon <rstu... DeleteThis @inreach.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
>>
>> EskWI... DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>> >In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat... DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>>
>> >> The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>>
>> >Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?
>>
>> >And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.
>>
>> Hell, Tom Clancy wrote about something very similar in a
>> book. There was nothing far-fetched about it. The people
>> in charge of airspace defense were caught off guard, but
>> there was no reason they should have been. They just
>> weren't paying attention to the all-too-obvious
>> possibilities. I mean, really, TWO fighters ready on the
>> ground in Massachusetts, to defend the entire northeast???
>
>What enemy exactly did you expect to be defending against in 2001 that
>required air force fighters to be ready on a few minutes notice to go
>intercept? Canada? You have to make some reasonable decisions
>about what the risks are and what resources it makes sense to use.

And the "reasonable" decision they made was that there was,
for all practical purposes, no threat at all. After the
first WTC bombing -- after the nightclub bombing in Germany
-- after the bombings of the African embassies -- after the
attack on the Cole -- the defensive posture was still at the
usual relaxed peacetime level. What the goofy heck were
they thinking? Were they thinking at all? Wasn't there at
least some colonel in the Pentagon going around bothering
people about the threats? If so, nobody listened. "At Dawn
We Slept," all over again. But really -- that's the way it
always is.

>If the AF had hundreds of fighters sitting on the end of runways ready
>to go on a moments notice, guys like you would be the first to say how
>stupid that was.

Hundreds? Why not 8 or 10, at 4 or 5 airbases in the area?
I was genuinely shocked to find out that the entire
northeastern U.S. was "protected" by 2 F-15s sitting on an
airbase in Massachusetts. Weren't you? Have you read about
the Chinese fire drill the military staged at the time? For
all the good they possibly could have done, they might as
well have stayed on the ground.

> Plus, the hijackers could have just used planes
>taking off from NYC airports, in which case they would have been at
>the WTC in a few minutes.

Yes, they could have. But they didn't. It really didn't
matter where they started -- there was no effective air
defense anywhere.

>> It's just like Pearl Harbor, which also shouldn't have come
>> as such a surprise. The U.S. Navy had already run two
>> wargames showing the power of carrier attack. The British
>> had already sunk several Italian warships at Taranto using
>> torpedoes, and Taranto was also "too shallow" to allow
>> torpedo attack.
>>
>> The typical defense establishment just isn't very good at
>> preparing for anything they haven't handled in the immediate
>> past. The "next time" will also be something they should
>> have seen coming, but didn't.
>
>Why don't you tell us what that is, smart guy. It's easy to be a
>Monday morning quarterback, isn't it?

OK -- here's an obvious one -- a nuke smuggled into a port
city on a container ship. That's already been postulated
and the likely results surveyed by the RAND Corporation. It
wouldn't be pretty -- and would likely result in the
collapse of the U.S. economy, and perhaps of the national
government. Does the military and/or customs service have
ANY procedure for protecting the ports from that? Nope.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

Harry K wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat....RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>> Harry K wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" <Jonat....RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>>> EskWI....RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonat....RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
>>>>>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
>>>>>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>>
>>>>> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>>
>>>> So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
>>>> Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
>>>> of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
>>>> enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
>>>> possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
>>>> always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
>>>> there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
>>>> nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
>>>> the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to
>>>> create doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that
>>>> everything is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty
>>>> lame and to try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that
>>>> doubt what is fed to them.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
>>> for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
>>> away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the
>>> columns, cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord,
>>> without anyone noticing then the sane people here will listen.
>>> Until then your disbeif is flat kookery.
>>
>>> The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have
>>> been big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that
>>> long to prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.
>>
>>> Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
>>> runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation,
>>> you can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff
>>> has been removed.
>>
>>> But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is
>>> possible without being noticed.
>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>> You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job
>> done not me. Given enough time anything can be done and no
>> explanation need be given. How much time was needed? Do you think
>> this might have had to been planned over one weekend? Was every
>> floor occupied and was anyone expecting something to happen and was
>> everyone looking for something suspicious? How was it that 12
>> terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the planes at
>> the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did all
>> this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that
>> even when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass
>> and did nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the
>> part about placing charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so
>> dumb to think otherwise? This whole 911 even happened and you obsess
>> about some simple thing that could have easily have occurred. Man
>> you are a stupid lot of asshats.
>>
>> If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to
>> occur. Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or
>> flying huge jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would
>> have been the answer?
>>
>> Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
> believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
> building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.
>
> Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
> weekend.
>
I have stated this but you don't seem to be able to keep up. Who said it
had to be one weekend? Where do you get this BS from?


> Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
> maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
> be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
> impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
> on the conspiracy.
>
Are you still on that week end timetable? You have to know for sure the
planting of explosives could not have ever occured to be sure but you don't
even seem to have any clue about how much time was taken to plan 911. This
could have been planned for years so why are you so limited in your
thinking?


> Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without
> notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
> throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
> day with noone noticing.
>
You are now an expert on this I see. You seem to be very simple minded and
a fool. You are clueless.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <EDaHi.833$Qr.442@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
"Jonathan" <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:


>
> There was a plan to go to Iraq long before 911 but I see you are really
> ignorant. If there was a way to plant WMDs it would have been done. The only
> way to unite the world was a terrorist attack and Bush even blew that. You
> really need to get out more. You have no idea what the truth is and you
> never will. No one will and this is my whole point but you rather drink the
> Kool-Aid. All it takes are stupid ones like you to willingly give America to
> the Fascists.

Just so I understand, they did NOT fake the presence of WMD which
would have been a few orders of magnitude easier to do than wire the WTC
but they DID wire the WTC and blew it up on purpose? He was nefarious
enough to set-up the WTC and yet too damn stupid to culminate his rise
to the top and not plant WMD in Iraq?
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <%%_Gi.798$Qr.762@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan DeleteThis @house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <fchc1s$lau$3@reader1.panix.com>,
>> <EskWIRED DeleteThis @spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes DeleteThis @panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> That is very different from a controled demolition. My
>>>>> understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
>>>>> used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
>>>>> use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
>>>>> understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
>>>>> themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
>>>>> reasons of both safety and economy.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Like this demolition job?
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
>>>
>>> Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than
>>> a brief id.
>>>
>>>> (That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2,
>>>> or 7. That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as
>>>> massive and that the largest beams are that much stonger.)
>>>
>>> Ummm...OK. So what?
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
>>>> size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any
>>>> of the buildings at WTC.
>>>
>>> Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5
>>> times already.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cutting charges go boom.
>>
>> Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM
>>
>> Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
>> tower.
>>
> Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about
>what no one saw of didn't see Al. Now grow up and go play your mindless


This would be the first controlled demoliiton in history that didn't
make the charactistic noise just before it started.

There were no eyewitnesses, audio, video, or seismic records, or
anything else that shows any sort of man-made explosives consistant
with the video each collapse.

How can you defend the claim of CD withiut any evidence.


You can either (a) cease posting this claim or (b) provide some
evidence for man-made explosives at WTC.


On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

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

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo











--
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
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <Q1%Gi.799$Qr.245@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <7rXGi.789$Qr.317@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>> In article <1GRGi.785$Qr.266@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>>>> Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>>>> EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <fceicb$pcq$5@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>>>> <EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In misc.survivalism Al Dykes <adykes.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
>>>>>>>>> enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
>>>>>>>>> complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
>>>>>>>>> reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
>>>>>>>>> tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as
>>>>>>>>> bigger and louder to have any effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But
>>>>>>>> that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible
>>>>>>>> to do undetected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Small charges ? <laugh out loud>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of
>>>>>>> reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the
>>>>>>> structure. It was hear for blocks around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is very different from a controled demolition. My
>>>>>> understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
>>>>>> used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
>>>>>> use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
>>>>>> understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
>>>>>> themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
>>>>>> reasons of both safety and economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
>>>>>>> consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of
>>>>>>> the collapse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to
>>>>>>> design a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the
>>>>>>> audio/video record of the collapse of one of the towers and the
>>>>>>> laws of physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says
>>>>>>> that WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
>>>>>>> thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many,
>>>>>>> are on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Name one and prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have
>>>>>> said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems
>>>>>> pretty far-fetched to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
>>>>>>> mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead.
>>>>>> Does he shed light on the CD allegations?
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle
>>>> and the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more
>>> or less than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid.
>>> You post fake YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame
>>> fairy tales.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
>> that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
>> should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
>> and WTC.
>>
>Your videos are no more creditable than the ones you do not like that also
>exist. You have nothing AL. NOTHING.
>


Let people watch them and decide for themselves.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

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

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo




--
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
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <oc%Gi.800$Qr.192@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <IHXGi.791$Qr.369@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>> In article <9ERGi.783$Qr.144@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>>>> Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>>>> In article <fccc82$f7$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>>> <EskWIRED.RemoveThis@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
>>>>>>>>> worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always
>>>>>>>>> questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of
>>>>>>>>> thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to
>>>>>>>>> me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of
>>>>>>>>> manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems
>>>>>>>>> unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in
>>>>>>>>> secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
>>>>>>>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
>>>>>>>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of
>>>>>> size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any
>>>>>> of the towers on 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were
>>>>> plenty of people that said they heard explosions from down below.
>>>>> Now go ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and
>>>>> they really didn't hear anything fool.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
>>>>>> enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
>>>>>> complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
>>>>>> reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
>>>>>> tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger
>>>>>> and louder to have any effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the
>>>>> issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a
>>>>> single thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
>>>> charge.
>>>>
>>>> In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up
>>>> to the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing
>>>> at the location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition
>>>> explosions were heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People
>>> that were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a
>>> dumb one aren't you?
>>>
>>> There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe
>>> anything but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your
>>> YouTube BS means squat. Get back to your video games and dream on
>>> little broomstick cowboy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
>> size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
>> tower collapse.
>>
>> Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
>> charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.
>
>There is no proof of anything Al. The real truth will never be known. You



Hundreds of thousands of people were close enough to hear demolition
charges when WTC was first hit. Maybe a million could have heard them
once they were watching the first tower burn.

There are 7,000 video segments available to anyone in the "truth
movement" that can afford teh time to go through them. That's what
real researchers do.

Nobody saw or heard anything that was consistant with man-made explosives
casuing the collapse.

There is nothing on any of the video that shows demolition charges
causing the collapse of a tower.

There is no seismic evidence.

How can you assert that man-made explosives were used just because
someone told you?






On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero in NYC and the
kooks that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The
others should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about
9/11 and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

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

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo





--
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
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <sVXGi.793$Qr.382@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> In article <NARGi.782$Qr.286@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
>> Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>>> EskWIRED.TakeThisOut@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>> In misc.survivalism Jonathan <Jonathan.TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
>>>>>> worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
>>>>>> And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
>>>>>> bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is
>>>>>> done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
>>>>>> needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
>>>>>> work could have been carried out in secret.
>>>>
>>>>> Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
>>>>> coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
>>>>> charges anywhere they wanted.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.
>>>
>>> So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
>>> Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
>>> of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
>>> enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
>>> possibly entered at any time to
>>
>>
>>
>> It's platitudes like the above that identify those of the "Truth
>> Movement" as having no experience in whatever it is they ramble on
>> about. I've managed the cnstruction and operation of full floors of
>> 24x7 computer operations in large Manhattan buildings.
>>
>> After the 1993 bombing WTC was very secure. Planted bombs would be
>> hundreds to thousands of pounds of material and a large crew. Nobody
>> uses the loading docks without advance notice and paperwork, day or
>> night. Nobody uses the elevators to move material at night without
>> advance notice. freight Elevators are very busy. IME, you never have
>> one by yourself, if only becuase they have a human operator.
>>
>> The night crews in a bulding know each other. They talk. They talk to
>> strangers. Nobody tells them to "leave for a security check".
>>
>>
>> On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
>> that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
>> should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
>> and WTC.
>>
>>
>You are the only kook here jack-in-the-box. You and your ignorant lamers
>that insist on posting YouTube BS as some sort of proof.
>
>


You are making the claim that man-made explosives caused the collapse.

It's you job to provide some evidence to supprt that claim and your
job to answer people that show evidence to teh contrary or show the
practical problems with implementing what you claim happened.

You have done nothing. You just descend to name-calling and then
repeat the claim.



--
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
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..