4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 10805
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2211.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#836. To: FormerLurker (#591)
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both...
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:38:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

You have been a nasty mouthed little troll here war, I thought higher of you back on LP. Do you always resort to that sort of tactic when you are shown to be wrong?
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
There was a HUGE loss of mass due to that, therefore there would be SUBSTANTIALLY less load on the lower portion of the structure. In fact, there was probably less loading force due to the kinetic energy of the upper part of the tower collapsing than the usual static loading force due to the potential energy of the upper part of the structure.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:20:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.

Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
Thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-24 8:22:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.

Here's one for you to ponder;
The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact? There would be VERY little energy left over after the pulverization of an upper floor as it impacts a lower floor, and the lower floor must be caused to fail by the remaining energy if the "pancake" theory can be taken seriously.
So go ahead, give us the equations and the details.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 9:38:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1148. To: FormerLurker (#1145)
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.

Geezus fucking Crickets...
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact?
dude...did you even GLANCE atthat report?

war posted on 2009-03-24 9:47:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...

The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
Are you retarded? You contradict yourself within the same sentence. That "concrete, glass, and drywall..." along with furniture and office equipment had WEIGHT, in fact, MOST of the weight of any particular floor. The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing even WITH a "pancake" collapse. In fact, the core could not collapse per se, it would have needed to have been shredded and torn apart for it to totally fail.
Anyways, what kinetic energy there was due to the momentum of the upper structure was largely expended in pulverizing the upper structure to dust, where there could have been very little kinetic energy left to break all the trusses and supports of the floor below

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:12:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing

What steel columns?

war posted on 2009-03-24 15:41:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?

Those which were part of the steel core.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:15:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.

What makes you believ that they should have been left standing? You do know that they were sectional? You do know that they were tapered?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:19:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?

For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart. If the floors pancaked then the floors should have slid over the core. However, there wasn't much left to slide since the upper floors pulverized as they collapsed, so there was not enough energy to cause a collapse of the lower floors in the first place.
Thus, not only should the core have remained standing, but the 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors of both towers should have survived the collapse of the upper structure of both buildings, except for perhaps the top section of the remaining undamaged structures.
And sure, the top was tapered, BUT strong enough to hold most of the weight of the WTC structure at that level. In fact, it was highly improbable for a total collapse even at the damaged section to occur at all.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:28:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1231. To: FormerLurker (#1229)
For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart.

You are basing this upon what? The inane belief that the only force being exerted was DOWNWARD? What was one of the functions of the outer support structure? LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:36:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

Nothing unless there are high winds or a hurricane taking place. The towers didn't start swaying back and forth. Is that what you trying to say, the collapse was caused by SWAYING?
Besides, only a relatively tiny part of the exterior columns were damaged.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:38:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing

You're out of your mind...what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:42:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1251. To: war (#1236) (Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures. There would have virtually no loss of lateral strength anyways due to the minimal damage to the exterior columns, yet it wouldn't have mattered if there WAS a total loss of lateral strength (which would be impossible due to the construction of the buildings themselves).
There were no hurricane force winds that day, and even if there had been, there was no overall loss of lateral strength as the purpose of the exterior walls was to DISTRIBUTE the lateral load across the entire building, and a missing section of column would not affect that.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:15:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1252. To: FormerLurker (#1251)
Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures.

Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

war posted on 2009-03-24 17:21:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1255. To: war (#1252) (Edited)
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

Huh? There was a relative pinhole in the exterior wall, and the inner steel core was ALSO still there.
There are also apparently some huge inaccuracies concerning the makeup of the floors themselves, where rather than flimsy trusses it appears that there were steel girders bridging the gap between the core and the outer walls.
I need to read up on that before I post the actual article, but your post makes zero sense, there was no horizontal failure or movement, otherwise the top of the tower WOULD have toppled. As I posted on another thread, the top of one tower did in fact start to lean, but that was due to a loss of integrity in one corner of the supporting structure below it, it didn't begin to sway or lean as you are apparently trying to concoct. If it HAD begun to sway or lean due to horizontal forces, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:39:43 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1285. To: FormerLurker (#1255)
, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

war posted on 2009-03-25 8:32:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1294. To: war (#1285)
You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

You are grasping at straws. You are trying to make it sound as if it was an inherently unstable structure and was performing a balancing act. It was not a disjointed unbalanced structure, it was a ridid structure supported by a steel core, so there was no shifting of center of gravity taking place.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 11:46:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1298. To: FormerLurker (#1294)
You are grasping at straws.

Wha...huh?
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

war posted on 2009-03-25 12:20:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1306. To: war (#1298)
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

Huh? Are you trying to say that someone at the bottom of the WTC picked it up and tried snapping it like a whip? I always knew you were a whackjob, but I wasn't aware that you were a stark raving lunatic.
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place? You are a jackass.
The towers were solidly in place and NOT experiencing ANY abnormal sway, if they swayed at all from the VERY slight wind that morning.
You are acting like a cartoon character that even little children would see as an idiot.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 17:13:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1362. To: FormerLurker (#1306)
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place?

Had you ever been in the towers? You could feel the sway in the upper floors. This one is the easiest of your rantings to bitch slap. The towers swayed...it 's why lateral support was so important. And, uh, the design engineers after they had tested their prototypes that determined how much sway both the building and the occupants could take, they then developed a MASSIVE system of viscoelastic dampers that mitigated the sway. Guess where they put these dampers....BETWEEN THE TRUSSES AND THE PERIMETER COLUMNS.
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism Your further problem is, there are several REALITIES that stand in the way of your paranoiac fanrasy. So to cut to the chase here and answer your question...yes, Alice IN Wonderland, the towers did sway and the lost of perimeter support exacerbated that sway.

war posted on 2009-03-26 7:44:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1386. To: war (#1362)
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism

You stupid assed dork, NOWHERE have I EVER said ""BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!", only drooling retards such as yourself have ever thought ANYONE has ever honestly said that.
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.
Might Bush have known about the plan? More than likely he was kept in the dark in terms of operational details but knew SOMETHING was going to happen, and didn't blink an eyelash when it did. More than likely Cheney was fully aware and in fact part of the operation, along with a few other high ranking members of the administration.
That is simply an observation of what they did AFTER the attacks to stifle any sort of real investigation of what happened.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-26 11:55:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1466. To: FormerLurker, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#1386)
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.

Exactly. We do not have to have a complete solution to know that the Official Fairy Tale is contradicted by multiple documented datums and is thus not the correct solution. Without even getting heated about it we can point out the contradictions in the players who were trained at U.S. Fedgov installations, the known incompetence of the pilots, the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),the transfer of monies from the CIA connected Pakistani ISI to Mohammed Atta, the presence of Thermate residue on girders from the towers, the fact that the structural steel was protected from examination by ARMED GUARDS, and the list goes on to several hundred to several thousand anomalies all of which contradict the Official Fairy Tale.
This is even before we get to the government obstructionism and prevention of an honest review and analysis of the data:
A Fema Report which has had to be revised and re-explained because it has been shredded and is little better than a laughingstock.
NIST, which has several top experts on nano-thermates, which has refused to consider and has steadfastly avoided examining the residue. They had to invent an entirely new physics to try to explain away Building 7's collapse - which is laughed at everywhere but the controlled U.S. Media.
The firing of an environmental scientist at Underwriter Laboratories for pointing out that the structural steel in the towers had been certified for higher temperatures, by UL, than were known to have occurred in the towers.
Professor Stephen Jones' work on the physics of the collapses and chemical analysis of thermate residues. (Which resulted in massive heat on BYU, where he was a well respected Professor of Physics, and he was forced out with a Golden Handshake). His work was repudiated by Administrators but not the faculty who turned out in his support. (BYU has a lot of programs dependent on FEDGOV funding.)
The Popular Mechanics Hit Piece which has been shredded, shown to be false, and which used doctored photographs, misrepresented as Bldg. 7 but were actually of Bldg. 6 but had been reoriented, to try to push the cover legend.
I could go on for several pages on the anomalies surrounding 911. Take for example the famous Dancing Troupe from Israel - "The Dancing Israelis" who were set up and photographing the towers BEFORE their collapse. In fact the reports seem to indicate they were setting up BEFORE the first plane hit.
Then their was the e-mail warning to employees of Odigo, an Israeli owned company, warning them to stay away from the towers that morning.
The more layers of the cover story you peel back the more that onion disappears as the chimera it is.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:30:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1468. To: Original_Intent (#1466)
They had to invent an entirely new physics to try to explain away Building 7's collapse - which is laughed at everywhere but the controlled U.S. Media.

The suspension of belief is required to accept any of it, but especially building 7.
*ESPECIALLY* 7.
The fairy tale believers won't even touch it no matter how many times the evidence is put before them.

Rotara posted on 2009-03-26 13:34:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1474. To: Rotara, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, FormerLurker, all (#1468)
No matter how they try Building 7 is the one element for which no Official Fairy Tale has ever come close to explaining and they won't touch the obvious conclusion observable in the physical data i.e., it was "pulled". Explosive demolition is the only hypothesis that accounts for ALL of the data known about the collapse of Building 7.
One need only look at it objectively:
The building's collapse was symmetrical i.e., it collapsed at all points in 360 degrees simultaneously.
Viewing the films you can slow it down and watch it in slow motion and note that the first cracks appear simultaneously along two lines along the reinforced central core and then the building proceeds to collapse in on itself and neatly into its own footprint.
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds. A pure freefall from the buildings top, say if you dropped a Bowling Ball, is 6 seconds. So, the obvious conclusion is that the structure offered little or no resistance to the collapse of the structure. The only way that occurs is if the underlying structure is removed and the only way you do that is with explosives.
So you have the following signature items:
Symmetrical Collapse in 360 degrees.
It fell at an effectively freefall rate.
The rubble accumulated in the footprint of the structure.
These are all signatures of an explosive demolition not of a catastrophic collapse. If one studies the history of catastrophic collapse one finds that there is always a first failure point and that the failure is not uniform throughout the structure. Having a first failure point the structure fails, collapses, in the direction of the weak point not uniformly in 360 degrees nor symmetrically.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:50:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1487. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#1474)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.

You need to phone home for new instructions, ET.
(BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY) - In the first candid admission on record by a 9/11 Truth Movement leader of being wrong, Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed....
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.

war posted on 2009-03-26 14:38:26 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1511. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Rotara, Wudidiz, tom007, litus, bluegrass, all (#1487)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.
You need to phone home for new instructions, ET.
(BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY) - In the first candid admission on record by a 9/11 Truth Movement leader of being wrong, Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed....
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.

Delightfully dishonest ploy there - which took all of about 2 seconds to spot. Conflating the collapse time of the twin towers with time to collapse of WTC 7 is a comparison of unlike items. Whatever time it took for the towers collapse is irrelevant to the time to collapse for WTC 7.
Anyone can take a stopwatch and measure it for themselves. The video is readily available (where it hasn't been scrubbed). It takes approximately 6.6 seconds (that is O.6 seconds greater than a pure freefall) for WTC 7 to collapse. From the time the cracks appear in the facade as shown in the street level video to the time the structure collapses, implodes, neatly, symmetrically, in 360 degrees, into its own footprint is about 6.6 seconds. Even if you add another second or two for the penthouse the rate of collapse is impossibly fast for a normal structural failure. You are clutching at straws to avoid the conclusion demonstrated to anyone with eyes, brains, and a stopwatch - WTC 7 was collapsed via explosive demolition. Even adding a second or two does not take away from the visible and obvious evidence i.e., that the structure collapsed uniformly, symmetrically, in 360 degrees into its own footprint.
This is without taking into consideration the fact that the core of the building, as in the towers, was a massive interlaced network of heavy steel girders which had been further hardened and reinforced by Rudy Ghouliani to be the NYC command center in the event of a major natural castrophe.
Adding further circumstantial data:
Rudy Ghouliani admitted in a press conference that they had evacuated at least 6 hours ahead of the collapse.
CNN reported the collapse was imminent an hour before it happened.
The BBC reported it had collapsed a half an hour before it did - the Reporterette giving the report was filmed with it still standing in the background. The BBC scrubbed the video and then tried to deny its existence but too many people had already downloaded copies and so they were forced to backtrack.
You could probably sell your Schlock on Freeptard Republic but it is no sale here.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 21:33:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1515. To: Original_Intent (#1511)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

litus posted on 2009-03-26 23:15:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1518. To: litus (#1515)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

The "Coincidence Theorists" will of course pooh-pooh it. I was aware of the connection though. It is interesting though to look at all the coincidences:
Marvin Bush on the Board of Securacom.
Orrin Hatch telling the press on the Capital Steps, on the evening of 911, that it just had to be the work of the dastardly ~~Fu Manchu~~ Osama Ben Goldstein.
FEMA disaster people flying into town the day before.
An exercise involving multiple simultaneous hijackings is scheduled and run the morning of 911 - while the "hijackers" are in the air.
The chief NIST Investigator is an expert on Nano-Thermites but NIST will not examine the residue for Nano-Thermites.
Hundreds of millions in Stock and Options trading the week before 911 on the airlines involved.
Lots of coincidences.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 23:46:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1519. To: Original_Intent (#1518)
Lots of coincidences.

too many to be believed as coincidental.

the probability of this many coincidences is mathematically impossible prior to such a catastrophic event!

litus posted on 2009-03-26 23:49:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1522. To: litus (#1519)
the probability of this many coincidences is mathematically impossible prior to such a catastrophic event!

Not to the believing mind of the "Coincidence Theorist". Everything bad in the whole wide world occurs "coincidentally".

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 23:52:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1534. To: Original_Intent, war (#1522)
Helpful hint to war:
You'd come off as a better disinfo artist if you questioned one or two aspects of the 9/11 Official Story rather than acting as though everything on the matter that came out of DC was gospel.
O_I thinks you're a pro. That little ol' me has to point this out to you shows you to be an amateur.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:36:02 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1541. To: bluegrass (#1534)
O_I thinks

I've seen no evidence of that...

war posted on 2009-03-27 13:42:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1544. To: Original_Intent, war (#1541)
At least flag the person you're deriding, you rude-ass backstabber.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:44:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1548. To: bluegrass (#1544)
Go soak yer head. This thread is a one long example of what you're barking at me about. Go bark at them too...

war posted on 2009-03-27 13:47:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1552. To: war (#1548) (Edited)
This thread is a one long example...

This thread is one long example of your dedication to the art of disinformation. The rest of us are here because we don't believe the Feds. You're here because you do believe them.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:54:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1558. To: bluegrass (#1552)
Cite one link that is to the government report...in pooint of fact, this thread is testimony to me dealing with each and every one of the points that you Moonbats have raised while each and every one of you ignoring not only my points of rebuttal but my questions surrounding your blatherings.
So, you can also feel free to answer the questions that I have raised. You can begin with the fact that UL did not certify the steel and where Professor Jones got his samples as well as his admission that WTC 7 took twice as long to fall as he had been promoting.
Thanks.

war posted on 2009-03-27 14:01:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1560. To: war (#1558)
[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel: www.911research.wtc7.net/...nce/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1
“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-27 14:08:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1564. To: TwentyTwelve (#1560)
A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

They don't have to worry about that anymore. They only made one batch of the Magickal Jet Fuel™.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-27 14:13:22 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1565. To: James Deffenbach (#1564)
ehehe

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 14:14:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1567. To: Rotara (#1565)
Well, think about it. How many skyscrapers caught on fire and never fell into their own footprint before 9/11? How many after? And of course the answer is that it never happened before or since. Ergo, Magickal Jet Fuel™.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-27 14:23:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1568. To: James Deffenbach, Rotara (#1567)
Well, think about it. How many skyscrapers caught on fire and never fell into their own footprint before 9/11? How many after? And of course the answer is that it never happened before or since. Ergo, Magickal Jet Fuel™.

www.prisonplanet.com/arti...st2007/190807Building.htm
Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse
Prison Planet
Sunday Aug 19, 2007
The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing.
This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.
The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.
On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.
The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.
However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.
Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.
Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-27 14:28:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1572. To: TwentyTwelve (#1568)
Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently

How many more times, to the nearest 10,000th, does it need to be pointed out to you that those buildings were of an entirely different framing construct than WTC? And don't ***think*** I didn't notice your use of the word "facade", weasle.

war posted on 2009-03-27 14:32:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1593. To: war (#1572)
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:53:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1600. To: TwentyTwelve (#1593)
November? How much of the study into why the collpases happened had bene completed? People usually are baffled until they research imnto why something happened.
You still have yet to answer any of my questions. I am beginning to believe that your point here is to simply spam the thread hoping that I will go away. It's not going to happen.

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:23:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1603. To: war, wudidiz (#1600)
I looked around YouTube a bit, couldn't find a 13 second clip of WTC 7's collapse.
It would seem to me that this is a fact that we should be able to establish from video.
6 seconds or 13 seconds. Pick one.
I think WTC 7 has always been the Truthers' strongest argument.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 9:39:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1604. To: TooConservative (#1603)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds. It was obviously a controlled demolition.

There's no room for argument.

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:03:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1605. To: wudidiz (#1604)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.

Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.
You have to start with shared facts. This matter of how many seconds the collapse took should not even be a matter for debate, there should be plenty of evidence for any reasonable person, plenty of cameras you can time to determine the time for collapse.
Start with the facts you agree on. Then you can have a proper debate.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 10:21:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1615. To: TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, all (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.

Actually I would argue that you are both correct.
I am even willing to accept the stipulation that it was 13 seconds.
Of course that is because it does not materially affect the conclusion. The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum which supported the argument but was not essential to the argument.
The primary data to be observed, and which are not in dispute as they are recorded on the video is:
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.
One can observe in the video that the building collapses in upon itself. Visible evidence of this fact is the two cracks that appear in the facade along lines approximating the physical presence in the building of the central core structure - the strongest part of the structure. The center of the building then begins to subside pulling the rest of the structure inward. This again supports the observation that the collapse was initiated simultaneously in 360 degrees and thus was thus symmetrical. This is directly at variance with known observations of catastrophic failure of a structure wherein there is always a weak point that gives way thus causing the failure to proceed in the direction of the point of initial failure. For it to collapse symmetrically means that it had to fail simultaneously in 360 degrees thus indicating a causal mechanism initiating a uniform collapse. In a normal catastrophic failure the failure occurs asymmetrically as their is a single point of initial failure which then compromises the structure thus resulting in failure proceeding in that direction. Simultaneous collapse is again buttressed by the appearance of the two cracks allong the core lines in the same unit of time. Were there only one point of failure the buildings collapse would have shown a definite slump in the direction of the point of failure. So, again we are brought back to the observable fact that the collapse was uniform and symmetrical in 360 degrees. This we can all observe without including the disputed datum of the rate of collapse which despite the disputation is measured in mere seconds from the time the first signature occurs until the structure collapses neatly into its own footprint - with the strongest part of the structure failing first.
If we compare the collapse of building 7 to known instances of explosive demolitions of buildings the observable similarity is one of the most striking aspects of the building 7 collapse.
I could build further on the argument but don't have the time at the moment, but I think this demonstrates clearly enough that the collapse of bldg. 7 does not conform to a normal engineering failure and there are elements unaccounted for which initiated the collapse above and beyond a normal structural failure.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:22:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1622. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.

You need to go back and look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other...

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:40:34 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1624. To: war, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, all (#1622)
Attaboy - keep clutching at those straws.
The cracks appear so close together as to be materially insignificant.
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.
The entire support structure then just ceases to exist, as one sees in a controlled demolition, and the building collapses neatly into its own footprint.
NIST to date has avoided the building 7 collapse and then finally came up with their thermal expansion "hypothesis" to explain away the observable data and thence became a laughingstock everywhere but in the controlled American Media.
At this point the most you do is quibble and throw up whatever hoping it will stick as you continue to try to defend the Official Fairy Tale.
How much DO they pay you?
Do you have to sneak up on the mirror to shave?
'bot on duuuuuuuuuude!

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:55:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1625. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.

My ass...you can "say" that all you want to as the we watch the left side sag visibly and collapse well prior to the building falling...we also see the top of the structure collapse well before the building does...link those to 13 seconds and that's STRIKE THREE...
Where did Jones get his samples?

war posted on 2009-03-28 12:34:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1645. To: war, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve (#1625)
What is also interesting is when the BBC stated WTC 7 had collapsed, while they were live on air, but it was visibly still standing in the background behind the reporter. Now, how could a reporter report the collapse of a particular building so "prophetically"?

litus posted on 2009-03-28 14:25:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1705. To: litus (#1645)
So they misreported...so what? That's evidence of a conspiracy?
And I was accused of grasping at straws...

war posted on 2009-03-28 19:52:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1707. To: war, litus, Rotara, wudidiz, Original_Intent ALL (#1705)
...so what?

So what?
Duh.
The NWO media reported the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed.
All you can say is so what?
You should be outraged!

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 19:57:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1711. To: TwentyTwelve (#1707)
The day was one big ball of confusion, moonie. You accuse the media of getting it wrong on a good day...
That said, what in the fuck do you believe that this proves?
When are you going to answer my questions? What are you afraid of?

war posted on 2009-03-28 20:04:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1713. To: war (#1711)
The day was one big ball of confusion, moonie

Eight-years later and YOU are still confused!

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 20:05:55 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1714. To: TwentyTwelve (#1713)
Riiight...because we know that the media gets EVERYTHING right 100% of the time...especially during times of mass confusion...they are the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Beacon of All Things Right...

war posted on 2009-03-28 20:42:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1715. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#1714)
Riiight...because we know that the media gets EVERYTHING right 100% of the time...especially during times of mass confusion...they are the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Beacon of All Things Right...

No, we know the media gets everything wrong. In fact, the weathermen can't even accurately predict rain.
But "somehow" by some "miracle," the BBC clarevoyantly predicted the fall of WTC7, and went on and on discussing Solomon Brothers....all while the building remained standing, for over 25 minutes prior to it actually happening.
And not to be undone by this "feat", the feed "mysteriously" disconnected right at the very time that the WTC7 was falling

Nosiree....nothing smells there! It's all just another one of the 9/11 coinkydinks!

litus posted on 2009-03-28 20:54:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1716. To: litus (#1715)
9/11 Troofers: The Media Is ALL KNOWING...WE TRUST THE MEDIA...

war posted on 2009-03-28 20:55:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1718. To: war (#1716)
How much do they pay your illiterate ass? Is it worth it?

RickyJ posted on 2009-03-28 21:01:02 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1721. To: RickyJ (#1718)
Chuckles...yea dude...I am just so OVERWHELMED by you fools.
These "Troofer" threads are the easiest pickings on the internet. None of you, to a person, realize how FUCKING stupid you sound.
That's En Oh En Ee of you...

war posted on 2009-03-28 21:26:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1726. To: war (#1721)
None of you, to a person, realize how FUCKING stupid you sound.

None of you, to a person, realize how OBVIOUS you look.
If it looks like a shill and smells like a shill......

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 21:50:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1733. To: TwentyTwelve, litus, RickyJ, FormerLurker, Original Intent (#1726)
When a Moonbat says "YOU CANNOT TRUST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!!" he really means: "Unless it supports some Moonbat blathering."
When a Moonbat says: "THE FACT THAT THE TOWERS FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED MEANS THAT THEY WERE BLOWED UP!!!" he can also say "THE FACT THAT THE TOWERS DID NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED MEANS THAT THEY WERE BLOWED-UP!!!"
When a Moonbat says: "THE PLANES DID NOT EXPLODE INSIDE THE TOWERS!!!" He can also say: "THOSE PLANES WERE PULVERIZED AS THEY TORE THROUGH THE TOWERS!!!"
A Moonbat can say: "THEY CLAIMED THAT JET FUEL BROUGHT DOWN THOSE TOWERS!!!!" When no-one has said that jet fuel brought down the Towers. A Moonbat can say: THE GOOBERMINT CLAIMS THAT TOWERS PANCAKED!!!" when in fact the NIST states, unequivocally, that the Towers did not pancake.

war posted on 2009-03-29 9:16:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1735. To: war, TwentyTwelve, RickyJ, FormerLurker, Original Intent (#1733)
And .gov can tell FAIRY STORIES and people like you believe them...all of them, regardless of the fact that .gov has shown itself to be duplicitous, acting contrary to the Rule of Law, trampling over the Constitution, acting as tyrants rather than servants to the People, whose will .gov ignores.

litus posted on 2009-03-29 11:03:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1737. To: litus (#1735)
And .gov can tell FAIRY STORIES and people like you believe them...all of them, regardless of the fact that .gov has shown itself to be duplicitous, acting contrary to the Rule of Law, trampling over the Constitution, acting as tyrants rather than servants to the People, whose will .gov ignores.

Which doesn't mean that the NIST report is incorrect.

war posted on 2009-03-30 7:50:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1745. To: war (#1737) (Edited)
Which doesn't mean that the NIST report is incorrect.

At this point, for me to believe anything that .gov says, they have to prove they're not lying. Short of that I don't trust it or believe it about anything, as far as I can spit.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 11:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1746. To: litus (#1745)
I don't base my opinions on misanthropy. I base them on facts...what is proveable...what is not...

war posted on 2009-03-30 11:18:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1747. To: war (#1746)
I base them on facts...what is proveable...what is not...

And how many more times does government and the politicians of the U.S. have to prove to you their level of lies, corruption, and willful disregard to the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States of America for you to begin to wonder about their motivations and statements?

litus posted on 2009-03-30 11:41:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1748. To: litus (#1747)
To war: And how many more times does government and the politicians of the U.S. have to prove to you their level of lies, corruption, and willful disregard to the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States of America for you to begin to wonder about their motivations and statements?

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest."

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 11:44:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1751. To: TwentyTwelve (#1748)
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest."

bump!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 12:13:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1752. To: litus (#1751)
He saw it and is sitting there considering the irpony of his statement.

war posted on 2009-03-30 12:24:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1757. To: war (#1752)
This report was carried at "about 4:15 eastern daylight time" (according to the anchor), over an hour before the building actually collapsed at 5:20. Who told them the WTC 7 building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."? Keep in mind he did not say it was going to collapse, he said it either had or was in the process of doing so. The anchor says is "we are getting information now", who is giving him this information? If you pay close attention you can see after the anchor announces this he turns around and sees the building as clear as day still standing, he then proceeds to backtrack on the initial information which informed him clearly the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing."

litus posted on 2009-03-30 13:06:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1772. To: litus (#1757)
Which proves what Moonbat? That some people thought WTC7 was going to collapse? You have FDNY on the records as pulling their guys out ofthe buildiomng because they were afraid it was going collpse.
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt."[
Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y
1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco
2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. – FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes
5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty- seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472. PDF
7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --
Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?
A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa- transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49
[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.] 12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.
Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?
A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be." –CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.
Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.
I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]
15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. – PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa- police-reports04.pdf page 69
17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse): I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 - - that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west] –Firefighter Gerard Suden
18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan
19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html
21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations. –Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon
22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury
23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa- transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26
24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ -- Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum? A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.– Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)
29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed. –PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf
32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with. –FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:47:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1781. To: war (#1772)
That some people thought WTC7 was going to collapse? You have FDNY on the records as pulling their guys out ofthe buildiomng [sic] because they were afraid it was going collpse. [sic]

I have heard the FDNY state, on video, they heard explosions.
That was ignored by .gov.

There was no reason to make bold claims that a building was going down one hour prior to it occurring, and acting AS IF, it had already happened.
They did not do this with the WTC 1 or 2. But did with WTC 7....a building that was shielded from WTC 1 and 2 by other buildings, which did not collapse on their feet.
Pulling people out of a building, "because they were afraid it was going to collapse", does also not negate .gov's complicity with causing that very building to become structurally unsound to begin with.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:09:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1784. To: litus (#1781)
does also not negate .gov's complicity with causing that very building to become structurally unsound to begin with.

Way to go Mr. Circle...

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:24:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1787. To: war (#1784)
By your "logic," if bank robbers, who plan their deeds well ahead of time (complete with explosive devices which they have others plant for them), set off the bombs at the appropriate timing, "announce" the building is going to collapse, the fact that they "suspected" the building was going to collapse exonerates them from being suspects themselves with either knowledge about or the planting of explosive devices in a building (which they had intent to rob).

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:33:13 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1792. To: litus (#1787)
Did I not tell you to stay away from logic or are you claiming that every single one of those quoted FDNY are in on the conspiracy?

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:44:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1796. To: war (#1792)
By your "logic," if bank robbers, who plan their deeds well ahead of time (complete with explosive devices which they have others plant for them), set off the bombs at the appropriate timing, "announce" the building is going to collapse, the fact that they "suspected" the building was going to collapse exonerates them from being suspects themselves with either prior knowledge of or involved with the planting of explosive devices in a building (which they had intent to rob).

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:50:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1800. To: litus (#1796)
Saying it twice only made it twice as stupid.

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:57:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1817. To: war (#1800) (Edited)
Saying it twice only made it twice as stupid.

Imagine how you come across, repeating your .gov propaganda multiple times over.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 16:06:22 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1825. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1843. To: war (#1825)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills.. Yep...that structural engineer...a shill Yep...those firemen shills all...

"Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible."
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen. I wouldn't doubt, as well, that .GOV has, in whatever way it wished, threatened anyone who was a witness and dare to tell the truth. They would lose their job, or be demoted, or lose their retirement, etc.

I am aware, personally, of particular individuals during my lifetime, some fairly high up in the government (or, when I was younger, their father was), who were under DIRECT ORDERS not to tell what they know or witnessed surrounding particular events. They don't want the public to know things.
Fool!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:11:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1909. To: litus (#1843)
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen.

No such order exists.

war posted on 2009-03-31 10:32:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1911. To: war (#1909)
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen.
No such order exists.

Prove that the fireman were not threatened and did not receive calls at home to shut up.
How do you live with yourself?

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 10:34:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1931. To: TwentyTwelve (#1911)
Prove that the fireman were not threatened and did not receive calls at home to shut up.

Wha...chuckle...huh?
Prove that something did NOT happen?
You folks just relish living in the realm of the mind numbing stupid.

war posted on 2009-03-31 11:36:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1937. To: war (#1931)
You folks just relish living in the realm of the mind numbing stupid.

And yet here you are plodding through this like none of it reflects on you. And so far you haven't been able to specify just what qualifications makes you such an expert BUT you seem to hold that on a pedestal as a must have qualification for others.
You are taking published "data", filtering it and forming your own opinion from it just like everyone else here.
Too many qualified and respected in the industry disagree with you so are you emailing them with your infantile name calling too. I used to have some respect for your opinions even when I disagreed but egads you are sounding more and more like Yukon here.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 12:09:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1940. To: mininggold (#1937)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry

Like whom?

war posted on 2009-03-31 12:15:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1942. To: war, mininggold, Litus (#1940)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry
Like whom?

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 12:23:51 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1959. To: TwentyTwelve, mininggold (#1942)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry
Like whom?

The foxes are guarding the other foxes.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 14:33:00 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2196. To: litus (#1959)
The Death Of John Kennedy

Convenient Deaths
1963 - 1976
In the three year period following the assassination many witnesses died - mostly of unnatural causes. Many rumors crawling around about the high death rate during these years. They are supported by the mostly suspicious circumstances the victims died under. For a unknown shooter or even shooters, all these deaths have on thing in common: they are very convenient to those assassins since these witnesses took their knowledge with them into the grave. But see yourself and decide whether these deaths are purely coincidently:
Date Name Connection with case Cause of death
11/63 Karyn Kupicinet Tv host's daughter who was overheard telling of JFK's death prior to 11/22/63 Murdered
12/63 Jack Zangretti Expressed foreknowledge of Ruby shooting Oswald Gunshot Victim
2/64 Eddy Benavides Lookalike brother to Tippit shooting witness, Domingo Benavides Gunshot to head
2/64 Betty MacDonald* Former Ruby employee who alibied Warren Reynolds shooting suspect. Suicide by hanging in Dallas Jail
3/64 Bill Chesher Thought to have information linking Oswald and Ruby Heart attack
3/64 Hank Killam* Husband of Ruby employee, knew Oswald acquaintance Throat cut
4/64 Bill Hunter* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Accidental shooting by policeman
5/64 Gary Underhill* CIA agent who claimed Agency was involved Gunshot in head ruled suicide
5/64 Hugh Ward* Private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie Plane crash in Mexico
5/64 DeLesseps Morrison* New Orleans Mayor Passenger in Ward's plane
8/64 Teresa Norton* Ruby employee Fatally shot
6/64 Guy Banister* x-FBI agent in New Orleans connected to Ferrie, CIA, Carlos Marcello & Oswald Heart attack
9/64 Jim Koethe* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Blow to neck
9/64 C.D. Jackson "Life" magazine senior Vice-president who bought Zapruder film and locked it away Unknown
10/64 Mary Pinchot JFK "special" friend whose diary was taken by CIA chief James Angleton after her death Murdered
1/65 Paul Mandal "Life" writer who told of JFK turning to rear when shot in throat Cancer
3/65 Tom Howard* Ruby's first lawyer, was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Heart attack
5/65 Maurice Gatlin* Pilot for Guy Banister Fatal fall
8/65 Mona B. Saenz* Texas Employment clerk who interviewed Oswald Hit by Dallas bus
?/65 David Goldstein Dallasite who helped FBI trace Oswald's pistol Natural causes
9/65 Rose Cheramie* Knew of assassination in advance, told of riding to Dallas with Cubans Hit/run victim
11/65 Dorothy Kilgallen* Columnist who had private interview with Ruby, pledged to "break" JFK case Drug overdose
11/65 Mrs. Earl Smith* Close friend to Dorothy Kilgallen, died two daysafter columnist, may have kept Kilgallen's notes Cause unknown
12/65 William Whaley* Cab driver who reportedly drove Oswald to Oak Cliff (The only Dallas taxi driver to die on duty) Motor collision
1966 Judge Joe Brown Presided over Ruby's trial Heart attack
1966 Karen "Little Lynn" Carlin* Ruby employee who last talked with Ruby before Oswald shooting Gunshot victim
1/66 Earlene Roberts Oswald's landlady Heart attack
2/66 Albert Bogard* Car salesman who said Oswald test drove new car Suicide
6/66 Capt. Frank Martin Dallas policeman who witnessed Oswald slaying, told Warren Commission "there's a lot to be said but probably be better if I don't say it" Sudden cancer
8/66 Lee Bowers Jr.* Witnessed men behind picket fence on Grassy Knoll Motor accident
9/66 Marilyn "Delila Walle* Ruby dancer Shot by husband after 1 month of marriage
10/66 Lt. William Pitzer* JFK autopsy photographer who described his duty as "horrifying experience" Gunshot ruled suicide
11/66 Jimmy Levens Fort Worth nightclub owner who hired Ruby employees Natural causes
11/66 James Worrell Jr.* Saw man flee rear of Texas School Book Depository Motor accident
1966 Clarence Oliver Dist. Atty. Investigator who worked Ruby case Unknown
12/66 Hank Suydam Life magazine official in charge of JFK stories Heart attack
1967 Leonard Pullin Civilian Navy employee who helped film "Last Two Days" about assassination One-car crash
1/67 Jack Ruby* Oswald's slayer Lung cancer (he told family he was injected with cancer cells)
2/67 Harold Russell* Saw escape of Tippit killer killed by cop in bar brawl
2/67 David Ferrie* Acquaintance of Oswald, Garrison suspect and employee of Guy Banister Blow to neck (ruled accidental)
2/67 Eladio Del Valle* Anti-Castro Cuban associate of David Ferrie being sought by Garrison Gunshot wound, ax wound tohead
3/67 Dr. Mary Sherman* Ferrie associate working on cancer research Died in fire (possibly shot)
1/68 A. D. Bowie Asst. Dallas District Attorney prosecuting Ruby Cancer
4/68 Hiram Ingram Dallas Deputy Sheriff, close friend to Roger Craig Sudden cancer
5/68 Dr. Nicholas Chetta New Orleans coroner who on death of Ferrie Heart attack
8/68 Philip Geraci* Friend of Perry Russo, told of Oswald/Shaw conversation Electrocution
1/69 Henry Delaune* Brother-in-law to coroner Chetta Murdered
1/69 E.R. Walthers* Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was involved in Depository search, claimed to have found .45-cal. slug Shot by felon
1969 Charles Mentesana Filmed rifle other than Mannlicher-Carcano being taken from Depository Heart attack
4/69 Mary Bledsoe Neighbor to Oswald, also knew David Ferrie Natural causes
4/69 John Crawford* Close friend to both Ruby and Wesley Frazier, who gave ride to Oswald on 11/22/63 Crash of private plane
7/69 Rev. Clyde Johnson* Scheduled to testify about Clay Shaw/Oswald connection Fatally shot
1970 George McGann* Underworld figure connected to Ruby friends, wife, Beverly, took film in Dealey Plaza Murdered
1/70 Darrell W. Garner Arrested for shooting Warren Reynolds, released after alibi from Betty MacDonald Drug overdose
8/70 Bill Decker Dallas Sheriff who saw bullet hit street in front of JFK Natural causes
8/70 Abraham Zapruder Took famous film of JFK assassination Natural causes
12/70 Salvatore Granello* Mobster linked to both Hoffa,Trafficante, and Castro assassination plots Murdered
1971 James Plumeri* Mobster tied to mob-CIA assassination plots Murdered
3/71 Clayton Fowler Ruby's chief defense attorney Uknown
4/71 Gen. Charles Cabell* CIA deputy director connected to anti-Castro Cubans Collapsed and died afterphysical at Fort Myers
1972 Hale Boggs* House Majority Leader, member of Warren Commission who began to publicly express doubts about findings Disappeared on Alaskan plane flight
5/72 J. Edgar Hoover* FBI director who pushed "lone assassin" theory in JFK assassination Heart attack (no autopsy)
9/73 Thomas E. Davis* Gunrunner connected to both Ruby and CIA Electrocuted trying to steal wire
2/74 J.A. Milteer* Miami right-winger who predicted JFK's death and capture of scapegoat Heater explosion
1974 Dave Yaras* Close friend to both Hoffa and Jack Ruby Murdered
7/74 Earl Warren Chief Justice who reluctantly chaired Warren Commission Heart failure
8/74 Clay Shaw* Prime suspect in Garrison case, reportedly a CIA contact with Ferrie and E. Howard Hunt Possible cancer
1974 Earle Cabell Mayor of Dallas on 11/22/63, whose brother, Gen. Charles Cabell was fired from CIA by JFK Natural causes
6/75 Sam Giancana* Chicago Mafia boss slated to tell about CIA-mob death plots to Senate Committee Murdered
7/75 Clyde Tolson J. Edgar Hoover's assistant and roommate Natural causes
1975 Allen Sweatt Dallas Deputy Sheriff involved in investigation Natural causes
12/75 Gen. Earle Wheeler Contact between JFK and CIA Unknown
1976 Ralph Paul Ruby's business partner connected with crime figures Heart attack
4/76 James Chaney Dallas motorcycle officer riding to JFK's right rear who said JFK "struck in the face" with bullet Heart attack
4/76 Dr. Charles Gregory Governor John Connally's physician Heart attack
6/76 William Harvey* CIA coordinator for CIA-mob assassination plans against Castro Complications from heart surgery
7/76 John Roselli* Mobster who testified to Senate Committee and was to appear again Stabbed and stuffed in metal drum
The HSCA Investigation
Just when the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating the JFK assassination, more suspicious deaths were coming up:

Date Name Connection with case Cause of Death
1/77 William Pawley* Former Brazilian Ambassador connected to Anti-Castro Cubans, crime figures Gunshot ruled suicide
3/77 George DeMohrenschildt* Close friend to both Oswald and Bouvier family (Jackie Kennedy's parents), CIA contract agent Gunshot wound ruled suicide
3/77 Carlos Prio Soccaras* Former Cuban President, money man for anti-Castro Cubans Gunshot wound ruled suicide
3/77 Paul Raigorodsky Business friend of George DeMohrenschildt and wealthy oilmen Natural causes
5/77 Lou Staples* Dallas radio Talk Show host who told friends he would break assassination case Gunshot to head,ruled suicide
6/77 Louis Nichols Former No. 3 man in FBI, worked on JFK investigation Heart attack
8/77 Alan Belmont FBI official who testified to Warren Commission "Long illness"
8/77 James Cadigan FBI document expert who testified to Warren Commission Fall in home
8/77 Joseph C. Ayres* Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One Shooting accident
8/77 Francis G. Powers* U-2 pilot downed over Russia in 1960 Helicopter crash (He reportedly ran out of fuel)
9/77 Kenneth O'Donnell JFK's closest aide Natural causes
10/77 Donald Kaylor FBI fingerprint chemist Heart attack
10/77 J.M. English Former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory Heart attack
11/77 William Sullivan* Former No. 3 man in FBI, headed Division 5, counter- espionage and domestic intelligence Hunting accident
1978 C.L. "Lummie" Lewis Dallas Deputy Sheriff who arrested Mafia man Braden in Dealey Plaza Natural causes
9/78 Garland Slack Man who said Oswald fired at his target at rifle range Unknown
1/79 Billy Lovelady Depository employee said to be the man in the doorway in AP photograph Complications from heart attack
6/80 Jesse Curry Dallas Police Chief at time of assassination Heart attack
6/80 Dr. John Holbrook Psychiatrist who testified Ruby was not insane Heart attack but pills, notes found,
1/81 Marguerite Oswald Mother of accused assassin Cancer
10/81 Frank Watts Chief felony prosecutor for Dallas D.A. Natural causes
1/82 Peter Gregory Original translator for Marina Oswald and Secret Service Natural causes
5/82 Dr. James Weston Pathologist allowed to see JFK autopsy material for HSCA Died while jogging, ruled natural causes
8/82 Will H. Griffin FBI agent who reportedly said Oswald was "definitely" an FBI informant Cancer
10/82 W. Marvin Gheesling FBI official who helped supervise JFK investigation "Long illness"
3/84 Roy Kellerman Secret Service agent in charge of JFK limousine Unknown

Following names are the recently known deaths, almost all died of natural causes:

Date Name Connection with case Cause of Death
10/92 Jim Garrison Former District Attorney of New Orleans, only one who sued in the JFK assassination case Natural causes
?/94 Perry Russo witness who told he had seen Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie talking about the killing of JFK Unknown
01/95 Rose Kennedy Mother of John F. Kennedy natural causes
01/95 L.C. Graves wrested Ruby's revolver away from him after shooting Oswald natural causes
2/95 Irving L. Goldberg Judge who advised L. B. Johnson on transition of power natural causes
3/95 Philip L. Willis Dealey Plaza Witness, photographer Leukemia
5/95 Evelyn Norton Lincoln JFK's personal secretary natural causes
5/95 Phil L. Barleson Defender of Ruby Heart attack
11/95 Richard Case Nagell CIA agent who claimed he uncovered a "large operation" aimed at killing JFK heart disease
12/95 James W. Altgens Dealey Plaza Witness, press photographer natural causes
1/96 Ralph W. Yarborough Dealey Plaza witness, rode in motorcade natural causes
7/96 Melvin Belli Lawyer of KJack Ruby Suffering stroke and pneumonia
8/96 Charles Brehm Dealey Plaza Witness Unknown
9/96 McGeorge Bundy Top aide to JFK and LBJ Heart attack
10/96 Rufus Youngblood Agent who shielded LBJ during the JFK murder Cancer
10/96 Larry Ray Harris Researcher Car accident
10/96 Lawrence Brantley Sold Jack Ruby the gun used to kill Oswald Complications from surgery

>

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-04-01 22:15:53 ET (2 images) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2210. To: TwentyTwelve (#2196)
When Losing An Argument A Moonbat Shall;
#1 Threadjack

war posted on 2009-04-02 8:10:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2211. To: war, twentytwelve (#2210)
When Losing An Argument A Moonbat Shall;
#1 Threadjack

On a thread about LP going down 10 days ago this is a very funny and somewhat clueless comment.

mininggold posted on 2009-04-02 12:43:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 2211.
#2212. To: mininggold (#2211)
I live for life's ironies, dude...

war posted on 2009-04-02 14:05:54 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 2211.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um

The Death Of John Kennedy

Convenient Deaths

1963 - 1976

The HSCA Investigation