![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in : Dan Luke wrote: "Jose" wrote: Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove. (for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory) Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible. What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house? Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into supporting the Iraq war. Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ? Why, you misiing that one in your planespotters logbook? You know, that's actually pretty close to being humorous ! ;-) You driving Buses or Boeings these days ? Graham |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
![]() TRUTH wrote: mrtravel wrote in et: TRUTH wrote: In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says he's left handed. He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam. Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct? That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going. That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would a religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself for Allah? I think you fail to understand the strange ways in which religion works. Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people? There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists "see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people Most doesn't equal all. It only needs a few hotheads to cause trouble. Graham |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Whole Truth wrote in
: On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH wrote: The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before 9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the legality, but this site may help explain: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it out anyway. WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons. What exactly were those reasons? By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the company that borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably going to have to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who loaned them the money because while Silverstein does have a large amount of money lying around, it probably doesn't amount to what they still owed on the building. It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the insurance money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill 3,000 people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage, they either foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell the property and pay off the bank with the proceeds. Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled". Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy their own documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons. You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that. Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation you offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the government's involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy. You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even started telling us what this "more" is yet. WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have. So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was involved? We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a portable trailer with a 10 man crew. Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders. If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder of 3,000 of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you are without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire Internet. And I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for an intact hymen after their dates and that his masturbation caused his testicular cancer. I'm amazed that someone so lacking in the capacity for rational thought can even operate a computer well enough to post this idiocy. The major has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him and not the firefighters in the buildings? Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy elsewhere. the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this page for a collaboration: http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820 Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being compared to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few select highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll select a few passages you seem to have missed entirely. "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory "Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that." Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick "I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down" Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the government knew in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20 inch water main ruptured by falling debris. It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if *NO DEBRIS HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous reasons you say exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens of thousands of pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do know that you have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition on it, right? And the only reason those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it. The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there was no water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water main in the street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in the event of a fire. The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did was fail to send an alert signal to the monitoring company that a fire was detected. Given that there were several thousand fire fighters on the site when it did catch on fire, that signal would have been rather superfluous. People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
TRUTH wrote:
The Whole Truth wrote in : On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH wrote: The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before 9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the legality, but this site may help explain: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it out anyway. WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons. What exactly were those reasons? By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the company that borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably going to have to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who loaned them the money because while Silverstein does have a large amount of money lying around, it probably doesn't amount to what they still owed on the building. It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the insurance money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill 3,000 people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage, they either foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell the property and pay off the bank with the proceeds. Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled". Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy their own documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons. You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that. Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation you offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the government's involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy. You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even started telling us what this "more" is yet. WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have. So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was involved? We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a portable trailer with a 10 man crew. Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders. If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder of 3,000 of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you are without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire Internet. And I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for an intact hymen after their dates and that his masturbation caused his testicular cancer. I'm amazed that someone so lacking in the capacity for rational thought can even operate a computer well enough to post this idiocy. The major has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him and not the firefighters in the buildings? Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy elsewhere. the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this page for a collaboration: http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820 Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being compared to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few select highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll select a few passages you seem to have missed entirely. "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory "Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that." Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick "I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down" Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the government knew in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20 inch water main ruptured by falling debris. It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if *NO DEBRIS HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous reasons you say exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens of thousands of pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do know that you have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition on it, right? And the only reason those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it. The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there was no water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water main in the street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in the event of a fire. The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did was fail to send an alert signal to the monitoring company that a fire was detected. Given that there were several thousand fire fighters on the site when it did catch on fire, that signal would have been rather superfluous. People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. Translation: "truth" has discovered an important element to his conspiracy fantasy was in error so he has to resort to a string of vulgarity followed by accusing others of insulting him [translator's note: no insults appear on this page from anyone else] and an admission of failure in the end and he slinks off with his tail between his legs. Sound bite for the news: "truth" threw a tantrum. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , TRUTH
writes snip People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. Promise? -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
TRUTH wrote: (snipped) People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. Translation: "The men in the white coats, with the nets and the nicely-fitting jacket with the fashionable straps on it are at the front door." Do they also have a good brace of tranq darts with them? Further translation: "Everybody in this NG, and in other NGs where knowledgeable people congregate is crazy and *I* am the only sane one here!" More translation: "Nobody believes that the monsters under my bed are going to kill me and then eat me!" C'mon, "TRUTH," go quietly -- they are going to take you away, to the *HAPPY* farm! |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
![]() TRUTH wrote: snip People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. Promises! All we get are promises. And now back to flying and talking about flying. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:44:38 GMT, TRUTH wrote:
You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Sorry kid, the second you claimed that the entire NYPD and NYFD knew about the conspiracy and ignored the deaths of their friends, family members and coworkers simply because of a "gag order" you permanently eliminated yourself from ever being capable of conducting an intelligent discussion. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:07:51 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , TRUTH wrote: (snipped) People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version), then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults. But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here. Translation: "The men in the white coats, with the nets and the nicely-fitting jacket with the fashionable straps on it are at the front door." Do they also have a good brace of tranq darts with them? Further translation: "Everybody in this NG, and in other NGs where knowledgeable people congregate is crazy and *I* am the only sane one here!" More translation: "Nobody believes that the monsters under my bed are going to kill me and then eat me!" C'mon, "TRUTH," go quietly -- they are going to take you away, to the *HAPPY* farm! Even more translation (based on his earlier comment), "I'm more heroic than a police officer or a fire fighter, only *I* have the courage to tell the "truth"." |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:55:43 GMT, mrtravel wrote:
It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY In what way? Did they not know what direction NYC is from WV? Apparently that's secret knowledge that you only learn after you get your IFR rating. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Miss L. Toe | Piloting | 11 | February 23rd 06 02:25 PM |
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Jim Macklin | Piloting | 12 | February 22nd 06 10:09 PM |
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Bob Gardner | Piloting | 18 | February 22nd 06 08:25 PM |
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible | Scott M. Kozel | Piloting | 1 | February 22nd 06 03:38 AM |