Will America Face the Truth About 9/11? [Archive] - The Orange Mane

PDA

View Full Version : Will America Face the Truth About 9/11?

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 03:06 PM

cutthemdown

02-25-2007, 03:09 PM

the real question is will Wal Mart put Mini Nukes on sale? By the way you are a total joke.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 05:10 PM

I went skiing at Echo Mountain park and really screwed my back and neck up yesterday. Had to skip church this morning cuz of it.

Spider

02-25-2007, 05:13 PM

I went skiing at Echo Mountain park and really screwed my back and neck up yesterday. Had to skip church this morning cuz of it.

going down the side of a mountain without brakes is not my idea of fun ....... besides if i was meant to ski , cowshít would be white ;D

spdirty

02-25-2007, 05:15 PM

for some reason I have explosive diarhea too. Sucks.

Spider

02-25-2007, 05:19 PM

for some reason I have explosive diarhea too. Sucks.

if we learned anything off the half crazed space traveling wacko is , these things work
http://www.dmponline.com/images/items/pictures/112.jpg

spdirty

02-25-2007, 05:20 PM

going down the side of a mountain without brakes is not my idea of fun ....... besides if i was meant to ski , cowshít would be white ;D

there was this one jump that you can do right before the chairlift but to do it you have to make a quick right turn to avoid the fence. I had done it successfully like 3 times but on the 4th try a strong gust blew snow in my face, blinded me, and man I took one helluva tumble. Looked around, 1 ski was 50 feet above me, other ski was at the chairlift, and I ended up taking out half of the fence.

Lift operator asked if I was OK, I said 'yeah are you mad? he said 'no dude, just keep rockin.' Was a lot of fun but today Im paying for it.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 05:21 PM

if we learned anything off the half crazed space traveling wacko is , these things work
http://www.dmponline.com/images/items/pictures/112.jpg

LOL no thanks, Id probably shlt myself going to the grocery store.

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 06:17 PM

You guys are the joke. What a bunch of losers.

Here's a response from someone who actually read the paper. Bob Bowman is a former USAF pilot who flew scrambles and made intercepts -- so he knows the procedure. Before his retirement he was the director of SDI (star wars).

Here's what he wrote:

Dear Mark,

The moment I got your email, I opened your article, intending to take a
quick look. However, I couldn't stop until I'd read the whole thing. I
think you've done a masterful job! I'm usually very critical of writing.
99.9% of the stuff I get contains so many typos, grammatical errors, jumbled sentences, misused words, and various other abuses of the English language... In addition, of course, to logical errors and un-called for conclusions, that I just can't stand it. Remarkably, I do not have a single complaint about your article.

I say, "Post it!" You're not only a good researcher,
you're an excellent writer too!

Col Bob Bowman, USAF (ret)

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 06:22 PM

Here's another response from a woman who ran for Congress in the last election and will be running again in Florida's 10th district.

Dear Mark,

I've just finished reading "Will America Face the Truth About 9/11? Since the day it happened, and in all of my years of subsequent study, I've not read a more through account. My deepest thanks to you for this work.

I will be passing this on to my Congressman- who already has a copy of David Ray Griffin's "Omissions and Commissions, and was the head of the Appropriations Committee during this time. He has served for 36 years - I tried to unseat him last year - and I'm praying that he will have a shock of conscience sooner than later.

There are a number of us here in the mid Florida area who are doing all we can to expose this truth. Your research will be of great assistance.

In any event, words do not describe my thankfulness for this comprehensive report.

May God bless you and may we take back our country.

Ms. Samm Simpson
Dunedin, Florida 34698

Truth is our Weapon. Change is our Choice.
http://www.sammsimpsonforcongress.com

BroncoInferno

02-25-2007, 06:37 PM

I hope all that self-congratulating didn't leave a stain somewhere.

Spider

02-25-2007, 07:23 PM

You guys are the joke. What a bunch of losers.

yeah but we have a really super cool handshake ........... Mini Nuke Salute .......

DBruleU

02-25-2007, 07:43 PM

I love it when Gaff posts a thread. Hours of entertainment. Here's to hoping this thread takes off with more of Spider and spdirty talking about diapers. :welcome:

Stuck In Texas

02-25-2007, 07:56 PM

I actually heard that "Depends" new slogan is going to be,

"Depends - When you absolutely, positively have to be there overnight."

Spider

02-25-2007, 08:13 PM

I actually heard that "Depends" new slogan is going to be,

"Depends - When you absolutely, positively have to be there overnight."

being a truck driver ........... I wonder.................. Naw ;D

Dudeskey

02-25-2007, 08:15 PM

being a truck driver ........... I wonder.................. Naw ;D

LOL... just eat a couple bannanas- that'll stop you up- oh yeah, MRE's are pretty good for that too

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 08:18 PM

Here's another letter from someone who read the paper. He makes indirect reference to the knee jerks on this thread. You know who you are. For the illiterates among us I have emboldened the passage.

Dear Mr Gaffney,

I've been studying the purported attacks on NYC and Washington for nearly four years, and am utterly convinced it was a false flag operation carried out by elements within the US government. The physical evidence alone is enough to expose the US government's story as a lie. Any issues of conspiracy are certainly interesting, but not essential to debunk the fairy tale of crazed Arabs attacking the US because they hate your democratic freedoms.

Mr. Gaffney's article is an excellent overview of what really happened on 9/11 and should be required reading for every US citizen. Unfortunately, we can forget that because it's too long for the average American attention span. Joking aside, I'm afraid it will be dismissed for the same reason all criticism of the official version of events continues to be dismissed. Accepting it would mean you could no longer continue living as you have, but would have to do something to address a crime of such magnitude. However, accepting the government's official myth, no matter how ridiculous it is, allows you to continue life as you have, watching television, going to the mall, eating fast food, and focusing your energies on the nonsense that the mainstream media feed you.

Citizens of the US, I implore you, demand the truth about 9/11 from your government and your media. Put the pressure on and do not be dissuaded by the insults that the weak and fearful will hurl at you. Print this article and distribute it widely. Give it to your children and talk about it with them. Talk about it with your friends and colleagues. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper about the issues it raises. Those who perpetrated this heinous crime will do everything to keep the truth from being known, and only an informed public can prevent them from getting away with it, or doing something similar to justify a war against Iraq. You cannot change the past, but you can shape the future. Good luck.

Mr Lexemer

W*GS

02-25-2007, 08:19 PM

Spider

02-25-2007, 08:21 PM

Spider

02-25-2007, 08:22 PM

LOL... just eat a couple bannanas- that'll stop you up- oh yeah, MRE's are pretty good for that too

Eat ... you mean shove ;D

spdirty

02-25-2007, 08:35 PM

Oh man, just threw up. Havent eaten anything all day, just not hungry. Stomach was givin me fits so I just stuck a finger down my throat. Pisses me off, this will be twice in 4 months Im sick. Before that it had been like 6 years or somethin. Feel better now though.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 08:38 PM

BABronco

02-25-2007, 08:43 PM

the real question is will Wal Mart put Mini Nukes on sale? By the way you are a total joke.

They are on sale right now. Right next to the weed.

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 08:47 PM

Gaffney, you certainly know how to ignore even the simplest and most straightforward evidence against your whackitude...

Your entire "research" consists of nothing more than an amalgam of all the most popular 9/11 whackitude rolled into an incoherent and confused mess.

'Nuff said.

PS - Where were the red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes?

Let's see, I counted 3 different theories on this board as to why molten steel was found in the WTC basement. All of them given in support of the official 911 narrative. Let's have a quick look at them.

1. I think it was Bronco Buff who told us the WTC resembled a blast furnace on 911 -- which supposedly explains how carbon fuel melted steel. Two seconds worth of thought repudiates this theory, however, since a blast furnace is in fact a laboratory where all variables are totally controlled and optimzed to achieve the necessary temperatures. The black smoke pouring out of the WTC on 911 was evidence enough that such conditions did NOT obtain on 911. No, the fires in the WTC on 911 were very inefficient. This translates into relatively cool conditions.

This conclusion is also supported by the NIST report. The sampling done by NIST scientists found no steel exposed to temperatures higher than 450 degrees. Indeed, only 3 samples were exposed to samples exceeding 250 degrees.

Scratch theory number 1.

2. Another rabid critic -- I forget who -- posted a photo of a Navy ship missing its superstructure, which allegedly disappeared during a fire event. This "theory" is so absurd it hardly scarcely a comment. There may well have been a fire on this ship, yes, there probably was. But no fire could have accomplished the sort of damage seen in the photo. Given this was a US Navy ship, explosives were surely involved.

Scratch theory number 2.

3. Finally, we come to W*gs's own personal "theory" that the molten steel was caused by rust. Yes, that's right. That's what he thinks. I kid you not. His "theory" is so far out in looney land no further comment is required. Which is why I placed quotation marks around the word.

Notice, none of the supposed theories can explain the molten steel. I'm still waiting for a scientifically credible explanation, since there was no fuel in the WTC nor in the planes capable of generating the 2800 degrees F necessary to melt steel on 911.

I'm still waiting.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 08:49 PM

LOL... just eat a couple bannanas- that'll stop you up- oh yeah, MRE's are pretty good for that too

the only mre's Ill eat are the jalepeno cheese with crackers. Those are the best.

Got a block of cheese in the fridge, maybe Ill eat that. Don't know though, Id hate if it exited through my mouth

cbs1177

02-25-2007, 09:10 PM

Dear Mr. Gaff

Thank you for enlighting those of us on the OM. Evidently you are a engineer, weapons expert, chemist, on the up and know about the huge federal government and all wrong doings. I mean you have gotten your hands on inside information unshared footage. I mean if you look hard enough you can find conspiracy everywhere. I assure you there are enough people that hate the current adminstration and if some info was there to support any loony evidence it was a government operation then it would have been leaked by now. And Bush would have been put on trail. But such as it is that has not happen.

W*GS

02-25-2007, 10:02 PM

Let's see, I counted 3 different theories on this board as to why molten steel was found in the WTC basement.

I've already pointed out that such claims are dubious. But investigating such a claim (and the many others you assert are true) has never been your strong point.

2. Another rabid critic -- I forget who -- posted a photo of a Navy ship missing its superstructure, which allegedly disappeared during a fire event. This "theory" is so absurd it hardly scarcely a comment. There may well have been a fire on this ship, yes, there probably was. But no fire could have accomplished the sort of damage seen in the photo. Given this was a US Navy ship, explosives were surely involved.

You're obviously not familiar with fire, generally. Read up on the collision between the USS John F. Kennedy and the USS Belknap in 1975. Heck, I'll even point you to a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_%28CG-26%29

3. Finally, we come to W*gs's own personal "theory" that the molten steel was caused by rust. Yes, that's right. That's what he thinks. I kid you not. His "theory" is so far out in looney land no further comment is required. Which is why I placed quotation marks around the word.

The oxidation of steel is an exothermic reaction, and in the context of the piles of steel at Ground Zero and in the presence of steam (as created by the evaporation of the water poured onto the piles), can produce rather prodigious amounts of heat. You make like to think I'm just an idiot (with the image of an iron chair slowly rusting on the deck out back), but I assure you, I am not.

Notice, none of the supposed theories can explain the molten steel.

There's no definitive proof of molten steel.

Provide it.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 10:55 PM

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Algore won an oscar!!!!!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

baja

02-25-2007, 10:56 PM

Bronco Bob

02-25-2007, 10:57 PM

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Algore won an oscar!!!!!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

Good for him. Too bad he was cheated out of the presidency. We'd all be a lot better off.

spdirty

02-25-2007, 11:01 PM

Good for him. Too bad he was cheated out of the presidency. We'd all be a lot better off.

well, we haven't had a decent candidate in 22 years. Doesn't look like we'll get one in another 2 years either. Just wish Algore woulda said something funny like 'HE BATRAAAAYYYYED THIS COUNTRA! HE PLAYED ON OUR FEEEEEEEEEEARS!'

mhgaffney

02-25-2007, 11:52 PM

From another person who was concerned enough about the state of our nation to actually read the paper:

Mr. Gaffney,

I just finished reading your latest article that appeared today on Rense. I found this to be among the most coherent and comprehensive writing on 9/11 that I've found. It's right up there with the 9/11 Mysteries movie as far as being accessible information for those who have yet to encounter the troublesome facts surrounding it all.

I noticed from your website that you spend some of your time in Oregon. I live up here in Olympia, Washington, and I just want you to know that if you have any desire to come up this way and present anything publicly I will help you get a venue and an audience. There's been far too little in the way of publicly presented information. I know you might not feel like being the one to do it but you do have some good stuff.

Whatever the case, I want you to know your words are being seen and appreciated.

In hopes that one day the truth will be set free far and wide,

Jim Skutt
Olympia

mhgaffney

02-26-2007, 12:02 AM

well, we haven't had a decent candidate in 22 years. '

22 years???

The fact is we haven't had a decent president since JFK. I recently watched a great film -- 13 days - about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It's historically accurate insofar as can be determined and I strongly recommend it.

It's scary how close we came to WW III with the Soviet Union, and the only reason it didn't happen is because JFK and RFK stood up to the hawks in the pentagon who wanted to bomb and invade Cuba. If the generals had had their way it would have ended in thermonuclear war -- because in the 1990s we learned there were dozens of Soviet tactical nukes on Cuba waiting to be used against a US invasion.

Excellent leadership pulled us through by a whisker. And what did we do? We put a bullet in the head of both Kennedy brothers. It was a coup de tat and we allowed it to stand by not insisting ona REAL investigation.

That is the reason for all of our problems today. Those guilty of these high crimes were never brought to justice. The beast continued to walk free to subvert our democracy -- and showed his face again on 911.

It will continue until the New World Order enslaves us all with micro chips in our bodies -- or we bring them to justice.

mhgaffney

02-26-2007, 12:03 AM

Who's going to save us, next time? Today the hawks are inside the White House.

mhgaffney

02-26-2007, 12:34 AM

You're obviously not familiar with fire, generally. Read up on the collision between the USS John F. Kennedy and the USS Belknap in 1975. Heck, I'll even point you to a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_%28CG-26%29

Thanks, W*gs for the informative link to Wikipedia. You just discredited yourself.

I did check it out -- and I learned something new. I find it astonishing that you, a computer specialist, evidently have no grounding in science. I am forced to this conclusion by your inability to see through this absurd fire argument.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia on this fire incident -- YOUR source, remember.

Belknap was severely damaged in a collision with John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1975. A fire broke out on Belknap following the collision, and during the fire her aluminum superstructure was melted, burned and gutted to the deck level. This fire and the resultant damage and deaths, which would have been preventable had Belknap's superstructure been made of steel, drove the US Navy's decision to pursue all-steel construction in its next major class of surface combatants, the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer. Belknap was reconstructed by the Philadelphia Navy Yard from 30 January 1976 to 10 May 1980.

You'll notice that Wikipedia points out the superstructure of the damaged ship was made of aluminum - not steel. The article then points out -- correctly -- that if the superstructure had been made of steel there would have been no such damage.

This is because the melting point of steel is much higher than that of aluminum.

Your own source thus refutes your silly claim that a kerosene or gasoline (or any other hydro carbon fueled) fire meledt thick steel plates and huge beams on 9/11. No such fuel will reach 2800 degrees, hence cannot melt steel. It's that simple.

The molten steel in the WTC basement remains anomalous.

I documented its existence via the many eyewitness accounts -- people who were on the scene and saw it -- firemen, EMT responders, health professionals, NY City officials, engineers, and the demolition experts who cleaned up the site. All were in agreement.

We also have hard photographic evidence -- huge irregular slabs of cooled slag that were pulled from the bottom of the hole -- chunks as large as an automobile -- or even larger -- with pieces of concrete, pipe, and other objects embedded within and protruding from.

These huge chunks of formerly molten steel looked very much like meteorites. If you want to have a look I recommend the video 911 Mysteries -- which has some good shots of the slag.

defenseman

02-26-2007, 08:57 AM

Who's going to save us, next time? Today the hawks are inside the White House.

Not true. Plenty of hawk's in every day society. And if you are so worried about being "saved" step up to the plate pal and have a swing or two. Put your money where your "pen" is ......dman

spdirty

02-26-2007, 09:04 AM

22 years???

The fact is we haven't had a decent president since JFK. I recently watched a great film -- 13 days - about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It's historically accurate insofar as can be determined and I strongly recommend it.

It's scary how close we came to WW III with the Soviet Union, and the only reason it didn't happen is because JFK and RFK stood up to the hawks in the pentagon who wanted to bomb and invade Cuba. If the generals had had their way it would have ended in thermonuclear war -- because in the 1990s we learned there were dozens of Soviet tactical nukes on Cuba waiting to be used against a US invasion.

Saw it. It was decent, but not as good as The Departed, which won best picture last night. I highly recomend you see that one.

spdirty

02-26-2007, 09:04 AM

Who's going to save us, next time? Today the hawks are inside the White House.

Jack ****ing Bauer.

W*GS

02-26-2007, 09:18 AM

I just got a PM from someone who read Gaffney's paper:

W*GS -

Just wanted to let you know that I think Gaffney is a nut - your views of his stuff are right on target. Why he insists on sticking to his theories despite your and others' valid arguments against them is something that might be interesting to study.

Thanks again for letting me know about Gaffney's crap - just goes to show that the Internet shines a light on the cockroaches and their filth.

(The person who sent the above to me asked to remain anonymous).

spdirty

02-26-2007, 09:28 AM

W*GS

02-26-2007, 11:04 AM

Thanks, W*gs for the informative link to Wikipedia. You just discredited yourself.

Well, no.

I did check it out -- and I learned something new. I find it astonishing that you, a computer specialist, evidently have no grounding in science. I am forced to this conclusion by your inability to see through this absurd fire argument.

Remember, you said:

2. Another rabid critic -- I forget who -- posted a photo of a Navy ship missing its superstructure, which allegedly disappeared during a fire event. This "theory" is so absurd it hardly scarcely a comment. There may well have been a fire on this ship, yes, there probably was. But no fire could have accomplished the sort of damage seen in the photo. Given this was a US Navy ship, explosives were surely involved.

In the case of the Kennedy-Belknap collision, there were no explosives (in the sense of being the primary cause of the damage to the Belknap) involved, which disproves your "Given this was a US Navy ship, explosives were surely involved" nonsense. Also, there was no "allegedly disappeared" - the Belknap was very badly damaged.

As for the aluminum versus steel argument, that's rather tangential - I was merely showing that a ship was badly damaged (her superstructure destroyed) during a fire - something you claimed was "absurd".

Your own source thus refutes your silly claim that a kerosene or gasoline (or any other hydro carbon fueled) fire meledt thick steel plates and huge beams on 9/11. No such fuel will reach 2800 degrees, hence cannot melt steel. It's that simple.

It's not my claim that the jet fuel fire alone melted any steel - and you've yet to prove that there was "pools" of molten steel in the aftermath of 9/11.

Let's see your evidence - provide links to corroborated and credible evidence, not just hearsay or 3rd-person accounts.

Remember, you need to address all the facts presented in:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

So far, you have not. Never have, actually.

W*GS

02-26-2007, 11:06 AM

The fact is we haven't had a decent president since JFK. I recently watched a great film -- 13 days - about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Why not a documentary on JFK and the Bay of Pigs fiasco?

It's hardly the case that JFK "saved" us from a nuclear attack - he damned near caused one.

It will continue until the New World Order enslaves us all with micro chips in our bodies -- or we bring them to justice.

Don't worry about implanted RFID chips - your tin hat will protect you.

loborugger

02-26-2007, 11:16 AM

Dude, you are posting other people's flattering reviews of your work? Man, you totally rock. In fact, I think you should start repping yourself - thats how much you rock.

Bronco Bob

02-26-2007, 11:46 AM

Dude, you are posting other people's flattering reviews of your work? Man, you totally rock. In fact, I think you should start repping yourself - thats how much you rock.

Ever looked at rense.com? There are all sorts of stories there.
Some probably legitimate, others pretty nutty stuff on that website:

FBI Agent Directing McVeigh In OKC Bombing Named.

The Big Lie Unfolds - Jesus Never Resurrected?

Will America Face The Truth About 911?

Tucson UFO Estimated To Be One Mile Long.

They bill themselves as "The Most Format & Content-Plagiarized Site On The Net"
So basically there is something there for everyone to support their point of
view and provide links for. After all, if you aren't providing a link, what you
say is obvious BS. Because, hey, if it's on the internet and you have a link for
it must be true then. :rofl:

alkemical

02-26-2007, 12:29 PM

Ever looked at rense.com? There are all sorts of stories there.
Some probably legitimate, others pretty nutty stuff on that website:

FBI Agent Directing McVeigh In OKC Bombing Named.

The Big Lie Unfolds - Jesus Never Resurrected?

Will America Face The Truth About 911?

Tucson UFO Estimated To Be One Mile Long.

They bill themselves as "The Most Format & Content-Plagiarized Site On The Net"
So basically there is something there for everyone to support their point of
view and provide links for. After all, if you aren't providing a link, what you
say is obvious BS. Because, hey, if it's on the internet and you have a link for
it must be true then. :rofl:

actually the OKC has some very questionable ties to it.

There is a news story on the jesus issue.

But i guess that since two of the listings may have some validity the rest of those that maybe more questionable automatically makes the rest invalid, eh?

I also find it interesting that http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1172340439,57292,

also seems to have the same story listing:

The four headlines on this page are...
1) 911 Truthers - Time Is On Our Side
2) Norman Mineta Exposes Dick Cheney on 9/11 Stand-down
3) Feds cancel Divine Strake explosion
4) The Apollo Moon Landings Are Science Fiction

This is a technique called "poisening the well" - it's a common propoganda technique used - and most conspiracists for better/worse help muddy the waters.

mhgaffney

02-26-2007, 01:14 PM

Here's another response -- I've added bold for emphasis.

Mr Gaffney,

Just finished reading your article online in ICH. Will America ever face the truth about 9/11? Right now, i wouldn't bet on that happening.

It is said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. This powerful drug has definitely addicted the Bush/Cheney cabal and they are willing to do anything--even starting WW III--to obtain their daily fix.

Let me humbly offer some eyewitness accounts of building collapses. i recently retired from Columbia, Missouri Fire Department (FD) as a career fire fighter. Retired with the rank of Lieutenant.

In 20+ years of service, i was on the scene of more than a few structure fires. Fires in various types of buildings, including residential, commercial and industrial. Even high rises. Most times, we were able to fight the fire successfully, extinguish the flames and return a sizable portion of the building and contents back to the owner.

However, some of the times, we lost the fight--and as the post fire investigation by the Fire Marshal's office would find, those fires involved arson--and were forced to go from an offensive mode, in which we would conduct interior fire fighting, to a defensive mode, in which we would "surround and drown" the building with immense amounts of water from the exterior.

When that happened, some of the times the building would collapse, due to interior fire damage and the immense amounts of water applied in fire suppression. The structure would collapse in a random, haphazard, piecemeal manner. Not once did i personally witness one of those structures collapsing in the rather controlled and somewhat neat pancake fashion as the WTC towers and Building 7.

i might be able to believe that one of the towers could fall that way, but all three? Think that would be physically impossible.

There has been much made about the interior fire's heat contributing to the collapse of the WTC's. i also disagree with that. Those buildings, thanks to the fire codes enacted over the years, were built to withstand fire and not add to the flames.

The type of fires left burning after the jet fuel flamed off are what we call "contents fires". They involve the burning of the contents of the rooms/building, such as furniture, carpets and the like.

Initially, these fires are hot, but either burn out quickly or suffocate themselves due to the fire needing a large amount of oxygen and not being able to receive the proper amount of oxygen due to the large amount of smoke generated or no fresh sources of oxygen.

Last year, the NYFD released some of the on scene radio transcripts from some of the interior fire fighting units. i've read thru some of the radio traffic and from their accounts, in one of the towers, they not only had the fire extinguished, they were going to start providing medical care to the victims.

i believe the published radio accounts, not only due to the authentic sounding radio traffic, but the fact that they acted like fire fighters; that is, you make a decision at the beginning of the operation as to whether or not you are going to fight fire or rescue victims.

Since most FD's are usually understaffed and cannot provide both services, you usually elect to fight the fire, while ventilating the building to push out the toxic gases and smoke so the victims can at least get fresh air.

If the on scene fire crews had not only extinguished the fire(s) and determined that the building was safe enough to conduct medical care and rescue, then there is something terribly amiss and wrong with the so called "official" 9/11 version.

i thank you for your time and your bravery in putting out vital info regarding 9/11 on the web. Maybe, just maybe, one of these days, thanks to the diligence of people such as yourself, we will get to the bottom of the events regarding 9/11 and bring the true instigators and mass murderers to justice.

Greg Bacon
Ava, MO

Rohirrim

02-26-2007, 01:33 PM

Excellent leadership pulled us through by a whisker. And what did we do? We put a bullet in the head of both Kennedy brothers. It was a coup de tat and we allowed it to stand by not insisting ona REAL investigation.

That is the reason for all of our problems today. Those guilty of these high crimes were never brought to justice. The beast continued to walk free to subvert our democracy -- and showed his face again on 911.

It will continue until the New World Order enslaves us all with micro chips in our bodies -- or we bring them to justice.

There it is in a nutshell, so to speak.

baja

02-26-2007, 01:39 PM

There it is in a nutshell, so to speak.

Yep!

W*GS

02-26-2007, 02:32 PM

Here's another response -- I've added bold for emphasis.

You know, this sort of stuff (a form of self-fellatio, as it were) doesn't make your "arguments" any better or more credible.

alkemical

02-26-2007, 02:36 PM

Yeah, well...

My mom says i'm cool!

Meck77

02-26-2007, 03:08 PM

I went skiing at Echo Mountain park and really screwed my back and neck up yesterday. Had to skip church this morning cuz of it.

I heard about that place. Seems pretty cool. I hear you about the neck issues. Had my first hardcore day of snowmobiling. Did 40 miles all the way into WY and back. Feel off my sled in some deep powder a few times tweaking my neck a bit. I'll live.

cutthemdown

02-26-2007, 03:32 PM

yeah but we have a really super cool handshake ........... Mini Nuke Salute .......

it gets ended with a huge fart and burp to signify the release of immense power.

baja

02-26-2007, 06:03 PM

How many of you actually read the report of Mark's that you are all so smugly tearing apart? Just curious

The Lone Bolt

02-26-2007, 07:15 PM

How many of you actually read the report of Mark's that you are all so smugly tearing apart? Just curious

Is there anything in Gaff's report that hasn't been said in 1000 other conspiracy-theory sites? By now I'm pretty sure I've read and heard it all.

Edit: OK I read the first page or so. He calls Bush and company "evildoers", accuses them of nefarious evil plans, and then goes on to speculate about remote-controlled jetliners while presenting no evidence except circumstantial facts and "what if . . . blah blah blah."

Give me one good reason I should waste my valuable time with the rest of this BS.

Taco John

02-26-2007, 08:29 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

02-26-2007, 08:43 PM

How many of you actually read the report of Mark's that you are all so smugly tearing apart? Just curiousI'm sorry but once a guy believes the U.S. government used nuclear weapons to destroy the WTC's I'm pretty much done with it.

spdirty

02-26-2007, 09:39 PM

I heard about that place. Seems pretty cool. I hear you about the neck issues. Had my first hardcore day of snowmobiling. Did 40 miles all the way into WY and back. Feel off my sled in some deep powder a few times tweaking my neck a bit. I'll live.

Yeah its different. 35 bucks, which is less than half the cost of those other mountains, they only have 1 chairlift (which takes like 5 minutes to get up and a minute to get down). A bunch of jumps, I think they have 3 halfpipes. I went up there alone so it wasnt really as much fun as if someone had been there. Here's a map of it.http://echomountainpark.com/park_update.php

Neck and back feel better now, hopefully it'll be good by the end of the week.

baja

02-26-2007, 09:58 PM

I'm sorry but once a guy believes the U.S. government used nuclear weapons to destroy the WTC's I'm pretty much done with it.

Now that sounds like a good reason to discard the impressive body of linked information pertinent to 9/11 Mark has posted

Florida_Bronco

02-26-2007, 10:41 PM

I guess this fool didn't get enough attention with the first thread he created.

Barry Ramey

02-26-2007, 10:42 PM

My latest research just went up on the web.

If we have the courage to face the fact that our nation has descended into a swamp of corruption and evil, perhaps we can still salvage the future for ourselves and our children. We should draw strength from the knowledge that the 9/11 nightmare, bad as it was, might have been even worse...

Read the whole article here

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17162.htm

You should get a job with Al Qaeda or some other terrorist outfit since this is the kind of garbage they funnel to the gullible bozos who want to believe this nonsense. I'm sure you're ready to elect Hillary since that'll surely end the "corruption" in DC. Even most of the other liberals around here think you're out of your mind.

spdirty

02-26-2007, 10:47 PM

You should get a job with Al Qaeda or some other terrorist outfit since this is the kind of garbage they funnel to the gullible bozos who want to believe this nonsense. I'm sure you're ready to elect Hillary since that'll surely end the "corruption" in DC. Even most of the other liberals around here think you're out of your mind.

you don't have to attack him like that! He's special. His mommy and all the nice people who think he has good grammar tell him so. Now if he wants to believe that mini nukes were used on 9/11, who are you or I to tell him different?

Spider

02-26-2007, 11:19 PM

You should get a job with Al Qaeda or some other terrorist outfit since this is the kind of garbage they funnel to the gullible bozos who want to believe this nonsense. I'm sure you're ready to elect Hillary since that'll surely end the "corruption" in DC. Even most of the other liberals around here think you're out of your mind.

you little prick ......... when Gaff starts telling you how to suck cock , then by all means tell him what profession he should have

alkemical

02-27-2007, 12:51 AM

I don't want to really get involved in this thread, but I thought this would be the best place to post this video that someone sent me regarding the WTC 7 collapse.

Forward to 14:45 and check out the BBC report... It's the damnedst thing I've ever seen in this whole thing...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

TJ,

when 9/11 hit - i remember ABC news within a few hours on the radio telling "us" that they found a rental car with the QRN in it - after that point i only had half faith in what was reported on 9/11 - then the lack of real pursuit on bin laden - it sealed the deal for me that it wasn't as we were told.

Bronco Bob

02-27-2007, 01:18 AM

My problem is that the conspirarists use such nutty analogies to try to prove their point. Take this gem, for example, by someone who goes by the name
Winter Patriot:

"Here's a good way for you to evaluate the "steel weakened and buckled" theory at your own convenience: Go out and start your car. Watch what happens when burning fuel heats the steel around it -- in this case the steel is your engine block. Let it run for a while and you'll find that your engine block actually buckles -- because the heat from the burning fuel is so intense that, even though it's not hot enough to melt the steel, it's hot enough to weaken the steel, and this combined with the intense pressures in your engine, make the steel of the engine block lose its strength and buckle. And that's why you can't drive your car for long distances, because the heat from the burning fuel weakens the steel and your engine sags and the next thing you know it loses its compression.

You see this happening to other people all the time, don't you? Cars and trucks broken down by the side of the highway, no longer able to move because their engine blocks are so deformed from the heat of the burning fuel... You see them every day, do you not?

No? Well ... Maybe I'd better go back and check my facts, then!"

Here's the link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/180207smearcontinues.htm

My comment to Mr. Patriot is to try your auto engine experiment again. Only this time let the engine coolant out of your engine first and then see how long your engine runs. After all, the supporting steel in the WTC wasn't surrounded by a bath of ethylene glycol and water, was it?

Taco John

02-27-2007, 02:34 AM

Spider

02-27-2007, 05:49 AM

Did anyone check this out? Is there any explanation for it?

nope ............but then I gave up trying to find out the truth about 9-11 .....

Bronco_Beerslug

02-27-2007, 07:26 AM

Did anyone check this out? Is there any explanation for it?
The BBC helped Bush blow up WTC7 too?

Bronco_Beerslug

02-27-2007, 08:42 AM

The source seems to also discount your claim that munitions were involved. You saw that the "Broken Arrow" alerrt was found not to be fact. You should have also found that your claim that ammunition exploding was a prime factor in the destruction.

I find absolutely no credibility in your report nor in your sources. Your letters from "others" seem to have the exact writing style that you do, either your sources of acclaim are you or someone that writes exactly what you want them to say. Did you pay for those allocades?

I knew a Mark Gaffney a few years ago, the guy was a government teacher at my high school. Didn't think much of him and from what I read here don't think much of your one sided approach to arguments.
There is none but that doesn't stop him from throwing it around like it's gospel.

Rohirrim

02-27-2007, 08:58 AM

And while he's searching under his bed for boogey men, the Bush anti-Constitution cabal are kicking down his bedroom door.

alkemical

02-27-2007, 09:01 AM

And while he's searching under his bed for boogey men, the Bush anti-Constitution cabal are kicking down his bedroom door.

There's a new price on freedom, buy into it while supplies last.

Spider

02-27-2007, 10:08 AM

The BBC helped Bush blow up WTC7 too?

How does this answer the question ?

baja

02-27-2007, 10:44 AM

Did anyone check this out? Is there any explanation for it?

All I know is we do not know the truth about 9/11. What the whole truth is I do not know but the fact that we feel we have many unanswered questions and things that do not add up indicates we have a problem we just don't know how big this problem is.

W*GS

02-27-2007, 10:53 AM

I don't want to really get involved in this thread, but I thought this would be the best place to post this video that someone sent me regarding the WTC 7 collapse.

Forward to 14:45 and check out the BBC report... It's the damnedst thing I've ever seen in this whole thing...

Snore.

From the site TJ posted:

"No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree."

That's a rather strong assertion that simply isn't true.

W*GS

02-27-2007, 10:54 AM

What the whole truth is I do not know but the fact that we feel we have many unanswered questions and things that do not add up indicates we have a problem we just don't know how big this problem is.

Care to provide examples of "unanswered questions and things that do not add up"?

Taco John

02-27-2007, 11:01 AM

Care to provide examples of "unanswered questions and things that do not add up"?

Yeah... Here's one:

How did the BBC get a press release stating that WTC7 had collapsed 25 minutes before the building actually collapsed?

I don't think that's an unreasonable question. Do you?

W*GS

02-27-2007, 11:11 AM

Yeah... Here's one:

How did the BBC get a press release stating that WTC7 had collapsed 25 minutes before the building actually collapsed?

How do we know that the above is true and not the result of manipulations of a whack-job? We've seen that kind of thing before.

alkemical

02-27-2007, 11:15 AM

How do we know that the above is true and not the result of manipulations of a whack-job? We've seen that kind of thing before.

that's the exact same question i ask about your argument from authority links as well.

Besides, it's not like the media never distorts and feeds us what's good for them, eh? (video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353)

W*GS

02-27-2007, 11:29 AM

that's the exact same question i ask about your argument from authority links as well.

I read some of the comments from one of the whack-jobs sites regarding this alleged "smoking gun" video. Geez, I never realized how downright orgasmic some people can get.

Ever hear of an error in reporting?

Taco John

02-27-2007, 11:33 AM

How do we know that the above is true and not the result of manipulations of a whack-job? We've seen that kind of thing before.

What are you talking about? That's a good example of a whack-job cynical statement yourself.

I thought you fancied yourself a critical thinker.

I don't care what you think about who did what, or who gets what blame. I don't personally know myself, and don't spend any time thinking about it. All I know is that I was sent a rather compelling video where the BBC is reporting that WTC7 was demolished, where in the back ground you can clearly see that WTC7 is standing. They reported on something before it actually happened based on a news release that they say they received early.

You asked for examples of "unanswered questions and things that do not add up." Now I've given you one, and your response is some bull**** cynacism about manipulations of whack jobs?

Clearly you are not really interested in exploring "unanswered questions about things that do not add up." This one is pretty plain as day, and you've already dismissed it before you've even bothered to do any critical thinking. Your only aim here is to debunk regardless of the evidence.

Maybe there's a logical explination as to why the BBC got a press release stating that the building had come down in the past tense. I don't know. What I do know is that it's a legitimate question to consider, and certainly qualifies as an "unanswered question of things that do not add up."

I don't know anything about mini-nukes, or whatever. What I do know about is writing press releases. I write my fair share of them. When I distribute a press release before an event happens, it's always because the event that "happened" was planned carefully in advance. Maybe there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why someone managed to write and distribute a press release before the building actually came down. I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking the question.

Unless you happen to have an answer, it qualifies unequivocally as an "unanswered question of things that do not add up."

Tom H.

02-27-2007, 12:06 PM

I would imagine reporting on that day was confusing. Someone probably had an eye on the Salomon Brothers Building and reported that it was in the process of collapsing. By the time it hit the anchor it was mistakenly reported as having already collapsed. Jane (the onsite reporter) even said
"As you can see behind me the trade center appears to be still burning"

Rohirrim

02-27-2007, 12:23 PM

If I remember correctly from that day, weren't the media reporting that the NYC building engineers and fire marshalls were saying for some time before it happened that WTC 7 was going to collapse? They had cleared the area in anticipation of its collapse. Correct? No one was injured in the collapese of WTC7. Right?

W*GS

02-27-2007, 12:45 PM

You asked for examples of "unanswered questions and things that do not add up." Now I've given you one, and your response is some bull**** cynacism about manipulations of whack jobs?

We already know that whack-jobs manipulate information to suit their agenda - for example, editing video to show it out of time sequence, quotes taken out of context and/or changed, pictures from certain angles that purport to support their whackitude...

You still have to show that the video in question can only have a non-pedestrian explanation, and that what the whack-jobs allege can be the only reasonable explanation. From what I've seen, this is along the same lines as the Silverstein comment of "Pull it" being indisputable proof that WTC7 was demolished. Sorry, no sale.

W*GS

02-27-2007, 12:45 PM

alkemical

02-27-2007, 12:50 PM

I read some of the comments from one of the whack-jobs sites regarding this alleged "smoking gun" video. Geez, I never realized how downright orgasmic some people can get.

Ever hear of an error in reporting?

What about when it's "done on purpose" is my point Wagsy. As the google video link will illustrate - programming isn't meant for just a time slot....

alkemical

02-27-2007, 01:01 PM

We already know that whack-jobs manipulate information to suit their agenda - for example, editing video to show it out of time sequence, quotes taken out of context and/or changed, pictures from certain angles that purport to support their whackitude...

You still have to show that the video in question can only have a non-pedestrian explanation, and that what the whack-jobs allege can be the only reasonable explanation. From what I've seen, this is along the same lines as the Silverstein comment of "Pull it" being indisputable proof that WTC7 was demolished. Sorry, no sale.

Wait, you mean that people that may control the media - wouldn't influence public opinion? I mean i have proof that Rupert Murdoch (Fox, Foxnews, DirectTV, Myspace) - said he used his media empire to try to influce public opinion on the war in iraq.

Then of course, you got the nifty saddam-statue-topple photo that was shown to be staged and manipulated to show a bigger action than it was in reality... (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm)

alkemical

02-27-2007, 01:03 PM

alkemical

02-28-2007, 09:36 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Florida_Bronco

02-28-2007, 07:40 PM

mhgaffney

02-28-2007, 08:53 PM

I would imagine reporting on that day was confusing.

Quite the contrary.

In fact some of the best documentation we have about what really happened are the press reports from 911 -- BEFORE the official mythology took root -- after which many stories were scrubbed out of existence. Web sites were altered. Pages mysteriously disappeared from the web. etc. Other news reports were simply forgotten.

The most accurate record are the unblemished reports from the day itself.

From the moment on the afternoon of 911 when George Tenet announced at Bush's hastily convened meeting of the Nat'l Security Council that Osama bin Laden was responsible -- from that moment the propaganda media began to create the myth that a funny looking bearded jihadist with many wives organized this attack from a cave on the far side of the planet -- using a cell phone.

Of course, NSA was listening to everything bin Laden said -- had been for years -- and not only knew his every move -- but took steps to keep him alive. As General Myers later said: "There was never an order to get Osama."

At least 5-6 of the alleged hijackers had been recruited from the start to serve a useful function as patsies (unbeknownst to them, of course). They were set up to serve a function, which they did, and received their final reward -- probably a bullet in the head -- on the day of 911 -- and so, never even had to board the planes. Too bad for them.

I'm still waiting for W*gs or someone to present a scintilla of real evidence the hijackers did board the planes. No one yet has done so, yet. I'm still waiting...

One man did die in the collapse of WTC 7 -- apparently he didn't have a radio turned on -- and so did not hear the broadcasts that it was coming down.

mhgaffney

02-28-2007, 09:06 PM

mhgaffney

02-28-2007, 09:14 PM

Florida_Bronco

02-28-2007, 10:21 PM

So far, no one has discussed even one of the many issues of substance discussed in my article at the top of this thread.

That's because everyone knows that you are a joke. :rofl:

alkemical

03-01-2007, 12:04 AM

I actually find it odd... a news broadcasting service - wouldn't keep archives of 9/11 -

Bronco Bob

03-01-2007, 02:25 AM

Here's an article explaining some of the motives of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq and Iraq's WMDs.
It contends 9/11 was indeed an inside job, but not by who you think it was by.
Make of it what you want.

http://acsa.net/mainentry.html

Here's an exert:

All of it as directed to by David Rockefeller, laying the groundwork of a plan that originally intended to load a Nuclear Weapon onto a Jetliner and fly it into WTC Tower Two. [It turns out that the US Intelligence Community began to suspect a domestic-backed terror attack on the USA, and realizing that it might involve the oil industry in 1999 and 2000, it took emergency steps to disrupt the original Nuclear Material transfers from Pakistan, so that the 9/11 plotters were forced to use six jets and rely on Rockefeller allies in the NJ DeCavelacante Mob (allegedly headed by North Jersey resident Anthony Rotondo, seen at right, who some have said is the real world model for the HBO Hit Show Gangland Leader "Tony Soprano") and the New England Patriarca and Angiulo Mob to allegedly plant knives on the Jetliners that were hijacked and then used to implode the WTC towers, and attack the Pentagon, or were crashed by valiant passengers as in one jetliner's case. Though the 9/11 tragedy could hardly be called a fortunate situation, it was fortunate that no nuclear weapons were successfully transferred to Al Qaeda plotters in North America at the time, or one would have been on board one of the jets used to strike on 9/11.

And more:

Further ramifications, including the activities of political activist groups and press controlled by the Rockefellers' historical interests in NBC, TIME WARNER CNN, CBS and ABC so as to frame and otherwise Bash the Bush Administration, were also funded by David Rockefeller and continue to this very day. Knowing from Musharraf that an attack to take down the World Trade Center was going to happen later in 2001, earlier that same year David Rockefeller sold his interests in the WTC and saw to it that the building was divested from any further Rockefeller relationship, along with any building in its immediate two (2) block periphery he had an interest in. Since that time, from his 5th Avenue Office in NYC, Rockefeller, through a network of powerful businesses he maintains as infrastructure to hide his familial control over the descendents of his grandfather's businesses, has been calling the shots on progressive political and subterfuge attacks upon the Bush Administration, having lost his alliance with Saddam Hussein, upon Hussein's arrest. His goal: to weaken the Administration's grip on Iraq by embarrassing it, funding attacks and insurgency in Iraq, fostering peace movements, and press assaults and White House bashing and undermining investigations. All of it: in an effort to extort President Bush into allowing Exxon to step in and create another Saudi Arabia out of Iraq, with the Rockefellers getting control of all of its oil and hiding that control through a Proxy Emirate Royal Family as it has done elsewhere, paying a "commission" to controlled partners who hold the oil for the Rockefellers. Greed has turned David Rockefeller's business methods into a covert pro-terrorism agenda.

alkemical

03-01-2007, 08:39 AM

Now that is much more believable than "mini-nukes"

Rohirrim

03-01-2007, 10:03 AM

So far, no one has discussed even one of the many issues of substance discussed in my article at the top of this thread.

Not even one substantial point.

Obviously the knee jerks who use this board would rather piss in the wind -- make a whole lotta noise about nothing -- than enter into a real dialogue or debate.

This is why I refer to such people as knee jerks.

You know who you are.

A knee jerk don't know nothing, don't care about nothing, and don't believe in nothing --

Certainly not in the US Constitution.

The motto of a knee jerk: DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS -- MY MIND IS MADE UP!

The philosophy of a knee jerk: That's easy. One word covers it:

WOOPEE!

There's another word that covers it, and that is you are a ****ing LUNATIC! I envision you someday in a closet, curled up in the fetal position, muttering into your naval. As I've told you numerous times before, brother - You need help! You are hyping a conspiracy which would require the collusion of thousands, THOUSANDS, of people, most of whom would have absolutely no cause to engage in such a conspiracy (police, firemen, airport workers, government workers at multiple levels, military, security, media, etc etc etc) who would not benefit in any way, shape, or form, but in fact, would be (and were) harmed by the events of 911. You are not just pushing the envelope of basic reason, you are out there in the vacuum beyond the envelope of reason - dancing naked!

But even worse than the fact that you are stomping all over the memories of the people who were killed on 911 and defiling the tragedy of their loss with your ravings, your fairy tales are also deflecting attention away from the true dangers we face as Americans. There really ARE conspiracies going on. They involve Cheney and Bush, and Halliburton, and the military/industrial complex, and oil companies dictating our foreign policy. Meanwhile, lunatic conpiracy theorists like you have us chasing fires that don't exist, diverting our attention away from those that do exist. By raising false flags, you serve those who you claim to fight against.

W*GS

03-01-2007, 11:28 AM

So far, no one has discussed even one of the many issues of substance discussed in my article at the top of this thread.

:bs:

I've spent quite a lot of time showing how your arguments are based on half-truths, misstatements, quotes taken out of context, and, overall, a horrific ignorance of basic science, mathematics, and physics.

Declaring victory because we recognize you as a stubborn doofus doesn't mean you actually "won"...

W*GS

03-01-2007, 11:34 AM

I'm still waiting for W*gs or someone to present a scintilla of real evidence the hijackers did board the planes. No one yet has done so, yet. I'm still waiting...

Google "9/11 flight attendant transcript".

At least one of the flight attendants identified the hijackers on her plane, by seat assignment.

Others reported that their plane had been hijacked by Middle Eastern men.

If I waited for you to provide definitive, corroborated, independent proof of all your assertions, well, we would never get to that point, would we?

The Lone Bolt

03-01-2007, 12:07 PM

Google "9/11 flight attendant transcript".

At least one of the flight attendants identified the hijackers on her plane, by seat assignment.

Others reported that their plane had been hijacked by Middle Eastern men.

If I waited for you to provide definitive, corroborated, independent proof of all your assertions, well, we would never get to that point, would we?

Why W*GS, don't you know the conspiracy theorists have already invented a rationalization to explain this away? All those calls were "faked" as I'm sure was the report by the flight attandant.;)

See how convenient this is? All they have to do is invent some story to explain away evidence that conflicts with their wacko theories, and they don't even need a shred of evidence (in their minds) to back up their rationalizations. The simple belief that it "may have happened" (like the mini-nukes) is indesputable proof to them that it did happen.

Of course the fact that this makes their theories impossible to disprove also seems perfectly reasonable to them. :loopy:

loborugger

03-01-2007, 09:40 PM

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS -- MY MIND IS MADE UP!

Dude, you were looking in the mirror when you made that statement, correct?

As for the statements made on 9-11. I remember sitting in my living room, watching the news, and hearing on the news that a car bomb had gone off at the State Dept and that the US Capitol had been hit.

Didnt make it true. Lotsa crap was flying around - figuratively and literally.

Oh, crap, I forgot I am talking to a true believer.

alkemical

03-01-2007, 11:53 PM

I actually find it odd... a news broadcasting service - wouldn't keep archives of 9/11 -

;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top

mhgaffney

03-02-2007, 02:33 AM

Google "9/11 flight attendant transcript".

At least one of the flight attendants identified the hijackers on her plane, by seat assignment.

Others reported that their plane had been hijacked by Middle Eastern men.

If I waited for you to provide definitive, corroborated, independent proof of all your assertions, well, we would never get to that point, would we?

And just how did they do this? By cell phone calls?

Sorry -- it didn't happen -- none of the alleged cell phone calls happened for a simple reason. The technology to make cell phone calls from high altitude did not exist in 2001.

Studies have shown that the chances of making a cell phone call above 20,000 feet are basically zero.

Only in July 2004 did American Airlines and I think it was Qualcom announce that new pico technology had arrived. At which point a testing program started.

This is one of the definitve cases against the official 911 narrative -- and exposes it to be a fagrant lie.

A few calls possibly were made by airfone. However, even here, the official story is exposed. Since American Airlines did not have airfones in its 757s -- so, we know that no calls could have come from Flight 77 -- of which there were supposedly two.

So these two calls from Flight 77 had to have been faked. Simple as that.

Do some checking and you'll see I'm correct.

mhgaffney

03-02-2007, 02:45 AM

American Airlines and QUALCOMM Complete Test Flight to Evaluate In-Cabin Mobile Phone Use

Print Version

Proof-of-Concept Event Highlights Safe and Reliable Mobile Phone Technology Using CDMA on a Commercial Aircraft

http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html

FORT WORTH, Texas and SAN DIEGO — July 15, 2004 — QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM), pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, and American Airlines, the world’s largest carrier, today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communications using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. Through the use of an in-cabin third-generation (3G) “picocell” network, passengers on the test flight were able to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.

The proof-of-concept demonstration flight originated out of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. During the approximate two-hour flight, passengers were able to place and receive phone calls and text messages on their mobile phones. Passengers included members of the media and government representatives.

A small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station on the plane, that uses standard cellular communications, was connected to the worldwide terrestrial phone network by an air-to-ground Globalstar satellite link.

The information gathered during this proof-of-concept demonstration flight will be used to further research into the quality, convenience and safety of communications with personal CDMA mobile phones carried by passengers on a commercial aircraft.

“We are pleased to have worked so closely with American Airlines to complete this proof-of-concept demonstration for the in-flight use of 3G CDMA technology,” said Dr. Irwin Jacobs, chairman and CEO of QUALCOMM. “Together, we have anticipated the future needs of wireless subscribers in the airline industry and are aggressively driving the delivery of innovative solutions to meet those needs.”

“Today, American Airlines and QUALCOMM showcased their strength as technology pioneers and market leaders in their respective industries,” said Dan Garton, executive vice president of marketing for American Airlines. “American is committed to researching and providing innovative, cutting-edge products and services that enhance our passengers’ traveling experience and give our customers what they value. Even though commercial availability of cell phone use in flight is approximately 24 months away, American Airlines knows that our customers want to stay connected and this proof-of-concept event is an important step in bringing in-cabin wireless services to our customers.”

As a leader in technology, American Airlines continues to explore communication solutions that include broadband wireless connectivity and cellular communication.

QUALCOMM is well positioned to lead the research and development of mobile phone solutions while continuing to work closely with the aviation industry to ensure the use of safe and reliable communications within aircraft cabins. The Company brings a deep understanding of and extensive experience in developing CDMA technology to research and participation with aviation standards groups, such as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), and regulatory bodies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

American Airlines is the world’s largest carrier. American, American Eagle and the AmericanConnection regional carriers serve more than 250 cities in over 40 countries with almost 4,200 daily flights. The combined network fleet numbers more than 1,000 aircraft. American’s award-winning Web site, AA.com, provides users with easy access to check and book fares, plus personalized news, information and travel offers. American Airlines is a founding member of the one world Alliance.

QUALCOMM Incorporated (www.qualcomm.com) is a leader in developing and delivering innovative digital wireless communications products and services based on the Company’s CDMA digital technology. Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., QUALCOMM is included in the S&P 500 Index and is a 2003 FORTUNE 500® company traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market® under the ticker symbol QCOM.

Except for the historical information contained herein, this news release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, including the Company’s ability to successfully design, develop the product discussed, the extent and speed to which such products are accepted in the market, change in economic conditions of the various markets the Company serves, as well as the other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s SEC reports, including the report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 2003, and most recent Form 10-Q.

QUALCOMM is a registered trademark of QUALCOMM Incorporated. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

QUALCOMM Contacts:
Patty Goodwin, Corporate Public Relations
Phone: 1-858- 651-4127
E-mail: publicrelations@qualcomm.com

Other Contacts:
Billy Sanez, Corporate Public Relations
American Airlines
Phone: 1-817-967-1577
E-mail: corp.comm@aa.com

Rohirrim

03-02-2007, 10:14 AM

And just how did they do this? By cell phone calls?

Sorry -- it didn't happen -- none of the alleged cell phone calls happened for a simple reason. The technology to make cell phone calls from high altitude did not exist in 2001.

Studies have shown that the chances of making a cell phone call above 20,000 feet are basically zero.

Only in July 2004 did American Airlines and I think it was Qualcom announce that new pico technology had arrived. At which point a testing program started.

This is one of the definitve cases against the official 911 narrative -- and exposes it to be a fagrant lie.

A few calls possibly were made by airfone. However, even here, the official story is exposed. Since American Airlines did not have airfones in its 757s -- so, we know that no calls could have come from Flight 77 -- of which there were supposedly two.

So these two calls from Flight 77 had to have been faked. Simple as that.

Do some checking and you'll see I'm correct.

God, you're a flake. At what altitude were the hijacked planes flying when the calls were made? The majority of the calls were taking place shortly before, and right up until the moment, the planes impacted. That means that all calls were made when the planes were flying well below 5 thousand feet. Your position is ridiculous. Why do you persist?

I notice you continuously dodge my single question: How many human beings would it require to successfully carry out this conspiracy?

alkemical

03-02-2007, 10:32 AM

So can someone give me an answer on why the BBC doesn't have it's own 9/11 footage?

Rohirrim

03-02-2007, 10:47 AM

So can someone give me an answer on why the BBC doesn't have it's own 9/11 footage?

Why would they? What do you think? 911 was a staged event and everyone was invited to have their cameras set up in advance? It is pure luck that we have the early footage that we do have; That one French crew doing the documentary about the firemen. The BBC is public television. What's the best solution for them; Muster a crew and fly them into NYC, or buy coverage from American networks?

alkemical

03-02-2007, 11:34 AM

Why would they? What do you think? 911 was a staged event and everyone was invited to have their cameras set up in advance? It is pure luck that we have the early footage that we do have; That one French crew doing the documentary about the firemen. The BBC is public television. What's the best solution for them; Muster a crew and fly them into NYC, or buy coverage from American networks?

Oh i dunno, maybe their sort of TOS that states they do save it.... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top)

I find it funny that google is deleting the video as well (google is very pro-gov't) - i just find it odd....

W*GS

03-02-2007, 02:00 PM

And just how did they do this? By cell phone calls?

Flight crew members typically don't use cell phones.

A few calls possibly were made by airfone. However, even here, the official story is exposed. Since American Airlines did not have airfones in its 757s -- so, we know that no calls could have come from Flight 77 -- of which there were supposedly two.

So these two calls from Flight 77 had to have been faked. Simple as that.

Where's your proof that AA 757s didn't have airfones for crew use?

The Lone Bolt

03-02-2007, 06:10 PM

Where's your proof that AA 757s didn't have airfones for crew use?

According to this site:http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

The 9/11 Commission tells us Flight 93 climbed to 40,700 feet (we believe from 36,000) feet between 9:34 and 9:38 (6:34 to 6:38 in Deena Burnett’s time), which appears to place the first call at 36,000 feet, the second at 40,700. The criticism, then, is that placing a call from 40,700 feet would have been impossible, however Jere Longman’s Among the Heroes reports that the second call was made on an Airfone.

Whatever the truth of that, we know that all the 9/11 planes did have their own built-in Airfone system, which would have no problems working at altitude (that's what they're for). If mobiles wouldn't work, then doesn't it make sense that passengers would use the phone by their seat instead? Yes, it does:

The site also quotes people who experienced cell phones being used as high up as 35,000 feet, and industry experts who believe that they can function at altitudes of 30,000 feet or more, depending on the phone model and location of the airplane at the time.

mhgaffney

03-02-2007, 07:22 PM

God, you're a flake. At what altitude were the hijacked planes flying when the calls were made? The majority of the calls were taking place shortly before, and right up until the moment, the planes impacted. That means that all calls were made when the planes were flying well below 5 thousand feet. Your position is ridiculous. Why do you persist?

I notice you continuously dodge my single question: How many human beings would it require to successfully carry out this conspiracy?

I never dodged the question. In my article at the top of this thread I touched on it. I consulted a former high official in the German defense ministry, Andreas von Buelow, who thinks that 50 men or less could have done it. Of course, many other innocent people participated, without knowledge. This is how it works in a need-to-know system. Only the few at the top have the complete picture. The many drills and military exercises before and on 911 provided the needed cover for the operation.

Yeah, we know. You read Lawence Wright's book THE LOOMING TOWER and on this basis you think you are a blooming 911 expert.

In fact, you swallowed the BIG lie -- that our primary problem is furreners -- 19 scalliwag hijadists who did this (911) to us. Aparently you didn;t notice that Wright presented no evidence in his book that bin Laden (or for that matter Al Qeada) was responsible for 911. I know. I read the book.

I suggest you check out the flight data from Flight 77 -- some of which has been released by the National Transporation and Safety Board (NTSB). You can view the flight path data (or download it) at this address:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

The flight data shows that Flight 77 remained above 20,000 feet for nearly the entire flight.

But even if this were not true, the chances of completing a cell phone call even at 5,000 feet were minimal.

The alleged 911 cell phone calls are what we Americans got in payment for handling over $40 billion of our tax dollars to the US intelligence community. (And this doesn't even count the unknown billions that go for classified projects, i.e., the black budget, nor does it include the billions in illegal drug $$ laundered annually by and to the CIA...)

Deal with your own biases and racism, Lord of the Rohirrim. This is what makes you vulnerable to the BIG lie.

Our worst enemies are right here at home -- as Paul Craig Roberts points out so eloquently in his latest: AMERICANS HAVE LOST THEIR COUNTRY.

mhgaffney

03-02-2007, 07:38 PM

According to this site:http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

The site also quotes people who experienced cell phones being used as high up as 35,000 feet, and industry experts who believe that they can function at altitudes of 30,000 feet or more, depending on the phone model and location of the airplane at the time.

Well, if that's true then why did Qualcomm and American Airlines announce the new cell phone technology in July 2004? No the fact is that the technology did not exist in 2001.

It's curious that during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui the US government back pedaled on the cell phone issue. I think there were something like 9 calls supposedly made from flight 93. originally most of these were allegedly made by cell phone -- not airphone.

But during the trial the US gov't claimed that only 2 of the calls were via cell phone calls. They were -- in other words -- keenly aware of the fact that in a court of law they might actually be challenged on the science. So they played it safe.

David Ray Griffin will present the evidence regarding American Airlines and its 757s -- that had no airphones -- in a forthcoming book -- not yet released. I suggest you keep an eye peeled for it. He is a very careful scholar.

The Lone Bolt

03-02-2007, 08:06 PM

Well, if that's true then why did Qualcomm and American Airlines announce the new cell phone technology in July 2004? No the fact is that the technology did not exist in 2001.

Well The article I cite suggests that while cell phones can function at those altitudes they are not as reliable as they are on the ground, therefore Qualcomm may have introduced new technology to make calls from 30,000 feet more reliable rather than possible.

Rohirrim

03-03-2007, 12:03 AM

I never dodged the question. In my article at the top of this thread I touched on it. I consulted a former high official in the German defense ministry, Andreas von Buelow, who thinks that 50 men or less could have done it. Of course, many other innocent people participated, without knowledge. This is how it works in a need-to-know system. Only the few at the top have the complete picture. The many drills and military exercises before and on 911 provided the needed cover for the operation.

Yeah, we know. You read Lawence Wright's book THE LOOMING TOWER and on this basis you think you are a blooming 911 expert.

In fact, you swallowed the BIG lie -- that our primary problem is furreners -- 19 scalliwag hijadists who did this (911) to us. Aparently you didn;t notice that Wright presented no evidence in his book that bin Laden (or for that matter Al Qeada) was responsible for 911. I know. I read the book.

I don't know if this works for you or not, but you do know that Bin Laden put out a video in which he claims responsibility for, and celebrates, 911, don't you?

I suggest you check out the flight data from Flight 77 -- some of which has been released by the National Transporation and Safety Board (NTSB). You can view the flight path data (or download it) at this address:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

The flight data shows that Flight 77 remained above 20,000 feet for nearly the entire flight.

But even if this were not true, the chances of completing a cell phone call even at 5,000 feet were minimal.

The alleged 911 cell phone calls are what we Americans got in payment for handling over $40 billion of our tax dollars to the US intelligence community. (And this doesn't even count the unknown billions that go for classified projects, i.e., the black budget, nor does it include the billions in illegal drug $$ laundered annually by and to the CIA...)

Deal with your own biases and racism, Lord of the Rohirrim. This is what makes you vulnerable to the BIG lie.

Our worst enemies are right here at home -- as Paul Craig Roberts points out so eloquently in his latest: AMERICANS HAVE LOST THEIR COUNTRY.

My biases and racism? Where'd that come from? Geez, you're not even a fun crackpot anymore.

mhgaffney

03-03-2007, 04:47 AM

I don't know if this works for you or not, but you do know that Bin Laden put out a video in which he claims responsibility for, and celebrates, 911, don't you?

.

Of course I saw that video. The character in the film doesn't even look like bin Laden. Also, according to the CIA profile bin Laden is left handed -- yet the guy in the film writes and eats with his right hand.

The intel spooks who faked the film didn't do their homework.

In late September 2001 Bin Laden issued a written statement denying that he had anything to do with 911.

The same type of crudities appear in some of the cell phone calls. Take for example the transcript of the call from Mark Bingham to his mom. When she answers the phone he says “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” When was the last time you called your mom and said hello in this way?

I'm not kidding. This is the vernatim transcript -- and it continues in the same vein. The text just is not believeable.

As I've pointed out on this board, the voice morphiong technology was around before 911 -- developed at Los Alamos labs. All they need is a 10 minute recording of your voice and they can create a duplicate that sounds just like you.

No problema -- they tap your phone, record one long phone call - and bingo they can duplicate your voice any time they want.

This is what our $40 billion a year in tax dollars to fund the intelligence community goes for. I don't know about you, but I want my country back.

mhgaffney

03-03-2007, 05:02 AM

W*GS

03-03-2007, 09:27 AM

Gaffney, all your quibbling over cell phones from planes is off the mark (as most of your comments are).

The reports of hijackers being on the planes, and who they were, come from flight attendants - who didn't need cell phones to contact their respective airlines and give us proof that yes, hijackers were on the planes and yes, hijacked said planes.

Got it?

Stuck In Texas

03-03-2007, 10:51 AM

Bronco Bob

03-03-2007, 02:43 PM

Of course I saw that video. The character in the film doesn't even look like bin Laden. Also, according to the CIA profile bin Laden is left handed -- yet the guy in the film writes and eats with his right hand.

I'm going to call this bull****. NO Arab eats with their left hand, because
Arabs use their left hand to wipe their asses. Obviously you are completely
ignorant about Arabs. In fact left handedness amongst Arabs is almost
completely non-existent. What would be a fake is showing an Arab
eating with his LEFT hand. And if a CIA agent is this stupid to think
there would be a left handed Arab, no wonder we are in the mess we
are in in Iraq.

Basically what it boils down to is you are too racist to accept the fact
that Arabs would be smart enough to figure out a plan to hijack airplanes
and fly them into buildings. Despite the fact that Arabs had been
hijacking planes years before 9/11. Despite the fact that Arabs had
tried to destroy the WTC back in 1993. Yet somehow Arabs are
incapable of hijacking airplanes and using them to destroy this very
same WTC in 2001. I guess to you Arabs are somewhere between
a rock and a grasshopper in brain power and planning abilities.

Bronco Bob

03-03-2007, 02:50 PM

AK Dewdry is a mathematician, a professor and has been published in Scientific American.

Check out his article about the implausibility of making cell phone calls in commercial airliners.

Below 2,000 feet getting through is unlikely. Between 2,000-8,000 feet it's extremely unlikley -- Over 8,000 feet you might as well forget it.

This was with 2001 technology.

http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

So a mathematician is an expert on electronics and radio wave propagation?

Whose expert opinion are you going to give us next? An Ichthyologist opining on the explosive properties of red mercury?

Florida_Bronco

03-03-2007, 04:55 PM

Of course he ate with his right hand. In the Arabic world, the left hand is considered "unclean". They always eat with the right hand.

ROFL! LOL :spit:

Better do some better research, Gaffney.

alkemical

03-03-2007, 05:32 PM

So i guess no one has any answers on why not only the BBC video (which has time stamps on it to show you it announced WTC7 was coming down early), but also why some other news channels broadcast early that WTC7 was coming down.

Or why, say on 9/11 - the footage would be "lost" or "destroyed" - which is in opposition to the BBC's Terms of "Service" on data they save.

It's cool, it's just one of those things that "doesn't" fit that is ignored, because - some nut aids in the disinfo campaign....

W*GS

03-03-2007, 08:41 PM

Josh, ever hear of journalistic error?

Do a Google on "Truman Dewey newspaper"...

mhgaffney

03-03-2007, 08:46 PM

I'm going to call this bull****. NO Arab eats with their left hand, because
Arabs use their left hand to wipe their asses. Obviously you are completely
ignorant about Arabs. In fact left handedness amongst Arabs is almost
completely non-existent. What would be a fake is showing an Arab
eating with his LEFT hand. And if a CIA agent is this stupid to think
there would be a left handed Arab, no wonder we are in the mess we
are in in Iraq.

Basically what it boils down to is you are too racist to accept the fact
that Arabs would be smart enough to figure out a plan to hijack airplanes
and fly them into buildings. Despite the fact that Arabs had been
hijacking planes years before 9/11. Despite the fact that Arabs had
tried to destroy the WTC back in 1993. Yet somehow Arabs are
incapable of hijacking airplanes and using them to destroy this very
same WTC in 2001. I guess to you Arabs are somewhere between
a rock and a grasshopper in brain power and planning abilities.

Since when is it common knowledge that Arabs wipe their ass only with their left hand?? That sounds like malarkey to me -- an old wives' tale.

Just saying it's true don't make it so. Can you present some evidence?

And even if it's true -- it doesn't overturn what I said. If you put that video side by side photos of bin Laden the differences of facial features alone is enough to invalidate the video. It's an obvious fake.

And what about the fact that a left handed bin Laden writes with his right hand? I don't believe the nonsense that Arabs are not left handed. What a bunch of tripe. More foolishness.

Arabs as a people are plenty smart. But US intelligence spooks don't make a habit of recruiting smart people to serve as future patsies. They always screen out intelligent individuals and invariably select dysfunctional dimwits who can be manipulated easily and made to serve their dark purposes.

Lee Harvey Oswald was one such patsy -- who as we know traveled to the USSR, married and lived there for a time as a self avowed communist -- then decided to return to the USA and breezed through customs without a hitch despite the factr he had renounced the US. No one even questioned this. Incredible.

Timothy McVeigh was another case.

If you look at the background pf the alleged hijackers you find similar facts that do not fit the profile of a devout Muslim jihadist. Attta for example was a playboy who loved Las Vegas, womanizing, the night life, cocaine, alchohol etc. This is not the profile of a jihadist.

According to the 911 Comission report Hani Hanjour was the most experienced pilot among the hijackers - yet we know for a fact that Hani couldn't even rent a Cessna one month before 911. He flunked a simple flight test -- in fact the management told him not to bother coming back. And remember they would never have flunked him if his skills were even minimally aceptable - since they make $$$ by renting planes -- hence want the business.

Then we have the case of ABLE DANGER, the reported destruction of 2.5 terabytes of documents by the US intelligence community. This was hard evidence documenting the recruitment and training or Atta and probably the other patsies. And it was all destroyed -- as reported by a US Congressman.

Yet, the 911 commisison obfuscates the point -- and lied to conceal the existence of this destroyed evidence.

You guys probably never heard of ABLE DANGER. I will post info on it in the near future. Meanwhile, sleep on. Ignorance is bliss.

Florida_Bronco

03-03-2007, 08:56 PM

Since when is it common knowledge that Arabs wipe their ass only with their left hand?? That sounds like malarkey to me -- an old wives' tale.

Just saying it's true don't make it so. Can you present some evidence?

And even if it's true -- it doesn't overturn what I said. If you put that video side by side photos of bin Laden the differences of facial features alone is enough to invalidate the video. It's an obvious fake.

And what about the fact that a left handed bin Laden writes with his right hand? I don't believe the nonsense that Arabs are not left handed. What a bunch of tripe. More foolishness.

Arabs as a people are plenty smart. But US intelligence spooks don't make a habit of recruiting smart people to serve as future patsies. They always screen out intelligent individuals and invariably select dysfunctional dimwits who can be manipulated easily and made to serve their dark purposes.

Lee Harvey Oswald was one such patsy -- who as we know traveled to the USSR, married and lived there for a time as a self avowed communist -- then decided to return to the USA and breezed through customs without a hitch despite the factr he had renounced the US. No one even questioned this. Incredible.

Timothy McVeigh was another case.

If you look at the background pf the alleged hijackers you find similar facts that do not fit the profile of a devout Muslim jihadist. Attta for example was a playboy who loved Las Vegas, womanizing, the night life, cocaine, alchohol etc. This is not the profile of a jihadist.

According to the 911 Comission report Hani Hanjour was the most experienced pilot among the hijackers - yet we know for a fact that Hani couldn't even rent a Cessna one month before 911. He flunked a simple flight test -- in fact the management told him not to bother coming back. And remember they would never have flunked him if his skills were even minimally aceptable - since they make $$$ by renting planes -- hence want the business.

Then we have the case of ABLE DANGER, the reported destruction of 2.5 terabytes of documents by the US intelligence community. This was hard evidence documenting the recruitment and training or Atta and probably the other patsies. And it was all destroyed -- as reported by a US Congressman.

Yet, the 911 commisison obfuscates the point -- and lied to conceal the existence of this destroyed evidence.

You guys probably never heard of ABLE DANGER. I will post info on it in the near future. Meanwhile, sleep on. Ignorance is bliss.

You know, I've met some dumbass conspiracy theorists in my life, and the only one who ever topped you in dumbassery was this old guy who used to sit in the Village Inn restaurant in Omaha and tell people that the Soviets had set up a terrorist camp on the bank of Missouri river.

Although, something tells me that you will probably surpass that guy at some point in your life.

Bronco Bob

03-03-2007, 09:29 PM

Since when is it common knowledge that Arabs wipe their ass only with their left hand?? That sounds like malarkey to me -- an old wives' tale.

Just saying it's true don't make it so. Can you present some evidence?

If you are too stupid and uniformed as to know that Arabs wipe their
asses with their left hand then it seriously calls into question the rest of
your so-called research.

I did a quick Google on the subject, something anyone can do and even
the the US Air Force is smart enough to realize that.

>>Use of The Left Hand

In Iraq, and throughout the Muslim world, Arabs use the right hand exclusively for all public functions. These include shaking hands, eating, drinking, and passing something to another person. Using the left hand is an insult and if done in the presence of others, could bring shame to an Iraqi.

In the Arab world, the left hand serves a specific purpose – Hygiene after toileting. Arabs will cleanse their hands immediately after. In fact, many Arabs consider the Western practice of using paper to be offensive, and question how paper can make one sufficiently clean. Some historians believe this may be the reason hand shaking is done with the right hand. <<

http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/library/deploymentstress/otherlinks/iraq/culture/gesturesmannerismstaboos.asp

Try doing a little research instead of constantly making a fool out of yourself.

alkemical

03-04-2007, 02:56 AM

Josh, ever hear of journalistic error?

Do a Google on "Truman Dewey newspaper"...

Sorry wags - direct contradicton from your answer on journalistic error - to the BBC TOS on historical evidence, to the BBC press release on "not having the footage". Then google is deleting the videos.

That's one of them there things you wanted to know about how things don't add up. 'Tis one of them.

SPfloppy

03-04-2007, 06:27 AM

I have read some stupid shlock on this forum but this one takes the cake. I don't blame Spider and Dirty for hijacking the thread

W*GS

03-04-2007, 09:57 AM

So, the BBC and Google are in on it too, eh?

Kinda puts Gaffney's assertion that only 50 people would be necessary to pull off 9/11 as an inside job in the crapper, doesn't it?

alkemical

03-04-2007, 03:34 PM

So, the BBC and Google are in on it too, eh?

Kinda puts Gaffney's assertion that only 50 people would be necessary to pull off 9/11 as an inside job in the crapper, doesn't it?

They could have been "useful idiots" wags.

Can you explain to me why google limits search results for people in china wags?

W*GS

03-04-2007, 04:15 PM

alkemical

03-04-2007, 11:19 PM

I get it - because the Chinese government pressures Google to limit searches from the Chinese, it just figures that Google would put 9/11 information and videos down the memory hole because the Bush administration told it to.

It's not out of the question, is it....?

What i do find funny though, is that the BBC signed an agreement to show clips/shows on youtube i believe. Thus they can request that the 9/11 clips that have been requested to be deleted, yet for a company not having the "content" to request it to be deleted - seems even more silly IMO.

Rohirrim

03-05-2007, 09:15 AM

Of course I saw that video. The character in the film doesn't even look like bin Laden. Also, according to the CIA profile bin Laden is left handed -- yet the guy in the film writes and eats with his right hand.

The intel spooks who faked the film didn't do their homework.

In late September 2001 Bin Laden issued a written statement denying that he had anything to do with 911.

The same type of crudities appear in some of the cell phone calls. Take for example the transcript of the call from Mark Bingham to his mom. When she answers the phone he says “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” When was the last time you called your mom and said hello in this way?

I'm not kidding. This is the vernatim transcript -- and it continues in the same vein. The text just is not believeable.

As I've pointed out on this board, the voice morphiong technology was around before 911 -- developed at Los Alamos labs. All they need is a 10 minute recording of your voice and they can create a duplicate that sounds just like you.

No problema -- they tap your phone, record one long phone call - and bingo they can duplicate your voice any time they want.

This is what our $40 billion a year in tax dollars to fund the intelligence community goes for. I don't know about you, but I want my country back.

Hilarious! I think you've got your tin foil hat on too tight.

The Lone Bolt

03-05-2007, 02:22 PM

The same type of crudities appear in some of the cell phone calls. Take for example the transcript of the call from Mark Bingham to his mom. When she answers the phone he says “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” When was the last time you called your mom and said hello in this way?

I'm not kidding. This is the vernatim transcript -- and it continues in the same vein. The text just is not believeable.

Apparently it was to Mark Bingham's own mother:

The story...

Mark Bingham would not have called his mother from Flight 93 and introduced himself with “Mom, this is Mark Bingham”. As Professor Fetzer says:

...Mark Bingham, a passenger on Flight 93, is supposed to have called his mother and said, 'Hi, Mom, this is Mark Bingham!' His mother confirmed it was his voice, but does anyone seriously believe that Mark Bingham would have used his last name in identifying himself to his mother?
Professor James H. Fetzer
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4592

David Ray Griffin concurs:

In addition to the question of the feasibility of cellphone calls from UA 93, the content of some of the messages makes their authenticity seem highly improbable. In the most notorious case, a man claiming to be Mark Bingham called Bingham’s mother. When she answered, he said: “Mom? This is Mark Bingham.” Have any of us, even in the most stressful situation, identified ourselves to our own mothers by giving our last name?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006091418303369

Our take...

Would Bingham have “used his last name in identifying himself to his mother” (Alice Hoglan)? There’s no need to speculate, because she’s already answered the question: yes. He did do this sometimes. Here’s what she said in “The Flight That Fought Back”, a Discovery Channel documentary:

Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".

Download the clip here (XviD codec required).

No mystery here according to Binghams’s mother, then, who’s surely better placed to answer this question than anyone else. And now, if these phone calls were faked, it suggests the faker had to know Mark Bingham sometimes spoke that way: how likely is that?

http://911myths.com/html/mom__this_is_mark_bingham.html

But I'm sure that you can make something up to explain this away . . . "the government got to her" I assume?;)

mhgaffney

03-06-2007, 01:20 AM

You know, I've met some dumbass conspiracy theorists in my life, and the only one who ever topped you in dumbassery was this old guy who used to sit in the Village Inn restaurant in Omaha and tell people that the Soviets had set up a terrorist camp on the bank of Missouri river.
.

You are probably only one of six guys in the western hemisphere who still thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The other five guys also use this board.

Florida_Bronco

03-06-2007, 01:38 AM

You are probably only one of six guys in the western hemisphere who still thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The other five guys also use this board.

Now you're attacking political views of mine that I have never posted on this forum? :spit:

Grasping for straws are we? :rofl:

broncocalijohn

03-06-2007, 05:22 AM

I just want to know Mcgoofy where can I pick up these mini nukes for some kicks and giggles?

Rohirrim

03-06-2007, 09:43 AM

You are probably only one of six guys in the western hemisphere who still thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The other five guys also use this board.

I think we ALL know who actually pulled the trigger...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/xfiles/images/340/csm01.jpg

Bronco Bob

03-06-2007, 11:06 AM

You are probably only one of six guys in the western hemisphere who still thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The other five guys also use this board.

Yes, and the moon landings were faked, there are extraterrestrial bodies stored
in Area 51, there is a giant face on Mars, Flight 19 disappeared in the Bermuda
Triangle, the earth is flat, Bigfoot roams the Great Northwest, and Santa Claus
brings all the good children presents for Christmas. Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

alkemical

03-06-2007, 11:58 AM

Yes, and the moon landings were faked, there are extraterrestrial bodies stored
in Area 51, there is a giant face on Mars, Flight 19 disappeared in the Bermuda
Triangle, the earth is flat, Bigfoot roams the Great Northwest, and Santa Claus
brings all the good children presents for Christmas. Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Now hold on here:

There are enough anomolies in the bermuda triangle to raise question on WTF really happens there.

Bigfoot, i'm not sure about. There's enough evidence to go either way. I wonder why we can't find a bigfoot body, but i can't believe all evidence of bigfoot is "manufactured".

Now, i can't say about alien bodies - cuz well - i'm not sure about the whole alien thing what-so-ever. I've been to area 51 (the gates anyway) - and well - it's a different experience..... (the white suburbans/jeeps do appear, etc).

So i'm not going to buy into your 'poisen the well' tactic.

alkemical

03-06-2007, 12:02 PM

Also all you guys ride MHG's ass - and i'm not saying on certain counts it isn't deserved. But the BBC pre-advanced story (Time stamps prove it) about WTC7 falling down. Could this be just error?

I could cite error if the actions of the BBC now didn't seem so... disingenious about "not having the video", and then requesting google/youtube pull the video.

Just seems not so kosher IMO.

mhgaffney

03-07-2007, 06:21 AM

Congressman Curt Weldon alleges 911 cover up

THIS IS A MUST SEE 4 minute VIDEO

Check it out. It's about Able Danger -- which the 911 Commission obfuscated in its report.

Why did the pentagon destroy 2.5 terabytes of documents about Mohammed Atta and the other alleged hijackers?

Rep Weldon has it partly right. He is correct to expose the pentagon's smear campaign of an honest officer who tried to do his job. What he's missing is the deeper reason why. Weldon's still laboring under the belief that higher ups at the pentagon destroyed evidence to hide their incompetence. What if they destroyed evidence to conceal involvement by the Joint Chiefs in staging 911?

I and others contend Able Danger was the file -- the background documents of the intelligence community's school for patsies -- the helf dozen dysfunctional individuals, Atta, Hani Hanjour, and others who were recruited years before 911 to serve a useful function in a future false flag attack...

Of course, they didn't know they were merely tools -- to be manipulated and set up to take the fall

http://www.belowgroundsurface.org/

mhgaffney

03-07-2007, 06:49 AM

Want to solve 911? Find the man at the pentagon who ordered the destruction of 2.5 terabytes of evidence

Press Conference of Rep Curt Weldon: 9/11 Commission and Operation "Able Danger"

9/11 Commission suppressed the evidence

Global Research, September 17, 2005
US House of Representatives

WELDON: Good afternoon.

I'm Curt Weldon, and I'm here to provide a response to the 9/11 Commission in their statements this week about Able Danger and the outrageous statement made by Slade Gorton that it just didn't exist.

And it is absolutely outrageous, especially from a commission that I supported, that spent $15 million with 80 staffers to give the American people and the Congress a full and complete understanding of what happened prior to 9/11.

They have maintained there is no information about Able Danger or the data mining work. They couldn't find anything.

So I brought some charts for you. These are all original charts. None of these charts were made after 9/11. These charts were all made before 9/11.

Now, granted, they're not all about Able Danger. They're not all about Mohammed Atta, nor Al Qaida.

They're about drug trafficking. They're about terrorist cells. They're about crime in Russia. They're about crime in Serbia. They're about the World Trade Center bombing in '93.

So this information is a compilation of work being done by the Army's LIWA Center, as well as some of the work being done by Able Danger on Mohammed Atta and Al Qaida.

It's absolutely unbelievable to me that a commission would come out and say that this program just didn't exist.

The Pentagon has acknowledged now, publicly, that they have identified five defense employees who either vividly remember identifying Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11 or seeing his name linked with a Brooklyn cell prior to 9/11.

We have Scott Philpott (ph), a Navy commanding officer, who's commanded one of our naval warships, an Annapolis graduate, who has come out publicly and risked his entire career to say what he'll say next Wednesday under oath: that he specifically remembers identifying Mohammed Atta in January and February of 2000, specifically; that he would stake his career on it. And that he was the leader of Able Danger.

We have Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer -- who's outside in the hallway, who I couldn't bring into the House Gallery because of House rules, but who's available for you to talk to, outside -- who will testify under oath on Wednesday before the Senate that as a DIA liaison to Special Forces Command for Able Danger, he attempted to present information to the FBI on three occasions in September of 2000 about the Brooklyn cell and Mohammed Atta.

WELDON: We've identified the woman at the FBI who set those three meetings up. She will testify under oath at the Senate hearing next Wednesday that she actually organized three meetings. She knew the topics of the meetings because there had been other discussions that occurred prior to the attempt to set up those three meetings.

And in each of the cases of those three meetings, they were abruptly canceled by Pentagon lawyers hours before those meetings were to take place.

I asked the Pentagon had they talked to that FBI person. They said, "No."

And, by the way, the Pentagon did not conduct an investigation. There were no subpoenas. There were no witnesses under oath. It was an inquiry. There's a big difference between an inquiry and an investigation, as my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee brought up when we had a briefing last week with six or seven members of the committee.

What will be the added dimension to the Senate investigation and hearing that will take place on Wednesday is not just the five people that the Pentagon has confirmed, identified and knew about Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11, but we'll bring out the person who actually did much of the data analysis. Actually, his name, I think, has already been brought out in the public. That's J.D. (ph).

But the person who's not been brought out in the public yet, this individual who will testify that he was actually the one who destroyed 2.5 terabytes of data about Able Danger that included the Brooklyn cell and Mohammed Atta.

Now, I'm not a computer expert. I don't know what 2.5 terabytes of data are. But, John, I read your story. You called the Library of Congress.

And the Library of Congress, if we can believe this great reporter down here who I trust fully, told him that it's basically one-fourth of all the printed material that the Library of Congress has in their collection. Now, that's a lot of material.

So what we will have is a person who will testify under oath, on the record, that in the summer of 2000, he was ordered -- or he would lose his job and/or go to jail if he didn't comply -- he was ordered to destroy 2.5 terabytes of data specific to Able Danger, the Brooklyn cell and Mohammed Atta.

He will name the person who ordered him to destroy that material. And, furthermore, he will note that a commanding general from SOCOM -- Russ, what was his name?

STAFF: (OFF-MIKE)

WELDON: General Lambert was incensed when he found out that material that he was a customer for was destroyed without his approval.

So here we have a case where General Lambert at SOCOM was not told that an employee had been ordered to destroy all the material that he was a customer for. And that material related to Able Danger, it related to Al Qaida and it related to Mohammed Atta.

In addition, I urge you to go back and review, on the Heritage Commission Web site, a speech that I gave on May 23rd of 2002. That speech, which is one hour and 20 minutes long with questions, is about stovepipes. In fact, you'll see a chart there that I referred that I can't find.

WELDON: That chart refers to Able Danger.

It refers to the data mining. I'm not definitely sure that specific chart referred to Able Danger. But you can see the chart.

But what is in that speech are the exact details I've been talking about for the last two months. What was also in that speech, which I had forgotten and which I'm now public acknowledging, is that there was a three-hour briefing provided to General Shelton in January of 2001.

And furthermore, what Tony Shaffer will tell you in the hallway outside is that he personally briefed General Shelton on Able Danger, and in a briefing in the first quarter of 2001, and he will name the people that were in the room. He was giving a briefing on another topic, remember the name of that?

STAFF: (OFF-MIKE)

WELDON: Door Hop Galley (ph) which is another classified program.

In the course of that briefing -- and there was a Navy admiral in the room, Admiral Wilson, in charge of DIA, and Richard Schiefren (ph) was in the room. Richard Schiefren (ph) was an attorney at DOD.

In the course of that discussion, Richard Schiefren (ph) discussed Able Danger. I did not know that up until I watched the Heritage Foundation speech that I gave in 2002, where I document the meeting, in the briefing that was done for General Shelton. When I asked Tony Shaffer this morning about that, he said, "Yes, I briefed General Shelton. I was also involved in a Door Hop Galley (ph) brief, where Steve Cambone" -- he was not in the position he's in today. He was a special adviser to Don Rumsfeld.

My concern is if there were 2.5 terabytes of data that were destroyed in the summer of 2000, there had to be material in 2001 if you briefed General Shelton. Where is that material? Where is that briefing?

In addition, there is a question about the possibility of additional data that was in Tony Shaffer's office that was removed, not all of which was turned over to the 9/11 Commission.

As most of you know by now, when Tony Shaffer returned in January of 2004, Tony Shaffer -- or 2003, get my dates right, 2003 -- 2004 -- in January 2004 -- right, because it was in October of 2003 when he first briefed the 9/11 Commission's staff over in Baghram.

In January of 2004 when he was twice rebuffed by the 9/11 Commission for a personal follow-up meeting, he was assigned back to Afghanistan to lead a special classified program.

When he returned in March, he was called in and verbally his security clearance was temporarily lifted. By lifting his security clearance, he could not go back into DIA quarters where all the materials he had about Able Danger were, in fact, stored. He could not get access to memos that, in fact, he will tell you discussed the briefings he provided both to the previous administration and this administration.

For the 9/11 Commission to say that this does not exist is just absolutely outrageous.

It is a total denial of the facts. It's a denial of information the Pentagon has affirmed. And to say that we just don't have data to back it up is not enough.

WELDON: They had 80 staffers and spent $15 million and came up with nothing and didn't mention Able Danger once in their report, and I'm convinced never briefed the 9/11 commissioners.

In one month we provided all these charts, we reconstructed the original Mohammed Atta chart, which I've showed many times, with the linkages -- from the original data, I might add, that people had available.

All of this will come out on Wednesday, but I could not sit by and have Slade Gorton make the statement he made. He has not interviewed personally any of the Able Danger staff. He talked about a disagreement between a Defense Department female employee and Tony Shaffer. I've talked to both of them and he's totally wrong. He didn't speak to either one of them.

Tim Roemer, a good friend of mine, came out and said, "Well, they couldn't have had a photograph of Mohammed Atta because he wasn't in the country before a certain date." That obviously came from staff of the commission.

Well, as we now know, the photograph did not come from an immigration picture or a driver's license. An individual who will testify on Wednesday will say they bought that photograph from a woman in California who was researching the activity at selected mosques. That's where the photograph came from.

It's very troubling to me that people are going out of their way not to want to know the details of what happened here, to distort and spin.

In the time that I have known about this, I have not tried to spin this any way. I have not made any comments as to the intent or the effort by any of the 9/11 commissioners. In fact, I have defended them. I don't think any of them were ever briefed.

I can tell you, to not have this covered by the 9/11 Commission, to not have it mentioned, for them to say, as they did initially, that it was historically insignificant -- 2.5 terabytes of data about Mohammed Atta and Al Qaida, a three-hour briefing for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is historically insignificant? A briefing that included Richard Schiefren (ph), with Steve Cambone, in March of 2001, five months before 9/11, is historically insignificant? I don't think so.

And so the more information I get, the more questions arise. The American people deserve to have answers.

One of the pilots of one of the airplanes on 9/11, Michael Horrocks, was a neighbor of mine. He went to the same university I went to. He was a dedicated Navy pilot. He was killed. He left behind a wife and two kids.

The chief of all rescue for New York City Fire Department, Ray Downey, was one of my best friends. Ray had taken me through the Trade Center in 1993 when I went up. Ray was the one who convinced me to introduce the language to create the Gilmore commission. The Gilmore commission made three reports before 9/11. Ray Downey was a member of that commission, chaired by former Governor Jim Gilmore.

WELDON: The 3,000 people and the families of those people and their friends and loved ones, the American people and the Congress, when we approved the 9/11 Commission, asked to know all the facts.

How could anyone not only ignore this particular situation before they made the report but then when the report comes out and they're embarrassed and changed their story three times in one week about this particular Defense program, then come out with a statement they made yesterday that it didn't exist?

There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong.

The American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't gotten it.

I wanted to bring Tony Shaffer in to talk to you about the briefing that he was involved with with General Shelton in January of '01 and the briefing -- again, this second briefing, as Tony will tell you, was not specifically about Able Danger. It was about a program called Door Hop Galley (ph).

But during that briefing with Admiral Wilson and with Richard Schiefren (ph), the topic of Able Danger came up and Richard Schiefren (ph), who was the legal counsel at the Pentagon, knew about Able Danger.

Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do it.

W*GS

03-07-2007, 10:50 AM

Yeah, yeah, we've heard about Able Danger.

Gaffney, you given up on your claim that there weren't actually any hijackers on any plane?

The Lone Bolt

03-07-2007, 11:47 AM

Sorry Gaff, but once again I think you're extrapolating far more from this (Able Danger) than can be reasonably inferred. I see little here that points to a sinister plot.

mhgaffney

03-07-2007, 04:48 PM

Yeah, yeah, we've heard about Able Danger.

Gaffney, you given up on your claim that there weren't actually any hijackers on any plane?

I'm still waiting to see some hard evidence they boarded the planes. There is none. When you buy a ticket your name goes on the passenger manifest. It's automatic and happens in every case. No exceptions.

Believers in the official conspiracy theory try to dance around this point. But there's no getting around it.

The fact that the names do not appear on the manifests is strong evidence the alleged hijackers did not board the planes. It also points toward an inside job. Furthermore, it shows the limitations of the evildoers. It shows they do not have total control. Obviously, if they had had the power to doctor the manifests they would have done so, because it was in their interest for the 19 names to appear.

The official narrative therefore ignores the manifests - and the American people, who are totally hyponitized by the mass media and the booob tube, swallow everything like obedient sheep being led to slaughter.

As someone once wrote, we are a nation of sheep.

W*GS

03-07-2007, 05:55 PM

I'm still waiting to see some hard evidence they boarded the planes. There is none.

Wrong. The flight attendant phone calls (which you dismissed as "faked", which is utter BS) prove that there were hijackers on the planes - in at least one case, identified by seat number. You attempted to deflect from this evidence by prattling on about cell phones.

When you buy a ticket your name goes on the passenger manifest. It's automatic and happens in every case. No exceptions.

The passenger manifests do list the hijackers' names - at least the ones they used to buy their tickets. That you proffer up as evidence manifests that are known to be erroneous just shows how weak your case is.

The fact that the names do not appear on the manifests is strong evidence the alleged hijackers did not board the planes.

:bs:

It also points toward an inside job.

:bs:

Don't you ever get tired of laying it on so thick?

The official narrative therefore ignores the manifests

Wrong.

- and the American people, who are totally hyponitized by the mass media and the booob tube, swallow everything like obedient sheep being led to slaughter.

As someone once wrote, we are a nation of sheep.

So typical of your brand of elitism.

Let me put it this way - if you can figure out the Master Plan of the evildoers, then there is no Master Plan. Contemplate that.

mhgaffney

03-09-2007, 04:36 AM

The passenger manifests do list the hijackers' names - at least the ones they used to buy their tickets. That you proffer up as evidence manifests that are known to be erroneous just shows how weak your case is.

So, which names on the manifest were the alleged hijackers? Put up or shut up.

Incidentally, the manifests have not changed. They have been posted on the internet for years - at least since 2002.

Just how are they erroneous? This is just more of your same old same old BS...

mhgaffney

03-09-2007, 04:43 AM

Kinda puts Gaffney's assertion that only 50 people would be necessary to pull off 9/11 as an inside job in the crapper, doesn't it?

That was not my opinion -- it was the opinion of Andreas von Buelow, former German minister of research and technology.

Von Buelow has held a number of high positions in the Germen defense ministry.

If you had read the article at the top of this thread -- you would know this. But of course, W*gs, as we all know, you don't read. You didn't read the NIST report, and so, it's no surprise your above comment missed the broadside of the barn. By a country kilometer.

broncocalijohn

03-09-2007, 04:51 AM

Gaffney, you would get better response for your sick Art Bell thinking by standing on a street corner with a sign. Do you think Shadow People were the ones who boarded the planes or set up the mini nukes in the WTC. The best is that you said Bin Laden had a written reply that he didnt have anything to do with 9/11. That is good enough for me! Not just orally but written.

Spider

03-09-2007, 09:07 AM

I'm still waiting to see some hard evidence they boarded the planes. There is none. When you buy a ticket your name goes on the passenger manifest. It's automatic and happens in every case. No exceptions.

Believers in the official conspiracy theory try to dance around this point. But there's no getting around it.

The fact that the names do not appear on the manifests is strong evidence the alleged hijackers did not board the planes. It also points toward an inside job. Furthermore, it shows the limitations of the evildoers. It shows they do not have total control. Obviously, if they had had the power to doctor the manifests they would have done so, because it was in their interest for the 19 names to appear.

The official narrative therefore ignores the manifests - and the American people, who are totally hyponitized by the mass media and the booob tube, swallow everything like obedient sheep being led to slaughter.

As someone once wrote, we are a nation of sheep.

this is a problem , you are taking it so far out , that you are defending Bush ........
I will tell you exactly what I think Happened and why ........
Bush gets elected via SCOTUS , that is hanging on his neck , but he wants Iraq , so now the people around him need to get Bush looked at as a legitimate president , then the Bin Laden note comes , everyone figures , yeah this could be an opportunity ..... Bin Laden cant do that much Damage , so the planes hit the WTC , but the unthinkable happens , instead of minor Damage , the building Collapse... ooops , but now Bush handlers got the President on war footing ..........
so yeah the attacked was overlooked , but the Damage was underestimated ... I really believed Bush wanted Bin Laden , wanted him bad , But Bush is easily led astray by those around him..........

colosilverado

03-09-2007, 09:27 AM

So, which names on the manifest were the alleged hijackers? Put up or shut up.

Incidentally, the manifests have not changed. They have been posted on the internet for years - at least since 2002.

Just how are they erroneous? This is just more of your same old same old BS...

Show us the original manifests then. Prove that they haven't been altered. Prove that they weren't altered by people trying to oust Bush. Conspiracy goes both ways. This whole "Bush did it" theory is pushed forth by those who want him out and it is sooooo weak. I don't even really like Bush, or any recent president, but all of this "Bush is a war criminal" and "Bush caused "9/11" is just so amusing. What the hell are you going to do when your boy, or gal is president?

Bronco Bob

03-09-2007, 11:07 AM

this is a problem , you are taking it so far out , that you are defending Bush ........
I will tell you exactly what I think Happened and why ........
Bush gets elected via SCOTUS , that is hanging on his neck , but he wants Iraq , so now the people around him need to get Bush looked at as a legitimate president , then the Bin Laden note comes , everyone figures , yeah this could be an opportunity ..... Bin Laden cant do that much Damage , so the planes hit the WTC , but the unthinkable happens , instead of minor Damage , the building Collapse... ooops , but now Bush handlers got the President on war footing ..........
so yeah the attacked was overlooked , but the Damage was underestimated ... I really believed Bush wanted Bin Laden , wanted him bad , But Bush is easily led astray by those around him..........

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The Bush administration has blown everything they have tried:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, Social Security reform, Stem Cell reasearch,
Global Warming, Prescription Drugs for the elderly, Veteran's health care,
and on and on.
Yet somehow we are to believe that they conspired to bring down two
buildings and make it look like a group of Saudis did it, and no one in
the mainstream media, or even wackos leftists like Keith Oldbermann
have exposed the plot. If the Bush administration had intentionally
tried to bring down the WTC, it would still be standing today, that's
how incompetant they are.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 11:09 AM

yet no-one can refute the oddity of the BBC issue....

interesting then how when faced with a true question, everyone dog piles back on MHG.

Maybe MHG is a disinformation agent.....

W*GS

03-09-2007, 11:12 AM

So, which names on the manifest were the alleged hijackers? Put up or shut up.

Here ya go:

http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

Read the links and decide for yourself.

W*GS

03-09-2007, 11:14 AM

yet no-one can refute the oddity of the BBC issue....

Let's accept the notion that the "missing" or "prescient" BBC video is just as it is - nothing mundane explains it away.

Where do you go from that, then?

alkemical

03-09-2007, 11:17 AM

Let's accept the notion that the "missing" or "prescient" BBC video is just as it is - nothing mundane explains it away.

Where do you go from that, then?

You don't have a 911myths link to explain it away, eh wags?

W*GS

03-09-2007, 11:19 AM

That was not my opinion -- it was the opinion of Andreas von Buelow, former German minister of research and technology.

Von Buelow has held a number of high positions in the Germen defense ministry.

Doesn't really matter.

If the BBC and other parties (Google too, apparently) are "in" on the Master Plan, that 50 of your's and von Buelow's just doesn't work, does it?

If you had read the article at the top of this thread -- you would know this. But of course, W*gs, as we all know, you don't read. You didn't read the NIST report, and so, it's no surprise your above comment missed the broadside of the barn. By a country kilometer.

I read the NIST report. You clearly didn't - indeed, your "analysis" was barely even your own work - you plagiarized mercilessly, and attempted to make it sound like some NIST staff supported your whackitude.

If anyone who's ever bothered to post on this thread has been intellectually dishonest, it's you, gaffney.

Bronco Bob

03-09-2007, 11:22 AM

yet no-one can refute the oddity of the BBC issue....

interesting then how when faced with a true question, everyone dog piles back on MHG.

Maybe MHG is a disinformation agent.....

I don't live in Great Britain, so I didn't have a chance to see the report
as it aired live, so I have no way of knowing if the version I saw was
a doctored version, or if it was the authentic version as originally aired
on the BBC. Is there a way of checking this? How does the BBC
explain it? It looked kind of suspicious with all the letters and arrows
added in after the fact. Like maybe someone was so desparete to
make the case for a false flag that they are now manufacting evidence.
It would be easy enough to do with the graphics software now
available to the average computer user.
I'll admit it is a rather odd film and I'm not saying it isn't true. Just
that I have no way of knowing that it is true just by looking at the clip.
So this isn't enough for me to say 9/11 was an inside job merely
on the basis of one dubious film clip.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 11:25 AM

I don't live in Great Britain, so I didn't have a chance to see the report
as it aired live, so I have no way of knowing if the version I saw was
a doctored version, or if it was the authentic version as originally aired
on the BBC. Is there a way of checking this? How does the BBC
explain it? It looked kind of suspicious with all the letters and arrows
added in after the fact. Like maybe someone was so desparete to
make the case for a false flag that they are now manufacting evidence.
It would be easy enough to do with the graphics software now
available to the average computer user.
I'll admit it is a rather odd film and I'm not saying it isn't true. Just
that I have no way of knowing that it is true just by looking at the clip.
So this isn't enough for me to say 9/11 was an inside job merely
on the basis of one dubious film clip.

The BBC has a spokes man (i have the info posted in this thread) - that states the BBC doesn't have any footage from the 9/11 broadcast, yet they have a TOS that explains they keep footage of original programming and that they find "historical".

Since the BBC signed an agreement with youtube, they are having the 9/11 video pulled from the google/youtube sites. Which to me, states that a company that "lost" the footage, and requesting the footage to be removed - rather contradictory.

W*GS

03-09-2007, 11:34 AM

You don't have a 911myths link to explain it away, eh wags?

I've provided evidence about just about every claim made in these threads; why don't you show how the BBC video, if taken at face value and assuming it has no mundane explanation, is evidence for your views.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 11:37 AM

I've provided evidence about just about every claim made in these threads; why don't you show how the BBC video, if taken at face value and assuming it has no mundane explanation, is evidence for your views.

Did you watch the video at all wagsy?

W*GS

03-09-2007, 12:18 PM

Did you watch the video at all wagsy?

Yeah. I don't think it's the "smoking gun" you so desperately want it to be.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 12:20 PM

Yeah. I don't think it's the "smoking gun" you so desperately want it to be.

So what building is standing behind the reporter when she states that WTC7 has collapsed?

W*GS

03-09-2007, 12:59 PM

So what building is standing behind the reporter when she states that WTC7 has collapsed?

WTC7. But instead of interpreting what she says as proof that the BBC knew in advance that WTC7 was going to be demolished (or whatever your contention is), howzabout she misstates that it's collapsed based on day-long reports that its collapse was imminent?

It's not like the collapse of WTC7 was a complete and total surprise when it happened.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 01:25 PM

WTC7. But instead of interpreting what she says as proof that the BBC knew in advance that WTC7 was going to be demolished (or whatever your contention is), howzabout she misstates that it's collapsed based on day-long reports that its collapse was imminent?

It's not like the collapse of WTC7 was a complete and total surprise when it happened.

Exactly the point Wagsy... Exactly the point....

W*GS

03-09-2007, 02:01 PM

Exactly the point Wagsy... Exactly the point....

And this is "proof" of foreknowledge by the BBC, how, exactly?

alkemical

03-09-2007, 03:42 PM

And this is "proof" of foreknowledge by the BBC, how, exactly?

I'd say reporting early that the building HAS collapsed (when it's right there on the screen), in addition to BBC claims they don't have the original (which contracts their terms of use policy on archived footage) footage, yet want it yanked off of google/youtube - even though they don't have it - to be rather odd behaviour.

But then of course, the media has never ever been used as a tool to influence the "hearts and minds" of a country, has it Wagsy? (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/)

W*GS

03-09-2007, 04:03 PM

I'd say reporting early that the building HAS collapsed (when it's right there on the screen), in addition to BBC claims they don't have the original (which contracts their terms of use policy on archived footage) footage, yet want it yanked off of google/youtube - even though they don't have it - to be rather odd behaviour.

And the best explanation, of course, is that 9/11 was an inside job?

Uh-hunh.

And no, the fact that the media has been used to manipulate us in the past doesn't mean that this specific case is just another instance.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 04:13 PM

And the best explanation, of course, is that 9/11 was an inside job?

Uh-hunh.

And no, the fact that the media has been used to manipulate us in the past doesn't mean that this specific case is just another instance.

I never said it was an inside job, that's your insinuation. I'm just pointing out that their actions seem rather dubious at worst, and very contradictory at best.

W*GS

03-09-2007, 04:32 PM

I never said it was an inside job, that's your insinuation.

Seeing as how you're one of the most paranoid people I've met, and you dance as close to the gaffney-esque edge without falling off as possible, it's not a stretch.

I'm just pointing out that their actions seem rather dubious at worst, and very contradictory at best.

I'll reserve judgement on whether or not the BCC is part of the insidiousness.

alkemical

03-09-2007, 04:43 PM

Seeing as how you're one of the most paranoid people I've met, and you dance as close to the gaffney-esque edge without falling off as possible, it's not a stretch.

I'll reserve judgement on whether or not the BCC is part of the insidiousness.

Ahh now we move to personal attacks. since that's all you have left.... Have a good day Wagsy.

W*GS

03-09-2007, 04:54 PM

Ahh now we move to personal attacks. since that's all you have left.... Have a good day Wagsy.

You too...

Being disingenuous isn't your strong point.

broncocalijohn

03-09-2007, 04:59 PM

Isnt amazing that some here think the main media that films live on most "on the spot" would never make a reporting mistake? The BBC reporter probably didnt know how many building were part of the WTC before she made the report. I live in Orange County, CA where we are the step child of LA. The reporters dont know crap about cities when a high speed chase is going on. If you remember the Laguna Beach Fires about 15 years ago, the media in LA was reporting that Laguna Niguel was now on fire which would make South Laguna catch on fire. My girlfriend at the time and I zipped to her parents house there to get items out of the house and spray down the roof. False alarm. Stupid LA reporters had no clue where the boundaries were and gave horrible false info. Same thing happened here with the BBC report. Why people have to think everything is a conspiracy to its fullest is beyond me.

mhgaffney

03-09-2007, 08:12 PM

Show us the original manifests then. Prove that they haven't been altered. Prove that they weren't altered by people trying to oust Bush. Conspiracy goes both ways. This whole "Bush did it" theory is pushed forth by those who want him out and it is sooooo weak. I don't even really like Bush, or any recent president, but all of this "Bush is a war criminal" and "Bush caused "9/11" is just so amusing. What the hell are you going to do when your boy, or gal is president?

Well, you can go to this site -- sponsored by the Boston Globe newspaper. This went up in November 2001 -- and has been up ever since. For example, here is the manifest for Flight 77:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/victims/flight77.htm

I looked it over closely. All of the names are accounted for -- real people with homes, jobs, families etc. In fact, there is only one name on the list that is remotely mid-eastern sounding, and in this case the man's identity is confirmed. He worked for a company in Burbank, CA.

So what about the alleged hijackers? They are not listed.

The Globe site also gives the manifests for the other flights. The attempt by debunkers to draw a distinction between a "manifest" and a "victim's list" is feeble.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm

mhgaffney

03-09-2007, 08:21 PM

I read the NIST report. You clearly didn't - indeed, your "analysis" was barely even your own work - you plagiarized mercilessly, and attempted to make it sound like some NIST staff supported your whackitude.

My paper was footnoted, W*gs, all due credit given.

The 84 footnotes prove I read the report -- and are checkable -- by anyone who can read.

You are so lame. So lame.

colosilverado

03-09-2007, 10:48 PM

Well, you can go to this site -- sponsored by the Boston Globe newspaper. This went up in November 2001 -- and has been up ever since. For example, here is the manifest for Flight 77:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/victims/flight77.htm

I looked it over closely. All of the names are accounted for -- real people with homes, jobs, families etc. In fact, there is only one name on the list that is remotely mid-eastern sounding, and in this case the man's identity is confirmed. He worked for a company in Burbank, CA.

So what about the alleged hijackers? They are not listed.

The Globe site also gives the manifests for the other flights. The attempt by debunkers to draw a distinction between a "manifest" and a "victim's list" is feeble.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm

Gee, and in a few months, the manifests couldn't have been altered? That isn't proof, pal. The globe got their hands on the original manifest? Before anyone else? Yeah.....
Geeee, media and Bush haters with an agenda and trying to create a story where there isn't one. Who'da thunk it?
Who flew the planes then? Do you have any freakin' idea what goes into planning an operation like this?

mhgaffney

03-10-2007, 06:13 AM

Gee, and in a few months, the manifests couldn't have been altered? That isn't proof, pal. The globe got their hands on the original manifest? Before anyone else? Yeah.....
Geeee, media and Bush haters with an agenda and trying to create a story where there isn't one. Who'da thunk it?
Who flew the planes then? Do you have any freakin' idea what goes into planning an operation like this?

The 911 manifests were also posted by CNN. If you'll compare the names I think you will find they are identical with the names on the Globe site.

These manifests even include a brief description of each person, who had a life, a job (unlike the alleged hijackers), a family, home etc

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

orangeatheist

03-10-2007, 10:25 AM

Mhgaffney,

These are NOT manifest lists, you twit! These are VICTIMS lists! Look at the damn URL! Would anyone list the hijackers as VICTIMS????

Even the Globe site says, "The victims of September 11."

Here you go...why don't you check these out instead of the VICTIMS lists:

FLIGHT 11:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight11Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight11Manifestb.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight11Manifestc.jpg

FLIGHT 77:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight77Manifesta.jpg
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight77Manifestb.jpg

FLIGHT 93:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight93Manifesta.jpg

FLIGHT 175:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight175Manifesta.jpg

Notice anything??

And, well, while you want to include the Globe as an official source, why not look at this:

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif

That's a graphic they made from the manifests.

Oh, and by the way, when you feel like you have enough data and have spent enough time in the bush league here on the Mane, why don't you trot over the JREF forum and try your game out on the big boys? There are some top-notch folks over there that would just LOVE to hear your claims. If you have the balls, here's the link: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Tom H.

03-10-2007, 07:46 PM

Cool, I enjoy the Amazing Randi.

W*GS

03-10-2007, 08:17 PM

So what about the alleged hijackers? They are not listed.

Of course not, you ass.

The lists on the Globe's site are the victims, you incredible dope.

The Globe site also gives the manifests for the other flights.

The Globe's lists aren't manifests - they're lists.

The attempt by debunkers to draw a distinction between a "manifest" and a "victim's list" is feeble.

Your desperate attempts are more and more pathetic - you don't even realize you're pulverizing your own "arguments".

You're a joke, gaffney.

W*GS

03-10-2007, 08:23 PM

My paper was footnoted, W*gs, all due credit given.

Given the amount of material you lifted from others, it was hardly "your" paper.

The 84 footnotes prove I read the report -- and are checkable -- by anyone who can read.

The conclusions you drew were ridiculous. It was very apparent that you didn't understand the NIST report in any substantial way.

You are so lame. So lame.

This from the guy who thinks steel "wicks" heat practically instantaneously. I'll take your comments appropriately given that.

Spider

03-10-2007, 09:26 PM

LOL looks like WAGs got a new play mate

Bronco Bob

03-10-2007, 09:32 PM

LOL looks like WAGs got a new play mate

You just noticed?
W*gs and mhgaffney have been duking it out for months now.
Those two are more fun than the WWE.
If you want a good fight, just question what either one of them posts.

Spider

03-10-2007, 09:37 PM

You just noticed?
W*gs and mhgaffney have been duking it out for months now.
Those two are more fun than the WWE.
If you want a good fight, just question what either one of them posts.

LOL so far it has been bothing Compared to LABF and WAGS .............WAGS fliped out one time and went apeshít ....Classic stuff

Spider

03-10-2007, 09:38 PM

LABF called WAGS a bad father , WAGS went Rambo ......... Hilarious!

Bronco Bob

03-10-2007, 09:48 PM

LABF called WAGS a bad father , WAGS went Rambo ......... Hilarious!

I've got to hand it to W*gs, he gets down an dirty.
He's given me a good ass-kicking and shut me right down
a time or two.

W*GS

03-10-2007, 09:50 PM

Spider must be a in bad mood - he always tries to insult and attack me when he's feeling crappy...

Give him a couple hours - then he'll be drunk and a real hoot.

Spider

03-10-2007, 09:50 PM

I've got to hand it to W*gs, he gets down an dirty.
He's given me a good ass-kicking and shut me right down
a time or two.

First time for everything I guess .......... you would be about the only one he has done this to ....... and really amazing since WAGS doesnt really take a stand on anything ......

Spider

03-10-2007, 09:54 PM

Spider must be a in bad mood - he always tries to insult and attack me when he's feeling crappy...

Give him a couple hours - then he'll be drunk and a real hoot.

LOL ....poor persecuted WAGS .......... anyone that compares his personal car insurance policy to that of a commercial Vehicle ....Deserves to be made fun of ......... Like the kid with a pocket protector in School .Some people just beg for it

W*GS

03-10-2007, 10:00 PM

Spider

03-10-2007, 10:02 PM

As usual, Spider, you misremember what was said and the points being made.

But that's never stopped you from claiming a "victory" in a debate before, so why should it stop you now?

Still pissed off at your brother and trying to take it out on me, or something?

LOL I dont blame you , that was pretty stupid of you to even make the comparison.........take another look at your car insurance Hilarious!

Spider

03-10-2007, 10:03 PM

better yet tell me again how my Truck wasnt covered . you being the insurance expert and all

W*GS

03-10-2007, 10:15 PM

You do the work for a change.

Spider

03-10-2007, 10:17 PM

You do the work for a change.

LOL ...... what no more stupid shít of .......... I checked my insurance policy on my car for coverage , or how Iam not responsible for the load on my trailer .. these were pricless perils of wisdom Hilarious! ......

Bronco Bob

03-11-2007, 05:01 AM

The 911 manifests were also posted by CNN. If you'll compare the names I think you will find they are identical with the names on the Globe site.

These manifests even include a brief description of each person, who had a life, a job (unlike the alleged hijackers), a family, home etc

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

Now I've heard claims that no actual planes hit the WTC buildings, that it
was all faked with holograms or CGI or something. What is your position on
that theory? Here is a site with the details:

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

alkemical

03-11-2007, 01:52 PM

Wags won't ever admit when he's wrong. Just like the thread about how your internet usage will be tracked, etc. He just vanished for a few days to let the thread drop and then came back and started battling MHG. Then of course, since he has no debunking website to post about the BBC video - he just results to personal attacks. It's his MO. If want to get him riled up - insult the economist or his intelligence. That's when the real fun starts.

Spider

03-11-2007, 02:06 PM

W*GS

03-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Wags won't ever admit when he's wrong.

Since you've done nothing to prove that the BBC video is some sort of smoking gun that absolutely contradicts what we do know about 9/11 (meaning that mundane explanations cannot satisfy), you're quite a long ways from proving me wrong.

As for the rest, that you (and Spider) have decided to talk about me, then clearly you've gone off-track.

Spider

03-11-2007, 02:41 PM

As for the rest, that you (and Spider) have decided to talk about me, then clearly you've gone off-track.

think of it as a project ...

alkemical

03-11-2007, 10:30 PM

Since you've done nothing to prove that the BBC video is some sort of smoking gun that absolutely contradicts what we do know about 9/11 (meaning that mundane explanations cannot satisfy), you're quite a long ways from proving me wrong.

As for the rest, that you (and Spider) have decided to talk about me, then clearly you've gone off-track.

I never said it was smoking gun. I just asked why the knew 30min before it fell - and are requesting the footage to be removed from the internet, after claiming they lost/don't have the footage. You never could explain to me that, batman.

W*GS

03-11-2007, 10:39 PM

Read

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm#Reporter

Spider

03-11-2007, 10:43 PM

I never said it was smoking gun. I just asked why the knew 30min before it fell - and are requesting the footage to be removed from the internet, after claiming they lost/don't have the footage. You never could explain to me that, batman.easy Clintons wiener ...........it is all Clinton and his wiener fault

alkemical

03-11-2007, 10:44 PM

Read

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm#Reporter

Yeah and it doesn't address any of my points. Not to mention the poisoning the well information on the site, and the typecast it uses to blanket all questions to the story. This is no different than MHG's sources. Not to mention this site contradicts the press releases of the BBC and their documentation that states how they handle historical video. Now, unless the BBC didn't deem 9/11 a historical event - and their insistence in removing the footage from the internet - I'd say this site has no bearing on any question I've had. I chalk this site up along the lines of "the weekly world news".

mhgaffney

03-11-2007, 11:34 PM

Of course not, you ass.

The lists on the Globe's site are the victims, you incredible dope.

The Globe's lists aren't manifests - they're lists.

Leave it to W*gs to draw a distinction without a difference.

So you are telling us the 19 jihadiists are not victims? (Assuming they were on the planes) That they are not also victims? That they were not killed with everyone else?

So why wouldnt their names be on the victim's list?

W*GS

03-12-2007, 11:06 AM

Leave it to W*gs to draw a distinction without a difference.

You desperately need the perpetrators of these horrific acts to be "victims" in order to make your "argument" work. Mere semantic games aren't very effective in making a point.

So you are telling us the 19 jihadiists are not victims? (Assuming they were on the planes) That they are not also victims? That they were not killed with everyone else?

Now you're in weirdo-land. Every "suicide bomber" is a "victim" too, eh?

So why wouldnt their names be on the victim's list?

Because they were the perpetrators, dope. All the others were innocent.

I can't believe I even have to make this argument - but then considering it's you, gaffney, there's nothing too stupid for you to say.

Bronco Bob

03-12-2007, 12:03 PM

You desperately need the perpetrators of these horrific acts to be "victims" in order to make your "argument" work. Mere semantic games aren't very effective in making a point.

Now you're in weirdo-land. Every "suicide bomber" is a "victim" too, eh?

Because they were the perpetrators, dope. All the others were innocent.

I can't believe I even have to make this argument - but then considering it's you, gaffney, there's nothing too stupid for you to say.

Hey, at least mhgaffney acknowledges there were airplanes that flew into
the buildings. This guy is trying to prove that no airplanes even flew into
the WTC

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

W*GS

03-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Hey, at least mhgaffney acknowledges there were airplanes that flew into the buildings. This guy is trying to prove that no airplanes even flew into the WTC.

Gaffney will likely get to the same sick point this guy is at.

mhgaffney

03-12-2007, 08:56 PM

Given the amount of material you lifted from others, it was hardly "your" paper.

The conclusions you drew were ridiculous. It was very apparent that you didn't understand the NIST report in any substantial way.
.

Jim Hoffman, a physicist, doesn't agree with you, W*gsy.

Hoffman has a much deeper grounding in science than you do. He was also one of the first to expose the NIST report as a fraud.

Here's what Hoffman said about my Critique of the NIST report:

Dear Mark,

I'd like to see your new paper, even though I may not be able review
it right away. I'm almost half-way through your NIST paper now,
and I'll include here my the comments I've compiled so far.
Again, I'm really impressed with the quality of your writing and attention
to detail.

-Jim

Hoffman runs one of the better 911 sites:

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

W*GS

03-13-2007, 11:14 AM

Jim Hoffman, a physicist, doesn't agree with you, W*gsy.

Hoffman has a much deeper grounding in science than you do. He was also one of the first to expose the NIST report as a fraud.

"Quality of writing and attention to detail" isn't the same thing as supporting your "interpretations".

Besides, for all we know, you made up what Hoffman said. Your cred is so low I don't trust a thing you write.

PS - I just read over Hoffman's critique of the NIST report. I'm not impressed - he's an advocate of the controlled demolition whackitude, yet he neglects to overcome its fatal flaws. He also makes several points that are known to be false ("squibs", "free-fall speeds", "pulverization" of all non-metal material into fine dust, and so on). Since his "work" hasn't been updated or modified since 2005, it's disappointing he hasn't taken into account all the data and information available since then. I'd expect more.

Bronco Bob

03-13-2007, 11:43 AM

alkemical

03-13-2007, 12:19 PM

Yeah it was sort of like the WTC7 collapse.

Bronco Bob

03-14-2007, 01:59 AM

Yeah it was sort of like the WTC7 collapse.

So basically what we have then is that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought
down by Saudi terrorists in hijacked airplanes, and afterwards WTC7
was demolished by a controlled explosion. Makes sense, after the
main buildings were destroyed, no use keeping the supporting buildings.

So basically we can rule this out as being a factor in WTC7's collapse:

>>NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.<<

The only odd thing is why no one bothered to set controlled explosions
in WTC3, WTC4, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. They waited until next year before those ones were gotten rid of.

alkemical

03-14-2007, 09:07 AM

So basically what we have then is that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought
down by Saudi terrorists in hijacked airplanes, and afterwards WTC7
was demolished by a controlled explosion. Makes sense, after the
main buildings were destroyed, no use keeping the supporting buildings.

So basically we can rule this out as being a factor in WTC7's collapse:

>>NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.<<

The only odd thing is why no one bothered to set controlled explosions
in WTC3, WTC4, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. They waited until next year before those ones were gotten rid of.

Hey i don't have answers.... I just have questions.

Just as i believe i had seen two planes hit two super-high rise buildings and had seem them collapse - to the way WTC7 fell looked as though it was Demo'd. To within hours of 9/11 happening - hearing they found a car with a copy of the QRN in it. Things just clicked a bit too easy IMO at times with information, etc.

I believe 85% of it happened more or less as the way information was passed to us. I just think there is some B.S. that we are fed to manipulate us to support policies that would not normally be supported.

alkemical

04-02-2007, 11:58 PM

Saudi Prince says U.S. is obsessed with 9/11 (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=4662&sectionid=3510213)

Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal says that the United States remains obsessed with the September 11, 2001 attacks and is unlikely to allow Arab investment into sensitive areas.

In an interview with London's Financial Times, the billionaire investor also said his Dubai-listed Kingdom Hotel Investments (KHI) has a one billion dollar "war chest" and is looking to expand in Asia.

The interview took place midway through his 10-day tour of Asia, which will take him to China for a meeting with President Hu Jintao this week.

Alwaleed told The Financial Times, "The U.S. is still obsessed by 9/11 and sensitivities over security."

He was quoted as saying the U.S. is unlikely to allow Arab investment into airports, ports and other sensitive areas for several years as a result.

He said KHI, whose portfolio is currently focused on the Middle East and Africa, is looking to expand its Asian holdings.

Alwaleed is the company's major shareholder.

His tour will take him to Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, among other countries.

mhgaffney

04-03-2007, 09:52 AM

Anybody happen to watch the controlled demolition of the Stardust hotel
in Las Vegas on the news this morning? Notice that in this controlled
explosion the entire building collapsed at once, bottom, middle and top
falling at the same time. Not falling from the top on down as in the WTC
twin towers. Notice in the collapse of the WTC twin towers the bottom
remained intact until the end.

Naahh. You have the wrong understanding.

One of the dozen or so top demolition experts is on record -- to the effect that "we can bring down a building any way we want to."

There is no one way to do it. You can start at the top -- or bottom -- or in the middle. It just depends on how you set the charges.

BTW, last summer the blueprints for the WTC were finally released -- thanks to a whistleblower. The government had suppressed them from both FEMA and NIST scientists -- for 5 years -- and now we know why.

The blueprints show that the towers were stronger than FEMA and NIST scientists believed. In the absence of the original blueprints -- both reports made errors about the design of the WTC. In some key respects, the towers were stronger than is indicated in the official reports.

Check out Jim Hoffman's report on this at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

mhgaffney

04-03-2007, 09:59 AM

The only odd thing is why no one bothered to set controlled explosions
in WTC3, WTC4, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. They waited until next year before those ones were gotten rid of.

Evidently you haven't seen the photo of WTC 6 -- taken from above.

Sure looks like a crater to me. Check it out.

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html

mhgaffney

04-03-2007, 10:05 AM

I believe 85% of it happened more or less as the way information was passed to us. I just think there is some B.S. that we are fed to manipulate us to support policies that would not normally be supported.

Stay tuned. In a day or two I will be posting a new thread that may convince you to modify your estimate from 85% to more like 15%.

We now know that the world's most advanced command and control platform was circling over Washington on 9/11 -- at the time of the pentagon strike. Yet, the military denies it was there.

I will also present evidence that they altered the time line to conceal its presence.

When this story finally breaks it will be bigger than Watergate.

Florida_Bronco

04-03-2007, 10:06 AM

I can't believe this stupid thread is still getting replies.

Stay tuned. In a day or two I will be posting a new thread that may convince you to modify your estimate from 85% to more like 15%.

Yeah, because you've shown to really have your facts in order enough to convince the rest of us. ROFL!

defenseman

04-03-2007, 10:10 AM

I can't believe this stupid thread is still getting replies.

Yeah, because you've shown to really have your facts in order enough to convince the rest of us. ROFL!

We'll have a guest spot here shortly by charlie sheen, produced by mark cuban. Freaking hilarious...dman:~ohyah!:

Florida_Bronco

04-03-2007, 10:13 AM

We'll have a guest spot here shortly by charlie sheen, produced by mark cuban. Freaking hilarious...dman:~ohyah!:

Hilarious! ^5

W*GS

04-03-2007, 11:54 AM

Stay tuned. In a day or two I will be posting a new thread that may convince you [...]

How many times has gaffney posted this sort of thing? It's gotta be at least five - "Just wait, I've just been made aware of some facts that show that 9/11 was MIHOP"...

Snore.

I will also present evidence that they altered the time line to conceal its presence.

With a couple of what appears to be battery-operated clocks? Do tell!

When this story finally breaks it will be bigger than Watergate.

Uh-hunh.