473,696 Members | 1,951 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World TradeCentre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq

.
9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com

Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.

A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.

For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.

Sep 11 '08
176 4934
In article <2b************ *************** *******@z66g200 0hsc.googlegrou ps.com>,
Danny T <da*********@gm ail.comwrote:
>While I know there are is a ton of stuff on both sides there is really
only one thing on the standard side that makes me feel ok and that is
the endless radar track that does show the flight of the planes...
there is one other thing with the downed plane and that was the phone
calls that came first...

I don't think anything was a government plot but I don't doubt that
there were some politicians that let it happen because the outcome was
better for their agenda.

If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
"look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.

I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
You should know that none of the tiny number of people that invent the
claims that you base your skepticism on will speak in public and
address polite, relevant questions from anyone with relevant
expertise.

There is one alleged eyewitness that I would love to chat with and
learn more about his claims about what he saw at WTC. My line of
inquiry would be based on my 30 years of similar experience. We are
all in NYC, it's strange that he only shows up to speak with people
that have no knowledge about what he says he did at WTC.

I know he's been invited to show up for meetings to clarify and
elaborate on what he says he saw at WTC.




--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Sep 16 '08 #31
Danny T wrote:
>
I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
things. I'm going back to rule 1
All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
Sep 16 '08 #32
On Sep 16, 4:33 pm, Danny T <dannytad...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Sep 16, 3:22 pm, theget <the...@bigmail box.netwrote:
On Sep 16, 2:40 pm, Danny T <dannytad...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Sep 16, 1:24 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood. ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digit al Danny T <dannytad...@gm ail.comwrote:
If you remember all of the moon photo controversies, there are two
camps. There is the "we did go to the moon you moron" group and the
"look at the 1000's of fake photos you moron" groups. There is no "I
bet they faked the photos to lead you off the track of what they were
really doing up there" group. That is the group I am with that and
that is similar to where I stand on beliefs here. I think there is a
lot of coverups going on so you don't know who knew what was going to
happen but I don't think it was a government plan to do it.
I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
You mean like they really did go to the moon, but forgot to put film
in their cameras?
--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB
Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos so
people say we never went. Personally, I watched to apollo flights take
off but I do see how the photos were faked. I'd bet that we were 1)
making sure there were great photos for cold war propaganda garbage or
2) doing something spy related that the general public wasn't suppose
to know about.
Yeah man. I know what you mean. Like that whole World War II
controversy thing. Some people say it happened, some people say all
the photos of it were faked because Hirohito had a huge crush on
Neville's wife Anne and the whole thing was set up to make Neville
look bad. He was a cool dude, really.
Either way, I think we went but I think we don't really know what they
were doing up there.
Yeah that's like why Uncle Joe never really wanted to fight in the far
east. He knew the whole thing was a fake and he liked Neville. So
like he didn't want to go along with the fake. But like he wanted
Neville to get a treaty that would make him look bad. But by that
time there were too many fake entries being airbrushed. Like this onehttp://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Image:Stalin_je schow_molotow.j pghttp://e...
And like the airbrushers hated Neville too and they had like all the
power cause they could make anyone at all vanish so they like secretly
took over and airbrushed all of that war and then they wanted to fake
the moon landing too, because they thought Jackie was so cool so they
airbrushed that too. But you never see any pictures of the airbrushers
themselves. Ever notice that? They're too clever to get caught.
Theget

If you have no idea what I'm talking about you should remain silent
instead of making a total fool of yourself
I completely understand what you're talking about.

I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
things. I'm going back to rule 1
I expect airbrushers to talk this way. You aren't one are you?

Or maybe you really do think that whole world war really happened.
Why? Because you've seen the pictures? They're not real. They're the
result of the airbrushers careful work. You should take a close look
at the links I posted above and you'll see how the airbrushers are
faking it all and making us look like suckers for going along with
them.

Theget


Sep 16 '08 #33
On Sep 16, 4:39 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill.. .@hotmail.com>
wrote:
theget wrote:
Yeah man. I know what you mean. Like that whole World War II
controversy thing. Some people say it happened, some people say all
the photos of it were faked because Hirohito had a huge crush on
Neville's wife Anne and the whole thing was set up to make Neville
look bad. He was a cool dude, really.

The weird part is that Hirohito had Neville's Anne confused with Anne
Neville, so he was convinced that Chamberlein was both the King of England
and a hunchback.
It's not true. It's not true. The Emperor was never confused about
that. He loved Anne Chamberlein and was devoted to her and the study
of little fishes.

One day we will be able to put all the pixels back where they belong
and the truth will be known even to airbrushers.

Theget

Sep 16 '08 #34
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Danny T
<da*********@gm ail.comwrote:
I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.

Do you really? Want to think that one through?
Yeah, what's the middle ground between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 ?

No, the truth isn't 2+2=4.5

Sep 16 '08 #35
On Sep 16, 4:13*pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill.. .@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Danny T wrote:
I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
things. I'm going back to rule 1

All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
I've never been to rec.arts.sf.wri tten
Sep 16 '08 #36
On Sep 16, 3:34*pm, pv+use...@pobox .com (PV) wrote:
Danny T <dannytad...@gm ail.comwrites:
Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos so
people say we never went. Personally, I watched to apollo flights take

And on this wonderfully comprehensive argument, a/k/a proof by assertion,
it is time to drop your loony self into the bottom of my killfile. Please
remove yourself from the gene pool as soon as you find convenient. Cuticle
shears and tweezers will be provided if necessary. *
--
* PV * something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
* * * *like corkscrews.
You're a pretty major fool of you can look at photos on the moon with
the flag blowing in the wind and think something isn't funny. Take a
look at the something like 6000 photos that are proven to be touched
up or fake. I don't think we didn't go, I think the photos are fake.
Take a look at the photos and if you don't know much about
photography, I'm sure you will still be able to see they are fake if
you spend a few seconds looking at the lighting and such.

I never said we didn't go to the moon and if you think I did, go back
and read it again. I clearly stated I think we did but I said we were
for some reason faking the photos.

Don't go spitting out stupid statements when you can not even read a
simple statement and comprehend what was clearly written.

If you want to thin the gene pool, take yourself out. People that
would fight over stuff like this with a secondary source are
absolutely worthless to society. If someone believes that the moon is
made of cheese, that is what they believe and you are not about to
change anything by calling names. You WILL make the world a less
better place. If you have a problem with how someone thinks, go to the
source from which that person gets their information and try to
correct the problem.

Since you obviously lack the sophistication it takes to figure out
such simple thoughts, please feel free to remove YOURSELF from any
list that requires thinking.
Sep 16 '08 #37
Danny T wrote:
On Sep 16, 4:13 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill.. .@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Danny T wrote:
>>I broke my own rule. I conversed with the idiots that start these
things. I'm going back to rule 1

All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of
idiots. It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

I've never been to rec.arts.sf.wri tten
Check your headers.
Sep 16 '08 #38
On Sep 16, 3:53*pm, Laurence Payne <l...@laurencep ayne.co.ukwrote :
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Danny T

<dannytad...@gm ail.comwrote:
I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.

Do you really? *Want to think that one through?
Thought it through..... Yep, pretty much think most arguments have
some valor on both sides.
Sep 16 '08 #39
On Sep 16, 5:07*pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgw rote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Danny T
<dannytad...@gm ail.comwrote:
>I do believe that truth usually stands somewhere in the middle of what
>the two sides always argue, no matter what the argument is.
Do you really? *Want to think that one through?

Yeah, what's the middle ground between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 ?

No, the truth isn't 2+2=4.5
Go back to school. That is not an argument. It's math. Look up the
word argument. Think it though...... it won't really hurt that much!
Sep 16 '08 #40

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.