469,280 Members | 1,790 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,280 developers. It's quick & easy.

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 4243
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ad****@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB
Sep 17 '08 #51
In message <6j************@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<ca*@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrites
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ad****@panix.comwrote:
>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.

However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.

He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.

There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from the
people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.

Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple electric
pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good for setting
off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light striking (do they
have strip light in the WTC?

Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?

Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....

Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is cold
it is OK.

Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.

You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or down
the stairs.

Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.

With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.

That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle of
one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.

There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone other
than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it leaking
before or most certainly afterwards.

Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure that
in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be where
you need it when you need it.

In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.

The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building of
this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has actually
tested anything this size before . All it needs is the concrete mix to
be a little out in that area (hot day, running short of sand/cement etc
something contaminated the water when it was mixed) and you have a
weakness that only appears when you bake it with aircraft fuel for 20
minutes.

There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #52
Chris H wrote:
In message <6j************@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<ca*@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrites
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ad****@panix.comwrote:
>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.

However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.

He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.

There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from the
people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.

Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple electric
pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good for setting
off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light striking (do they
have strip light in the WTC?

Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?

Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....

Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is cold
it is OK.

Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.

You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or down
the stairs.

Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.

With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.

That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle of
one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.

There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone other
than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it leaking
before or most certainly afterwards.

Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure that
in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be where
you need it when you need it.

In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.

The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building of
this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has actually
tested anything this size before . All it needs is the concrete mix to
be a little out in that area (hot day, running short of sand/cement etc
something contaminated the water when it was mixed) and you have a
weakness that only appears when you bake it with aircraft fuel for 20
minutes.

There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.
Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid... Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up
into the towers after the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20
minutes?

The mind boggles.

d
Sep 17 '08 #53
In message <Lr******************************@giganews.com>, Jason
<Ja***@net.netwrites
>theget wrote:
ct 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.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance.
We know the truth, It's as simple as that.
>discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs
Bush and Blair etc.
You neocon you!
>2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited.
THEY always discredit it.... that's how you know it is a conspiracy.
>3. Inability to answer questions.
I did answer it! It was you who change the subject...... You did not
PROVE that the cost of coffee hadn't gone up 1cent in the restaurant
thereby signalling to the Moslems the attack was on.....

>4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?"
Precisely My Dear Watson.
>5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
What has Occam got to do with this... HE wasn't there.
>Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice
that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence
in any alternative account.
No be fair people don't remember everything and get things wrong. Even
TV cameramen... (video is not 100% good at recording facts besides the
Jews in the Media can photoshop it afterwards)

>6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Not at all. MY evidence is Good Your Evidence is Bad.
>7. Inability to withdraw.
Not everyone is a good Catholic...
>8. Leaping to conclusions
You just don't have any imagination... Now don't go quoting Newton at
me... He got it wrong.

>9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
THEY covered up Kennedy AND keep Elvis locked up.
>10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it?
Yepp I knew we would win you around...
Got to go the nurse is here with the tablets... THEY want me to take
them so I forget the voices.... only the voices tell the truth my
Precious....

What has it got in its pocketses....
I am going hide with Julius Caesar so the Nurse can't find me....
Damn..... she got me

Hmmmpf...

Hi My Bush..... George Bush.....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #54
In message <AP******************************@posted.plusnet >, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam.comwrites
>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid...
You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?
My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.

So shove it.

:-)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 17 '08 #55
Jason wrote:
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are
trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for
Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you
listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
"no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have
no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
It's surprising how much in common there is in conspiracy theories and
religion. In both areas there are extreme fanatics which will ramble on
and on about their theory/religion, annoy people with their constant
preaching, will never listen to reason, and fabricate evidence to
support their views.

Without taking any stance of whether Intelligent Design has any truth
in it or not, just compare ID fanatics with 911/Moon/whatever conspiracy
theory fanatics. There are surprisingly many similarities in their
behavior and tactics. Both will claim to use scientific facts to support
their claims, while in reality they only use very selected pieces of it,
pulling them out of context and twisting their meaning. Likewise both
will use quotes from famous people or eyewitnesses, which seem to
support their claims, but usually these quotes are badly cut and pulled
out of their context, or the person who has said those things is either
an ID/conspiracy fanatic himself or in no way an expert on the field in
question. Both will dismiss any statements by actual scientists or
experts in the field if these statements contradict their views.

Conspiracy theorists also show deep religious conviction, completely
in par with the most religious people. Nothing you could ever say will
convince them otherwise, no matter how well-founded it might be. There
just is no convincing them, no matter what you say or do. They have seen
the light and they will not be turned off the "right" path, no matter
what. Unlike religious people, conspiracy theorists are, however, in a
worse position: Nothing they claim can be simply attributed to something
supernatural or something which is a matter of opinion. Instead,
everything they claim is something which should be real, can be proved
and should be verifiable. However, like true religious fanatics, it
doesn't matter. Even if they cannot prove anything, they will still keep
their religious conviction.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without
foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the
evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3.
above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
"swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to
the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
The reason why conspiracy theorists cannot concede even on one single
point is that they need all of their arguments for their conspiracy
theory to be effective.

The main weapon of conspiracy theories is the so-called shotgun
argumentation: They present lots and lots and lots of little pieces of
"evidence". Not because there indeed *is* that much believable evidence
of a conspiracy, but because there must a lot of it for the shotgun
argumentation to work.

Shotgun argumentation works by two means:

1) The sheer amount of "evidence" might be enough to convince people
that something strange is going on. Basically the idea is: "There's
*this* much evidence that something is not right. Something *has* to be
wrong. There just cannot be this much evidence without something really
being wrong in this situation." Presenting just a half dozen pieces of
evidence might not be enough to convince anyone. However, present a
hundred pieces of evidence, and the likelihood of someone believing your
theory is much higher.

2) More closely related to the metaphor: A shotgun fires hundreds of
small pellets, while a rifle fires only one bullet. It's much easier to
kill a rabbit with a shotgun than with a rifle because the likelihood
that at least one of the pellets will hit the rabbit is much higher than
the likelihood for the single bullet to do so.
That's where the large amount of "evidence" works: The more pieces of
"evidence" there are, the larger the probability that at least one of
them will convince someone that there is a conspiracy. Even if the vast
majority of the presented "evidence" is not convincing, it may take but
just one which is convincing enough to make someone believe the
conspiracy theory.

For this reason conspiracy theorists cannot drop any of the arguments
they have been carefully designing for years. Dropping them would lessen
the likelihood of convincing people.

And this is, once again, another parallel with religion: This is the
mission of conspiracy theorists: To convince others of their own faith.
They will use whatever tools necessary to convince them. If evidence
must be fabricated to achieve the goal, they will do that. If twisting
what other have said is necessary to achieve that goal, they will do that.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to
declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
remotely enough cause so to do.
Moreover, conspiracy theorists go so far as to create a mentality
where terms like "the official explanation" is a complete synonym with
"a coverup", "a lie". Just the term "official" will have a big negative
connotation to them. Anything which is "official" is immediately
something to be highly mistrusted, most probably a big coverup and a
lie, and something you should avoid at all costs.

Another term with a negative connotation (to them) is "expert".
Whenever there's a statement by "an expert" which is against the
conspiracy theory, it's automatically dubious and must not be trusted.
Conspiracy theorists have effectively reversed the meaning of the word
"expert" to the point where, to them, it means someone who is *not*
competent on the subject or, at the very least, is someone "official"
and thus part of the conspiracy. To the conspiracy theorists, all
"experts" which do not agree with the conspiracy theory are either
employed by the government, or completely incompetent.

It's not even rare to see a conspiracy theorist write something along
the lines of 'are you going to believe some "expert"?' as if the word
"expert" all in itself was a sign of someone who is not competent, has
no practical experience on the subject or is in the conspiracy.

Quite inconsistently, if there is some "expert" which actually
supports the conspiracy theory, the theorists will immediately exalt his
achievements and expertise, and go to great lengths about convincing
people why *this* expert is to be trusted (while the ones which disagree
with the conspiracy theory should not).
Sep 17 '08 #56
Chris H wrote:
In message <AP******************************@posted.plusnet >, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam.comwrites
>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up
would have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just
where the charges were laid...

You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?

My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.

So shove it.

:-)
Damn! You saw through me far too easily ;-)

d
Sep 17 '08 #57
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:35:54 +0100, Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <AP******************************@posted.plusnet >, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam.comwrites
>>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid...

You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?

My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
And they were taught the art by the "Mission Impossible" crew.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sep 17 '08 #58
In rec.arts.poems on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:39:46 -0400, David DeLaney
<db*@gatekeeper.vic.comwrote:
(apologies to the other groups here)
Don't apologise to us in rec.arts.poems. Danny's delusions are
entertaining to read about.

Where are you reading this?

--
PJR :-)

<http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/verse/>
Sep 17 '08 #59
On Sep 16, 4:21 pm, Jason <Ja...@net.netwrote:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited.
3. Inability to answer questions.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources.
7. Inability to withdraw.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again
is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at
very least, a bore.

Copied from:http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Sounds like a pretty accurate of Bush and his claim of WMD in Iraq...
Sep 17 '08 #60
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

FTFY.

Theget
Sep 17 '08 #61
PV
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.comwrites:
>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.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.
Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #62
PV
Danny T <da*********@gmail.comwrites:
>All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.written 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.written
<madgeYou're soaking in it. </madge*
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #63
PV
Jason <Ja***@net.netwrites:
>10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
{nice list removed}

11. Tapdancing. When questioned on the specifics of what they're talking
about, inevitably they will switch over to something else, in an attempt
to avoid exploring any one thing in enough detail to expose the farce it's
built upon.

This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
all that interesting. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #64
PV
Danny T <da*********@gmail.comwrites:
>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
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #65
PV
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrites:
> And what reason would that be, which wouldn't be so ludicrous as to
surpass any sane person's belief?
I have to admit, this particular piece of moon denial nuttyness is new to
me. Someone who thinks we went, but faked the photos. That's just WEIRD.
> The Manhattan Project was, by comparison, a very short-lived, small,
easily controlled group of people, and there were STILL leaks. Shortly
The manhattan project didn't have leaks, it had streams, mighty rivers,
nay, rampaging whitewater rapids of breaches. Practically from day one. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #66
PV
Chris Malcolm <ca*@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrites:
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Good lord, how do people actually manage to say crap like this? You should
be freaking ashamed of yourself. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 17 '08 #67
In article <e1**********************************@m44g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".
>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.


Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

(Watching YouTube videos doesn't count.)
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Sep 17 '08 #68
PV <pv*******@pobox.comwrote:
>
This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
all that interesting. *
Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sep 17 '08 #69
Peter J Ross <pj*@example.invalidwrote:
>In rec.arts.poems on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:39:46 -0400, David DeLaney
<db*@gatekeeper.vic.comwrote:
>(apologies to the other groups here)

Don't apologise to us in rec.arts.poems. Danny's delusions are
entertaining to read about.

Where are you reading this?
Rec.arts.sf.written ... where it qualifies as a bad enough version of
fantasy to not actually be on-topic there.

Dave "one can only theorize on how comp.lang.c++ got added to the conspiracy"
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from db*@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sep 17 '08 #70
Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
.... and the Reptilians.

But seriously, it's time to wake up:

http://www.911missinglinks.com

Sep 17 '08 #71
Danny T wrote:
Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos
It's always rather hilarious to read conspiracy theories about the
photographs taken on the Moon.

The problem with people who believe the conspiracy theory is that they
are told "this thing you see in this photo is a clear sign of the photo
being fake", and when they can't think of any explanation in 10 seconds,
they believe the claim, believe that the photograph is fake, never even
consider that there just might be a rational physical explanation, and
then get completely convinced by the conspiracy theory and will never be
convinced otherwise. Then you hear them say things like "the is NO WAY
this is a real photo taken on the Moon".

The thing is, all the "problems" the conspiracy theorists claim in the
photos are completely normal and to be expected, but when presented to a
layman who doesn't have all the information, it can sound pretty convincing.

Example: "There are no stars visible on the photos, thus the photos
were clearly not taken on the Moon." This might sound pretty convincing
to a layman who doesn't do his research. Heck, it can even sound
convincing to a person who has some experience with photography, if he
doesn't bother to think about it a bit or perform a bit of research on
the subject.
The answer, of course, has to do with the camera shutter aperture and
exposition time. Any person with the most basic understanding of
photography will understand this. The exposure of the cameras was set to
photograph the brightly-lit lunar surface, and the stars were simply too
dim to be captured on film. The exposure time was simply too short, and
the stars got underexposed.
It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.

What else? You shouldn't be able to see things in shadows because of
the vacuum, and everything in shadows should be pitch black? Exactly on
which laws of physics is this claim based on? Can you give me a textbook
reference on this subject?
Let me ask you a question: When the sunlight hits the ground, what
happens to that light after that?
Hint: Why is it that you can *see* the ground in the first place?
Heck, why can you see the Moon from Earth?
Answer: The light reflects from the ground to all directions (not
completely evenly, but almost).
So second question: What happens to the light after it has reflected
from the ground?

Oh, you might have the objection that the lunar surface doesn't
reflect but something like 10% of the light? However, the Sun is
*really* bright, and 10% of *really* bright is still very bright, and
the cameras were tuned to photograph this 10% reflected light clearly.
The cameras were tuned to pick up this 10% of reflected light. Also, the
lunar surface is a HUGE reflector, so there's light reflecting from a
very large area, which sums up. Things like the spacesuits were very
white, and reflected a lot of that 10% of light back. It's to be
completely expected for them to be very visible in the photographs.
Vacuum has nothing to do with this. That's just a myth which the
conspiracy theorists want to spread because it suits their theories.
It's all about light reflecting from surfaces.

In fact, most of the photos corroborate that. Shadows *on the ground*
are pitch black, while eg. astronauts in a shadow are illuminated by
light reflecting from the ground. At the same time, in the same photo.
How can this be possible if atmosphere was the explanation for things
being visible in shadows? Shouldn't the ground in shadow also be
visible? No, because there's nothing reflecting light to the shadowed
parts of the ground. There's only a black sky.
The "shadows in vacuum are always pitch black" is just false physics
which is based on absolutely nothing but hearsay. The main source of
illumination is light reflected from other surfaces.

What else? Shadows which don't look parallel? Every single photo with
apparently non-parallel shadows has been replicated with scale models,
and even single shadow can be perfectly and very simply explained by the
shape of the terrain and perspective. It's not even that hard to see it
from the photos themselves.

What else? A waving flag? How can you see the flag waving in a still
photo? And how do you explain that the wrinkles of the flag are
*identical* in different photos, if the flag was waving in the wind?

And so on. "There's no way they were not fake photos" is pure and
complete bullshit. I have yet to see even one single photo which is not
easily and completely explainable with basic physics.

Moreover, believing what the conspiracy theorists claim about the
photos would require me to forget about what I know about basic laws of
physics and start believing in odd fairytales which are based on nothing
more than the odd ramblings of some lunatics.

But nothing will convince the conspiracy theorists. They cannot
concede even on one single point. They will keep onto every single claim
they make, no matter how ridiculous. The "no visible stars" is the
perfect example: It has an extremely simple explanation which anyone can
corroborate by experimentation, and any person with photographic
experience can corroborate, and it just doesn't have anything to it, but
no, conspiracy theorists just can't let even that one go. They have to
keep it. They have to keep every single tiny bit of "evidence" they have
come up with. They just can't let go. They can't admit they are wrong in
any of the examples. Not a single one.
Sep 17 '08 #72
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

I have never heard of a claim of a plane or even part of a plane
directly impacting WTC7, however absent any evidence of such a direct
impact WTC7 collapsed. Please tell me if you disagree with this.

It is possible that part of a plane directly impacted WTC7, but there
is, to my knowledge, no evidence of that, although, I suspect finding
that evidence would be very difficult.

If you have evidence of a plane's, or part of a plane's, direct impact
on WTC7 then I shall be happy to withdraw my statement.

It may perhaps in the larger context of this discussion be worthwhile
considering what might constitute evidence, but I'll leave that point
for whatever specific evidence you might offer.

(Watching YouTube videos doesn't count.)
Of course it doesn't. YouTube videos are posted by airburshers.

Theget


Sep 18 '08 #73
In article <9T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.orgsaid:
My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig
an entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and
blow the building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
And outrun the ensuing fireball too. In slow motion, even.

-- wds

Sep 18 '08 #74
In article <20**********************************@b1g2000hsg.g ooglegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>Please define "same".
>but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.


Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.


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

Sep 18 '08 #75
On Sep 17, 11:38 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <20f1ccc6-57d0-4e4a-a85f-2235ca03f...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.
What's your point?

>
The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.
Resulting in the murder (IMO a war crime) of many of the occupants of
the building and all the passengers aboard the plane.

I repeat, what's your point?

Did you disagree with me?

It is still the case that there was no direct plane impact on WTC7 and
therefore WTC7's collapse was not caused by a direct plane impact.
Please tell me if you disagree with this.

If you have evidence of a direct plane impact on WTC7 resulting in its
collapse please tell me and I'll be happy to withdraw my statement.
"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.
"direct" was my word and was entirely relevant to the description of
what really happened and to the correction I made to a misleading
statement above.

FTFY.

Theget

Sep 18 '08 #76
PV wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc.invalid.comwrites:
> And what reason would that be, which wouldn't be so ludicrous as to
surpass any sane person's belief?

I have to admit, this particular piece of moon denial nuttyness is new to
me. Someone who thinks we went, but faked the photos. That's just WEIRD.
> The Manhattan Project was, by comparison, a very short-lived, small,
easily controlled group of people, and there were STILL leaks. Shortly

The manhattan project didn't have leaks, it had streams, mighty rivers,
nay, rampaging whitewater rapids of breaches. Practically from day one. *
But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

d
Sep 18 '08 #77
In message <pv********************************@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<to************@earthlink.netwrites
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:35:54 +0100, Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>>In message <AP******************************@posted.plusnet >, Don Pearce
<no****@nospam.comwrites
>>>Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid...

You are a complete arse-hole!!!
Just because you have the laws of physics, reality and time on your site
you think you are so clever!!! It's a conspiracy... That's how they did
it. The Muslims were trained by the Jews and CIA to hit the floor above
the charges.
>>>Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up into the towers after
the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20 minutes?

My demolition's experts (T.Cruise, B Willis and S Stalone) can rig an
entire 200 floor skyscraper in 15 minutes (screen time) and blow the
building with 0.0001 seconds to spare.
And they were taught the art by the "Mission Impossible" crew.
That's Classified....

See the classified adds in newspaper. They come just after the A-Team
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Sep 18 '08 #78
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>
But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.
Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.

In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.

Not that Alan Turing's work didn't have a lot to do with all of the
programmable systems of that era, because it did.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sep 18 '08 #79
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.

In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.

Not that Alan Turing's work didn't have a lot to do with all of the
programmable systems of that era, because it did.
--scott
The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
run and tested in 1943.

The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
(Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
Ultra.

d
Sep 18 '08 #80
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:17:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>>
But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a
full von Neumann machine.
'Course not... it was a Turing machine ;-)

--
Lionel B
Sep 18 '08 #81
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:27:05 +0100, Don Pearce wrote:
The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
run and tested in 1943.

The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
(Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
Ultra.

d
Both were pre-dated by the Zuse Z3, completed in 1941. It is also the
first example of the Heisenberg/Turing effect, where a machine can be
both a calculator and a computer, depending on the geographical location
of the observer.

Sep 18 '08 #82
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrote:
>
The Harvard mk I was delivered on August 7th 1944. Colossus had been
running at Bletchley Park since February of the same year, having been
run and tested in 1943.
It's true, the Colossus was actually turned on first, which is one of
the advantages of high pressure war work.
>The only reason Colossus was slightly limited in application was that it
was conceived and built in a hurry, with an important job to do. They
(Turing and Flowers) could have made it general purpose, but that would
have made it run much more slowly - too slowly for same-day cracking of
Ultra.
We call this "mission creep."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sep 18 '08 #83
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,
>Please define "same".
>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Sep 18 '08 #84
Wolfspawn wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.
I also suspect that a million tons of concrete and steel being dropped
1500 ft a few yards from another building might just do a bit of damage.
Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.

d
Sep 18 '08 #85
Don Pearce wrote:
Chris H wrote:
>In message <6j************@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<ca*@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrites
>>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ad****@panix.comwrote:

AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that shows some
characteristics of a controlled demolition.

However I discussed this with a friend of mind who knows a lot about
blowing up things. I don't mean civil demolition.

He pointed out a vast number of problems with rigging two or three
floors of the WTC with demolition charges.

There were a lot of things in a live and running building like the WTC
that would not permit a normal civilian type demolition, apart from
the people that is :-) and they would be difficult to over come in a
military scenario for covert rigging for demolition.

Modern detonators are electrical and can be set off by a simple
electric pulse, things that are (in a covert military situation) good
for setting off explosives are the pulses from a fluorescent light
striking (do they have strip light in the WTC?

Air con compressors are also good for this... lovely spikes that can
fire a detonator. Any air con in the WTC?

Any other electrical equipment with puts out a pulse? CRT's for
example, elevators, static generated by carpets and computers.....

Of course modern explosives are quite stable. But they don't like
getting hot. They get a little unstable. So as long as the place is
cold it is OK.

Then there is all the cabling required. It can take a couple of weeks
to rig a building, and that is with all the contents stripped out in
advance and the cables and explosives very much in view.

You can't run cables down corridors and in to empty lift shafts or
down the stairs.

Apart from rigging and controlling the explosives the logistics would
require a hell of a lot of luck and or movement of a lot of people. It
would require an active operation going back 12+ months to get things
in line.

With hind sight some things do appear to be in place but some of these
were just coincidence and could not have been predicted or engineered,
not without a vast amount of planning and a large team. We are now
looking at a lead time of a couple of years and a lot of people.

That is a long time to plan an operation and has a lot of people
involved to murder a large number of one's own citizens in the middle
of one of one's own cities. Quite apart from the aircraft involvement.

There are far to many variables and far to many people for anyone
other than Tom Cruise or Bruce Willies to put it off with out it
leaking before or most certainly afterwards.

Any plan that could do this is open to many places where chance could
wreck it. Many places where you can't predict the future to be sure
that in 6 months time the window/person/system etc will or will not be
where you need it when you need it.

In short whilst there are some characteristics that look like a
controlled demolition there are other places where similar
characteristics have been seen and it was not a controlled explosion.

The other minor point to consider is that no one has seen a building
of this size and type come down like this before. Also no one has
actually tested anything this size before . All it needs is the
concrete mix to be a little out in that area (hot day, running short
of sand/cement etc something contaminated the water when it was
mixed) and you have a weakness that only appears when you bake it with
aircraft fuel for 20 minutes.

There are as many more plausible scenarios than controlled demolition
which is just not practical.

Not to mention the tiny problem that the entire demolition set-up would
have been torn apart by a plane flying into the building just where the
charges were laid... Or is the idea that a demolition crew dashed up
into the towers after the planes hit, and rigged the whole thing in 20
minutes?

The mind boggles.

d

Well /no wonder/ you can't understand it, all boggled like that...
Lissen.
If a few elves in a tree can make /chocolate cookies/ right under
your nose in under 14 minutes, Jewish dwarves can lay a few lousy
charges in the same length of time.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 18 '08 #86
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <20**********************************@b1g2000hsg.g ooglegroups.com>,
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrote:
>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>>In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:

>In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:

>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.

>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
>buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.


Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

The fire and lack of water were caused by the collapse of the North
tower, which was caused by fire which was started by the impact of a
plane with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel.

"direct" is your word and it is irrelevant to the description of
what really happened.
It isn't even his word. Shrapnel thrown up by a bullet impact is as
"direct" a result of the impact as if the frags had come from the
original bullet. Ammo and its uses are designed around such facts,
and he can look it up.
Shrapnel /generated/ by the planes of "9/11" was part of the
original design of the strike, basically two 35,000-gallon Molotov
cocktails with human garnish.
And yes, there were/are probably more stressed-skin engineers
working in the Middle East than in the U.S., all that new
construction from Oil Money.
"More"?
All it took was one.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 18 '08 #87
PV wrote:
"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.comwrites:
>>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.written are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.


Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 18 '08 #88
Scott Dorsey wrote:
PV <pv*******@pobox.comwrote:
>>This one thing is what makes interviewing conspiracy nuts in the media a
complete waste of time. Any thread they start could easily be chased down
to nonsense, but instead you get a big sloppy tangled skein that you end up
holding and looking like a fool. It's like that guy who used to spin plates
on the bozo show - there's so much going on that you don't realize it's not
all that interesting. *


Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
--scott

It's them dam' Canadians.
(Hey, they tried to burn down the Pentagon once before...)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 18 '08 #89
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Pearce wrote:
Wolfspawn wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.
You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

I also suspect that a million tons of concrete and steel being dropped
1500 ft a few yards from another building might just do a bit of damage.
Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.
Another reason that smoke was pouring out of all the windows on all floors
of the south side (facing the collapsing WTC tower) but not the north side
(which is the only side the conspiracy videos show you) is because
shrapnel from the fall of the big tower took out all the windows on the
south side (as well as gouged huge holes in the building's face).

Sep 18 '08 #90
In article <JB***************@read4.inet.fi>,
Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrote:
It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.
A short interval flash, with long exposure. This technique is use to
photograph people against the backdrop of city lights, for example.
Sep 18 '08 #91
PV
theget <th****@bigmailbox.netwrites:
>Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

What's your point?
That *is* the point. WTC7 was just as much a casualty to the two main
events as the twin towers were.

Why do you hate this country, and the people who died on 9/11 so much?
Seriously, 9/11 "truthers" make me wish you could deport citizens for being
evil fucktards. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #92
PV
kl****@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?
Then we need to elect Lyndon Larouche, pronto, so we can figure out where
the Queen's drug dealing fits into the picture. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #93
PV
Gianluca <gi*********@hotmail.comwrites:
>Yeah, but what if 9-11 really WAS a plot by the international communist
conspiracy in collusion with the Vatican?

... and the Reptilians.

But seriously, it's time to wake up:

http://www.911missinglinks.com
Oh, yay, a meta-conspiracy. *HATE* *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #94
PV
Chris H <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
>Yes it is possible that it was a controlled demolition but no project
that size has ever been kept secret for that long. Especially as you
It's only "possible" in the same way that's it's possible for monkeys to
fly out of my butt. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #95
PV
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrites:
>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.
I certainly don't want to belittle the amazing achievements at Bletchley
Park, but Colossus was not a general-purpose stored program computer.
Close but no cigar. They do deserve a lot, maybe even the majority, of
the credit for laying the necessary groundwork, though. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #96
PV wrote:
Don Pearce <no****@nospam.comwrites:
>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.

I certainly don't want to belittle the amazing achievements at Bletchley
Park, but Colossus was not a general-purpose stored program computer.
Close but no cigar. They do deserve a lot, maybe even the majority, of
the credit for laying the necessary groundwork, though. *
The main credit doesn't even belong at Bletchley. It was Tommy Flowers,
a simple General Post Office engineer who designed it. He had no
funding; it was a personal skunkworks and he spent his life savings on
the first prototype. Afterwards a grateful government gave him an award
- coincidentally just about covering what he had spent.

d
Sep 18 '08 #97
PV
Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrites:
Oh, you might have the objection that the lunar surface doesn't
reflect but something like 10% of the light? However, the Sun is
*really* bright, and 10% of *really* bright is still very bright, and
the cameras were tuned to photograph this 10% reflected light clearly.
That's quite right, but you also have to consider that the photographer,
wearing a very reflective white spacesuit, ALSO acted as a fill-in light
for the pictures. Professional photographers sometimes have an assistant
hold up a big piece of white poster board to do exactly the same thing. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #98
On Sep 18, 9:19 am, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgwrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrote:
On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digital Al Dykes <ady...@panix.comwrote:
AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
demolition or something other than two airplanes causing all the
damage and death.
As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,
Please define "same".
but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????
Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7?
What exactly is your point? How does this address my claim that no
plane directly impacted WTC7? Do you disagree? Do you have evidence to
the contrary? Please share it with us.
Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.
And your point is? Are you trying to disagree with me?

From what I know no one has claimed that a plane directly impacted
WTC7. If you disagree please tell me.

Please tell me if you have evidence of a plane directly impacting WTC7
and leading to its collapse. If you do I will be happy to withdraw my
statement.

If you do not then I suggest that you read what I wrote again and
reread the, misleading at best, assertion I fixed. You might have to
look for the original post which claimed that two buildings were hit
but three collapsed and "Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

Again, please tell me if you disagree.

Theget



Sep 18 '08 #99
On Sep 18, 12:05 pm, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
theget <the...@bigmailbox.netwrites:
Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.
What's your point?

That *is* the point. WTC7 was just as much a casualty to the two main
events as the twin towers were.


I suggest that you read what I wrote again and reread the, misleading
at best, assertion I fixed. You might have to look for the original
post which claimed that two buildings were hit but three collapsed and
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."

If you have evidence to the contrary, ie, that a plane did directly
impact WTC7 and lead to its collapse, please tell me and I will be
happy to withdraw my statement.

>
Why do you hate this country, and the people who died on 9/11 so much?
What are you going on about? Did you miss the part where I said that
9/11 was IMO a war crime? Is this a joke? Am I merely being slow
today?
Seriously, 9/11 "truthers" make me wish you could deport citizens for being
evil fucktards. *
Seriously, people who want to deport citizens for having unpopular
beliefs and expressing them make me wish I was in charge of enforcing
the first amendment.

Theget

Sep 18 '08 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.