Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

BBC News: The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zap

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

How many fucking years does it take??

I would have thought for sure this was a BuffaloBob thread.

Truthseeker? You out there? hee hee


I would have thought for sure this was a BuffaloBob thread.
~Chris

Can't blame ya Chris. Happy 4th!

Zap

Happy 4th of July to you too!

Is there a story here somewhere?

They didn't solve anything. They didn't even say anything. Cute computer graphics though.

If's it's from the Federal government it must be a lie - that is, until obama takes office and then you just know anything you read from the government will be the truth.

MSGT-
What makes you think libs will be idiotic groupies like you cons were under Bush?

Oops. Did I say "were"?

My Bad.

Because MSGT is unable to imagine that others who he disagrees with politically may be more intelligent and insightful than he is.

It doesnt fucking matter if they had a video tape of the beams bending under the pressure and heat. It doesn't fucking matter if 100 people saw the fire weaken the beams. It doesn't matter if the building was inspected 6 hours before for demolitions. LOL

ALl sane people know why it fell, this conclusion is exactly what was expected.

But do democrats and liberals care? No, they don't, bush still did it, and its a conspiracy.

Which brings me back to the democrat play book.

What do democrats do when they refuse to believe something because they think they are right?

Open page 1 of the manual.

Page 1) If its not with our thinking, it MUST be a conspiracy.

Do you stupid democrats actually step back, think about what your saying, re-evaluate the facts and actually change your minds? Ever?

You people are fucking stupid trolls.

Of course it was fire. WTF, you think somebody wired a government building full of secret service and CIA and brought it down?

If you believe that, you truely are stupid and a lost cause. Check yourself into a mental hospital.

Kuma

You people are fucking stupid trolls

Talking to yer 3-way mirror once again?

^_^

Be Well.

/Really gone now
//Don't fergit to turn out the lights when you leave.

Obama will be good for the country, but I doubt he will rock the boat on 911.

People thinking a smoke filled kerosene fire melts steel, and are satisfied with an invisible plane hitting the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania deserve to be lied to. They'll believe anything.

"People thinking a smoke filled kerosene fire melts steel, and are satisfied with an invisible plane hitting the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania deserve to be lied to. They'll believe anything."

Hey, Boob...how about making this one your highest priority to solve as soon as you finish proving the fake moon landing, will ya'?

Didn't we have that idiot Bob go on and on about jet fuel and how it wouldn't burn on its own?


www.concordesst.com



rwd


Here ya go.


www.concordesst.com

BBC: What Brought Down WTC Building 7?

Maybe this had something to do with it.


Jay that is some picture I don't think I've ever seen that one before.

WTC 7 is not only the only skyscraper to come down completely allegedly due to fire alone but it also is the first skyscrpaer to fall into it's own footprint doing so.

Meaning one of two things.

It's either a miracle or it was deliberate.

This BBC piece claiming that WTC7 is 'solved' is more than a little disingenuous.

Nothing is solved yet.

This is the biggest factor seperating the LIHOP and the MIHOP crowds.

Be Well.


Here ya go.

www.concordesst.com

Don your example doesn't hold any weight as the circumstances are very different. The Jet fuel coming out the concord is being atomized in the slipstream and entering the engine where the combustion and explosion occur.


...only skyscraper to come down completely allegedly due to fire alone...

Therein lies the rub. Even when the reporter in this video says "it's the only building to come down due to fire damage", you can clearly see the outline of a large hole in the side of WTC7 in the background.

While he's saying it!

The article says nothing.

It should be an easy question to answer, whether arson or not. There would be traces of the explosives.

But I suppose that kind of information is classified or destroyed, like the Air Traffic Control Tapes and the United and American Black Boxes found in the Trade Center Buildings, whose collapse we better understand. Or the bullet in Connolly's neck.

Its not so much that I think there was controlled demolition as I know that the coverups are to protect an inept bureaucracy.

Murder need only be thoroughly investigated when small people commit the crime.


Don your example doesn't hold any weight as the circumstances are very different. The Jet fuel coming out the concord is being atomized in the slipstream and entering the engine where the combustion and explosion occur.
Posted by Zap


Sorry Zap, the ignition source was turned off.

The below is taken out of the actual flight recorder recording.

Point is not everything has to fit into a glove to make a proven point...

By the way, the plane was on fire until it crashed and then continued to burn.

--------------

14 h 43 min 46 s, Captain "(are you) cutting engine two there".

14 h 43 min 48 s, FE "I've cut it".

rwd.

Another fact about fire and steel.

There were a number of incidents(2)in my area of trucks catching fire below bridges.

The beams didn't melt,they warped.

Another words they lost their structual strength and the bridges had to be replaced.

As tower seven is concerned,what do you think,when combined with all that massive weight on top will happen when the lower structure is weakened.

Just a thought.

rwd

Posted by nutcase at 2008-07-05 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:


Ever witness a building come down from demolition?

There is a series of explosions as the charges blow out the support structure.

I find it incredibly hard to believe they could mask the explosions......

Unless they used conspirasy explosives, the silent type.

Try again


rwd

Asymmetric damage does not result in symmetric collapse. I'm not an architect or engineer, but they are:

www.ae911truth.org

It should be an easy question to answer, whether arson or not. There would be traces of the explosives.


NIST did not test for explosives.

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] "Did the NIST investigation
look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought
down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel" [3].
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues
of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable
admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion
investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial
fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials [26]


Source: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction www.bentham-open.org

I find it incredibly hard to believe they could mask the explosions......

There are literally hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions. Spend 5 minutes on google video and you'll have hours of video footage about people in the basement, talking about bombs going off...before, during and after the planes hit.

Unless you subscribe to the defense of "All my witnesses are completely credible, and your witnesses are worthless."



Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 03:57 PM | Reply


Post the video so we are on the same page.

I'll see for myself.


rwd

Explosives what else.

Larry

"There are literally hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions. "

Big deal. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. There was a lot of "noises" that could have been mistaken for explosions.

"The 9/11 Truth movement is really distinguished by a kind of defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class. In 9/11 lore the people who staff the White House, the security agencies, the Pentagon and groups like PNAC and the Council of Foreign Relations are imagined to be a monolithic, united class of dastardly, swashbuckling risk-takers with permanent hard-ons for Bourne Supremacy-style "false flag" and "black bag" operations, instead of the mundanely greedy, risk-averse, backstabbing, lawn-tending, half-clever suburban golfers they are in real life. It completely misunderstands the nature of American government -- fails to see that the old maxim about "the business of America is business" is absolutely true, that the federal government in this country is really just a lo-rent time-share property seasonally occupied by this or that clan of financial interests, each of which takes its 4-year turn at the helm tinkering with the tax laws and regulatory code and the rates at the Fed in the way it thinks will best keep the money train rolling."

www.alternet.org


Explosives what else.


Larry

Posted by LarryMohr


Larry, in case you missed anything in OA's blistering he gave you on the other site, go back and reread it.

rwd


Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 03:57 PM

I'm still waiting for the google film.

Or is that film at 11?


rwd

Hey RightWingDon Kiss My Ass.

Larry

Everything is always about ass isn't it larry?


rwd

Certainly not Yours that's for sure.

Larry

I don't know, Rightie Don, and neither do you. But I'm willing to be convinced. How open is YOUR mind? herm


Sorry Zap, the ignition source was turned off.
The below is taken out of the actual flight recorder recording.
Point is not everything has to fit into a glove to make a proven point...


Don the ignition was not turned off before the fire started.

The engine was shut down after the sensors announced the fire to the flight crew.

You have no point you're comparing apples and oranges.

Your insistence on something that does not fit is very Buffalo Bob like, an analogy that does fit.


video.google.com

Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11. Watch that one, it's like 5 minutes long.

www.youtube.com

Images and witnesses from the basement.

Sorry, nice day outside...wanted to go to the driving range. Not really the weather outside to dick around on the Retort all day.

Hey bukkake, why don't you outfit an expedition since the residual explosives would still adhere to some of the debris from the building.

Ask and you shall receive. 40 mins into the presentation. 2 different sources of steel...with no help from the government of course.

video.google.com

But then someone who would name himself "bukkake" shows a preference for masturbatory activity and ejaculating all over passive women.

It's the new quagmire...and rhyming rocks. Replace women with Iraq.

I'm wondering if the word bukkake was in the usual thesaurus you have by your desk when posting your inane ramblings, or did you have to go to the naughty parts of the internet to figure it out?

Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 05:24 PM | Reply |


I watched the videos and i don't think it raises to the level of proof you are looking for.

Most of what was reported was during the time before the towers fell.

I think that in itself makes your proof subject to other interpitations.

Note at the end of the google video when they were playing the supposed explosions.The building did not come down from the bottom being blasted out it came down at the exact line where the airplanes hit.

It is entirely possible what we are hearing is the support structure giving way.

What makes more sense?

rwd

Big deal. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. There was a lot of "noises" that could have been mistaken for explosions.

Does that include the people who had their faces blown off in the basement? I'm sure they were just hearing things too...

Posted by Zap at 2008-07-05 05:23 PM | Reply |

Ah..lets get one thing straight.

I have no problem believing the jet fuel was burning outside the Concord or that jet fuel burned inside the towers.

Just turning the cards on this one.

My original post should have led you to make that assumption.


rwd

Video of many eye witness reports of bombs, and secondary explosions in the buildings.

"Big deal. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. There was a lot of "noises" that could have been mistaken for explosions."

The video is just over ten minutes long... don't have the patience? Forward to 3:50, apparently NYFD professionals aren't very reliable either. Also forward to 9:50, shows you what at least some in the media thought about it on day 1, before they were told to be "patriotic", shut up, and toe the line, if they like their job.

video.google.com


My original post should have led you to make that assumption.


Apples and Oranges, very different circumstance, Bob......

rwd,

Its amazing what some people think I said, yourself included.

Testing would quickly resolve any demolition questions. But residue testing was not done, or if it was, the results are secret.

I don't know why the building fell the way it did, but I'm sure the full story is classified, to protect bureaucracy.

"video.google.com"

That doesn't prove anything. Loud noises do not necessarily mean bombs. Explosions can happen in that environment from a variety of causes, including containers of flammable materials such as fire extinguishers, which no doubt, there were hundreds of in those buildings.

Excellent site with many links regarding the WTC 7 tower collapse.

11syyskuu.blogspot.com

This is a link from the above sites that compares the aftermath other fires in steel-structure buildings.

www.serendipity.li



Ah..lets get one thing straight.
I have no problem believing the jet fuel was burning outside the Concord or that jet fuel burned inside the towers.


Something straight indeed. I'll do you one better. It is an empirical given that Bush & Co had nothing to do with 911 and the downing of the towers.

As my observation and experience show nothing that complicated could have been flawlessly contrived and accomplished by that group of morons. It was a event that they used to their own interests and against the interests of the U.S.

nutcase said: "video.google.com" That doesn't prove anything....

Your right, there is probably no way to prove now what those noises were. But the sheer magnitude of witnesses that stated the same thing. I did make references to frame 3:50 were the NY Fire Department was stating that their were bombs in the building, they are trained professionals.

If it was only this, but their are so many other events from that day which raise my eyebrow. I don't know what happened, but I feel very strongly that it is not what we are being told.

Note at the end of the google video when they were playing the supposed explosions.The building did not come down from the bottom being blasted out it came down at the exact line where the airplanes hit.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Barry Jennings was injured from an explosion in building 7.

www.youtube.com

All this information is there, you can watch every minute of news feed from all the major networks if you want and draw your own conclusions.

The burden of proof lies with NIST and FEMA. I cannot speak for this new report, but all previous models for WTC7 from the government show a low probability of occurrence. (their words, not mine)

Watch 9/11 Mysteries free on the internet. Read Debunking 9/11 debunking by David Ray Griffin, which is a direct response to the Popular Mechanics/NIST/FEMA official conspiracy theory. The worst that can come out of it is that you wasted a few hours of your time, and you still think I'm an idiot.

The architects and scholars who have taken their time to research this extremely taboo subject have nothing to gain from this. In fact, they jeopardize their careers when they choose to take on this subject because so much funding ties back into the government.

All I have ever wanted is a real investigation into this disaster. That has never happened. Hamilton and Kean themselves have said the 9/11 commission is a whitewash. Phillip Zelikow is Condi's penpal. The families who lost loved ones that day deserve it. The rescue workers being ignored by the government deserve it.

So many laws are designed from a post 9/11 mindset both foreign and domestic. Shouldn't we scrutinize this event accordingly? Hell, look at Pearl Harbor... We know now that the White House knew in advance of the attack and let it happen anyway. I'll never understand the vitriol toward people who just want to understand.

How open is YOUR mind? herm

Posted by herm at 2008-07-05 04:53 PM | Reply

Mighty lame there herm. Trying to imply that only open-minded people can buy into the crackpot conspiracy theory.

This is the same bunch of co-conspirators, isn't it, that you routinely blast for ineptitude on everything from Iraq to global economics and diplomacy with China?

The same incompetent fools who run the IRS and can't seem to deliver the mail on time?

But the same bunch of clowns that can't shoot straight somehow coordinated a massive terror atack, imploded buildings, and disappeared a couple of jets.

And everyone is keeping the secret?

An open mind is one thing Herm. A garbage can is something else.

BBC reported that WTC 7 tower fell 20 something minutes before it actually collapsed. I'm sure it's a common thing...

www.youtube.com

And everyone is keeping the secret?

Well, everytime someone mentions Mahmud Ahmed to Joe Biden, he runs the other way like his ass is on fire.


BBC reported that WTC 7 tower fell 20 something minutes before it actually collapsed. I'm sure it's a common thing...


www.youtube.com

Posted by joeshmo3973 at 2008-07-05 06:28 PM | Reply |


If i recall correctly, that was a misstatement from the newscaster.
I believe what prompted his error is that the NYFD said that tower seven was in imminent danger of collapse,because of ongoing fires in the building

To continue the broadcast with tower seven in full view shows there was confusion on the part of the BBC


rwd

I believe what prompted his error is that the NYFD said that tower seven was in imminent danger of collapse,because of ongoing fires in the building

Even though that had never happened in the history of steel skyscrapers ever? Interesting...

"To continue the broadcast with tower seven in full view shows there was confusion on the part of the BBC"

That's the nature of a chaotic situation: conflicting stories, confusion, eyewitnesses claiming to hear bombs, etc.

People mistook motorcycle backfire for shots in Dealey Plaza as well. Same nonsense.

eyewitnesses claiming to hear bombs, etc.

Fortunately, we'll never know because protocol was broken and evidence of explosives was never tested for.

Rightwingdon: I agree, it was probably a misstatement. The towers were evaluated,the ground workers knew that the tower was going down. It appears from this report, and a similar one from CNN that TV networks were called in to report that the tower was about to fall, that's why so many cameras were focused on it.

How were they so sure that the tower was going down?
WTC5 sustained much more collateral damage and didn't fall. I can go on and on...

Even though that had never happened in the history of steel skyscrapers ever? Interesting...

Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 06:53 PM | Reply


How many times in the past have skyscrapers been hit by jets at maximum speed, fully loaded with fuel?

Like that happens every day ....

A B-25 got stuck in the Empire State building once.

www.aerospaceweb.org

My favorite B-25 picture: i179.photobucket.com

Vernon said: How many times in the past have skyscrapers been hit by jets at maximum speed, fully loaded with fuel?

WTC7 did not get hit by a jet.


"Didn't we have that idiot Bob go on and on about jet fuel and how it wouldn't burn on its own?

www.concordesst.com

rwd"

Posted by rightwingdon at 2008-07-05 10:01 AM | Reply


No dUmmy--we had you not understanding what was said as usual. Jet fuel burns only as a vapor or mist. Your link clearly shows misted fuel on fire.

The guys on Mythbusters were testing whether a line of jet fuel could travel fast enough to ignite a fuel tank like it did in Die Hard. They tried to light the jet fuel with a blow torch and except for the vapor flash above the jet fuel, they couldn't get it to light with the blow torch.
Gasoline lit and traveled, but could easily be out run. The jet fuel did nothing.

What that means is that after the inital flash of the fuel that was misted in the giant fireball, the fire consisted of burning material from the building and plane, but only the fuel as it vaporized. Most of the fuel was lost in the initial fireball, and what was left went down elevator shafts and stairwells as well as the outside of the building. The burning fuel simply wasn't a factor. But there was melted steel at the WTC--how did that happen? There was too much smoke for the temperature to get high enough to weaken steel, and it didn't burn long enough. Smoke takes the place of oxygen which is necessary for higher temperatures, and smoke indicates an inefficient fire as smoke consists of unburned particles.

How many times in the past have skyscrapers been hit by jets at maximum speed, fully loaded with fuel?

Like that happens every day ....

WTC7... 7. Seven.

They weren't fully loaded with fuel. They started out a little more than half full and used fuel during the flight. They weren't full of fuel because they weren't going anywhere near their maximum range, so they took along what they needed and a bit more for emergency--but weight would be a factor and they wouldn't carry that extra weight. They flew the route every day, and knew how much fuel was needed.

Even though that had never happened in the history of steel skyscrapers ever? Interesting...

Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 06:53 PM |


To go one step further,I think the NYFD stated the building was making a lot of noise that led them to believe it was going to collapse.
They gave it a very shot time and true to word it did.

rwd

since the residual explosives would still adhere to some of the debris from the building

Ever witness a building come down from demolition?

There is a series of explosions as the charges blow out the support structure.

I find it incredibly hard to believe they could mask the explosions......

Unless they used conspirasy explosives, the silent type.


Do some
research about thermite. Or perhaps about Thermate. They both make really pretty clean cuts through the hardest materials like the ones seen here in the WTC rubble. Also both thermite and Thermate create no explosion. There were traces of Thermate found on pieces of steel from the WTC.

To actually believe that the only 3 steel buildings in the history of this country (I believe in the history of the world) all fell because of fire damage in only a few hours and each collapsed perfectly into it's own foot print takes a special kind of mind. Many steel structures have burned for much much longer and much hotter temperatures and have not fallen. I'm not sure what the real story is, but I'll tell you the popular one is not the correct one.

"To go one step further,I think the NYFD stated the building was making a lot of noise that led them to believe it was going to collapse.
They gave it a very shot time and true to word it did."


rwd

Posted by rightwingdon at 2008-07-05 08:10 PM | Reply


Link? The fires were small in wtc7.

www.whatreallyhappened.com

Apples and Oranges, very different circumstance, Bob......


Posted by Zap at 2008-07-05 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag


Why not give a--For Instance--instead of talking out your ass?

But there was melted steel at the WTC--how did that happen?
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Gonna have to see a link on that one Bob.

Not the ones where they found moulten steel when they dug out the towers.

The rubble burned for weeks,creating extreme heat.

The beams on the floors where the planes hit.

That link... the one where it states they were moulten.

rwd

To go one step further,I think the NYFD stated the building was making a lot of noise that led them to believe it was going to collapse.
They gave it a very shot time and true to word it did.

Time to find your source...

RWD

There should have been no molten steel at any time or any place, let alone weeks later. Why can't you understand that to melt steel you need oxygen, and something to burn. When something is buried, it gets no oxygen. Lack of oxygen should have stopped any flames, and smoldering material doesn't keep steel in a molten state, and there was never anything reported that would ever get hot enough to get steel molten in the first place.

Here is a link showing flowing steel before the collapse.

youtube.com

Time to find your source...

Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2008-07-05 08:28 PM | Reply |


Na,I know what i know and have been over this road many times.
Take it or leave it.
Even if I found one for you you would deflect anyway.

Ok page 20

www.journalof911studies.com



Why not give a--For Instance--instead of talking out your ass?
~BUFFALO_BOB


Fo what would you like a 'for instance'?


Zap

A For Instance when my comparisons were in error.


Apples and Oranges, very different circumstance, Bob......

Posted by Zap at 2008-07-05 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag

Why not give a--For Instance--instead of talking out your ass?

~ BUFFALO_BOB


ROTFLMAO


Bob I was insulting RWD by referring to him as Bob...


Bob I was commenting on RWD trying to compare the Concord fire with WTC fire. They are not comparable.

RWD

Your link shows a conversation that could easily have been concocted after the fact.

It has been shown that the fires were not large in WTC7 as claimed in your link, yet you ignore the fact.

You can even see the kink in the middle just as it collapses. You can see the explosions travel UP the side just as it collapses. You ignore reality.

Look at the last video by CBS. The building kinks in the middle and explosions blow out windows from the bottom up.

www.wtc7.net

"Your insistence on something that does not fit is very Buffalo Bob like, an analogy that does fit."


Posted by Zap at 2008-07-05 05:23 PM | Reply

And I say--FOR INSTANCE.


And I say--FOR INSTANCE.
~bb

Oh lets start with smoke stacks on the moon.

Zap

What was I comparing it to? First off--there was only one--it wasn't smokestacks. I missed the comparison part there. Where do the apples and oranges come in? What did it look like to you? What was your point of view as to what the video showed?

I bought the DVD of "To the Moon" that the clip comes from. It is on the screen for less than a second, and no mention of it is in the program. At that point in the video, it is Christmas Eve and the astronauts are reading from the bible.

The source is NASA and Nova. It has been said it is a still picture that is smudged somehow in editing. I find that difficult to believe since the smudge disappears completly instead of remaining static. All videos are a compliation of still pictures, and there is clearly movement which means it is a series of pictures--not just one picture that was zoomed. There was a zoom, but it was a zoom of several pictures in sequences of the video--not just one frame.

But let's haer your point of view.


But let's haer your point of view.

The 'video' was from a single frame of still photography.

Case close, for reasonable minds.


Zap

How did the smoke not be in the still picture--then start to appear in the still picture--then get denser in the still picture--then start to fade in the still picture--then disappear in the still picture? How do reasonable minds explain that?

It was a video--the screen scrolls for several seconds in the program. It was from Apollo 8. Do you think they sent them up there without a video camera?

"As my observation and experience show nothing that complicated could have been flawlessly contrived and accomplished by that group of morons. It was a event that they used to their own interests and against the interests of the U.S.

Posted by Zap "

Exactly. End of story.


How did the smoke not be in the still picture--

How do reasonable minds explain that?
~bb


Bob how many years do you have in the business of photography? You speak of zoom as if that is the only way to create movement, it ain't.

Bob at some point your continued delusions take away from any sense of believability. At this point you could actually discover the holy grail and all here would only laugh. You have crossed the line so often in this medium you have become a joke.


Good luck with that...

Zap

I was a projectionist for several years. I understand the difference between a still picture and a video.

You are avoiding simple questions with derision.

Try answering the questions--then deride. Let's try again.

How did the smoke not be in the still picture--then start to appear in the still picture--then get denser in the still picture--then start to fade in the still picture--then disappear in the still picture? How do reasonable minds explain that?


It was a video--the screen scrolls for several seconds in the program. It was from Apollo 8. Do you think they sent them up there without a video camera?

Can you see all the words? Let's see how many you miss in your response.


It was a video--the screen scrolls for several seconds in the program.

Prove it.

It was a video--the screen scrolls for several seconds in the program.

Prove it.

Posted by Zap at 2008-07-05 10:18 PM | Reply

Easy enough--the fact that the puff appears,changes shape and density and fades says it is not from a single frame. Also--as I said--I bought the video. It would be foolish of me to lie when you or anyone else could buy the video and see that there was no scrolling for several seconds---its a Nova program--they'll play it again sometime. But even knowing it was there, and seeing it before, it is very easy to miss it in the Nova program. It wasn't on the screen like the Youtube video--that was a series of still pictures from the video. In the program it was a brief instant and not mentioned.

Now--let's see how many words you missed. My my--quite a few.

xxxxxxx

You are avoiding simple questions with derision.


Try answering the questions--then deride. Let's try again.


How did the smoke not be in the still picture--then start to appear in the still picture--then get denser in the still picture--then start to fade in the still picture--then disappear in the still picture? How do reasonable minds explain that?


It was a video--the screen scrolls for several seconds in the program. It was from Apollo 8. Do you think they sent them up there without a video camera?


Can you see all the words? Let's see how many you miss in your response.

xxxxxxxx

You don't see much do you.


Easy enough--the fact that the puff appears,changes shape and density and fades says it is not from a single frame.

Bob this proves nothing. You want my opinion. This is a common and simply explained anomaly, the camera trucked through a reflection.

In fact your description prove the point. The anomaly starts to appear intensifies and than disappears.

Of course all UFO produced smoke stacks do just that right Bob.

Zap

Gee, and it just happened to reflect right at that precise point. A reflection of what? A black reflection?

Again you feel the need for derision in your retort.

The problem is that that it was in the original film from NASA--before Nova ever got it. It is still in the original.

Someone should whip your nutsack with a car antenna.

Someone really should. Fuck the pies.

Noam Chomsky fails 911 Litmus Test Again

That there's something strange, mysterious, contradictory, absurd, about his refusal to see that anybody other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have killed JFK, his refusal to become involved in looking into, whatsoever, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and Malcolm X, and then, of course, although a lot of people cut him slack and were in effect in denial about Chomsky on those decapitations of the Left... but 9/11 came along, it's a Litmus test, I swear it's a Litmus test for every individual, every organization... where do they stand on 9/11?
And of course he just proceeded to fail the 9/11 Litmus test entirely. And I think this has caused a lot of people to just say, to themselves, "There's gotta be something really wrong with Chomsky." And apparently I've articulated it in this 15,000-word chapter

kennysideshow.blogspot.com


BBC lies again:>)

Follow the money & many questions get answered...


Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein
Posted in the database on Thursday, September 07th, 2006 @ 16:35:19 MST (1079 views)
by
lifeforce@rockymountains.net The Four Winds


You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

lookingglassnews.org

nulli needs to wake up abit from his poverty vows...:>)

Bani-
From your link:

And I do believe, that he is, an "agent of disinformation". Now, I don't say "disinformation agent", which would imply that he is on the payroll of the CIA, which is something that I cannot prove, and I do not necessarily believe. But he certainly is an "agent of disinformation". And there are many kinds of disinformation, he engages in about 20 different kinds of nasty propaganda techniques himself, especially in his public lectures... dismissive ness is one of the trickiest cards that he plays in his public lectures. He'll say things like, 'Oh well, we don't know who did 9/11, but it really doesn't matter,' and then he'll just go on!

I at first thought you were posting satire. Sadly, no.

Maybe you just need to put down the computer and relax for a bit.

Someone please tell me that this (lookingglassnews.org)
is an Onion-like spoof of stoned grad students and their free time.

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Report: U.S. Allowed 1950 Korean Massacre
Declassified Korean War records show that U.S. military officials gave approval to their South Korean counterparts to machine-gun thousands of political prisoners. "They did not stop the executions," said investigator Jung Byung-joon. "They were at the crime scene, and took pictures and wrote reports."


Posted by rcade

yet we believe Bush & cabal didn't know...relax Beleg...life is still good.

ps nice try though:>)

I posted this info over 2 years ago here...all they do is update the ongoing financial connections...


more from Lucky Larry's...

There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenants:


www.informationliberation.com

So, um....I don't see the connection between this and 9/11.Oh, I see it now: You are a bit off.


So, um....I don't see the connection between this and 9/11.Oh, I see it now: You are a bit off.

Posted by BetelG

tacky, tacky...


February 16, 2007
The High-Fivers
More proof the Israelis were shadowing the 9/11 hijackers
by Justin Raimondo
It was the tail-end of a bleak November 2001: a pall of shocked numbness hung over the country, and a rising war hysteria had nearly everyone cowed. Americans were just beginning to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and focus on what had happened, and how to react. It was very early on the morning of the 23rd when, scanning the headlines, I came across a Washington Post story by John Mintz: "60 Israelis Detained on Tourist Visas Since Sept. 11." Odd, I thought, why go after the Israelis, probably the least likely suspects?


antiwar.com


justin's abit off, too?:>)

Nani-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are one of a select group of the most gullible paranoid motherfuckers on the planet, and you try our patience.

"As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition."

It's also "industry" jargon for getting your firefighters out of there before the building collapses under its own weight.


Nani-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are one of a select group of the most gullible paranoid motherfuckers on the planet, and you try our patience.

Posted by BetelG

gee, I thought you were brighter than cheap shots ignorance...

Wow!

follow the money & then one is called paranoid?

desertpeace.wordpress.com

meanwhile why are these sites then being hacked so seriously?:>)



It's also "industry" jargon for getting your firefighters out of there before the building collapses under its own weight.

Posted by BetelG


yeah, right...

Former Senator Mike Gravel Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation and Prosecution of Bush and Cheney
The former Democratic senator from Alaska discusses his presidential campaign, his role in the releasing of the Pentagon Papers and his support for NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a grassroots group seeking to place an initiative on the ballot of the November 6th general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new commission to investigate 9/11.

www.organicconsumers.org

The same people whom planned the 2000 election.
To have ones' way.
The same people whom placed law enforcement into the interogation units and covered their crimes.
Now back at their day jobs.
The same people whom started a riot at a prison in Spinboldac, to cover the murder of a fellow operative (see election 2000) whom was the only person in the prison un-armed. The airstrike called up ensured the elimination of most witnesses. Except the remaining 2 cia officers, you know they survived! The same people whom own, and have owned, our intelligence facilities for decades.
The military you send your loved ones to die in, for causes that bring them wealth, yet thin your herds.
The same people whom have spent decades grooming the politics and policies of this nation in niggardly fashion.

Too bad wealth and power hold sway over the minds of men, as this threat to our existance could have been eliminated decades ago.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are one of a select group of the most gullible paranoid motherfuckers on the planet, and you try our patience.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-07-06 04:04 AM | Reply


You believe there was an invisible plane that hit the pentagon and disappeared in a field in PA, and you call others gullible?

You think a kerosene fire bolstered by office furniture will weaken or melt steel, and you call others gullible.

You think wtc7 collapsed on itself naturally even though the kink in the center of the roof at the point of collapse is evident, and you can see explosions blowing out windows as they travel up the side of the building, and you call others gullible.

Maybe you don't know what gullible means

You don't believe firefighters who were there and reported mulitlple explosions, and you don't believe the people who said there was an explosion in the basement before the first plane hit. I guess you know more than they do--I guess they have never been around fires before--they must have been all rookies and liars.

Bani said: It's also "industry" jargon for getting your firefighters out of there before the building collapses under its own weight.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Larry Silverstein

If the quote would have stated "...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull them..." then I would greatly suspect Mr. Silverstein would be referring to the firefighters. However since the actual quote says "pull it" it's more likely he was referring to a inanimate object, the building in this case.

Everybody on this thread will have FBI files opened on them, re this thread.

People with unpopular opinions to be ridiculed for it, in a lot of cases the person being ridiculed is more educated on the subject. 9/11 is taboo, speaking against the mainstream story is unpatriotic. We may have freedom of speech, but their is no freedom of employment, if you want to keep bringing home the bacon, keep quiet.

The public in general does not want to hear that their government and everything they were told about these events is untrue and they would not even being to believe that our government would contemplate a terrorist / false flag operation against our people. They would rather live in ignorant bliss. These people all ready know everything they need, and will immediately ignore and dismiss anything to the contrary.

The mainstream media will follow this path

1 Ignore the truthers (we are here)
2. Swiftboat the truthers
3. Shortly after swiftboating, some who have held private beliefs or suspicious may feel the time is right to be more critical on the subject
4. The taboo about talking about 9/11 is minimized, the "snowball starts rolling down hill"
5. The process towards a real independent full investigation starts.

I think it was the aliens that control our goverment. see the billding was the rebels hed qurters and the evil alians that control our goverment had to find a way to destroy it. So what they did was "pull it" so the billding wood colapse cawsing the defeate of the rebel forces that planned to reveal the evil aliens that control goverment. Its all a consperacy!!

its true cos i red it on the internet and yo ucan't argue it at tall cos its true.

/end sarcasm

I want to invent a pill that will cure stupid. I think 6.99~ billion people would be cured ending the epidemic of stupid people.

Also I'm pretty sure "pull it" meant to pull the operation in progress.

Reply to pragmatous posted at 2008-07-06 12:45 PM

pragmatous said: Also I'm pretty sure "pull it" meant to pull the operation in progress.

Touch! I allso liked your sarkasm :)

I want to don't want over emphasize on that particular comment as proof. It's as trivial as evidence of the Enron and Worldcomm investigations that the SEC was conducting being destroyed in the collapse of WTC7.

I personally have not found one smoking gun regarding that day. Only a series of events and connect the dots that all put together is too much for me to much for me to simply brush off.

Only a series of events and connect the dots that all put together is too much for me to much for me to simply brush off.

Posted by joeshmo3973 at 2008-07-06 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you took the time to research each dot you will see you have nothing .
It is this very fact you just stated what keeps the truthers in buisness.
Facts have no meaning to them.

rwd

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort
RSS Spec