Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger
and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But
that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible
to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was
hear for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are used.
They cut through structural members in a precise order, to use
gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding
that the compnies that ddo such work pride themselves on using the
least amount of explosives possible, for reasons of both safety and
economy.



There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Yes.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design
a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of
physics.

I have no answer.


There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are
on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have
said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems pretty
far-fetched to me.


(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead.
Does he shed light on the CD allegations?

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.




So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle and
the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.


Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more or less
than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid. You post fake
YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame fairy tales.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:31 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article . com,





wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article et,

Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the
controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of
office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can
wait for another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work
is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul
aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad
daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance
workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work?
No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or
electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They
do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You
really should try to get out more often and get away from the
internet once in a while.

Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of
day without being planned for and with people controlling the space
notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with
several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26,
1993 at
the WTC.

Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material
requires paperwork.

There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex
and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete
yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001,
any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil
engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were
kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories
about
that process on request.



http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63656282270164 --
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude
bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge
explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support
that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The

Each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive as the building in
this demolition:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

The core beams in a WTC tower are about boxes 20 inchec x 20 inches,
hollow but the crosssection is about 100 square inches of solid steel
(all from memory) .

What kind of cutting charge do you think you need to cut 100 scuare
inches of steel? That's what the crossection of a WTC core beam is.

Do you think that cutting charges are silent?


No, And I never suggested they were quiet. Though they would make
considerably less noise that a single large 1000lb bomb, which is what
you were comparing against.




Cutting charges need to be in contact with te beam. No sheet rock, no
walls, no nothing. How many bare beams have you seen inside a
high-rise tower (Have you even been in a tower?)

Geez, don't jump on me. Can't you accept any disagreement with any
tiny part of your analysis? Yes, I've been in high rise towers,
including the WTC many, many times. I know it's crazy to suggest
that demolition charges could have been put in place. I'm not the
one suggesting that it was even remotely possible. All I said was
you can't compare the noise and effects from a crude 1000lb bomb in a
truck in a basement garage in 1993, with carefully placed modern
shaped demolition charges. As far as noise, if you look at demo
work, the charges go off in sequence, not simultaneously. So, of
course there is going to be less noise for the same amount of
explosives.





In every documentary of the demolotion of a building, the preperation
of the structure has been shown to be lots of work. A portion of the
beams are pre-cut with oxy torches. That dind't happen on 9/11.

Agreed that it takes lots of work. I don;t believe that portions of
beams always have to be pre-cut though.



There are no eywitnesses or audio/video recording that show man-made
explosives with timing, size, brisance (look it up) and placement
consistant with the video of any collapse.

Please look at this short video before you respond.

Again, if you look at what I posted, I'M NOT SAYING I BELIEVE THAT
EXPLOSIVES WERE USED. I AGREE THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO
SUGGEST IT. So, is it OK if I skip the video?




http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC and has never been to NYC. The last video shows the Twoofers
at ground zero on 9/11/2007 as they pester the families of the
victims.

Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

The Truth Movement and the families of the victims, WTC Ground Zero
9/11/2007 Sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are one of the kookers if you don't swallow the same BS as Dyekie boy.
Get used to it.

wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article et,

Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the
controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of
office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can
wait for another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work
is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul
aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad
daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance
workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work?
No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or
electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They
do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You
really should try to get out more often and get away from the
internet once in a while.

Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of
day without being planned for and with people controlling the space
notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with
several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993
at
the WTC.

Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material
requires paperwork.

There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil
engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were
kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories
about
that process on request.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude
bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge
explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support
that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The
charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which
way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with
1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they
belong.

However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes
were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the
building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure
that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various
detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could
know exactly where the planes would even hit?

Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?

No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the
demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in
sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the
building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to
screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works?

BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why
did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?

Kook!



Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about
how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any
explosives being planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah....

Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to
bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and
blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the
alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely
where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo
charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where
the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges
left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires.

It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny
shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when
you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The
official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked
many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how
everything occurred, start to finish?


No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If
charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else
matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job
done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the
fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that
allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some
seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem
and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your
loss.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.

Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?

And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.

Hell, Tom Clancy wrote about something very similar in a
book. There was nothing far-fetched about it. The people
in charge of airspace defense were caught off guard, but
there was no reason they should have been. They just
weren't paying attention to the all-too-obvious
possibilities. I mean, really, TWO fighters ready on the
ground in Massachusetts, to defend the entire northeast???

It's just like Pearl Harbor, which also shouldn't have come
as such a surprise. The U.S. Navy had already run two
wargames showing the power of carrier attack. The British
had already sunk several Italian warships at Taranto using
torpedoes, and Taranto was also "too shallow" to allow
torpedo attack.

The typical defense establishment just isn't very good at
preparing for anything they haven't handled in the immediate
past. The "next time" will also be something they should
have seen coming, but didn't. Expecting them to is just
expecting too much of them. They don't think outside the
box. They don't even think inside the box, unless it's
their own box.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article et,

Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the
controlled demolition were placed without tens of thousands of
office workers knowing that it was being done, but that can
wait for another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work
is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul
aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad
daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance
workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work?
No they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or
electrician while they are doing their job? No they don't. They
do it and don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You
really should try to get out more often and get away from the
internet once in a while.

Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of
day without being planned for and with people controlling the space
notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with
several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993
at
the WTC.

Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material
requires paperwork.

There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil
engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were
kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories
about
that process on request.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude
bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge
explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support
that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The
charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which
way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with
1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they
belong.

However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes
were involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the
building were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure
that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the various
detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges, etc? Who could
know exactly where the planes would even hit?

Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would
they?

No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the
demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in
sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the
building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to
screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works?

BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why
did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?

Kook!

Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about
how high or low that point might have been. No one saw the any
explosives being planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah....

Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to
bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and
blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the
alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely
where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo
charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where
the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges
left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires.

It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny
shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when
you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The
official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked
many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how
everything occurred, start to finish?

No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If
charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else
matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job
done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the
fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that
allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some
seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem
and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your
loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all that
is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete observation of
all the evidence and then putting together a scenario that's
consistent with it. That has been done by forensic experts. And the
conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the planes, flew them into the WTC
and that is what caused the collapse.

I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that encompasses all
the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning that the
smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look right to you,
or that you don't believe the planes alond could have caused the
collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want to hear, start
to finish, what happened that day, according to you.

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

On Sep 15, 11:40 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article hlSGi.737$6B2.374@trndny04, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
Well, this is BS, but I've always wondered about that crash into the
Pentagon. Look at this chronology, and see if they mention a jet crashing
into the Pentagon:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

And if a jet did hit the Pentagon, where's the wing damage? Seems like a
very narrow slice of damage for a jet with a 200' wingspan (guess).

Put anything said in that website in the context of all the eye
witnesses and phyical evidence. Especially that smoking hole in the
Pentagon with all the 757 wreckage and the body parts, as witnessed by
hundreds of first responders and who's DNA matches that of the family
members of the people booked to ride on the plane.



And don't forget that it hit at just about ground level. Very likely
the wings were sheared off by hitting street lights, God knows what
else as it came in. There was a fairly big crash site right in front
of the Pentagon, wasn't there?

This is typical conspiracy kook tactics. Take anything that doesn't
seem quite right to them, blow it all of proportion on it's own,
disregard the mountain of evidence suggesting what really happened,
and then invoke images of some deep dark conspiracy. What they
really are doing is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the
USA. Do they find fault with Al_Qaeda blowing up women and
children? With their friends the Taliban forbidding girls from going
to school? No, it's the big bad USA that's the center of their
focus. What a bunch of terrorist supporting scum bags.



Details of engine parts found at Pentagonhttp://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Black boxes recovered and analyzedhttp://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

Info on the tapeshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6068.shtml

More eye witnesses same-day reporting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...01/attack.html

Transcript of CNN broadcast of 1PM 9-11, eyewitness
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.32.html

Perdue simulation of 757 impact
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/....Pentagon.html

DNA matches with family members matches all but one of Pax on Flt77http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=pr...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/9.11/index.html

Video of Phanton hitting wallhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

89 eyewitnesses. Put any of them or any other name you come up with
into this custom search ans see what they said. Everyone saw a plane
flying at the pentagon. nobody saw that plane fly over teh pentagon and
leave.

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=01...%3Ahx2yxincxdu

Anderson Steve
Anlauf Deb & Jeff
Artman, Stuart ***
Banton, Ralph
Barbara
Battle, David
Bauer Gary
Baxter, John, Col.
Bease, Maurice
Bell Mickey
Benedetto Richard
Biggert Judy
Birdwell Brian
Boger Sean ****
Bouchoux Donald R.
Bowman John
Bradley, Pam
Braman Chris
Brennan, Donald
Bright Mark
Brooks, Chadwick
Brown Ervin
Bryceland, Frank
Campo, Omar
Candelario, Joseph
Carroll, Susan
Cissell James R.
Clem, Dennis
Cleveland Allen
Clodfelter, George
Close, Bernadette
Cook Scott P.
Cox, Richard (Arlington po)
Creed Dan
Damoose
Day Wayne T.
DeChiaro Steve
Defina
DiPaula Michael
Dobbs Mike
Donley, Daryl
Dougherty Jill
Dubill Bob
Dyson, John
Eberle Bobby Pilot
Eiden Steve
Elgas Penny
Elhallan, Aziz Pilot
Elliott Bruce
Evey Walker Lee
Faram Mark
Flyler Kim
Ford Ken
Fortunato Don
Foust, Barry (Arlington po)
Frost Stephen S.
Gaines Kat
Gaskins, Fred
Gerard, Steven
Gerson, Mike
Hagos Afework
Hahr, Matt
Harrington Joe
Hemphill Albert
Henson Jerry
Hernandez, Eugenio
Hovis Tom
Hudson, Ed
Hunt Bob
Hurst, Joe
Ingledue, Jim (VBFD)
James, Isabel
James, Michael
Jarvis Will
Johnson, Megan
Jones, Eric
Kaiser, Andrea
Kean Terrance
Keglovich, James
Kelly, Lesley
Khavkin D. S.
Kirk Mark Steven
Kizildrgli Aydan
Kopf, Peter
Krohn Charles H.
Krug, Ann
Lagasse William
Le Grand, La Verne
Leibner Lincoln
Leonard, Robert
Lyman, Mary
Marra David
Martinez Oscar
Mason, Don
McClain Tom
McClellan Kenneth
McCoy, Steve (eng. 101)
McCusker Elaine
McGraw Stephen
McNair Phil
Middleton William Sr.
Milburn Kirk
Mitchell Terry
Mitchell, Mitch
Mondul, Steve
Moody Sheila
Morin Terry
Mosley James
Munsey Christopher
Murphy Peter M.
Murray, Patty (Senator)
Narayanan Vin
Neri, Michael
O'Keefe John
Owens Mary Ann
Pak, Zinovy
Patterson Steve
Perkal Don
Perry, Scott
Peterson Christine
Petitt, Mark
Pfeilstucker Daniel C. Jr
Plaisted, Linda
Powell, Reginald
Probst Frank
Ragland Clyde
Ramey, Wanda
Regnery Alfred S.
Renzi Rick
Riskus, Steve
Robbins James S
Rodriguez Meseidy
Rosati Arthur
Roser, John F.
Royster, Joseph
Ryan James
Ryan, Darb (Vice Admir)
Sabre, Qawly
Schickler Rob
Scott Don
Seibert Tom
Sepulveda Noel
Shaeffer Kevin
Sheuerman Philip
Singleton Jack
Skarlet
Slater Mike
Smiley, Elizabeth
Smith, Dennis
Snaman, Steve
Snavel Dewey
Sorenson, Kristopher Leigh
Stanley, G.T.
Stephens Levi
Storage Tech. Employees
Storti, Steve
Stuart, Chris
Sucherman Joel
Sustern, Greta
Sutherland Jim
Tamillow Michael
Taylor, Shari
Terronez Tony
Thompson Carla
Thompson Phillip
Ticknor Henry (minister)
Timmerman Don "Tim" Pilot
Tinyk, Michael
Trapasso, Thomas
Turner Ron
Unidentified witness on video
Vaughan, Clyde (Brig. Gen)
Velasquez Jose
Vera, Michael
Wallace Alan
Wallace Terry
Walter Mike
Washington, Rodney
Wheelhouse Keith
Winslow Dave
Wright Don
Wyatt Ian
Wyatt, Ian
Yates John
Yeingst William
Zakheim Madelyn

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:

No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't it? If
charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an even then what else
matters than the fact that one could not have been used alone to get the job
done. How complicated do you want to make it? All that was needed was the
fact that there were planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that
allowed it to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest like some
seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then that is your problem
and you will remain one of the lame ignorant ones. Your choice and your
loss.

Time to adjust your tinfoil.

On Sep 13, 4:14 pm, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:
"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

Without these answers, I have trouble believing that the planes were not
the AA planes.

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

One thing's for sure, you won't get the answer from the original
poster.

Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than
a brief id.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2,
or 7. That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as
massive and that the largest beams are that much stonger.)

Ummm...OK. So what?


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any
of the buildings at WTC.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5
times already.




Cutting charges go boom.

Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM

Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
tower.

Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about
what no one saw of didn't see Al. Now grow up and go play your mindless
video games little guy. There are plenty of people that heard explosions
that went boom boom Al. There are people that reported hearing BOOM BOOM
Al. You just don't want to believe anything that says you are wrong little
Al. Repeating your BS over and over does not make you any more right Al. You
are wrong little Al. WRONG. There are videos of people talking while taking
them where you can hear the explosions as they describe what they hear. You
have seen them but still you lie. You claim they do not exist. Why do you
lie little Al? Why do you lie?

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as
bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But
that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible
to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of
reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the
structure. It was hear for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
reasons of both safety and economy.



There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of
the collapse.

Yes.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to
design a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the
audio/video record of the collapse of one of the towers and the
laws of physics.

I have no answer.


There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says
that WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many,
are on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have
said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems
pretty far-fetched to me.


(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead.
Does he shed light on the CD allegations?

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.




So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle
and the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.


Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more
or less than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid.
You post fake YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame
fairy tales.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.

Your videos are no more creditable than the ones you do not like that also
exist. You have nothing AL. NOTHING.