Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[colincornflake]

Reality Vs. obsession

This is all fascinating stuff, and I have tried to follow the arguments.
What I don't understand is why Lovelynice is trying to convince a load of government disinformation operatives of anything. Surely if your argument holds true then it's validity will never be accepted by those you seek to convince.
If this is the case then is there not a danger that by persuing your case so vociferously, you only undermine its credibility, as you begin to appear more as an obsessive, that a pragmatic realist?

 

[Lovelynice]

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Gregory Zeigler3 258 JPG60.jpg
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer

Statement 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon ...
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Zeigler Statement.html

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

 

[Lovelynice]

This is all fascinating stuff, and I have tried to follow the arguments.
What I don't understand is why Lovelynice is trying to convince a load of government disinformation operatives of anything...

I'm not.
I am merely countering their bullshit, besides it's fun to show them up as fools.

That's a big difference.

 

[Lovelynice]

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Wayne MadsenA 240 JPG80.jpg
Wayne Madsen – Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security. Formerly assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department. Currently, investigative journalist, nationally distributed columnist, and author. Senior Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. Frequent media commentator on terrorism and security matters. Author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (1999), co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II (2006), Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates (2006),The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (1992).

Speech 11/11/06 : "After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...

These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4123922031956964333&q="wayne+madsen"+dc911truth&hl=en

Endorsement of The New Pearl Harbor: "David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor belongs on the book shelves of all those who, in any way, doubt the veracity of the accounts presented to the public by the Bush administration concerning the worst terrorist attack in America's history. The facts presented in this book are disturbing — and they should be. Griffin's book goes a long way in answering the age-old question inherent in American political scandals: What did the President know, and when did he know it?" http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN/New_Pearl_Harbor.html

 

[phrodeau]

Wow, all those experts are saying different things. Where does the truth lie?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Gregory Zeigler3 258 JPG60.jpg
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer

Statement 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon ...
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Zeigler Statement.html

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Because he names of a list of already debunked theories, most of which came up months after as the conspiracy grew. coupled with, "I know..."

This is a classic tell of Rand's second-rater and a symptom of what OliverClosoff (sp? - like I give a rat's ass... ) calls "truthiness."

As I pointed out yestrerday, the Pentagon missile story has like 800 eye witnesses who say it ain't so, it was a jet, hell, most of us watched on 9-11 and saw the burning fucking fuselage for ourselves. Where the fuck did THAT come from; Spielburg?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

This is all fascinating stuff, and I have tried to follow the arguments.
What I don't understand is why Lovelynice is trying to convince a load of government disinformation operatives of anything. Surely if your argument holds true then it's validity will never be accepted by those you seek to convince.
If this is the case then is there not a danger that by persuing your case so vociferously, you only undermine its credibility, as you begin to appear more as an obsessive, that a pragmatic realist?

Just what we need. An English shill...

 

[unregistered]

 

[catfish]

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Douglas Rokke JPG80.jpg
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career.

Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

And what special skills does Major Rokke have? What makes him an expert in engineering? Well, he is a Phd isn't he, he must have it in one of the hard sciences like well, engineering right?

Well, not exactly, he has a Phd in Philosophy. Here is his fabulous resume
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm#1

 

[Fagin]

And what special skills does Major Rokke have? What makes him an expert in engineering? Well, he is a Phd isn't he, he must have it in one of the hard sciences like well, engineering right?

Well, not exactly, he has a Phd in Philosophy. Here is his fabulous resume
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm#1

But you aren't allowed to disagree with or repute him, his is right after all, he has bought into the loon philosophy. Oh, that's why he has his degree in philosophy.

 

[unregistered]

 

[catfish]

But you aren't allowed to disagree with or repute him, his is right after all, he has bought into the loon philosophy. Oh, that's why he has his degree in philosophy.

I know, HE said it and HE has a degree in philosophy.....lol

Yep, a jack of all trades and a master of none.

If you look at the academic credentials of the "experts" trotted out, they are less than impressive. A lot of philosophy phd's, and a lack of engineers, and I think that speaks volumes.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I am finding it hard to believe that you are still going with this pack of lies. You are cutting and posting so much information/dis-information it is hard to reply to specifics.

But, I have something to ask you, please would you stop cutting and pasting for a while and consider what you are believing and wish the rest of us to believe and answer the question; how many people you believe were involved in this conspiracy you so want to believe in?

Surely you don't believe that it was just J-dub, Cheney and Rummy who put on black trousers, jumper and balaclava and went out into the night on 10 Sept; planted some bombs in WTC1, 2 and 7. Then off to verious airfields to install remote controls in commercial jets etc, etc.

From your claims and from the claims of some of the links (or links of links) you have posted I have noted it would be quite a few:

* CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they're not actually trying to capture him after all
* GW Bush and various family members (if you're to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
* Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
* John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
* Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
* The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
* Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more
* Ahmad Umar Sheikh for funding the hijackers, General Mahmoud Ahmad for ordering him to do so, and enough of the ISI to get the money and cover up that they were doing this for the US
* Everyone who found out about the attacks in advance, and chose not to go into work rather than warn anyone else, and didn't mention this after the fact (thousands of Israelis in the towers, and so on), and everyone who warned them
* Everyone responsible for the insider trading before the attacks, the CIA for supposedly monitoring these transactions but doing nothing about them, and enough of the SEC and FBI to ensure that the report was a whitewash
* The members of Bush’s secret service team on 9/11 (who presumably either knew in advance that he was safe, or haven’t spoken out about their surprise about what happened subsequently)
* The five "dancing Israelis" who filmed the attack "as it happened", and presumably many others in Israeli Intelligence, and enough people in the police or FBI to cover up the details of the case and get them shipped out
* Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the hijackers cars, bags and so on
* Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the WTC wreckage (passports etc), or removing it (WTC black boxes)
* Air Traffic Control and flight schedulers at the takeoff airports (to cope with the double flights), and to make sure they didn't follow procedure in reporting the hijackings promptly
* Whoever prepared the "special" planes swapped for the real flights, complete with "missile pod" for firing into the towers just before impact, and the ATC and Norad staff who didn't mention the swap
* NORAD and senior officers working at the day (so they could lie about the war games and their lack of response)
* Fighter pilots who deliberately flew too slowly so they wouldn't reach the aircraft in time
* Whoever shot down Flight 93, and the senior officers who helped cover it up
* Everyone who researched the passengers, then all the actors who used that research to make fake mobile calls to their relatives, and either the phone company or the FBI for covering up the phone records
* All the actors who played/play the relatives and made claims of recieving phone calls from loved ones on the planes. That according to you are impossible anyway.
* Everyone involved in killing hundreds of passengers, assuming they didn't die in the crashes and were killed later
* Everyone involved in transporting their bodies to the various scenes if they did, or faking the DNA evidence if they didn't
* The engineers who researched the WTC to find out the best place to place explosives
* The people who planted the explosives through the WTC towers and WTC7
* Whoever detonated the WTC explosives at various different times of the day
* Enough of the New York Fire and Police Departments to shut up everyone else and make sure they didn't try to investigate why all their friends and colleagues died
* Everyone who prepared the remote control plane that really flew into the Pentagon, and whoever remote-controlled it, and the Washington Air Traffic Controllers who aren't allowed to talk about the extra radar blip they saw over the Pentagon (if Flight 77 really flew over it)
* The Sheraton hotel staff who reportedly saw the video of the plane as it flew past to the Pentagon, but have never said that it wasn't the "official" flight
* The people who ensured the Pentagon missile defence systems were disabled so the plane could hit
* The people who planted the fake Pentagon evidence, from body parts to black boxes, and those who prepared it
* The people who faked additional evidence around the Pentagon, bringing down lampposts etc in an effort to make it look like a large winged plane carried out the attack
* Rudolph Giuliani for having advance knowledge that the WTC was going to collapse, and for helping to ensure that the steel was disposed of quickly
* Enough people at American and United Airlines to keep quiet about the absence of the hijackers names from the passenger manifests
* Enough people at CNN not to question the absence of the hijackers names from the flight manifests, if you believe that's what their victims lists really are
* Enough people at FEMA and NIST to ensure any reports and analyses produced were whitewashes
* Enough senior officials at the many WTC insurance companies to ensure the doubts were ignored and claims were paid
* Everyone involved in producing the /fake bin Laden "confession" video(s)
* Khalid Al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Sheeba for discussing how they planned 9/11 on audio tape even though this didn’t happen, and perhaps al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda for getting the interview (if we assume he knows it isn't true)
* All the other Al Qaeda members who've either implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility for 9/11, even when they know it was carried out by someone else
* The staff of the 9/11 Commission for deliberately obscuring the truth
* The BBC for having proir knowledge and reporting of the the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened.


** You can choose whether to inclued your internet devils or not. I am not sure if you are including them in your 9/11 conspiracy theory or just some other general conspiracy theory.

So in your senario......how many people were/are involved? Consider your answer and whether it makes any logical sense or has any feasible chance of ever being able to work in the real world.

I am actually interested to know....how many?

Woof!

 

[Pookie]

Oh dear, Pookie is telliing lies again and thinks that she's an arbiter of the English language.

Sorry, dear, but you are NOT a credible source of the meaning of terms in English

It's already very clear from the context and how Silverstein said it, that "Pull it" was the order to demolish the building.

Demolish: (?), v. t. To throw or PULL DOWN; to raze; to destroy the fabric of; to pull to pieces; to ruin; as, to demolish an edifice, or a wall.

dictionary . laborlawtalk . com / demolish

Destroy; do away with, make away with; nullify; annual; sacrifice, demolish; tear up; overturn, overthrow, overwhelm; upset, subvert, put an end to; seal the doom of, do in, do for, dish, undo; break up, cut up; break down, cut down, PULL DOWN

websters - online - dictionary . org / definition / destroy

To "pull" something as in "pull it", "pull it down", "pull down", or just "pull" is also common in many military organisations as a term for controlled demolition of objects, buildings, and obstacles.

If you don't believe me, fine. Let me address your post with more details then ...

"pull it" was referring to the controlled demolition of the building.

To which I replied with this ...

The building owner cannot order fire fighters or emergency responders to demolish a building. The term “pull it” is used by demolition firms, but for using cables onto a preweakened building and using heavy machinery to “pull” it. "Pull it" is not a term used to indicate the destruction of a building using explosives.

Providing this link ...

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf


Let's look at the pertinent part of this of what Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. has to say ...

ASSERTION #7
“WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”
PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

The above assertion has taken several forms over the past few years and has developed into a major point of discussion amongst conspiracy theorists. Most recently, it was used as a cornerstone allegation on C-SPAN’S national broadcast of a 9/11 symposium hosted by Mr. Alex Jones, an author and radio personality who is highly critical of the government’s handling of 9/11.

However, from a demolition standpoint, several aspects of this claim are problematic.

1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.

2. We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

3. Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

4. Saying, “No airplane hit it” implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and impacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20th floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building’s south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. Regardless of the fire’s origin, these flames are clearly visible from all four sides of the structure. With most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate.

5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless…we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming…but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

6. Finally, we have not discovered or been presented with any physical evidence indicating explosives were used to fell the structure.



Now, sweet cheeks, if you have something that can credibly contradict this, then post it.

And before you do reply, here is a little about "Protec" ...

Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.

Readyyyyyyyyyy .... GO!

 

[Pookie]

Yes, all your excuses are totally ignorant.

I asked you this;

Please show how ASSYMETRICAL damage can somehow lead to SYMMETRICAL collapse. Your claim is preposterous and doesn't explain this;

apparently you are incapable of explaining such an absurdity, but can only try and pretend that you have an answer without providing any. In other words, you're an idiot.

The only symmetrical part of the collapse was the north curtain wall, which fell after the building had been falling apart for over 18 seconds. This is supported by seismic data, among other visual evidence. The east penthouse couldn't have collapsed into the building if the underlying structure beneath it had still been there. This indicates that the southern face of that building was already gone by that time.

Those that were there say you're wrong, punkin. Who do you think the world is going to believe when actually presented with the total evidence of WTC 7 versus your cherry picked version? Nutters like you? Or, those present that day who risked their lives around that building? Hint: it ain't "loosers" like you, cupcake.

 

[Pookie]

and I'm not denying that WTC 7 was damaged,

In fact, I'm not calling any of them liars either.

However, you apparently are trying to claim that Indira Singh is lying when she says this;

I'm not claiming she's lying. I believe she's telling what she remembers of that time. But, I'm not the one choosing to look at part of what she says without placing it within the context of what she was asked about her prior quote.

I know you adore cherry picking and quoting things out of context. It seems to be all you have. If truth is on your side, you shouldn't need to do it.

Let's repeat the point that you seem to be either too stupid, or too much a liar to deal with - can you consider a new concept, that the firemen mentioning that WTC 7 was possibly going to collapse ARE NOT contradicting all the evidence that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down, "pulled", in a controlled demolition. All of them are telling the truth except for Larry Silverstein's "retraction", but then he's been caught lying anyway since there were no teams in the building at the time so his excuses don't work.

The problem is that WTC 7 wasn't "pulled", unless you have evidence of cables attached to the walls and such. There was no evidence of explosives found by anyone.

No one "saw" any bombs or explosives going off. There is no seismic evidence of any bombs or explosives. You have nothing but cherry picked quotes.

 

[Pookie]

Afterall, New York firemen DID find explosives in the WTC buildings.

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

Are you really sure that's a video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7?

I mean, really really sure?

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/wall.html

Firehouse Magazine Reports

WTC: This Is Their Story

From the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine

Lieutenant Bill Wall
Engine 47 - 16 years

... snip ...

I went over to him and kind of stressed the Maydays were here and now, and we were talking and that's when the north tower came down. You heard it, a big snap and a crack. And we looked up and it looked like the whole top just exploded.

Everyone just started heading north. Everyone just ran. We got hit by the wind and the dust and I was running with Jack Ginty.

... snip ...

After like the wind and stuff subsided and we realized, all right, there's nothing to do here, we just got to walk out of it. So we started walking north on West Street

... snip ...

I don't know how far we got. A water truck showed up, somebody delivered the bottled water, like the five gallons of water, so we started grabbing them off the rigs and started washing our eyes out again.

... snip ...

They were pushing us up north, up West Street. And we all regrouped by Stuyvesant High School.

As soon as we sat down, I got all the gear off and we're taking a blow, someone came running out of the high school saying there was a bomb in the building, so we ran further north. That's pretty much it for the rest of the day. They wouldn't let us back in.

It sure looks mighty neat in that video for it to be at WTC 7. I'm kinda curious if it could be ... Stuyvesant High School. Yes, Yes, I am.

Watcha think, butter butt? Could it maybe be Stuyvesant High School?

Maybe, huh? Maybe?

 

[Pookie]

Afterall, New York firemen DID find explosives in the WTC buildings.

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

I mean, are you really really really really sure it's firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7?

Check out the video closely .... and compare it to Stuyvesant High School.


"This is a view of the Stuyvesant building from the corner of West and Chambers Streets. The area is usually much busier than this, but I took the picture during the summer (of 2004) when school is off session. The Tribeca Bridge, which is used to enter and exit the building, is in the foreground. Note that the tall tower in the background is not part of the Stuyvesant building; this is a recently completed construction project."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Stuy_building.jpg


*gigglesnort*

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Jeez Pooks, would you kill the mouse already...















Don't worry LN about what the bad doggie posted, Hillary has the conspiracy nailed to the wall too...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

John Edwards has a handle on it too. Roger Ailes is the head of it. Blood on his hands; ordered the towers blown up and his butt-monkey Bush was only too happy to comply...

Neo-cons want Arabs dead!

 

[Pookie]

Jeez Pooks, would you kill the mouse already...

The thing about this is that a fireman did say there was a bomb in the school. Turns out there wasn't one. Did he lie? No. Was he mistaken or misinformed? Yep.

There was so much chaos going on that day. Peoples subjective interpretations of things going on around them during all that has been taken by scam artists like LN and twisted to try to sucker people into the "truth movement". It's really sad how they've desecrated the memory of so many who died that day ... all to sell some t-shirts and videos.

Not one of the "troothers" has gotten one of their "papers" peer-reviewed by appropriate journals. No, what do they do? They made their own "journal" and "peer-review" themselves. Isn't that special?

 

[Lovelynice]

5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation ...

That's a nice pile of lies, but please check the links in my signature for what they actually said.

HUNDREDS of witnesses mentioned explosions and the buildings collapses coming down just like controlled demolitions.

So, dear, you got caught lying.

 

[Lovelynice]

The thing about this is that a fireman did say there was a bomb in the school...

Your problem however is a larger one, the facts are;

1) No steel-framed tower buildings have EVER COLLAPSED STRAIGHT-DOWN in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel-framed buildings, both before and after 9/11. So an incredible magical coincidence is being claimed for not one, not two, but THREE such buildings all on the same day! AMAZING!

2) Nobody has ever succeeeded in simulating the actual collapses themselves, and shown that there was enough energy for a gravitationally-driven collapse; meaning that they could not show that there was enough energy from gravity alone to break past the structural strength and resistance of the rest of the building. That's your miracle magic problem again which your USA government version of 9/11 can't get past. Everytime you've cited somebody as suceeding in this, it's always turned out that they were either totally wrong or outright lying.

3) Considering these above, and the facts that all three buildings went down in a way identical to other controlled demolitions, in the time-frame and speed of typical controlled demolitions, and there is no example of any steel-framed tower buildings collapsing this way except by CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, then you have MAJOR PROBLEM with your bullshit excuses.

4) Your claim that "Pull it" had nothing to do with controlled demolition in the case of WTC 7 has been shown as another puile of crap excuses on your part because of Indira Singh did state: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Now that's very clear. Also clear is that Silverstein admitted that he ordered WTC demolished, he said "pull it", which most definitely is a term for controlled demolition as even this shows in the case of a cleanup worker mentioning the same term for the controlled demolition of WTC 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for controlled demolition. Anyone can listen to that here - http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

Which fits with the dictionary meaning

It's already very clear from the context and how Silverstein said it, that "Pull it" was the order to demolish the building.

Demolish: (?), v. t. To throw or PULL DOWN; to raze; to destroy the fabric of; to pull to pieces; to ruin; as, to demolish an edifice, or a wall.

dictionary . laborlawtalk . com / demolish

Destroy; do away with, make away with; nullify; annual; sacrifice, demolish; tear up; overturn, overthrow, overwhelm; upset, subvert, put an end to; seal the doom of, do in, do for, dish, undo; break up, cut up; break down, cut down, PULL DOWN

websters - online - dictionary . org / definition / destroy

To "pull" something as in "pull it", "pull it down", "pull down", or just "pull" is also common in many military organisations as a term for controlled demolition of objects, buildings, and obstacles.

So eat shit, Pookie, you're lying again.

5) So all of this fits extremely well with what the New York firemen said;

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

(the clip, by the way, Pookie, is taken from an Australian documentary shown on Aussie TV - and they stated it was from WTC 7. I haven't seen anything from you to show them wrong. Maybe you should post frames for comparison).

6) I asked you before;
Please show how ASSYMETRICAL damage can somehow lead to SYMMETRICAL collapse. -
apparently you are incapable of explaining such an absurdity and so far all you've done is try to dodge the question.


7) There is your major problem dealing with the issues here in my previous post which you have NOT been able to deal with, and have avoided....

The photo shows the north face of WTC 7 reflected, with the fires visible. Do they look like huge raging infernos filling the entire building to you?
http://xs206.xs.to/xs206/06375/wtc7_northface.jpg

You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES

There was no - repeat NO twenty story HOLE in WTC 7, why lie?, just don't bother posting lies and wasting every one's time with nonsense like that will you for a change?

I want you to post an attached photo of this twenty storey hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.

While you are at it I want you to explain why WTC 7's 14th and 15th floors were in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 heavily fortified with bomb proof glass facing the twin towers.

They have since claimed it was a bunker for Mayor Giuliani in case of terrorist attacks would you believe, which he took the opportunity not to use on the day of the attacks!

I want you to explain why these two mysterious fires started given that no windows had been smashed on the corresponding floors, or any where on the entire facade of the building facing the twin towers, never mind and twenty story hole! - Even if they had been that is not necessarily reason for a fire to start.

Why did the automatic sprinkler system conveniently fail to activate and extinguish these fires?

Why did the then new WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein clearly state in a TV interview a year after the attacks that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack? The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Photos taken shortly before before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

Explain to everyone why buildings that didn't belong or weren't insured by Silverstein holdings and that were right beside the twin towers and sustained massive damage - far more damage than WTC 7 - didn't collapse into their own footprints at near free fall speed!

Yet this WTC 7 building - which was by the way the strongest building on the WTC site being fortified with solid cross section girders rather than the 'H' type because it straddled the a major electrical substation - was conveniently demolished, tell tale streamers and charges can be seen all over the front of the building and explosive charges running up the side in a straight perpendicular line running up the sides.

The penthouse can clearly be seen falling in through the roof first as the building was violently eviscerated from the inside.

Why was the steel from this controlled demolition immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the possibility of explosives, and to try and determine the cause of it’s collapse so as to prevent it happening in future?

Unfortunately, we may never know what happened because the steel from the WTC was immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the real reasons for it‘s collapse.

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from ground zero. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month fire experts told congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped so far, without being examined because investigators did not have authority to preserve wreckage". - One investigator of the WTC told New York Times, "this is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied." The member asked not to be identified because members have been "threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press". "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said .

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."
- Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/manning3oo.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/madrid4zh.jpg

Now look this folks - much stronger building, unexplained small fires behind unbroken windows and failed state of the art sprinkler systems, and no fires visible upon collapse, fires not even hot enough to break a window! YET........

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc-7.gif

There was also NO INFERNO in WTC 7, but just some MINOR fires. Not serious at all, and the damage was MINOR in comparison to the size of the building.

WTC 6 had FAR MORE DAMAGE, and other WTC buildings had far worse fires than WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Larry Silverstein, ADMITTED on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7

Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:

"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan.

So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!

And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?

and the damage that was done was MINOR in comparison to the building. Particularly when other buildings in the WTC complex had REAL INFERNOS and FAR MORE DAMAGE and STILL DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

Besides, it was "pulled" just as old Larry Silverstein said.

CBS News’ Dan Rather
also commented that the collapse of building 7, which
wasn’t hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt
to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.
"For the third time
today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen
too much on television before when a building was deliberately
destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

NBC’s Pat Dawson reported
the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath
of the towers’ collapse.
"The chief of safety
of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received
word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is
another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as
quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place and according to his theory,
he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted
in the building."

MSNBC news anchor Rick
Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices
in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions,
which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought
by police to be bombs.
"Police have found
what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear
that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some
police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me
they have reason to believe that one of the explosions
at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the
planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked
on the building that may have had an explosive device
in it."

During an exchange between
ABC’s Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following
the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption
is again that controlled demolition must have been used
to take down the building.
"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks
north of the World Trade Center. The second building that
was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."
"The entire building
has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off….when
you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It
just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

Peter Jennings: "If
you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building
being demolished on purpose knows, that you’re going to
do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure
of a building and bring it down."

Police chiefs, fire department
heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground
- everyone’s first reaction was "controlled demolition"
because the events suggested nothing else.

8) When REPEATEDLY asked this, EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

All Pookie could do was make up bullshit excuses citing some LOW-RISE, definitely NOT towering hi-rise buildings including a mere 4-storey building, and another similar LOW-RISE building. Come on, Pookie, you never even apologized for trying to pass off those crappy low-rise structures as being the same as towering skyscraper.

 

[Lovelynice]

Remember this, little Pookie the fool?

I notice that Pookie the fuckwit has again avoided backing her bullshit when she was caught out in a MAJOR WAY....

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing...

LOSE AGAIN, IT WAS NOT A TOWER BUILDING -- it was a low-rise building and nothing like a steel-framed hi-rise tower.

try again, dear.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

The Kader Toy Factory also collapsed due to fires...

LOSE AGAIN, IT WAS NOT A TOWER BUILDING -- it was a low-rise 4-storey building and nothing like a steel-framed hi-rise tower..


Pookie's bullshit just dropped dead like a stone.

You're not exactly the brainiest of the bunch are you, dear.....

and yet again, you idiots failed to answer the following

WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane.

and it's collapse was EXACTLY like any other controlled demolition. Explain that.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif


and WTC 1 & 2 both went STRAIGHT-DOWN just like controlled demolitions do.

3 steel-framed buildings doing on ONE DAY doing what can only be done with, and has only been done, with CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

Your excuse fails.

Do try again, dear. It isn't difficult to use your brain.

No plane hit this building - it's a typical controlled demolition
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-11.gif

So is this...
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/oslo_demo_clips.jpg

and neither did a plane hit this building...and it's an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/hsw_implosion.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_lowman.gif


Just like this is a controlled demolition...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-9.gif

and despite your bullshit excuses, this one is an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/image023.jpg

and NONE OF YOU moronic lying government trolls has ever been able to cite anything to back your 9/11 "Arabs did it with boxcutters" silliness with an answer to this;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED TOWER buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

For MONTHS, AND MONTHS, AND MONTHS you shills have never been able to answer this. Instead, like Pookie the nutter has done, the government trolls have tried to pass of LOW-RISE buildings as if they were hi-rises, tried to pass off CONCRETE buildings as if they were steel-framed (KRcummings did that), and one of the total losers even tried to pass off a 4-storey WOODEN-FRAMED BRICK TOWN-HOUSE as if it were a steel-framed tower building.

Pretty clear at this point, that all you shills can do is grasp at straws, or tell outright lies.

 

[Lovelynice]

... 800 eye witnesses ...

I can provide the names and quotes from hundreds of witnesses to the EXPLOSIONS and CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS at the WTC, and have already done so. (see the links in my signature)

You have never yet provided the names and quotes from an equal number, so who is the magical 800 that you never mentioned before? Please provide the entire list, with their quotes, soundbites,videos, etc.... not just a claim of "800" out of thin air. They must be 800, or you're full of shit.

The only thing that would really work however, would be VIDEO of an actual VISIBLE (not invisible) plane hitting the Pentagon of the kind and model claimed. I don't believe it was that kind of large plane at all.