^ Ooooh, I wonder why Nist didn't want this released.

Oooh, yeah. That's devastating. It's a wonder NIST didn't shred it, burn the pieces and scatter the ashes into the Pacific Ocean. Instead, they send it out in response to an FOI request. That is no way to cover up mass murder, imo.

Rodriguez: We hear like a big rumble, not like an impact, like a rumble like something moving furniture in a massive way. All of a sudden we hear another rumble…

That was what he said live on TV on the day. Rumbles - nothing about huge explosions underneath him, nothing about being thrown upwards.

Quite right. It was only much, much later, when he learns there is money to be made on the conspiracymongering circuit, that it becomes a big explosion.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html

Slarty, did the Jesus of Kells, who made the above, ever get extradited?

masher Joined: 26 May 03
Replies: 135 12 Oct 10 18:07 
An interesting video about the extent of false flag terrorism:

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100419_false_flags.htm


Slarty slips back into his old ways.

Is this meant to mean something, Masher? Or is it just an implicit ad hominem attack as a substitute for reasoned argument? Did you wach the link? If not, I would suggest it's best to refrain from responding. If you did, then perhaps you might address the film.

masher Joined: 26 May 03
Replies: 135 12 Oct 10 18:09 
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justic...

Slarty, did the Jesus of Kells, who made the above, ever get extradited?

Find out for yourself, Masher.

Are you trying to rubbish the said film by ridiculing its maker? Why not just watch it and report back with your thoughts? I have seen it and have several issues with it as per the link I supplied to the J7 forum (I suppose you didn't look there either). But it does raise interesting questions about the events of 7/7, especially what may have happened at Canary Wharf.

Sunset, of course it also means that you are admitting the possibility of a conspiracy (more than one persons acting in secret to commit a crime, etc) which is also my position.

Mere empty assertions, Pandy.

Tell me:

Is there any alternative explanation of a major historic event in which you are not an expert?

How much time have you devoted to looking for evidence of other shooters? I'm guessing none. Am I right? Be honest.

Is there any event in history that has not been recorded in the historic record faithfully and broadly correctly in your opinion? You certainly seem to resist any revisionist theories. Do you think the first draught of history gets it right every time?   

Has there ever been a conspiracy that was not successfully identified as such in your opinion? Your incredulity at suggestions that one or other event may have an alternative explanation from that officially given would suggest so. If not, could you give an example?

To be fair, Pandorica, the beliefs of the vast majority of people  are unexamined, accidentally acquired, emotionally based and ill thought-through.

This unfortunately is true slarty as you and gene and your ilk have so apply shown with your inane postings.

how did they know that WTC7 was about to fall.

They had been expecting it to fall all afternoon.

hey backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith   
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110246.PDF

2.  Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110382.PDF

3.  We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.  So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.  –Chief Frank Fellini http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

4.  We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

5.  I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.  –Firefighter Edward Kennedy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110502.PDF

6.  Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it. –Chief Frank Cruthers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

7.  There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening.  I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don't know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. So we had to be concerned about electricity, that this may be energized or not be energized. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

8.  "We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings." –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110327.PDF

9.  It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7.  –Firefighter Vandon Williams

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.



Great post masher.Probably wasted on Gene and his crew though. Gene you see what masher did there, he used sources and evidence to back up his assertions. You should try it some time.

I was on a short haul plane yesterday, not very high up, about 12,000ft & i my mobile had No connection. Id love to know how all these passengers flying at 30,000ft+ were able to phone relatives considering it was only a year later when some airlines installed the first of anykind of phone recievers in a few of thier planes. Just curious. Any programme iv seen of people who say they are relatives, their has only been two on any programme, not the 10 or 20 people we hear about, and those two never come across as being people id trust



Some used the plane phones not mobiles and also remember the planes weren't at altitude all the time. Some of the phone calls were made at low altitude just before the planes crashed.

Lunatic flypaper....it keeps you all in one place on this forum.

Pandorica
This,I guarantee is my final post on this thread.
History is littered with incidents,which,at the time,you would have stated your evidence (i.e The Official Version of things)as being the only possible "truth".
You would,I have no doubt,stated that anyone who suggested that that "truth" might not be quite true,to be mad/paranoid/deluded.
Time and time again(not always I accept)the "truth" has turned out to be anything but.The "mad and delusional" happened to be right.


Can you please give examples?

You have shown that your mind can contemplate no such alternative to the official version of 9/11.
You are (maybe wilfully)naive,arrogant and not as clever as you think you are.

agree and i dont think it will be answered sometime soon canary,
bit like jfk whom 99% agree wasnt killed by lho but thats what the record states


This is incorrect.



Polls show many Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.[3] These same polls also show that there is no agreement on who else may have been involved.

A 2003, Gallup poll reported that 75% of Americans do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.[4] That same year an ABC News poll found that 70% of respondents suspected that the assassination involved more than one person.[5] A 2004 Fox News poll found that 66% of Americans thought there had been a conspiracy while 74% thought there had been a cover-up


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories


I agree there was a conspiracy/cover up to some degree  although much of what JFK conspiracists believe is crap.

slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 959 12 Oct 10 22:08   
Mere empty assertions, Pandy.

Tell me:

Is there any alternative explanation of a major historic event in which you are not an expert?

Yes you supercilious twot, there is.

My interest in Kennedy began when I was at school; firstly as a politician, then like many others I started to look at the "mystery" of his death. I bought many of the "conspiracy" books - remember this was long before the internet and the more I looked into it, the more it became obvious that here was a money spinning machine for which lies, half-truths and manipulations provided the lubricant.
The "magic bullet" was the key feature in ALL the early books and if you simply believed those publications, here we had a bullet that could turn left and right in flight and also go up and down. Much of this as I researched, (as opposed to trawling dumb websites for stupid videos), stemmed from a certain conspiracy theorist publishing a sketch in his book depicting the "path" of the bullet. The diagram showed Kennedy and Governor Connally sat in a car, one directly in front of the other and at the same height. Utter fiction. Look at the film of the day, photos and indeed photos of the car taken after the event and Connally was sat below Kennedy and inboard of him. The "magic bullet" had actually travelled in a straight line. The origin of the bullet? Guess where.

The physics of "back and to the left" - well that's O'Level stuff. Fill a beach ball with jelly, tie it to a stump and fire a ball-bearing into it Then watch how it moves. Forward , then back, with most jelly exiting from the "entry wound".

And so it went on. The more I read, the more lies I saw. And most importantly, the more I realised there was absolutely no evidence of another shooter and that the theorists had, to create the impression eye-witnesses had seen one (or two), manipulated/cut/fabricated statements.

All of this I came to grips with over several years.

How much time have you devoted to looking for evidence of other shooters? I'm guessing none. Am I right? Be honest.

See above.

Is there any event in history that has not been recorded in the historic record faithfully and broadly correctly in your opinion? You certainly seem to resist any revisionist theories. Do you think the first draught of history gets it right every time?

That is rather desperate conspiracy theorist nonsense - where written history is changed, and it is sometimes changed, it is a result of new EVIDENCE or a fresh look with modern techniques at old EVIDENCE - oh dear, there's that word again. Evidence. You don't like that, do you?


Has there ever been a conspiracy that was not successfully identified as such in your opinion? Your incredulity at suggestions that one or other event may have an alternative explanation from that officially given would suggest so. If not, could you give an example?

You really need to educate yourself if your mind is moving in such ridiculous, circuitous and utterly pointless routes. If there is EVIDENCE then conspiracies are broken. If there is NO EVIDENCE then either such EVIDENCE has been successfully hidden, or, and wait for it, there never was any EVIDENCE.
Since here, we are talking about two of the most talked about, written about, filmed and photographed events in world history and yet not a scrap of evidence exists in either case, then any sane, rational person should come to the conclusion - no conspiracy. And then stop being a complete ass, and move on.

To say that evidence consists of motive, means and opportunity flies in the face of not only logic, but natural justice. If my partner disappeared tomorrow then under your criteria, I'm guilty. What a knobbish thing to say.

Invest a few quid in the book "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)" - Tavris and Aronson. It could have been written with you in mind. I knew it was a mistake to reopen this thread. I'd gone a few days without that tightening of the stomach caused by utter frustration that on a gaming site there are so many people who don't understand the nature of chance, of coincidence, of randomness, of probability and most crucially, conditional probability. I won't make that mistake again. I'll leave it to Sunset to bang his head against the collective wall of blindness, arrogance and stupidity that permeates this thread.

U.S. troops now being trained to boss communities and run local governments are being readied to oversee a post-collapse America in which riots and civil unrest similar to that now exploding in Europe over austerity measures and pension cuts ravage the United States and are met with the iron fist of a militarized police state.

* reposted to improve the formatting

Pandy, thanks for your lengthy post, although I don't think it is improved by the insults that crept in.

"Yes you supercilious twot" - if you look back through our interactions on here I think I have remained quite civil in the face of provocation. But then my interest is purely in the ideas and the facts. Unlike some, who seem to view this as some sort of contest in whichthey are personaly invested, I have no interest in ego displays. I'm not interested in winning any debate, merely honing understanding and sifting the often conflicting evidence.   

To that end, you made some interesting points regarding JFK, a subject in which I am no expert. Perhaps you are right about the magic bullet theory, though that in itself would not rule out a conspiracy. Even if LHO was the lone shooter as you suggest that still doesn't preclude a conspiracy (maybe he was put up to it etc). Of course that is not evidence of such, but nor is it reason to dismiss such a theory.     

You said:
"To say that evidence consists of motive, means and opportunity flies in the face of not only logic, but natural justice. If my partner disappeared tomorrow then under your criteria, I'm guilty. What a knobbish thing to say."

You seem to have taken me to mean that that is the totality of possible evidence. Why? Look again and you will see that that is neither what I said nor implied. You can of course dispute that claim if you provide some EVIDENCE. (See how juvenile and antagonising this approach is?)

"I'll leave it to Sunset to bang his head against the collective wall of blindness, arrogance and stupidity that permeates this thread."

In my view it is less blind, arrogant and stupid to consider a range of possible interpretations of events(even when uncommon, unpalatable and/or non-mainstream) than it is to jump to hasty conclusions and rule out possibilities based on little but prior assumptions (which is commonly the case).

I guess it comes down to open-mindedness and closed-mindedness and which is more likely to lead to a truer understanding. I imagine you and others might say that open-mindedess leads to considering too many unlikely and outlandish notions that have little to recommend them. But I think that to do so is often worthwhile for the occasional insight stumbled upon.   

Your earlier post about confirmation bias was useful (though it is just a dfferent wording of what I havcome across before in perception psychology - we all view the world through mental filters which determine the data we allow for consideration). But of course it works whichever way you look at the world and I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that only those who allow for alternative explanations of events (a clumsy phrase, I know, but the term "conspiracy theorist" used by so many is lazy and misleading) fall prey to such bias.

And the filmed damage at the start of this clip in the lobby was no way caused by an impact 78 floors up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcg8hMEmTVE&feature=related


How would you know? Jet fuel came down the elevator shaft down into the lobby.No mystery here.

SC
I swore to myself that I wouldn't post here again,but:
You call me a liar - a proven one,apparently - because I don't agree
with the "evidence" you have provided?


No not because of that because you said


"not once have any of them ever expressed any doubt ,in fact they have been most strident and dogmatic -the very things they would accuse you and me of."

I have said or more than one occasion that I have unanswered questions about 9/11. There fore I have some doubts. There fore you are lying.




I haven't chosen to ignore the evidence,as you say,but I have chosen to
disbelieve some of it.


Why have you chosen to disbelieve it because you don't trust those in power. you think they lie to us all the time. You have provided no evidence of this.

You also say that I have a personality disorder.
As your so keen on evidence,what is your evidence for this assertion?


Because you have a problem trusting those in power. You think they lie to us all the time.

[b][b]The neutral observer,will note that you were on here at 4am,alone,[/b]


How do you know if I was alone or not? You have a camera in my room do you?
What has the time got to do with anything?

making your
pyschological assessments and accusing people of being "proven liars" without any evidence whatsoever,


I have provided my evidence above unlike yourself who doesn't provide evidence for your beliefs.


and make their own judgements about who is,or isn't in possession of a personality disorder.[/b]

Well i had got round to beleiving that it was all made up but after this

tangsoodo Joined: 24 Dec 02
Replies: 1086 07 Oct 10 10:17 
Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/october2010/100610_huge_explosions.htm


Well well well, explosions in the world trade 7 eh  No planes went into that one and the footage has been edited with but enough people still said there was explosions etc ooops no wonder they didnt want it coming our, end of article it said there going through some more so ill wait and see what else they bring out, sounds once again like they had planted explosives in the wt7



You are confusing WT7 with the Twin Towers.The firefighters had come from the Twin Towers not WT7.

masher Joined: 26 May 03
Replies: 136 12 Oct 10 18:14 
Hbkisonhisway Joined: 06 Sep 10
Replies: 3154 11 Oct 10 12:5

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/october2010/100610_huge_explosions.htm


Well well well, explosions in the world trade 7 eh

You must be psychic because at no point do they identify which building they were in. Any chance of giving me the correct score for England v Montenegro?

0-0 h2h



Who are you trying to kid. It's obvious they have just come from the Twin towers. First of all it says that above the video.Secondly there were no firefighters in WT7 when it collapsed. They had been pulled back.He's talking about the building that had been hit by a plane. WT7 was not hit by a plane.

'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'