Thanks Max


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

What ever happened to that scud missile that was headed for Israel at the start of the Iraq war... ;)

(THAT was the news clip that confirmed *my* suspicions. I sure wish I had my VCR rolling at the time.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

What ever happened to that scud missile that was headed for Israel at the start of the Iraq war... ;)

(THAT was the news clip that confirmed *my* suspicions. I sure wish I had my VCR rolling at the time.)

I didn't hear about that one.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I didn't hear about that one.

Most didn't, it only aired once... but you will find it mentioned somewhere in my post history, if it's still there... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Ran a search on the word scud but no dice,

Must have been a while ago.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Found this video on Tower Seven

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

This old chestnut again. The BBC have since apologized for this error on their part (as has the AP), seems a report of imminent collapse was misreported as actual collapse. Big deal. The BBC made other errors that day (as I posted a while back) saying that somebody was reporting from the Hudson when they are clearly on the Brooklyn side of the East River. That the journalist in New York asked about the collapse of the WTC 7 doesn't say much by way of confirmation supports her testimony that she had no other sources at the time than what was coming from London. Guess we should know by now that the Truthers don't care for the truth and will spread half truths as facts.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

John Lear - 911 Remote Controlled Planes & No Plane

9/11 theory

John Lear - Vanishing Planes & Holographs

This John Lear fellow is fabulous. Writing off two flights because his research failed to find them, and saying the others weren't "real" either. His talk of not being able to crash a plane into a building due to the building's size is not only plainly wrong, given that it happened before and after 9/11 (the Empire State was hit as well as an apartment building on the Upper East Side), but that plane's can't hit a target that's 200 feet wide? However do they land the things? Oh and the "clackers" making it unbearable to fly a plane faster than it's recommended, sure that's going to stop somebody who's determined.

Best thing about John Lear's comments is his proposed alternative, holograms did it. So the sounds of the flights from countless videos, came from speakers magically suspended in mid air shrounded by the holograms? He even says people won't believe the capabilities of hologram technology. No quite, only fools would believe what he has to say, sadly though there are plenty of fools around.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists try to explain away people on the flights making phone calls to their loved ones?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ci6Q5B1mWhU&feature=related

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

911 Remote Controlled Planes & No Plane

Raytheon company... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Bobby, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists try to explain away people on the flights making phone calls to their loved ones?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ci6Q5B1mWhU&feature=related

Awww, c'mon! Ya got nothin'? :(

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Bobby, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists try to explain away people on the flights making phone calls to their loved ones?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ci6Q5B1mWhU&feature=related

Awww, c'mon! Ya got nothin'? :(

Me or the Truthers? From what I've seen the Truthers believe that actors made the calls, using high tech voice synthesizers to assist the disguise. As MrGray has noted, one of the callers (Mark Bingham, on United 93) used both his first and last name when calling his mother, this is taken by the Truthers as confirmation that Mark did not make the call, for them no other plausible explanation exists.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Osama Bin Headroom!

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

how you do hoax like that, hire muslim militant, pay them to take flight course,
tell them to ram against wtc, get them to the plane they hijack, which is full of real people, the terrorist gets shortcut to paradise, according their beliefs, you get what you want,and hurray, mission accomplished.
people get killed, but you flight so early that there is not so many people,
only few thousand, instead of forty thousand,you don´t have to fake anything,
everything happens like it happens, except nobody knows you made it happen.
if you have money, power , and will to make it happen, what is so difficult.

so this conversation is quite pointless.

Bobby, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists try to explain away people on the flights making phone calls to their loved ones?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ci6Q5B1mWhU&feature=related

Awww, c'mon! Ya got nothin'? :(

Me or the Truthers? From what I've seen the Truthers believe that actors made the calls, using high tech voice synthesizers to assist the disguise. As MrGray has noted, one of the callers (Mark Bingham, on United 93) used both his first and last name when calling his mother, this is taken by the Truthers as confirmation that Mark did not make the call, for them no other plausible explanation exists.

Sorry, Bobby, I meant the "Truthers."
If a link to a video or article about this Mark Bingham exists, I would like that link provided (or provided again, as the case may be).
Even then, that is not proof. It might raise some doubts.
Furthermore, is the source trustworthy? How many of the "Truthers" are doing nothing more than accumulating information from web sources (videos and articles)? How many of them have actually gone out into the field and actually researched this? Was Mark Bingham really on the flight? How do you know? How do you know such a person ever existed? So on and so forth.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Bobby, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists try to explain away people on the flights making phone calls to their loved ones?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ci6Q5B1mWhU&feature=related

Awww, c'mon! Ya got nothin'? :(

Me or the Truthers? From what I've seen the Truthers believe that actors made the calls, using high tech voice synthesizers to assist the disguise. As MrGray has noted, one of the callers (Mark Bingham, on United 93) used both his first and last name when calling his mother, this is taken by the Truthers as confirmation that Mark did not make the call, for them no other plausible explanation exists.

Sorry, Bobby, I meant the "Truthers."
If a link to a video or article about this Mark Bingham exists, I would like that link provided (or provided again, as the case may be).
Even then, that is not proof. It might raise some doubts.
Furthermore, is the source trustworthy? How many of the "Truthers" are doing nothing more than accumulating information from web sources (videos and articles)? How many of them have actually gone out into the field and actually researched this? Was Mark Bingham really on the flight? How do you know? How do you know such a person ever existed? So on and so forth.

Heh, no problem Sarge, here's what at least some of the Truthers say.

As for whether Mark was on the flight, his mother appeared on Larry King to testify to this in relation to the depiction of him in the movie United 93, and google will return many hits (including an entry in wikipedia). Mark's name is also listed by the San Francisco Chronicle as being on the partial manifest release by United Airlines.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

everything happens like it happens, except nobody knows you made it happen.
if you have money, power , and will to make it happen, what is so difficult.

Apparently, convincing the world that it was someone else who made it happen... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I'm reading the one at democraticwarrior right now, Bobby.
Now, my Dad re-married in 1994. My step-mother has a brother named Bill, which is also my first name. So, while I do not recall doing so, it's possible in these past 14 years that I've called and said, "Hi ......, this is Bill" noticed she wasn't recognizing my voice for some reason and added in my last name.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

You guys really going to hang on to that thread of a stronghold, while forgetting all about the rest of the data provided here?

Side stepping into denial?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You guys really going to hang on to that thread of a stronghold, while forgetting all about the rest of the data reprovided here?

Side stepping into denial.

:) you're too funny MrGray. GIGO when it comes to much of the data you've provided and reprovided. Throw in the likes of John Lear and the other even more ridiculous theories and well, what hope do you have? It's not the amount of data you provide (and reprovide) it's the quality.

Are we to believe that the planes were holograms, military planes remote controlled with missiles, regular passenger aircraft? How does one deal with the questions that follow on from anything other than regular passenger aircraft

If military planes with missiles, what were the missiles for? To bring down the buildings?

If holograms, how was this achieved, acoustically as well as visually (note the planes were seen for miles before reaching their destinations).

How does one integrate this data with the notion of controlled demolition? If controlled demolition where's the supporting physical evidence? Eye-witness testimony is all well and good, and you may choose to discredit mine and those I've talked to, but forensics is better.

Where are the actors involved in this huge conspiracy. Was Silverstein one of them? Where's that evidence of the use of "Pull" as an alternative term for demolition you mentioned back on the 5th that we'd get back to? As this seems to be the only "evidence" the Truthers have when it comes to his involvement.

If the methods used to bring down the towers in a controlled demolition did not use high explosives, where's the evidence of this having been done elsewhere? If it is thermite (or thermate) seen falling from one corner of one of the twin towers, why is this not seen elswhere? Could a controlled demolition of 4 buildings (WTCs 1, 2 & 7 and the Marriot Hotel) really be started by a single thermite/thermate "charge" at one corner of one floor in one of the towers?

&c., &c., &c.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You guys really going to hang on to that thread of a stronghold, while forgetting all about the rest of the data reprovided here?

Side stepping into denial.

:) you're too funny MrGray. GIGO when it comes to much of the data you've provided and reprovided. Throw in the likes of John Lear and the other even more ridiculous theories and well, what hope do you have? It's not the amount of data you provide (and reprovide) it's the quality.

Are we to believe that the planes were holograms, military planes remote controlled with missiles, regular passenger aircraft? How does one deal with the questions that follow on from anything other than regular passenger aircraft

If military planes with missiles, what were the missiles for? To bring down the buildings?

If holograms, how was this achieved, acoustically as well as visually (note the planes were seen for miles before reaching their destinations).

How does one integrate this data with the notion of controlled demolition? If controlled demolition where's the supporting physical evidence? Eye-witness testimony is all well and good, and you may choose to discredit mine and those I've talked to, but forensics is better.

Where are the actors involved in this huge conspiracy. Was Silverstein one of them? Where's that evidence of the use of "Pull" as an alternative term for demolition you mentioned back on the 5th that we'd get back to? As this seems to be the only "evidence" the Truthers have when it comes to his involvement.

If the methods used to bring down the towers in a controlled demolition did not use high explosives, where's the evidence of this having been done elsewhere? If it is thermite (or thermate) seen falling from one corner of one of the twin towers, why is this not seen elswhere? Could a controlled demolition of 4 buildings (WTCs 1, 2 & 7 and the Marriot Hotel) really be started by a single thermite/thermate "charge" at one corner of one floor in one of the towers?

&c., &c., &c.

Thanks, Bobby. You have nailed one or two things I could not find a way to say.
First, as you say, which conspiracy is it to be? Missiles, military planes, passenger planes, holograms, so on and so forth? (How about all of the above and none all at once?)
Second, a more global issue, which the first probably falls under: integration. Excellent way to put it!!!
Now, you've mentioned eyewitness testimony. I wasn't going to say anything, but you've alluded to it. You live in that area, right? How long have you been there? If there in 9/2001, did you see some of what was going on?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.