The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Road Glidin' Don on 27 Jan 2007 11:22 On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:47:27 -0500, Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >Here, try again to explain Hey, the day I decide reasoning is worthwhile with you, Henry, you'll see me talking to the vegetables in the super market. <g> If Bush were in office instead of John F. Kennedy at the time time and you were old enough, you'd be one of the kooks still claiming the moon shot was faked. -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Mitchell Jones on 28 Jan 2007 15:41 In article <45B584C9.C12E1171(a)insidejob.gov>, Henry <911(a)insidejob.gov> wrote: > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > I would also repeat what I said yesterday: it is obvious those crashes > > were due to a conspiracy. The question is: who were the conspirators? > > Were they Al Qaeda, as is commonly alleged? Or was the whole thing a > > black ops operation pulled off by the Bush administration? My point here > > is not to argue for one conspiracy theory over another, but rather to > > argue that whichever conspiracy theory you endorse, you have to accept > > that the jetliner crashes were the instrument by which the towers were > > brought down. > > The towers survived the jet impacts just as they were designed. > Also, no jet hit WTC7, and so far, demolition is the =only= > plausible explanation for its sudden and unprecedented free fall > and symmetric drop. ***{I have already given you a plausible explanation for the collapse of building 7: 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in its lower levels, which caught fire due to the huge chunks of debris that crashed into the front of the building when the nearby tower collapsed. Building 6, however, is another matter entirely. There is no doubt in my mind that WTC6 was taken down by a controlled demolition, and, insofar as I am aware, this is admitted. Larry Silverstein even talked about it in a TV interview. Here, for example, is a link with a clickable video of events preceding its demolition: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html. Scroll down the page until you come to a section beginning with "It's blowin' boy," and click on the green video link. You will get a film showing a group of firemen on Vesey street, looking northwest toward WTC6, which is about a block away in the smoke obscured portion of the street, on the left. WTC7 is across the street from it on the right. The firemen are between WTC5 (on their left) and the post office (on the right), and are talking openly about the fact that WTC6 is about to be taken down. (For a good overview of the way the buildings and streets are laid out in that area of NY, pull up http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/steven_jones/jones9lltalk.pdf and go to page 37.) Note that immediately after the film showing the firemen taking about the imminent takedown of building 6, network footage of the collapse of building 7 is spliced, with the implication that Silverstein was talking about building 7. But he wasn't. He was talking about building 6. Here, from the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds," are his comments: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Interestingly, regardless of which building Silverstein was talking about, it is implicit in his comments that, in an emergency, a building can be taken down very quickly. You don't take weeks planning, clearing the area, and planting charges, if you think an asymmetric collapse is imminent. You just send experienced and knowledgeable teams of demolition people into the building. They determine the sizes of the charges and their locations using their judgment and experience, and then get out of the building, after which you "pull it." The idea, apparently, is that it is better to have a good chance that the collapse will be symmetric than to have no chance at all. And, of course, that insight destroys the primary premise used by those who argue that the charges had to be planted beforehand: in an emergency, a building can evidently be "pulled" rather quickly. --Mitchell Jones}*** > > Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct answer. > > Which is another reason to accept that 9-11 was an inside job. > The Bush regime's conspiracy theory requires the believer to > accept far too many impossible scenarios and "coincidences". > Here are a just a few of them. > > http://100777.com/node/963 ***{Very interesting. Everyone should read it. What it supports, however, is not the theory that the WTC was taken down by a controlled demolition, but rather that the airplane crashes themselves were engineered by the Bush administration. Therefore let me emphasize once again: I am criticizing the notion that the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were caused by pre-positioned explosive charges rather than by the jetliners crashes and/or the fires that they caused. I am expressing no opinion at all about other possible scenarios. --MJ}*** ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Road Glidin' Don on 30 Jan 2007 00:18 On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:05:15 -0500, Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: >Road Glidin' Don wrote: > >> Hey, the day I decide reasoning is worthwhile > > Run, Don, run! Run and hide from any and all challenges >to your world view. <chuckle> > > Hey Don, why can't you answer the very clear and >reasonable questions towards the end of this post? Why should I? I never see you answer (or even quote) the points raised in the beginning of my (or others') posts. So when are you going to admit your culpability for believing the Apollo moon landing was not faked by the U.S. government? Huh? And what about that UFO they got hidden in Area 51? Man, the knowledge of that would dwarf what you're talking about. You running away, Henry? Come on, chicken. You're not answering because you can't, can you? How come you don't want to engage in this debate. Sure you'll lose, huh? You KNOW that lunar landing was all faked, right? There's reams of evidence! And the UFO too! The government has been surpressing the truth for years on that. How come you don't want to talk about it, Henry? Don't tell me it's a waste of your time or that you're not interested. That's just a lie. Run, Henry, run! Run and hide from any and all challenges to your world view. <chuckle> -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Road Glidin' Don on 30 Jan 2007 00:24 On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:06:04 -0600, Mitchell Jones <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >Incidentally, you should indicate it explicitly when you delete >material. The usual way this is done is to insert [snip] in the place >formerly occupied by the deleted material. Just par for the course, with Henry, Mitchell. Which is why you are an unusual case, rewarding him with any of your time or courtesy. -- Home page: http://xidos.ca
From: Mitchell Jones on 30 Jan 2007 05:09
In article <45c1d5eb.276624294(a)shawnews.ed.shawcable.net>, langkd_NO_SPAM(a)shaw.ca (Road Glidin' Don) wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:06:04 -0600, Mitchell Jones > <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > > >Incidentally, you should indicate it explicitly when you delete > >material. The usual way this is done is to insert [snip] in the place > >formerly occupied by the deleted material. > > Just par for the course, with Henry, Mitchell. Which is why you are > an unusual case, rewarding him with any of your time or courtesy. ***{Hey, he's been pretty reasonable, and this subject is very interesting. It's been awhile since I studied statics and dynamics, and this discussion has given me a much better understanding of the big picture than I had before. It's easy to get lost in detail when you are grinding your way through hundreds of end-of-chapter problems. These issues, however, render it utterly mandatory that you see the forest rather than merely the trees. I would add that I see the Patriot Act pretty much the way Henry sees it: as the end of America. We have now officially been cast down into abject slavery--all "in the public interest," of course. That is the significant fact here. It doesn't matter whether (a) the Bush administration took down the buildings with jetliner crashes and pre-planted explosives, as Henry believes, or (b) took them down with jetliner crashes alone, or (c) merely seized upon crashes initiated by al Qaeda, to justify the Patriot Act. Any way you slice it, the crashes provided the political momentum to pass the act, and the act has killed the country. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were all that ever made this country worth a damn, are now dead letter. We now officially have no rights. "Our" government can now do to us any damn thing it pleases, and--count on it--it will become increasingly abusive and dictatorial with the passage of time, as tyrannical governments always do. Those who say tyranny can't happen in America are wrong, because it already has. --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > > Home page: http://xidos.ca ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |