> On 13 Mar 2007 17:20:03 -0700, 911falsef...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On 13 Mar 2007 14:38:59 -0700, 911falsef...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Why doesn't anyone pay attention? Because Griffin in lying and
>>> selectively quoting.
>
>>> "[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
>>> television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was
>>> going all the way around like a belt, all these
>>> explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
>
>>> "We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15
>>> minutes and then I just remember there was just an
>>> explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up
>>> these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
>>> way around like a belt, all these explosions.
>
>>Yes?
>
>>"It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these
>>explosions."
>
>>?? Did I miss something? When I got A+ for English in Year 12 did my
>>teacher deceive me?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Do I have english comprehension problem?
>
> Yes.
>
>>"ALL THESE EXPLOSIONS". Yes? Did I miss something? I've missed
>>something have I not? Did he say "ALL THESE EXPLOSIONS"???????????????
>>Should I get my eyes checked or something?
>
> Yes. You skipped some words:
>
> "It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings."
>
> Not "it was like", the words are "it seemed like".
>
> seem
> 1. To give the impression of being; appear:
>
> Not was or is, it just appeared similar.
Bwahahahahah!!!!
You're sad man.
>
>
>
>>> Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we
>>> ran into the parking garage because that's basically
>>> where we were. Running forward would be running
>>> towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming
>>> down. We just thought there was going to be a big
>>> explosion, stuff was going to come down."
>>> ...
>>> "So I was kind of looking around over there,
>>> up and down West Street and looking on Vesey and I just
>>> remember there was a police officer standing there and
>>> he just started saying, it's starting to lean, it's
>>> starting to lean. I remember looking up, looking at
>>> the second building and just seeing it starting to
>>> move.
>
>>AS one would expect I after "ALL THESE EXPLOSIONS"?
>
> And he had time to run away, get out on West Street, look around and
> speak to a police officer AFTER he saw the "explosions" and before the
> tower collapsed. Jake, that's not how a controlled demolition works.
How does one work? There a plenty of videos on the internet. You can
see many controlled demolutions start with the sounds of explosions
going off sometimes up to a minute before the global collapse. You
could perform those preparatory explosions anytime you like before the
global collapse staged. You could do them an hour before the
collapse.
Thats what we saw. Thats what we witnessed.
Every manner in which a controlled demolitiion is performed is unique
to the building structure and the manner in which you want to bring it
down, such as considerations of surrounding buildings, such as
consideration in this case that we want it to look like the buildings
might have come down because of the damage caused by the impact of the
planes.
We have here hundreds of testimonies of explosions. And you ignore
them all. And whats more hilarious is the manner in which you ignore
them, such as your lessons in semantics above.
If those testimonies don't startle you nothing will convince you that
this was an inside job. NOTHING. So I waste my time on idiots like
you.
>
>
>
>>> I just started running back down Vesey towards
>>> the water again to where I had come from. That's
>>> -- the second building came down there."
>
>>> "I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You
>>> know like when they demolish a building?"--Assistant Fire Commissioner
>>> Stephen Gregory
>
>>> Except that really isn't what he said:
>
>>> "I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant
>>> Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just
>>> to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't
>>> know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that
>>> particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I
>>> looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
>>> before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my
>>> conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to
>>> him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front
>>> of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought
>
>>Thankyou agen for pointing out that we actually have two independent
>>witness testimonies of these low-level flashes and that not only are
>>these the testimony of firemen who are less likely to be traumatised
>>by a disaster zone than civilians per their training but these are not
>>just ordinary firemen - a Lietenant and an Assistant Commissioner!!!!!
>
> And neither one of them thought that they were controlled demolitions
> because he continues:
>
>>>-- at that
>>> time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result
>>> of the building collapsing, things exploding,
>
> Not a word about explosives, Jake.
? You're retarded? "things exploding" - but he doesn't know what it
was because it could be a number of things.
If you were walking down a street and nobody had been warned that
there was going to be a controlled demolition and suddenly the
building next to you started imploding following a series of
explosions you wouldn't know what it was eaither - you wouldn't know
whether it was an accidental series of explosions, whether it was
terrorists who had planted bombs, or whether it was a controlled
demolition - controlled demolition would be the last thing you
suspected because normall in a controlled demolition PEOPLE ARE WARNED
and the area is cordoned off.
You're insane Agen. You are truly insane and anyone reading this can
identify your cognitive dissonance.
>
>>> but I saw a flash flash
>>> flash and then it looked like the building came down.
>
>>> Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
>>> was?
>
>>> A: No, the lower level of the building.
>
>>Oh Agen, I guess that if David Ray Griffin had quoted the WHOLE
>>interview it would be even more damning!!!!!!
>
> Not really because he wouldn't do it. It would prove him wrong.
Agen you just quoted the 'whole section' which you claim demonstrates
that David Ray Griffin is a "Lier" and yet I'm looking at it, and
everyone else in the Truth MOvement is looking at it, and we all see
MORE DAMNING evidence.
So its really just your cognitive dissonance eh Agen. David Ray
Griffin has edited the quotes for the sake of BREVITY in his article
not for the sake of deceit.
Talk about deciet Agen. These testimonies were withheld by the State
of NewYork for 4 years and it was only because of a Court of Appeals
law suit that they were finally ordered to release them.
Gee Agen, I wonder why the testimonies were being withheld? We have
video footage of bodies falling from the builidngs. What possibly
could be the reason for withholding these testimonies eh Agen? Fro
four fucking years you moron.
And you have the audicity to call Griffin a lier and yet he has his
citations below, you can go check the full testimomnies yourself as
you should if you want to varify everything in the article cited.
What the fuck is wrong with you man? Are you brainwashed stupid?
>
>>You're unbelievable man. These low level flashes arn't even happening
>>at the collapse point - they are going off way below!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And he never claims that it was explosives, Jake.
just like above where he says "things exploding" and you claim that he
never claims there were explosions.
You're a real english comprehesnive genious. I suppose you've taken
into account all the variant english expressions from New York to
Australian backyard of pig-ignorant Agen, including local FrieHouse
english inflexions and usages when you looked up the translation of
"seemed" and yet you seem to think that this fireman was groomed at
Oxford in the Queens English.
You're beyond idiot. You must be taunting everyone deliberately.
DENY DENY DENY Agen. JUST KEEP on DENY DENY DENY DENY mate, and keep
killing the Muslims.
>
>>>You know like when they
>>> demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
>>> down? That's what I thought I saw.
>
>>Yes Agen? What was your point?
>
> He never claims that it was explosives. In fact he says:
>
> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
> building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. "
>
> But not explosives.
He's trying to rationalise what he saw as being due to anything but
controlled demolition. Why? Because its prima facie impossible to
consider that someone planted explosives in the builidngs - thats not
possible. That prima facie assumptio n however is flawed. But he
testifies that what he saw was exactly like a controlled demolition.
So how does a building come down just like a controlled demolition if
its not a controlled demolition Agen? Please advise, we called found a
new technology on bringing buildings down without explosives.
What do you suggest it was then Agen? Gamm-Rays? A new Ray Gun?
Are you some kind of kook?
>
>>> And I didn't broach the topic to
>>> him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just
>>> wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said
>>> did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by
>>> see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I
>>> thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
>
>>Couldn't believe their own fucking eyes because how the fuck would a
>>terrorist both hijack planes AND plant explosives all over the towers
>>as well?????????????
>>I mean, its like trying to explain to a mother that her beloved
>>hsuband is molesting their 5 year old child!!!!
>
> Yes, it is. Read it again:
>
> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
> building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. "
>
> He never says that he thought it was explosives.
Shall we move through the hundred odd testimonies of bombs going off,
explosions, etc.....
or just fixate on your bazaar stretch of the imagination?
>
>>You know Agen??? It takes a while to sink in!!!!!!
>
> In your case, it obviously never will.
>
>>And it would be UNAMERICAN AND WITH THE TERRORISTS TO DARE QUESTION MR
>>BUSH WOULDNT IT!!!!!
>
>>I mean Agen you're fucking unbelievable man. You call Griffin a
>>misquoter, then you provide us with the extended quotes of the firemen
>>and they are even more damning and revalatory.
>
> Only if you don't comprehend English. Here, read it again:
>
> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
> building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. "
>
> Not explosives, Jake. The building coming down, electrical
> explosions, but NOT EXPLOSIVES.
He is saying there were "explosions". It is not possible for him to
have seen the explosives before they exploded now is it Agen.
So we have here testimony that corroborates the controlled demolition
hypothesis.
It doesn't contradict it Agen. So what is your fucking point?
Shall we now move onto the hundred other testimonies which also
corroborate controlled demolition hypothesis? Bare in mind Agen that
thse testimonies were deliberately withheld for four years and it
wasn't until a Court of Appeals that they were forced to be released
to the public.
What were they hiding Agen?
>
>>You're totally fucked up arn't you? in total cognitive dissonent
>>denial!!!
>
>>Look everyone!!!! Witness the phenomena of BRAINWASHED SHEEPLISM.
>
> Yep, that's Jake. Once more:
>
> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
> building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. "
>
> Not explosives, Jake. The building coming down, electrical
> explosions, but NOT EXPLOSIVES.
He is trying to suggest or contemplate that it could have been
something OTHER THAN explosives which were behind the EXPLOSIONS he
saw.
EXPLOSIVES MAKE EXPLOSIONS Agen. Which part of that don't you get?
For him to have seen EXPLOSIVES he would be DEAD.
Explosives Agen: Here is one for you to consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcmmLvAYqkI
You won't see any explosives in that video. But clearly EXPLOSIVES
were the cause of the EXPLOSIONS you saw.
So Agen is saying that because this particular firefighter (one of
hundreds of such testimonies) didn't actually see EXPLOSIVES that the
EXPLOSIONS he saw
are not evidence of EXPLOSIVES.
And yet we can go to the Oklamhoma City bombing of 1993 and look and
see that we actually have witnesses who found undetonated explosives
in the building (news reports of these discoveries) and then suddenly
the Pysop go into swing and all this evidence is disappeared and the
news media never reports it again, the FBI sezie all CCTVs and have
never released them again - exactly the same pattern of cover-ups that
we have seen for 9/11 and yet still the official story of OCB is
Timothy McVey, one truck bomb - despite all the experts and retired
governmnet military experts etc who say there is no way a single truck
bomb was repsonsible for that. And guess who cleaned up the mess at
OCB? The same mob who cleaned up at WTC - Controlled Demolition Pty
And look at Agen, classic case of battered wife syndrome.
>
>>> I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
>>> building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been
>>> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. "
>
>>Yes it could have been perhaps but no reference in the 911CR
>
> Because it isn't significant. The 9/11 Commission Report ran quite
> long as it was. And you expect them to include all of the depositions
> of everyone they interviewed, not that it would make any difference
> because you can't comprehend them anyway.
Sure Agen, we believe you.
>
>>and no
>>reference anywhere - totally suppressed and forced finally to public
>>release after two years of litigation by 9/11 Families and the Ney
>>York Times.
>>Long time after 100,000s of Iraqi civilians and Afghani had been
>>massmurdered by the same people Agen.
>
> It always comes back to your hatred of the United States, doesn't it?
I have no hatred of the people of U.S. Almost half of them know about
this.
I have a problem with the Regime of the US which has been in power and
effect since the turn of last century - over a hundred years. And so
do almost half of the Americans. Most Americans don't even know about
these testionies Agen.
>
>>Got a problem with INFERENCE Agen???????????????????
>
>>Got a LITTLE IQ there little simpleton boy????
>
> ROTFLMAO. You're the one who can't comprehend English.
Oh thats right, you have a dictionary.
>
>
>
>>> ***
>>> "[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges
>>> on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop,
>>> pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
>
>>> And the reality:
>
>>> "Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING
>>> DOWN?
>>> A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
>>> Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
>>> A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST I
>>> THOUGHT IT WAS-- DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
>>> DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
>>> FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
>>> POP? THATS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
>>> IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
>>> THATS WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN."
>
>>> But he still didn't say that it was explosions.
>
>>Yes I know Agen. He said it was like "Professional demolition where
>>they set the charges and you hear pop pop pop pop pop. THATS EXACTLY
>>WHAT IT WAS"
>
> No, Jake, that's what he compared it to. He didn't say that it was
> explosions or explosives.
He says "Thats exactly what it was". Exactly like a controlled
demolition AGen. With all the signatures of a controlled demolition.
EXACTLY.
You call that a comparison?
EXACTLY:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/exactly
What a laughable sad kook you are Agen.
>
>>Kind of like this he means Agen (man you are a sad case of molested
>>psyche. You know Agen its because of what they have done to innocent
>>people like you that makes me so angry. To see a grown man reduced to
>>utter confusion and denial in the face of such horrorible absurdity -
>>poor Agen, your American Dream is all of that - a dream.....)
>
> You're the one who is utterly confused, Jake.
You seem to be suffering connflict of cognitive dissonances. One set
of dissonances you must accept with the Inside Job version outweighs
the former set you hold now about your percept of the way things are
in the world.
Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of
consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his
expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible, and Luke is cognitively
dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one
which is less dissonance-inducing, as consonance should always trump
dissonance. It is also possible that Luke will simply reject the
negative reviews and his own bad experiences with the blender and
convince himself that his blender is actually the best.
I sought consonance with the facts because my mind is scientifically
trained. I had accepted the official story for four years Agen. And
then when I discovered all these dissonance-inducing contradictions I
sought another explanation which would make sense of them.
>
>>Yeh, getting back - this is the sound he is talking about (along with
>>all the other hundreds of such testimonies dozens of which Griffin
>>cites in that above linked article)
>
> Hundreds? What a joke.
Yes there would be hundreds of such testimonies. Also some 2700 which
we will never hear because they are DEAD. But we do have some of their
testimonies over 911 calls and NYPD RF calls.
When you weigh up the probabilities of doubt the case of 9/11 Treason
is an exhaustively proven fact.
>
>>ITS CALLED
>>TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And even if it were, it wouldn't be your problem, since you're a
> stupid Aussie.
No Howard is complicit as well. You seem naive and ignorant of the
current state of politics. There are repealed laws and anti-terror
legislation which have been pushed through our parliament in the name
of 9/11 and which encroach on our basic freedoms and this is Treason.
