On 16 Mar 2007 08:34:33 -0700, 911falseflag@
gmail.com wrote:
>>>"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.
You're the one who doesn't comprehend English.
>>>> 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.
ROTFLMAO.
>Thats what we saw. Thats what we witnessed.
You misspelled "imagine".
>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.
Haven't we been here before? It wasn't long ago that you promised to
stop posting. Yet here you are still at it.
>>>> 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.
And still not a word about explosives.
>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.
And neither do you. You just want so desperately to believe it to be
so. Even though there is not one shred of evidence to support it.
>You're insane Agen. You are truly insane and anyone reading this can
>identify your cognitive dissonance.
ROTFLMAO. Especially coming from you.
>>>> 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.
You still misspelled "imagine".
>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.
Why don't you ask the NYFD, Jake?
But there were lots of "testimonies" from firemen available long
before these. Some as early as 2002.
>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?
Pot, Kettle, Black, Jake.
>>>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.
I've never made such a claim, Jake. There were lots of things banging
around that sounded like explosions. There may have even been things
exploding like transformers in the the building. There just weren't
any explosives.
>You're a real english comprehesnive genious.
Obviously, I'm a lot better than you. BTW, it's "comprehensive" and
"genius".
>You're beyond idiot.
That's a real hoot, coming from you.
>>>>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.
Which doesn't make it a "controlled demolition". One either believes
what the man says, all of it, or one doesn't. But you don't cherry
pick out words and declare that as evidence of something.
>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.
Gravity causes a building to come down just like a controlled
demolition, Jake.
>What do you suggest it was then Agen? Gamm-Rays? A new Ray Gun?
Loss of structural integrity due to the crash of a large jet aircraft,
followed by extensive fires that caused the floor joists to pull the
outer wall of the buildings inward until they failed.
>Are you some kind of kook?
That's a good one again, coming from you.
>>>> 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're the one with the imagination, Jake.
>>>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.
He didn't see any explosives, nor any explosions caused by explosives.
>So we have here testimony that corroborates the controlled demolition
>hypothesis.
Only in your imagination.
>It doesn't contradict it Agen. So what is your fucking point?
It doesn't say what you so desperately want it to say.
>Shall we now move onto the hundred other testimonies which also
>corroborate controlled demolition hypothesis?
None of which are evidence of "controlled demolition".
>Bare
Uh, Jake, the word is "bear".
> 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.
To protect the privacy of the people who gave them.
>What were they hiding Agen?
Nothing.
>>>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.
Because he knows that they weren't caused by explosives.
>EXPLOSIVES MAKE EXPLOSIONS Agen. Which part of that don't you get?
>For him to have seen EXPLOSIVES he would be DEAD.
So you admit that he never saw any explosives.
>You won't see any explosives in that video. But clearly EXPLOSIVES
>were the cause of the EXPLOSIONS you saw.
Clearly, you have no evidence to support such a statement.
>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.
That's pretty much correct, Jake. No one saw any explosives in the
buildings at any time leading up to 9/11. No one saw any explosives
on 9/11. No one saw any explosions caused by explosives on 9/11.
>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
No, Jake, no undetonated explosives were found in the Murrah Building.
>and then suddenly
>the Pysop go into swing and all this evidence is disappeared and the
>news media never reports it again,
And, as usual, you would be wrong about that too.
From the grand jury report:
"A box was found in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and it was
believed to be a bomb. After checking it for a possible bomb it was
found to be an inert T.O.W. missile. It was put in the Sheriff's bomb
truck and taken to the training area. Later it was discovered the
inert T.O.W. missile belonged to U.S. Customs for an investigation
they were conducting. "
http://www.oklahomacounty.org/treasurer/GrandJuryBombingReport.htm
"F. EXPLOSIVES REPORTED TO BE FOUND IN THE BUILDING
We investigated claims that explosives were found in the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building. Our investigation determined as follows:
1. A desk ornament that looked like a bundle of dynamite with a clock
attached to it. The desk ornament belonged to an ATF agent, and was
not an explosive device. 2. Several federal law enforcement agencies
were housed in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Small arms and
small arms ammunition were not an uncommon discovery throughout
the search and rescue phase. 3. An inert T.O.W. missile was found and
mistaken for a secondary explosive device. The inert T.O.W. missile
belonged to the U.S. Customs Department. 4. Based on our review of
video tapes and photographs, packages of small arms ammunition were
mistaken for packs of C4 explosive by one Oklahoma City Police
Department officer. "
>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.
Despite all the wacko "experts" and wacko "retired military experts"
that couldn't produce a shred of evidence to back up their claims.
>And guess who cleaned up the mess at
>OCB? The same mob who cleaned up at WTC - Controlled Demolition Pty
Controlled demolition didn't "clean up" at the WTC site, Jake.
>>>> 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.
You're the one with the comprehension problems, Jake.
>>>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.
You know, Jake, you might occasionally try to actually make sense when
you write.
>>>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.
Obviously you don't.
>>>> ***
>>>> "[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.
Exactly what he thought it was, Jake.
>You call that a comparison?
Go look up "thought", Jake.
>>>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.
So what exactly does your psychiatrist have to say about all these
strange thoughts that you have, Jake?
>>>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.
Only in your imagination, Jake.
>>>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.
"Howard" is your problem, Jake.
