"Dogchain"
dc.net> wrote in a message
>> 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.
> There no evidence that it was considered/studied is there?
Rather like when investigators look at a body with multiple stab wounds, a
person covered in blood standing next to the body, holding a bloody
knife.... they don't somehow decide to see if the person may have been shot
to death, or run over by a train. Maybe he was, but, unless there is
something to give them reason to look in that direction, they're not going
to investigate every other possibility. Maybe a plane landed on this person.
Maybe he was hit by a meteor. ... but the evidence they have only gives
them reason to investigate stabbing.
If there were any actual evidence of explosives, any reasonable reason to
lead investigators down that path, they'd go there. 300 internet amateur
sleuths pretending they can analyze what they see or hear is neither
sufficient nor reasonable justification for investigators going on a wild
goose chase to satisfy the whims of one disgraced ex BYU professor, a
handful of drug addicted Hollywood losers, and their 12 year old internet
minions.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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".
>
> Stated the wuss ignoring the factual claim.
>
>
>>
>>>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?
>
> Typical wussy response.
>
>>
>> But there were lots of "testimonies" from firemen available long
>> before these. Some as early as 2002.
>
> Some testimony is irrelevant.
> It's the testimony that questions the official narrative which is
> relevant, wussy.
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> So you claim, wuss.
>
>
>>
>>>>>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.
>
> And where can these facts of this investigation (explosive's) be found,
> wussy?
>
>
>
> snip
>
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>
> And where can these facts of this investigation (explosive's) be found,
> wussy?
>
>>
>>>So we have here testimony that corroborates the controlled demolition
>>>hypothesis.
>>
>> Only in your imagination.
>
> It does corroborate a controlled demo hypothesis, wussy.
>
>
>>
>>>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".
>
>
> And where can these facts of this investigation (explosive's) be found,
> wussy?
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Their privacy...
>
>
>>
>>>>>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.
>
> And where can these facts of this testimony be found, wussy?
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> Can one see explosives detonate from a far and still live, wussy?
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> Neither do your investigations, wussy...
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> snicker...
>
> No one saw any explosives in the
>> buildings at any time leading up to 9/11.
>
>
> And why is this relevant, wussy?
>
> No one saw any explosives
>> on 9/11. No one saw any explosions caused by explosives on 9/11.
>
> And where can these facts of this testimony be found, wussy?
>
> "I did not see any explosions from explosives" that is, wussy.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> You don't know the truth here either, wussy.
>
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> Yep, because only loons/kooks believe in syops.
>
>
>>
>> From the grand jury report:
>
> indicting a ham sandwich....
>>
>> "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
>
> One photo from a CCTV video and you've proven him wrong?
> You are a big wussy. When shall we meet?
>
>
>>
>>> - 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.
>
> So you claim, wussy?
>
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> They were just consultants, right?
>
>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> No he's got a good understanding about things; u for example, wussy.
>
>
>>
>>>>>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.
>
> Yes, be more like agent-assmunch. Type one short meaningless sentance at a
> time.
>
>
>>>>>> "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?
>
> Stop reading gubmint propaganda pieces and attempting to convince their
> moronic supporters?
>
>
>>
>>>>>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.
>
> No wussy, Jake is your problem.
>
>
>
>
