Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: Iarnrod on 10 Jan 2010 23:37 On Jan 10, 8:56 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...(a)live.com> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:30:56 -0800, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was > > driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people decided > > to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the coincidence > > of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned demolition" of > > towers, that troubles me. > > Without consulting the fringe my take on 9/11 is that the perps are > pretty much as described however the puppeteers have remained hidden. > > It is not necessary that those responsible be in the terrorist trenches > only that they have means to direct the weapon. > > For instance the three middle-eastern men celebrating atop their office > building as the towers fell were later found to be Mossad agents who > escaped to Israel. That is completely false. This did not happen. > How did 19 different men gain access simultaneously? They didn't. > That is not going to happen, Indeed, it didn't happen. > especially when some were on watch lists, They were not on watch lists. You are making stuff up. > without the path > being cleared before them. Read up on the Reichstagg fire. Read up on reality. > Nor is it possible for an airliner to be out of communication for so long > in the Washington-New York corridor without interceptors being launched. That of course is a lie. You watch too much teevee and think life is like a Hollywood studio. Real life isn't like that. It is unscripted. By the time FAA got a handle on what was happening and alerted NORAD, it was way too late. > It is simply not possible for so many failures to simultaneously occur. It is, of course, because this is real life.
From: Androcles on 11 Jan 2010 00:16 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks. > > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide > no alternative explanation. > > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, > lets hear it. > The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and US technology is so good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go off when the planes hit.
From: Iarnrod on 11 Jan 2010 00:56 On Jan 10, 10:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...> Funny thing about you 9/11 cranks. > > > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you provide > > no alternative explanation. > > > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, > > lets hear it. > > The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and US technology is so > good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a > satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go > off when the planes hit. The problem with your theory is you used "president" and "mind." Those two could never be used in the same sentence when talking about Bush.
From: Peter Webb on 11 Jan 2010 01:13 "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote in message news:hie7i1$n6b$9(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:30:56 -0800, Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> I am still waiting for the explanation as to who actually was >> driving the airplanes that hit the towers, and why these people decided >> to coordinate their plans with the U.S. government. It's the coincidence >> of the airplanes hitting the towers, and the "planned demolition" of >> towers, that troubles me. > > Without consulting the fringe my take on 9/11 is that the perps are > pretty much as described however the puppeteers have remained hidden. > > It is not necessary that those responsible be in the terrorist trenches > only that they have means to direct the weapon. > > For instance the three middle-eastern men celebrating atop their office > building as the towers fell were later found to be Mossad agents who > escaped to Israel. > > How did 19 different men gain access simultaneously? That is not going > to happen, especially when some were on watch lists, without the path > being cleared before them. Read up on the Reichstagg fire. > > Nor is it possible for an airliner to be out of communication for so long > in the Washington-New York corridor without interceptors being launched. > > It is simply not possible for so many failures to simultaneously occur. > > -- > Curly OK. Now please document your alternative explanation in detail, so we can compare it to the official story to see which is more plausible. You can start with explaining whether there were hijackers on board, and who they were.
From: Peter Webb on 11 Jan 2010 01:16
"Iarnrod" <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:36bb4a44-f4cf-445b-8aea-836eba6f6da8(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Jan 10, 10:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b4a6758$0$3075$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...> Funny thing about > you 9/11 cranks. > > > You always complain that the official story must be wrong, but you > > provide > > no alternative explanation. > > > Do you have a better explanation of 9/11 than the official one? If so, > > lets hear it. > > The pilot wasn't wearing his tinfoil helmet and US technology is so > good the President was able to use mind control, beamed from a > satellite. The buildings were built with bombs in them, timed to go > off when the planes hit. The problem with your theory is you used "president" and "mind." Those two could never be used in the same sentence when talking about Bush. _________________________________ Whereas your theory is as follows: |