Could Key West be a bike model for America?

Henry wrote:
BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:
Vito wrote:

Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq

Yes, he did, and he used it for all it was worth.

He invaded Iraq based on the lies about WMD's? Don't you read your own
posts??

As with mc accidents, there is usually more than one cause.

As with a mc accident, one cause is all it takes.

BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:
Vito wrote:

Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq

Yes, he did, and he used it for all it was worth.

He invaded Iraq based on the lies about WMD's? Don't you read your own
posts??


He wouldn't have been able to get away with it without 9-11,
and his regime mentioned 9-11 almost every time they mention
the "reasons" for their campaign of terror and war crimes in
Iraq. That's why so many of the U.S. sheeple "think" Iraq was
behind 9-11.



Tell us why you think Cheney would permit a known hijacked plane
to enter the most heavy guarded airspace on the planet almost an
hour after the first tower was hit. His stand down order resulted
in a horrific loss of life and property.


http://www.911truth.org/article_for_...70402105006226


3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission
concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the
Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent
concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling,
one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second
plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in
charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane
that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified
periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out,
twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan
obviously make no mention of the young manÂ?s inquiry of Cheney upon the
final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response,
turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young
man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable
importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not
discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance,
one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One
finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no
speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy.
There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out
who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and
what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is
simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative
chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no
explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an
amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None
of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan."


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/g...wayWithIt.html

"The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending
approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still
stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be
about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still
stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the
commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not
be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching
the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take
out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.
Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of
range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House
defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney,
the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend
the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man."



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8788

With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time
after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck)
and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called
the ?bunker,? under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also
agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge---that he was either
making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is
enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived ?shortly
before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58? (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth
9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all
previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This
difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission?s time is
correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was
struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was
approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20
are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.

Mineta?s Report of Cheney?s Early Arrival
The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made
by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony
to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he ?arrived at the
PEOC at about 9:20 AM,? Mineta reported that he then overheard part of
an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived,
between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was
about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming
that ?the orders still stand.? When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later
asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation
about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: ?Probably about
five or six minutes.? This would mean, Roemer pointed out, ?about 9:25
or 9:26.?

This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney,
according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must
have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta?s 9:20 arrival.
If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute
contradiction between Mineta?s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report.
Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?

One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story,
however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.

Other Reports Supporting Cheney?s Early Arrival
Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a
brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service
wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went
with Clarke to the White House?s Video Teleconferencing Center, where
Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10.
After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke:
?You?re going to need some decisions quickly. I?m going to the PEOC to
be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.? At about 9:15,
Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke ?suggested he join the Vice President?
(Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in
the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney?s
White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00,
some Secret Service agents came into Cheney?s office and said, ?Sir, you
have to come with us.? During this same program, Rice said: ?As I was
trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and
said, ?You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's
already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.?? ABC?s
Charles Gibson then said: ?In the bunker, the Vice President is joined
by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta? (?9/11: Interviews
by Peter Jennings,? ABC News, September 11, 2002).

The 9/11 Commission?s Late-Arrival Claim
The 9/11 Commission agreed that the vice president was hustled down to
the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the
White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until
9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service
agents immediately received another message, telling them that the
aircraft had turned away, so ?[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice
President at this time.? It was not until ?just before 9:36? that the
Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he
entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go
to the PEOC. Rather:

Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of
the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice
President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call
to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been
hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the
building. (9/11CR 40)

Next, after Lynne Cheney ?joined her husband in the tunnel,? the
Commission claimed, ?Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the
tunnel to the shelter conference room? after the call ended, which was
not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she ?entered
the conference room shortly after the Vice President? (9/11CR 40).

The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission,
Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others
said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38
strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.

Cheney?s Account on Meet the Press

The 9/11 Commission?s account even contradicted that given by Cheney
himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC?s Meet
the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: ?[A]fter I talked to
the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we
had word the Pentagon's been hit.? Cheney himself, therefore, indicated
that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon,
not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.

Dealing with the Contradictions
How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the
time of Cheney?s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer,
Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It
simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.

Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission?s failure to
mention Norman Mineta?s testimony, even though it was given to the
Commission in an open hearing---as can be seen by reading the transcript
of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta?s testimony was
also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11
Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however,
be viewed on the Internet.)

During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006,
Hamilton was asked what ?Mineta told the Commission about where Dick
Cheney was prior to 10 AM.? Hamilton replied: ?I do not recall? (?9/11:
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,? CBC News, 21
August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because
he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of
the young man?s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun
his questioning by saying to Mineta: ?You were there [in the PEOC] for a
good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.?
And Mineta?s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was
established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately
after Hamilton?s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to
recall any of this, simply said, ?we think that Vice President Cheney
entered the bunker shortly before 10 o?clock.?

Obliterating Mineta?s Problematic Testimony
To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission?s efforts to obliterate
Mineta?s story from the public record, we need to look at the
conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ?The
plane is 50 miles out.? ?The plane is 30 miles out.? And when it got
down to ?the plane is 10 miles out,? the young man also said to the Vice
President, ?Do the orders still stand?? And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, ?Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary??

Mineta?s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on
the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission,
the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon
until 9:36, so that it ?had at most one or two minutes to react to the
unidentified plane approaching Washington? (9/11CR 34). That claim was
essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not
been evacuated before it was struck---a fact that resulted in 125
deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why
this evacuation had not occurred, said: ?The Pentagon was simply not
aware that this aircraft was coming our way? (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001).
Mineta?s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew
that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that
strike.

Even more problematic was the question of the nature of ?the orders.?
Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot
down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders,
especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into
buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary
aircraft entering the ?prohibited? airspace over Washington, in which
?civilian flying is prohibited at all times? (?Pilots Notified of
Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,? FAA Press Release,
September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have
been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only
if the orders were to do something unusual---not to shoot the aircraft
down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported
Cheney?s confirmation of stand-down orders.

That Mineta?s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the
fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta?s testimony and
delaying Cheney?s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes,
also replaced Mineta?s story with a new story about an incoming
aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really
happened:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from
the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between
10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that
the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for
authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized
fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide
returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said
the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to
engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)

The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as
one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by
having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it
from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that
Cheney?s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United
Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).

Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission?s account of Cheney?s descent
to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but
also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the
press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.

--




They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey


http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org


Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org

Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...


"The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional
in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony,
consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked
by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world
growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of
omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies
throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens,
losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation
of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question
authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance."
- Manuel Valenzuela

Henry wrote:
BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:
Vito wrote:

Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq

Yes, he did, and he used it for all it was worth.

He invaded Iraq based on the lies about WMD's? Don't you read your own
posts??


He wouldn't have been able to get away with it without 9-11,


Why not.....You already assume he is responsible for 9/11? If he could
pull that off, going to war would be simple by comparison?

Just for a laugh.....one more time since you have been reposting and
reposting looking for that glimmer of attention.....well, here it is,
the spotlight is back on you.

One rule to the new game though....no more cut'n'pastes and answer in
your own words.....think of this as an exam.....You've been studying the
subject for long enough to not need the crutch of endless cut'n'pastes.

I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.


You say they were destroyed by demolition, rather than the planes
hitting them?

1. Who wired the buildings for demolition?

2. What kind of explosives did they use and how much would be needed?

3. When did they install these explosives so as not to be noticed by anyone?

4. Where was all the wiring normally associated with a building demolition?


I don't expect an essay, just try and answer them as honestly as you
can, in your own words.

BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:

He wouldn't have been able to get away with it without 9-11,

Why not.....You already assume he is responsible for 9/11? If he could
pull that off, going to war would be simple by comparison?

Are you denying that the Bush regime used the 9--11 attacks to
justify their illegal, immoral, and globally condemned wars of
aggression? Bush himself referred to 9-11 as an "opportunity". He
announced the he had won the "trifecta".
Bush alone was not responsible for 9-11, but clearly, he played
a role. Why else would he tell so many lies about it, vehemently
oppose an investigation into learning the truth, and refuse to testify
before the hand picked commission he was eventually (over 400 days
later) shamed and forced into appointing? To hard core conspiracy
theorists, his regime's behavior seems perfectly reasonable. To the
rest of us, it's rather suspicious and incriminating.

Just for a laugh.....one more time since you have been reposting and
reposting looking for that glimmer of attention.....well, here it is,
the spotlight is back on you.

One rule to the new game though....

I'd rather address the facts in logical, coherent, and rational
mater than play silly games, which is about all the cave man
cartoon conspiracy kooks seem to be capable of. As you've seen,
it's easy to beat them at their own game, but still, I prefer to
deal with facts and evidence.

no more cut'n'pastes and answer in your own words.....

If I find an article that expresses my views well and includes
footnotes and references, I won't waste my time writing the same
thing using my own words. That's a silly and unreasonable "rule".
Why would you reject the research of qualified, credible experts

I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.

None of the facts and evidence should be off limits.

You say they were destroyed by demolition, rather than the planes
hitting them?

Thousands of experts say that, not just me. And so far, their
research has not been rebutted. Here are the findings of just a
few of them:

http://www.journalof911studies.com

1. Who wired the buildings for demolition?

You want names and soc. sec. numbers? Silly question, as they
have not yet been identified. These Mossaad agents might have the
answer, but the Bush regime set them free.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

2. What kind of explosives did they use

Most likely, some compound of thermite. The Bush regime was very
anxious to ship the steel half way around the planet before any
sort of testing could be done. Here's some info on thermite and
NIST's ties to it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf

and how much would be needed?

According to you, none at all, right? The steel frames disintegrated
and self destructed under their own weight? I've seen varied estimates,
but the exact amount needed isn't important, so I haven't wasted any
time looking for exact figures. Why is the exact number important to
you?

3. When did they install these explosives so as not to be noticed by
anyone?

In the weeks or months prior to 9-11-01. The article linked above
shows that nano termites can be sprayed on, so it could have been
done as a "fire proofing upgrade". Who but the perps would have
known?

4. Where was all the wiring normally associated with a building
demolition?

No wires needed. The charges can be detonated via computer generated
remote control.
Here's some info on nano thermite compounds.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf

"The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels
allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in
“macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives”
as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel
nanothermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable
intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et
al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural
framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites
have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to
remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger
punch than typical thermite materials. It turns out that explosive,
sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to
dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings.
The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary
experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self
propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus” (Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent
failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been
applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the
upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a
way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s
engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials”
(NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on
nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like
fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this
kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.
Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is
strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact,
when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to
FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST
organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC
investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually
had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this
exact technology."

Now I have a question for you. Here's what the experts say about
WTC7. Do you dispute any of it? If so, what and why, exactly?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html



--


"The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional
in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony,
consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked
by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world
growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of
omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies
throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens,
losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation
of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question
authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance."
- Manuel Valenzuela

Henry wrote:
BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:

He wouldn't have been able to get away with it without 9-11,

Why not.....You already assume he is responsible for 9/11? If he could
pull that off, going to war would be simple by comparison?

Are you denying that the Bush regime used the 9--11 attacks to
justify their illegal, immoral, and globally condemned wars of
aggression? Bush himself referred to 9-11 as an "opportunity". He
announced the he had won the "trifecta".
Bush alone was not responsible for 9-11, but clearly, he played
a role. Why else would he tell so many lies about it, vehemently
oppose an investigation into learning the truth, and refuse to testify
before the hand picked commission he was eventually (over 400 days
later) shamed and forced into appointing? To hard core conspiracy
theorists, his regime's behavior seems perfectly reasonable. To the
rest of us, it's rather suspicious and incriminating.



Luckily, the courts work on proofs, rather than suspicions and
incriminations.

I am not denying 911 was used by the Bush adminstration, I am saying he
could have gone to war without it.





Just for a laugh.....one more time since you have been reposting and
reposting looking for that glimmer of attention.....well, here it is,
the spotlight is back on you.

One rule to the new game though....

I'd rather address the facts in logical, coherent, and rational
mater than play silly games, which is about all the cave man
cartoon conspiracy kooks seem to be capable of. As you've seen,
it's easy to beat them at their own game, but still, I prefer to
deal with facts and evidence.

no more cut'n'pastes and answer in your own words.....

If I find an article that expresses my views well and includes
footnotes and references, I won't waste my time writing the same
thing using my own words. That's a silly and unreasonable "rule".
Why would you reject the research of qualified, credible experts



Thats the point, your endless cut'n'pastes do not present anything in a
logical,coherent and rational way. If you can't just discuss this rather
than cut'n'pastes, forget it.




I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.

None of the facts and evidence should be off limits.



Yes, but you have a long standing habit of starting off on the twin
towers , then switching to WTC7 halfway through to muddy the
waters.....like I say....I am prepared to discuss the Twin Towers.





You say they were destroyed by demolition, rather than the planes
hitting them?

Thousands of experts say that, not just me.



So, thats a 'yes' then.?



And so far, their
research has not been rebutted. Here are the findings of just a
few of them:

http://www.journalof911studies.com

1. Who wired the buildings for demolition?

You want names and soc. sec. numbers? Silly question, as they
have not yet been identified. These Mossaad agents might have the
answer, but the Bush regime set them free.



I was not expecting names and soc. security numbers, thats a stupid
response. You have answered the question by stating you think it was
Mossad agents, so it's a Jewish conspiracy?






http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

2. What kind of explosives did they use

Most likely, some compound of thermite. The Bush regime was very
anxious to ship the steel half way around the planet before any
sort of testing could be done. Here's some info on thermite and
NIST's ties to it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf

and how much would be needed?

According to you, none at all, right? The steel frames disintegrated
and self destructed under their own weight? I've seen varied estimates,
but the exact amount needed isn't important, so I haven't wasted any
time looking for exact figures. Why is the exact number important to
you?



Nowhere did I state I wanted an exact number.

So it was 'some compound of thermite' and youv'e seen varied estimates,
but you can't mention them?

It's about logistics.....if it only need ,say,50kg, then it would be
easy to move/conceal.....if you needed 500kg, it wouldn't be so easy to
move/conceal?





3. When did they install these explosives so as not to be noticed by
anyone?

In the weeks or months prior to 9-11-01. The article linked above
shows that nano termites can be sprayed on, so it could have been
done as a "fire proofing upgrade". Who but the perps would have
known?



So you have Mossad agents spraying an unmentionable amount of nano
thermite at an undetermined time onto steel beams as part of a
fireproofing upgrade.

Where is this nano thermite available from? How much can be brought at a
time?





4. Where was all the wiring normally associated with a building
demolition?

No wires needed. The charges can be detonated via computer generated
remote control.



How does a remote control detonate the nano thermite? Does this
fireproofing look-alike substance require primers to detonate it? how
would they be hidden so no-one would notice?




Here's some info on nano thermite compounds.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf

"The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels
allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in
“macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives”
as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel
nanothermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable
intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et
al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural
framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites
have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to
remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger
punch than typical thermite materials. It turns out that explosive,
sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to
dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings.
The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary
experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self
propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus” (Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent
failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been
applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the
upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a
way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s
engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials”
(NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on
nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like
fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this
kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.
Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is
strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact,
when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to
FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST
organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC
investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually
had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this
exact technology."

Now I have a question for you. Here's what the experts say about
WTC7. Do you dispute any of it? If so, what and why, exactly?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html






LOL....you sure can be one dense SOB.....what part of "I am talking
about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin Towers......don't go off on
the WTC7 tangent again." didn't you understand??

BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:

well, here it is, the spotlight is back on you.


Now I have a question for you. Here's what the experts say about
WTC7. Do you dispute any of it? If so, what and why, exactly?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html



--


"The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional
in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony,
consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked
by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world
growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of
omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies
throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens,
losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation
of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question
authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance."
- Manuel Valenzuela

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:39:11 -0500, Henry wrote:

BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:

well, here it is, the spotlight is back on you.


Now I have a question for you. Here's what the experts say about
WTC7. Do you dispute any of it? If so, what and why, exactly?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html



Here's a question for YOU!!!! Have you ever stood a watch in the
cold, wet rain? And wondered what the hell you were doing? Then
realizing that it's YOUR freedom that you are standing there for.

Conspiracy theories have been around since the dawn of time. For
every web site, reason, or video that you can supply there are plenty
of others to dispute them.

Take your drivel someplace else, thank you.

According to the subject line this COULD have been an interesting
thread.
__o | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle....
_`\(,_ | I no longer despair for the human race.
(_)/ (_) | ---H.G. Wells---

Henry wrote:
BrianNZ wrote:
Henry wrote:

well, here it is, the spotlight is back on you.


Now I have a question for you. Here's what the experts say about
WTC7. Do you dispute any of it? If so, what and why, exactly?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html








I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.

"BrianNZ" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.

Brian of New Zealand, you are talking to a complete idiot (Henry). I ask
you, are you perhaps a masochist?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"BrianNZ" wrote in message
...
[...]
I am talking about the Twin Towers here.....only the Twin
Towers......don't go off on the WTC7 tangent again.

Brian of New Zealand, you are talking to a complete idiot (Henry). I ask
you, are you perhaps a masochist?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota




I have a sense of humor....the poor chap has got to the stage of
reposting and reposting to get someone to chat with him, so I humor him
occasionally.