wrote:
Point one: In the event of a life threatening event, the last thing
I'm doing is looking at a clock.

But if you are in a building and hear an explosion, than a few seconds
later that whole building slams into your ears with the sound of the
plane hitting....sequentiially you know something happened

The problem is that, in the depths of the basement, it would be next to
impossible to distinguish a sequence. They would need to be above ground
level. Those in the building on the ground floor didn't hear anything like
the esplosion you made reference to. Some were even unaware that a jet had
slammed into the building.

first....make no mistake, people 2 or 3 blocks away felt that plane
hit, you think the people in the basement didnt hear or see whatever
they saw down there, and then felt the plane hit?

With the mass of the building, the depth of the various basement levels?
Damned straight they wouldn't be able to readily distinguish what was what.

W ar enot talking
time as in looking at a clock, we are talking a guy on wall st.
hearing it, someone else being so close she felt the shock of the
explosion.....time isnt only measured by a clock, it is measured by
what you are doing when such and such happened....I can tell you
exactly what I was doing priort to hearing jerry garcia had died, I
can tell you the exact instant when I heard what I was doing, but I
sure couldnt tell you whether it was 5:01 or 5:04, but there were 2
distint events and there is no confusion....

Again, you're missing the point.


Point two: You seem to be having a disconnect that won't allow you to
understand that people in a basement have no reference point to
determine external timelines like distinguishing an explosion from a
big jet hitting the building. Do you even have a clue as to how
isolated that basement area is from where the jet hit?

Considering I took the path train in on several occasions, and was at
the site just a couple of months before shopping downstairs as well as
leaning ont he statue in between the 2, you can safely assume I know
exactly how the set up was....I styed at the marriott there more times
than i can count...

Same here.

Do you have any idea that thousands of people
blocks away as well as in other parts of the building felt the thing
hit?

Felt? Hear, yes, felt? Not so much.

Do you realize how stupid your assertion is that people in the
lowest parts of the buidling didnt feel it?

Do you know how stupid your assertion is that a series of small explosions
was heard by basement dwellers?

People in the other tower
who faced the one first hit, felt the swa.

Get off of it. Most people in the second tower had no idea what had happened
until they got cell phone calls from family. And what does this have to do
with a basement that is mechanically seperated from the structural frame of
the tower?

You are just absurd.

And you are a conspiracy k00ker.

You
are in a basement of a house, someone blows off a firecracker
downstairs.

shaking head in puzzlement Whaaaattt?

Someone hits a window upstairs with a baseball from the
street. You dont think you would hear that glass break?

Not in my basement.

Just imagine
it up to scale, the firecracker is an explosive and the ball is a
plane. My guess is you would hear it.

That's your problem, you're guessing based on what you THINK should occur,
not on the science of what SHOULD occur.

Point three: You claimed that these three people were 'on record',
but you fail to cite the 'record'. So I guess this is more
speculative BS based on something you read on a k00k-site, or was
told to you by the friend of a friend who is into k00k stuff.- Hide
quoted text -

the link was there.

A k00k-site link. Try something credible.

I assume if the reader is interested enough they
will go to the link and read it. If it is something they want to know
more about, they will google it and decide for themselves. Nothing
kooky about thinking for oneself and drawing your own conclusion.

Folks are free to do anything they want. But being a k00k is being a k00k.
People are not free to make up facts or to change the laws of physics.

I notice you dotn touch the JFK HSCA connection.

Because that has nothing to do with this issue.

The warren report in
1964 ruled out any other participant in the shooting or that the
assanation was anything but a lone gunman with no support or
assistance. In 1978 the panel determined it was probable there was a
conspiracy, their findings based on new info as well as a careful
rexamining of the old evidence.

Still trying to use JFK as an argument to justify the WTC k00k conspiracy I
see.

I dont buy into the theories of the US govt haveing something to do
with, or the war machine taking out the towers, but something brought
them down, and I havent seen anything more convincing that it was the
planes vs something else.

That's your problem, and the basis for being a k00k.

I think if al quiada had people in flight school, they coould just of
easily had people studying demolitions.

If you knew anything about what is required for a controlled demolition,
you'd be embarrased by that speculation.

The planning of the
hijackings, etc, was genius in the most evil way. They got a bomb
into the parking area once before, whose to say they didnt bring one
in again?

And yet, that huge massive explosion did NOTHING to threatren the stability
of that structure.

I dont think you give them enough credit.

And I think you are trying to deny the obvious causal factor of the
collapse.

They took out
the towers, they got the pentagon, to this day we dont have osama.
Score one for the bad guy.

No, score two. One for 9/11, and another for development of an Al Quida k00k
Force.

Aid and comfort.... aid and comfort.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:

Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels down.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0

Kooker. So what. Try to keep up.

wrote:
-
Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels
down.http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and even if she is confused about the bomb, as Dave is going to say,
by daves logic, they wouldnt have felt or heard a thing in the
basement....

so either way, this is a bad interview for dave......

so it had to have been a bomb in the basement right? Cause dave, you
know there is now way the plane coulda shook an elevator in the
basement? Isnt that what you said in one of you carefully numbered
points up above?

So which is it, did a bomb go off, or do you far less about the layout
of the WTC than you wanted us to think.

You can have it both ways. Which one are you going to admit to being
wrong about?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:
-
Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels
down.http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and even if she is confused about the bomb, as Dave is going to say,
by daves logic, they wouldnt have felt or heard a thing in the
basement....

An elevator shaft is connected to the building's structure.

so either way, this is a bad interview for dave......

Not at all.

so it had to have been a bomb in the basement right? Cause dave, you
know there is now way the plane coulda shook an elevator in the
basement? Isnt that what you said in one of you carefully numbered
points up above?

No. Try reading for context.

So which is it, did a bomb go off, or do you far less about the layout
of the WTC than you wanted us to think.

It actually demonstrates your woeful ignorance about the buildings
structure, especially about elevators and shafts.

You can have it both ways. Which one are you going to admit to being
wrong about?

Since I wasn't wrong, that is just you puffing more k00kery

the only problem with all of that...is that I studied forensics, the
most important thing in any investigation is to look at the smallest
details and then make the big picture......


here we have a situation where the big picture is the easy one, the
planes, but when you get down to the deepr levels, the small pieces,
those smaller pieces dont add up to the big picture....

who knows what evidence was looked at, we sure dont....the govt has
been wrong before in official reports....lets see what history and an
almost certain reinvestigation turn up.....

I worte my masters thesis on the jfk assasanation, how the govt
created, concealed and altered evidence to fram lee harvey
oswald....so I know a thing about reading index's and testimony and
then comparing them to official reports...

If you dont think of it as being a large conspiracy, we will never
know who got jfk for example, and look at it as a crime scene, there
are as many holes as there is solid foundation for the official
version...dont thnk of it as bush and co, or anyone else...just look
at it as 2 steel buildings which dropped with precision perfection,
and it looks and feels a little odd....

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect
that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more
unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which
they make comparison, or that the fact that something might
potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other
than extremely unlikely.


so you are going to tell me that the warren commision and the findings
of the hsca are consistant with each other?

Noone is saying anything about a correlation between 2 drastically
unrelated events. I am not saying the same thing has happened before.

The report covers the info put in front of them. In 15 years, maybe
the wealth of interviews, etc, will play into a reexamanation, and
like 30 years ago, maybe the seond time around, the conclusion will be
different.

wrote:
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect
that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more
unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which
they make comparison, or that the fact that something might
potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other
than extremely unlikely.


so you are going to tell me that the warren commision and the findings
of the hsca are consistant with each other?

He isn't saying anything other than "Once a k00k, always a k00k?

On Mar 14, 10:34*pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect
that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more
unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which
they make comparison, or that the fact that something might
potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other
than extremely unlikely.

so you are going to tell me that the warren commision and the findings
of the hsca are consistant with each other?

He isn't saying anything other than "Once a k00k, always a k00k?



so you 2 are among the 3 in 10 people that actually still think oswald
acted alone?
That is what you are saying, right?

On Mar 14, 1:24*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:51*pm, wrote:





On Mar 13, 9:41 pm, wrote:

On Mar 13, 9:53 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) *and
(1.10) *for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). *A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

* * * * 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

* * * * 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

* * * * 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

* * * * 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

* * distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

* * * * [1.1] * t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

* * * * [1.2] * T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

* * * * [1.3] * m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

* * * * [1.4] * v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

* * * * [1.5] * m_k *u_k *= m_(k-1) *v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
* * * * [1.6] * (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

* * * * [1.7] * u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

* * * * [1.8] * u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. *Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.9] * WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
* * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.10] *WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
* * * * * * * * Where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units..

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
* _H - the total height of building
* _N - the number of floors in building
* _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J *= *sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
* * * * * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * j = _N - _J
* * * * * * * * * * * * n = _N - j
* * * * * * * * * * * * h = _H/_N
* * * * * * * * * * * * u 0 = 0
* * * * * * * * * * * * u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the people buying into the 'conspiracy' go over to
alt.conspiracy. *There are many threads there, at least 4 running now
in which all the BS theories are discussed. *Of course none of the
conspiracists will believe any of the debunking but it is good for
laughs.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They really are a pathetic bunch, aren't they? * They like to focus on
every little nit separately, completely distort it and make outrageous
claims. * * None of these crackpots has put together a time-line and
story that runs from start to finish explaining what happened that
day. *Forget about controlled demolition. * What about all the planes
that left 3 airports that day and were flown into the buildings? * Who
flew them or is that just a myth too? * And if they were part of the
conspiracy, how would anyone know precisely where the planes would hit
the buildings and that the impact would not disrupt the allegedly pre-
planted explosives?

The official explanation does put together a whole picture that makes
sense. * *For this to have been some govt conspiracy, it would have
had to be the most elaborate one in history. *And the funniest part of
all, is these kooks try to blame it on the Bush administration. *If
they were gonna pull any conspiracy like this, why didn't they just
put some WMD's in Iraq? * That would be child's play compared to what
this alleged 911 conspiracy would have had to entail.

Sure.
If one can't explain every detail then the "official" conspiracy
theory is the truth?
What about the spire?http://youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWS...e=related-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One does not have to explain _everything_ but mosst of it does have to
be. *If you are paying attention, the kooks explain absolutely
NOTHING. *They make assertions with nothing to back them up, ignore
reams of evidence, what they can't ignore they either distort or lie
about.

You are doing a good job of the latter.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly. If you take any sudden event, be it a bank robbery or auto
crash, subsequent interviews with eye witnesses almost always have
discrepancies. Someone will say guy A had a gun. Someone else may
say it's guy B. Somebody else will say there was no gun. If you
applied the standard of the conspiracy theorists to the bank robbery,
no one would ever get convicted. But if you look at ALL the evidence
fairly, then it's usually easy to figure out what happened.

Regarding these conspiracy kooks, my favorite was a show on TV couple
months ago. They re-examined the Oklahoma City bombing, because
there are conspiracy kooks claiming the exact same nonsense, which is
that the federal building couldn;t have been brought down by a simple
truck bomb. They claim there was another bomb well inside the
building. One key conspiracy nut is a retired airforce general,
who claims he was involved with weapons development with the airforce,
understands explosives, etc. He said by his calculations, the force
from the 1000lbs of amfuel explosive in the truck which was about 15ft
away, would have generated only a couple hundred pounds of force at
the key pillars holding up the front of the building. The official
investigation concluded that it was over a couple thousand pounds of
force.

So, the show got a Ryder truck, filled it with the same amount of the
same explosive, took it out to the desert and built concrete columns
placed the exact distance from the truck. They set it off with a
recording instrument to measure the force at the columns. Not only
were the columns destroyed, but the force recorded was dead nuts right
on to what the official report had concluded. I don't remember the
exact number but it was over 2000lbs and roughly 10X what the general
had calculated.

Presented with this result, the general said something to the effect,
"Well, it really doesn't matter, there had to have been a 2nd bomb
inside the building." That fits right in with one of the
characteristics of the conspiracy nuts listed above.

Among the other nit picking nonsense in the OKC case is that the
expolsion damage to the building wasn't symetrical. WTF? They expect
a truck bomb to make a perfect half circle imprint in damage to the
building. Construction experts explained that elevator shafts and
similar design details lead to the pattern being irregular.

But no matter what level of proof, the conspiracy theorists will never
be satisfied. I'm still waiting for their alternate explanation of
what they say happened on 9/11, start to finish. I don't want to
hear some lady in the basement heard a boom. I want to know the
plausible sequence of events, from start to finish, that explains what
happened.

On Mar 14, 7:26*pm, "
wrote:
the only problem with all of that...is that I studied forensics, the
most important thing in any investigation is to look at the smallest
details and then make the big picture......

here we have a situation where the big picture is the easy one, the
planes, but when you get down to the deepr levels, the small pieces,
those smaller pieces dont add up to the big picture....

who knows what evidence was looked at, we sure dont....the govt has
been wrong before in official reports....lets see what history and an
almost certain reinvestigation turn up.....

I worte my masters thesis on the jfk assasanation, how the govt
created, concealed and altered evidence to fram lee harvey
oswald....so I know a thing about reading index's and testimony and
then comparing them to official reports...

If you dont think of it as being a large conspiracy, we will never
know who got jfk for example, and look at it as a crime scene, there
are as many holes as there is solid foundation for the official
version...dont thnk of it as bush and co, or anyone else...just look
at it as 2 steel buildings which dropped with precision perfection,
and it looks and feels a little odd....

If you 'studied forensics', pardon me a minute....bwahhhaaaa haaaa...
then you know a theory has to explain all the evidence. You are
focusing on minutia and ignoring the big picture, in fact denying that
it even exists.

Harry K

On Mar 15, 8:40*am, wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:24*pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 9:51*pm, wrote:


snip

One does not have to explain _everything_ but mosst of it does have to
be. *If you are paying attention, the kooks explain absolutely
NOTHING. *They make assertions with nothing to back them up, ignore
reams of evidence, what they can't ignore they either distort or lie
about.

You are doing a good job of the latter.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly. * If you take any sudden event, be it a bank robbery or auto
crash, subsequent interviews with eye witnesses almost always have
discrepancies. * *Someone will say guy A had a gun. * Someone else may
say it's guy B. *Somebody else will say there was no gun. * *If you
applied the standard of the conspiracy theorists to the bank robbery,
no one would ever get convicted. * But if you look at ALL the evidence
fairly, then it's usually easy to figure out what happened.

Regarding these conspiracy kooks, my favorite was a show on TV couple
months ago. * They re-examined the Oklahoma City bombing, because
there are conspiracy kooks claiming the exact same nonsense, which is
that the federal building couldn;t have been brought down by a simple
truck bomb. They claim there was another bomb well inside the
building. * * One key conspiracy nut is a retired airforce general,
who claims he was involved with weapons development with the airforce,
understands explosives, etc. * He said by his calculations, the force
from the 1000lbs of amfuel explosive in the truck which was about 15ft
away, would have generated only a couple hundred pounds of force at
the key pillars holding up the front of the building. * *The official
investigation concluded that it was over a couple thousand pounds of
force.

So, the show got a Ryder truck, filled it with the same amount of the
same explosive, took it out to the desert and built concrete columns
placed the exact distance from the truck. * They set it off with a
recording instrument to measure the force at the columns. * Not only
were the columns destroyed, but the force recorded was dead nuts right
on to what the official report had concluded. * I don't remember the
exact number but it was over 2000lbs and roughly 10X what the general
had calculated.

Presented with this result, the general said something to the effect,
"Well, it really doesn't matter, there had to have been a 2nd bomb
inside the building." * * That fits right in with one of the
characteristics of the conspiracy nuts listed above.

Among the other nit picking nonsense in the OKC case is that the
expolsion damage to the building wasn't symetrical. *WTF? *They expect
a truck bomb to make a perfect half circle imprint in damage to the
building. * Construction experts explained that elevator shafts and
similar design details lead to the pattern being irregular.

But no matter what level of proof, the conspiracy theorists will never
be satisfied. *I'm still waiting for their alternate explanation of
what they say happened on 9/11, start to finish. * I don't want to
hear some lady in the basement heard a boom. * I want to know the
plausible sequence of events, from start to finish, that explains what
happened.

My favorite from alt conspiracy is the "ATC controller" that was
adamant that the AF , prior to 911, scrambled and escorted all planes
that weren't following all procedures. After teh actual regulations
were posted and quoted showing that the AF scrambled on such incidents
ONLY when requested, he still insisted he was right and relied on his
ATC experience. A bit of checking found that he had retired some 20
years earlier. When the regs from back then were posted that refuted
his claim, he still insisted he was right.

Harry K

wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to
reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always
far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies
with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something
might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it
anything other than extremely unlikely.

so you are going to tell me that the warren commision and the
findings of the hsca are consistant with each other?

He isn't saying anything other than "Once a k00k, always a k00k?



so you 2 are among the 3 in 10 people that actually still think oswald
acted alone?
That is what you are saying, right?

No. What we are saying is that only a desperate k00k attempts to prove one
conspiracy with another.

Harry K wrote:

My favorite from alt conspiracy is the "ATC controller" that was
adamant that the AF , prior to 911, scrambled and escorted all planes
that weren't following all procedures. After teh actual regulations
were posted and quoted showing that the AF scrambled on such incidents
ONLY when requested, he still insisted he was right and relied on his
ATC experience. A bit of checking found that he had retired some 20
years earlier. When the regs from back then were posted that refuted
his claim, he still insisted he was right.

Which goes to prove that k00kism is a harsh mistress.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...


in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...


in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

wrote in message
...
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

Santa Clause
The Easter Bunner
You F*cking Whore Mother

On Mar 15, 7:06*pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

so you 2 are among the 3 in 10 people that actually still think oswald
acted alone?
That is what you are saying, right?

No. What we are saying is that only a desperate k00k attempts to prove one
conspiracy with another.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not trying to prove anything. It isnt up to me or anyone else to
convince you what to think. You like to refer to people as kooksm
tyring to justify one conspiracy by using another example of a
conspiracy. All I am pointing out is that there are times when very
high profile investigations are carried out, and the results are later
found to be incorrect. The warren report, and the hsca both looked at
the same assasanation, but 15 years later, drew a different
conclusion.

I dont mention roswell, elvis being alive or any of the other
conpiracy theories for a reason. The reason Kennedy is so relavant is
becuause 40 years later, it is hard to find someone who actually
believes the original first findings. To me, thats solid evidence
that an it is possible for people to be wrong and to base their
findings on incomplete or innacurate data.

I think the stupidest thing the push for the truth people, etc,do is
that some of the theories they present are so off the wall an
afternoon soap opera would be embarssed. I saw something last nite
when I was reading stuff that said a second plane never hit the second
tower. and that because cameras were down at logan, noone could prove
the hijackers boarded the plane. Went so far as to say phone calls
from the plane were fakes, It is just so rediculous people who are
more focused on the buildings themselves, get caught up in other
peoples obvious Kookery.

It is no different with the people who try and figure out the whos and
whys of the kennedy thing. Johnson to go to vietnam, the mob to get
back at rkf, etc and it goes on and on, they jusrt take it to extremes
that make it hard to stand there straight faced and actually then try
and argue number of bullets and timing. Its hard to argue the speed
at which floors fell when you have someone saying bush and co are
somehow in some bizarre scheme are behind 9/11.

All I am saying is, there is some pretty credible accounts and data to
support something other than the 2 planes being the cause of the
collapse of the wtc. If in 15 years, the report indicates that there
were explosives involved, does it mean we will ever know who pulled it
off? No more than we know who the second gunman is.

On Mar 15, 6:19*pm, "
wrote:
so you 2 are among the 3 in 10 people that actually still think oswald
acted alone?
That is what you are saying, right?

No. What we are saying is that only a desperate k00k attempts to prove one
conspiracy with another.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not trying to prove anything. *It isnt up to me or anyone else to
convince you what to think. *You like to refer to people as kooksm
tyring to justify one conspiracy by using another example of a
conspiracy. All I am pointing out is that there are times when very
high profile investigations are carried out, and the results are later
found to be incorrect. *The warren report, and the hsca both looked at
the same assasanation, but 15 years later, drew a different
conclusion.

I dont mention roswell, elvis being alive or any of the other
conpiracy theories for a reason. *The reason Kennedy is so relavant is
becuause 40 years later, it is hard to find someone who actually
believes the original first findings. *To me, thats solid evidence
that an it is possible for people to be wrong and to base their
findings on incomplete or innacurate data.

I think the stupidest thing the push for the truth people, etc,do *is
that some of the theories they present are so off the wall an
afternoon soap opera would be embarssed. *I saw something last nite
when I was reading stuff that said a second plane never hit the second
tower. and that because cameras were down at logan, noone could prove
the hijackers boarded the plane. *Went so far as to say phone calls
from the plane were fakes, *It is just so rediculous people who are
more focused on the buildings themselves, get caught up in other
peoples obvious Kookery.

It is no different with the people who try and figure out the whos and
whys of the kennedy thing. *Johnson to go to vietnam, the mob to get
back at rkf, etc and it goes on and on, they jusrt take it to extremes
that make it hard to stand there straight faced and actually then try
and argue number of bullets and timing. *Its hard to argue the speed
at which floors fell when you have someone saying bush and co are
somehow in some bizarre scheme are behind 9/11.

All I am saying is, there is some pretty credible accounts and data to
support something other than the 2 planes being the cause of the
collapse of the wtc. *If in 15 years, the report indicates that there
were explosives involved, does it mean we will ever know who pulled it
off? *No more than we know who the second gunman is.

The point you are missing is that citing one conspiracy as evidence
for another _is_ kookism. One has nothing to do with the other. It
doesn't matter if there were 10,000 conspiracies proven in the past
two years, it would still add nothing to your claims.

BTW the the Kennedy thing was not a conspiracy in spite of what you
want to believe.

Harry K

On Mar 15, 4:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06*pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

*warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "



wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.
They handed us USAma bin Laden and we wouldn't hear anything about
altenative theories because they are all "conspiracies."
Who benefited?
Not the Muslims or Arabs.
Follow the money....oh but wait..they haven't told us who made all
those Put options on the airlines......no conspiracy here either right
**** you guys.

The point you are missing is that citing one conspiracy as evidence
for another _is_ kookism. *One has nothing to do with the other. *It
doesn't matter if there were 10,000 conspiracies proven in the past
two years, it would still add nothing to your claims.

BTW the the Kennedy thing was not a conspiracy in spite of what you
want to believe.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. I am citing one flawed governmental study with another one which
may find out in 15 years was also flawed.

and you are an idiot beyond reason if you believe there was only one
shooter. I cant put it any more nicely than that.

read the hsca introduction....interesting conclusions

On Mar 16, 12:11*am, wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

*warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. *Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Hmmm... Last time I checked the 911 commission was created by
legislation passed by Congress. The members were purposely selected
to be bipartisan and independent. So, for your Bush conspiracy crap
to be true, Democrats Lee Hamilton, Max Cleland, Tim Roemer, Richard
Ben-Veniste, and Jamie Gorlick would have to have been in on it too.
Seems to me most of the Dems on that list have pretty big mouths and
are no friends of Bush.


They handed us USAma bin Laden and we wouldn't hear anything about
altenative theories because they are all "conspiracies."

I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.



Who benefited?
Not the Muslims or Arabs.
Follow the money....oh but wait..they haven't told us who made all
those Put options on the airlines......no conspiracy here either right
**** you guys.- Hide quoted text -


It's pretty absurd to think anyone seeking to profit on puts would
need to launch the world's biggest conspiracy. Or that they would be
stupid enough to think that no one would notice. You think there are
no decent Americans anywhere on Wall Street who wouldn't be
broadcasting this to the world after their friends were murdered on
911? If anyone wanted to profit in such a way, a simple product
tampering, which any hack could pull off alone would have been
sufficient. And it would not have received a fraction of the worldwide
investigative resources that any fool would know would follow 911.

Now, here's the part you conveniently leave out. The 911 Commission
did thoroughly look at the heavy put positions you refer to. The FBI
and SEC tracked down the buyers accounting for the increase in trading
volume. All were found to have no connection whatever to 911. A
typical scenario they found is a large well known institution buying
large amounts of puts on the airline stock and SIMULTANEOUSLY BUYING
THE ACTUAL STOCK. Like all the 911 evidence, when you look at the
whole picture, it becomes apparent what was really going on. And in
this case, it was that this particular trading strategy was something
they did with many stocks, many times. By having both the put and the
stock position, they actually LOST money in the aftermath.

But like all the other 911 evidence, when you take only one select
snippet you can easily twist it to try to support kook theories.
Another thing that would put this into balance is to look at how many
times over the years there have been such trading spikes in either
these airlines or other companies. The conspiracy kooks simply point
out that there was a supposedly sinister spike several days before
911. They don't say with what frequency similar spikes occur. In many
heavily traded stocks these type of spikes occur periodically for a
variety of perfectly normal and legitimate reasons and they aren't
followed by extraordinary events.

In other words, you're just another conspiracy kook.

On Mar 15, 9:39*pm, "
wrote:
The point you are missing is that citing one conspiracy as evidence
for another _is_ kookism. *One has nothing to do with the other. *It
doesn't matter if there were 10,000 conspiracies proven in the past
two years, it would still add nothing to your claims.

BTW the the Kennedy thing was not a conspiracy in spite of what you
want to believe.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. *I am citing one flawed governmental study with another one which
may find out in 15 years was also flawed.

and you are an idiot beyond reason if you believe there was only one
shooter. *I cant put it any more nicely than that.

read the hsca introduction....interesting conclusions

And in 15 years the sun MAY explode, God MAY appear, I MAY still be
alive, etc. . What is your point? If in 15 years something does
turn up, get back to us.

Again. Citing one conspiracy (that doesn't exist) to prove an
unassociated one is Kookism. Use a bit of logic for god's sake.

Harry K

On Mar 15, 9:11*pm, wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

*warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. *Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Did you perhaps miss all the examinations of every stick, piece and
pile of the stuff that hauled out of there before it was buried in
landfills and or shipped off as salvage?

See Trad's reply for the answer to the rest of your wet dream.


snip

Harry K

Again. *Citing one conspiracy (that doesn't exist) to prove an
unassociated one is Kookism. *Use a bit of logic for god's sake.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -


I would love to know what you base this on. I dare say the hsca had
access to everything. They had at their disposal the best methods of
study avaiable at the time. They concluded that there was likely 2
gunmen, and also that it was probable jfk was killed as a result of
some sort of conspiracy. That is fact. There is no longer a question
of if there was a conspiracy, but instead of how many and what other
people were involved. We will never know. But we know through this
report that it did occur.

As far as comparing the 2 things, I am not comparing them at all.
just stating the fact that sometimes people rush thrugh an
investigation to get it to the public ASAP and when reviewed later, it
is foudn the intial report was wrong. it happens all the time, and
not just in cases where there are conspiracy theories.

I would love t hear you rationale for disagreeing with the findings of
the hsca. I dont know anyone who still clings to the lone nut theory,
that isnt themselves a litttle nutty.

On Mar 16, 11:37*am, "
wrote:
Again. *Citing one conspiracy (that doesn't exist) to prove an
unassociated one is Kookism. *Use a bit of logic for god's sake.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

I would love to know what you base this on. *I dare say the hsca had
access to everything. *They had at their disposal the best methods of
study avaiable at the time. *They concluded that there was likely 2
gunmen, and also that it was probable jfk was killed as a result of
some sort of conspiracy. *That is fact. *There is no longer a question
of if there was a conspiracy, but instead of how many and what other
people were involved. *We will never know. *But we know through this
report that it did occur.

As far as comparing the 2 things, I am not comparing them at all.
just stating the fact that sometimes people rush thrugh an
investigation to get it to the public ASAP and when reviewed later, it
is foudn the intial report was wrong. *it happens all the time, and
not just in cases where there are conspiracy theories.

I would love t hear you rationale for disagreeing with the findings of
the hsca. *I dont know anyone who still clings to the lone nut theory,
that isnt themselves a litttle nutty.

That's easy. The whole basis for the hsca concluding there probably
was a conspiracy was an audio tape. That audio tape was a continuous
recording being taken off the radio system by the Dallas police
department. On that tape, there is a garbled sequence that some say
is the sequence of shots that happened to be recorded by a particular
police dept member that was in Dealy plaza and accidentally had his
mike keyed on. The recording allegedly has what can be made out as
shots. The number of shots and timing are what allegedly prove there
was a second gunman.

There are several big problems with this. First, the only Dallas
police officer who could have had the open mike at the time swears
that his mike was not keyed on, nor was his motorcycle at the time at
the spot it needed to be for the whole recording analysis to be
valid. He is clear as day that his motocycle was hundreds of feet
from the spot.

An even bigger problem is that the recording is not audible without
signal processing to enhance it. They used what was considered
appropriate and state of the art in the 70's for the hsca. Since
then, the National Academy of Sciences has come out and stated that
they believe the analysis was severly flawed and not done correctly.

I think that gives one plenty of pause in putting 100% confidence in
relying on the hsca conclusion.

As far as the JFK conspiracy goes, among the many conspiracy problems
I see is this. Oswald happened to get the job at the School Book
Depository by chance. His wife Marina, had a friend who knew someone
who worked there and told her there was a job available. This woman
was thoroughly interviewed and seems perfectly credible.

Now for there to have been a conspiracy, it would seem not only would
this woman have to be in on it, but also the person who told here
about the job, someone at the SBD that hired Oswald and someone else,
likely many others, in the Secret Service, Dallas police, etc that
came up with the parade route so that it would go by where Oswald
happened to be.

Now how likely is that conspiracy compared to the simple possibility
supported by most of the evidence, that Oswald acted alone? He was
obviously a troubled guy with some serious problems. And he had
already taken a shot at and nearly killed another political figure in
TX in the months before.

On Mar 16, 6:17 am, wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:11 am, wrote:



On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Hmmm... Last time I checked the 911 commission was created by
legislation passed by Congress.

So. Bush stonewalled and wouldn't rtestify without his puppet master
Cheney with him.

The members were purposely selected
to be bipartisan and independent.

They weren't.
Ever heard of Philip Zelikow?

So, for your Bush conspiracy crap
to be true, Democrats Lee Hamilton, Max Cleland, Tim Roemer, Richard
Ben-Veniste, and Jamie Gorlick would have to have been in on it too.
Seems to me most of the Dems on that list have pretty big mouths and
are no friends of Bush.

The 911 report is a joke.
It starts with a conclusion and fills in the middle part.

They handed us USAma bin Laden and we wouldn't hear anything about
altenative theories because they are all "conspiracies."

I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.

He never did.
You are a liar.

Who benefited?
Not the Muslims or Arabs.
Follow the money....oh but wait..they haven't told us who made all
those Put options on the airlines......no conspiracy here either right
**** you guys.- Hide quoted text -

It's pretty absurd to think anyone seeking to profit on puts would
need to launch the world's biggest conspiracy.

But they did.

Or that they would be
stupid enough to think that no one would notice.

Not when you can hide the evience which they have done.
Why haven't we heard ONE WORD about who these people were?

You think there are
no decent Americans anywhere on Wall Street who wouldn't be
broadcasting this to the world after their friends were murdered on
911?

Apparently not.

If anyone wanted to profit in such a way, a simple product
tampering, which any hack could pull off alone would have been
sufficient. And it would not have received a fraction of the worldwide
investigative resources that any fool would know would follow 911.

Would that be the lousy $600,000 the spent on the 911 investigation?
They spent aout 40 million investigating Clinton.

Now, here's the part you conveniently leave out. The 911 Commission
did thoroughly look at the heavy put positions you refer to. The FBI
and SEC tracked down the buyers accounting for the increase in trading
volume. All were found to have no connection whatever to 911.

Cite?

A
typical scenario they found is a large well known institution buying
large amounts of puts on the airline stock and SIMULTANEOUSLY BUYING
THE ACTUAL STOCK.

Not in the amounts bought the days prior.
The numbers were way out of line.

Like all the 911 evidence, when you look at the
whole picture, it becomes apparent what was really going on.

The whole picture includes the FIRST TIME FROM FIRE three perfect
building collapses into their footprints and pulverisized into dust.

And in
this case, it was that this particular trading strategy was something
they did with many stocks, many times. By having both the put and the
stock position, they actually LOST money in the aftermath.

Liar.

But like all the other 911 evidence, when you take only one select
snippet you can easily twist it to try to support kook theories.

Liar.
There is a raft of evidence.

Another thing that would put this into balance is to look at how many
times over the years there have been such trading spikes in either
these airlines or other companies.

That's what they did and that's why the numbers are unusual....Duh.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...arch=rense.com

The conspiracy kooks simply point
out that there was a supposedly sinister spike several days before
911. They don't say with what frequency similar spikes occur. In many
heavily traded stocks these type of spikes occur periodically for a
variety of perfectly normal and legitimate reasons and they aren't
followed by extraordinary events.

But thses were EXTREMELY out of the ordinary.

In other words, you're just another conspiracy kook.

And you're just an asshole calling peole kooks which doesn't make you
right.

On Mar 16, 7:41 am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, wrote:



On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Did you perhaps miss all the examinations of every stick, piece and
pile of the stuff that hauled out of there before it was buried in
landfills and or shipped off as salvage?

The "steel was destroyed" before it was retested by UL Labs.

See Trad's reply for the answer to the rest of your wet dream.

snip

Harry K


Suppose you read the NIST report about it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

I like this one the best.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
"Fired for writing a letter" questioning the 911 Report.
"The collapse should have taken 36-40 seconds."

So these guys are just kooks too huh?
You guys a ****ing blind.

On Mar 16, 2:27*pm, wrote:
.

Hmmm... * Last time I checked the 911 commission was created by
legislation passed by Congress.

So. Bush stonewalled and wouldn't rtestify without his puppet master
Cheney with him.

He testified, but we know nothing he or anyone else could say or do
would satisfy you.



The members were purposely selected
to be bipartisan and independent.

They weren't.
Ever heard of Philip Zelikow?

Yes, and apparently you don't understand the difference between the
committee members and the staff. Zelikow is a staff member, not an
appointed committee member. What exactly the point you're trying to
make here isn't clear, unless it's an attempt at anti-semitism.



So, for your Bush conspiracy crap
to be true, Democrats Lee Hamilton, Max Cleland, Tim Roemer, Richard
Ben-Veniste, and Jamie Gorlick would have to have been in on it too.
Seems to me most of the Dems on that list have pretty big mouths and
are no friends of Bush.

The 911 report is a joke.
It starts with a conclusion and fills in the middle part.

Yep, I guess those Dems were just part of the conspiracy too.





They handed us USAma bin Laden and we wouldn't hear anything about
altenative theories because they are all "conspiracies."

I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.

He never did.
You are a liar.


Here's the link for you to PBS and Al-Jazeera, where Bin Laden takes
credit for 911. I purposely selected those sources because I know
you'd prefer them to over other media. Who's the liar now, moron?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

Online NewsHour Special Reports:
Domestic Security: The Homefront and the War on Terrorism

The Response to the Sept. 11 Attacks

It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year
and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an
extremely tight president race.

In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or
standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite
entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you
and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still
there to repeat what happened."

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers
when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it
had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our
patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the
American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon,
this came to my mind."





Who benefited?
Not the Muslims or Arabs.
Follow the money....oh but wait..they haven't told us who made all
those Put options on the airlines......no conspiracy here either right
**** you guys.- Hide quoted text -

It's pretty absurd to think anyone seeking to profit on puts would
need to launch the world's biggest conspiracy.

But they did.

And how would you know this? You have access to everyone's portfolio
that held any position in the stock or derivatives to know?



Or that they would be
stupid enough to think that no one would notice.

Not when you can hide the evience which they have done.
Why haven't we heard ONE WORD about who these people were?


Who what people were? The 911 commission thoroughly vetted the
people who held put options or short positions. Who should we
believe, you, who says Bin Laden never took credit for 911 or an
independent commission? Liar.



You think there are
no decent Americans anywhere on Wall Street who wouldn't be
broadcasting this to the world after their friends were murdered on
911?

Apparently not.



If anyone wanted to profit in such a way, a simple product
tampering, which any hack could pull off alone would have been
sufficient. And it would not have received a fraction of the worldwide
investigative resources that any fool would know would follow 911.

Would that be the lousy $600,000 the spent on the 911 investigation?
They spent aout 40 million investigating Clinton.


Where did you come up with that phoney BS number? Any person with a
pulse knows that the money spent on the 911 investigation was orders
of magnitude more that $600K.



Now, here's the part you conveniently leave out. *The 911 Commission
did thoroughly look at the heavy put positions you refer to. * The FBI
and SEC tracked down the buyers accounting for the increase in trading
volume. * All were found to have no connection whatever to 911.

Cite?

A
typical scenario they found is a large well known institution buying
large amounts of puts on the airline stock and SIMULTANEOUSLY BUYING
THE ACTUAL STOCK.

Not in the amounts bought the days prior.
The numbers were way out of line.

How the hell would you know? You have no way of knowing the actual
positions held, who the institutions were, what offsetting positions
they may have had. Do you know what a sythetic short is? A
butterfly spread? All you have is data that shows a spike in trading
volume for puts a few days before the attacks. Suppose I showed you
the same spikes monthly for the past year, without a 911, would that
convince you? Of course not because you don't even acknowledge that
Bin Laden took credit for 911, because you're too invested in the anti-
American conspiracy kook theories.




Like all the 911 evidence, when you look at the
whole picture, it becomes apparent what was really going on.

The whole picture includes the FIRST TIME FROM FIRE three perfect
building collapses into their footprints and pulverisized into dust.

And it was also the first time in history that fully fueled 767's
crashed into highrise buildings. BTW, the impact knocked loose much
of the fire retardent that is routinely applied to steel buildings to
help prevent collapse. Gee, if fire can'[t bring down a steel
building, why do you think it is they apply fire retardant?




And in
this case, it was that this particular trading strategy was something
they did with many stocks, many times. *By having both the put and the
stock position, they actually LOST money in the aftermath.

Liar.

Yes, I'm a liar, the 911 Democrat commission members are liars,
everyone is a liar except you, who says Bin Laden never took credit.



But like all the other 911 evidence, when you take only one select
snippet you can easily twist it to try to support kook theories.

Liar.
There is a raft of evidence.

Another thing that would put this into balance is to look at how many
times over the years there have been such trading spikes in either
these airlines or other companies.

That's what they did and that's why the numbers are unusual....Duh.http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...ock+puts&sa=Se...

No, learn how to cite an actual reference, instead of a google
search. I could do a search on asshole idiot and it would come up
with lots of hits with guys like you, but I'm not going to read
through all of them. If you have a specific link that shows trading
spike history for the airlines in the entire prior year or two, I'd be
happy to see it.

But what does it matter, nothing will convince you. You probably
deny the holocaust too.




The conspiracy kooks simply point
out that there was a supposedly sinister spike several days before
911. *They don't say with what frequency similar spikes occur. In many
heavily traded stocks these type of spikes occur periodically for a
variety of perfectly normal and legitimate reasons and they aren't
followed by extraordinary events.

But thses were EXTREMELY out of the ordinary.

Out of the ordinary to whom? Various derivatives have trading
spikes. The FBI and 911 commission fully investigated this and found
the holders of all the major positions that could have profited had
perfectly legitimate reasons for their positions. You don't even
understand why a fund would buy the stock and hedge with puts, so how
could anyone ever satisfy you? If the FBI found out it was a wall
street mutual fund, received an adequate explanation, saw that they
have had similar trading positions, WTF more do you want? Should we
take the trader and put him on national news, so buffoons like you can
see what he looks like?




In other words, you're just another conspiracy kook.

And you're just an asshole calling peole kooks which doesn't make you
right.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.

On Mar 16, 12:14 pm, wrote:

snip pablum

Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
Your arguements have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese.

Since you guys want to make people understand something, explain to us what
any of this has to do with model rockets?

On Mar 16, 3:44*pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:14 pm, wrote:

snip pablum



Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
Your arguements have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese.

I guess that means you won't be making any more claims that Bin Laden
never took credit for 9/11, your limited reality having been
thoroughly smashed by the irrefutable proof from Al-Jazeera. Now
go run along and play in traffic, OK?

On Mar 16, 1:41 pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:44 pm, wrote:

On Mar 16, 12:14 pm, wrote:

snip pablum

Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
Your arguements have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese.

I guess that means you won't be making any more claims that Bin Laden
never took credit for 9/11,

Sure he did.
And he is CIA.

your limited reality having been
thoroughly smashed by the irrefutable proof from Al-Jazeera. Now
go run along and play in traffic, OK?

Nope.
Go crawl back in your CIA black hole.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

On Mar 16, 5:20*pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:41 pm, wrote:

On Mar 16, 3:44 pm, wrote:

On Mar 16, 12:14 pm, wrote:

snip pablum

Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
Your arguements have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese.

I guess that means you won't be making any more claims that Bin Laden
never took credit for 9/11,

Sure he did.
And he is CIA.

You really are amazing, but you're typical of the conspiracy kooks.
I told you several posts ago that Bin Laden took credit for 911. You
called me a liar. Here it is again just so everyone can see you for
the total fool that you a

" I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the
attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.

He never did.
You are a liar. "

So, it's quite apparent that Mr Conspiracy expert, didn't even know
that Bin Laden had taken credit for it. That's because you prefer to
dream up bizarre conspiracy theories, get facts from whacko websites
with no credibility and read the comics, instead of watching the
news. I saw the Bin Laden video reported, as did millions of other
decent people who were paying attention.

And now, presented with irrefutable contradiction to what you claimed
never happened, the new story is that Bin Laden is part of the CIA.
Again, that is typical of conspiracy kooks. They pretend to have
legitimate issues with 911. But, in reality, nothing anyone could
ever present would be sufficient proof to get you to drop your
delusions.

Now, why aren't you playing in traffic?







your limited reality having been
thoroughly smashed by the irrefutable proof from Al-Jazeera. * * Now
go run along and play in traffic, OK?

Nope.
Go crawl back in your CIA black hole.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:20 pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:41 pm, wrote:

On Mar 16, 3:44 pm, wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:14 pm, wrote:
snip pablum
Everyone can judge who the asshole is here.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
Your arguements have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese.
I guess that means you won't be making any more claims that Bin Laden
never took credit for 9/11,
Sure he did.
And he is CIA.

You really are amazing, but you're typical of the conspiracy kooks.
I told you several posts ago that Bin Laden took credit for 911. You
called me a liar. Here it is again just so everyone can see you for
the total fool that you a

" I guess even the fact that Bin Laden has taken credit for the
attacks
on his own released videos doesn't mean anything either.

He never did.
You are a liar. "

So, it's quite apparent that Mr Conspiracy expert, didn't even know
that Bin Laden had taken credit for it. That's because you prefer to
dream up bizarre conspiracy theories, get facts from whacko websites
with no credibility and read the comics, instead of watching the
news. I saw the Bin Laden video reported, as did millions of other
decent people who were paying attention.

And now, presented with irrefutable contradiction to what you claimed
never happened, the new story is that Bin Laden is part of the CIA.
Again, that is typical of conspiracy kooks. They pretend to have
legitimate issues with 911. But, in reality, nothing anyone could
ever present would be sufficient proof to get you to drop your
delusions.

Now, why aren't you playing in traffic?


And why are you all bothering to argue with him? He enjoys all this- it
gives meaning to his life. 'PLONK' is your friend.

--
aem sends...

On Mar 16, 8:37*am, "
wrote:
Again. *Citing one conspiracy (that doesn't exist) to prove an
unassociated one is Kookism. *Use a bit of logic for god's sake.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

I would love to know what you base this on. *I dare say the hsca had
access to everything. *They had at their disposal the best methods of
study avaiable at the time. *They concluded that there was likely 2
gunmen, and also that it was probable jfk was killed as a result of
some sort of conspiracy. *That is fact. *There is no longer a question
of if there was a conspiracy, but instead of how many and what other
people were involved. *We will never know. *But we know through this
report that it did occur.

As far as comparing the 2 things, I am not comparing them at all.
just stating the fact that sometimes people rush thrugh an
investigation to get it to the public ASAP and when reviewed later, it
is foudn the intial report was wrong. *it happens all the time, and
not just in cases where there are conspiracy theories.

I would love t hear you rationale for disagreeing with the findings of
the hsca. *I dont know anyone who still clings to the lone nut theory,
that isnt themselves a litttle nutty.

The only people who believe in a jfk conspiracy are more
conspiracists. There have been zero reputable investigations that
concluded any thing other than that Oswals did it and there was no
conspiracy. Even the Russians agree and they provided KGB files for
examination after the fall of the communists.

In spite of your denial you _are_ using one theory to cast doubt on
another, unassociated report. Twisting logic, evidence, outright
lying...all methods of the kooks to avoid actually providing any
evidence for their theory.

Again: for you to claim 911 conspiracy you have to not only put forth
some supposed problem with the report, you also have to explain away
all the things that say it didn't happen the way you want.

Claiming CD because someone heard something that 'sounded like' an
explosion is not enough, you have to explain how a CD was rigged and
how it was coordinated with an attack and how thousands of people who
had to know about it haven't said anything, etc. etc. etc.

Harry K

On Mar 16, 11:50*am, wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:41 am, Harry K wrote:



On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

*warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. *Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Did you perhaps miss all the examinations of every stick, piece and
pile of the stuff that hauled out of there before it was buried in
landfills and or shipped off as salvage?

The "steel was destroyed" before it was retested by UL Labs.

See Trad's reply for the answer to the rest of your wet dream.

snip

Harry K

Suppose you read the NIST report about it.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

I like this one the best.http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
"Fired for writing a letter" questioning the 911 Report.
"The collapse should have taken 36-40 seconds."

So these guys are just kooks too huh?
You guys a ****ing blind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you resort to insults? Shows you lost.

plonk

Harry K

On Mar 16, 7:34 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:50 am, wrote:



On Mar 16, 7:41 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:05 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
but we arent talking about any sudden events....we are talking about 2
events, both studied by the federal govt and its agencies...

in the first case, upon further review, it was determiend the first
report was incorrect....
thats the issue here, not random sudden events...

No one knows to what you are replying to. Next time try to include just a
bit of the text.

warren--hsca
9/11 report--whatever the call the followup.....

I dont subscribe to any of the whos and whys of 9/11 theories, I agree
with you for the most part you gotta be pretty far out there to
believe hald the stuff there is...

all I am saying, is this wouldnt be the first time a national tragedy
was investigated, and in a follow up investigation, the original
report was found to have serious issues...

I dont see how point out that the govt agencies have botched
investigations before, and citing an example, makes me a kook....

If you can honestly say the rockefeller, warren and hcsa reports are
indentical, then you need better glasses....

If you're referring to the Kennedy thing, There is a difference
between a subesquent report that clarifies, modifiies to some extent
and re-examins the eveidence and one that proves the original wrong.

The Kennedy thing found that the original was correct in the one
shooter bit but did find some discrepancies. Note again, that it did
not change the conclusion.

Harry K

One only needs to realize that ALL the evidence of the 911 Crime was
hauled away and destroyed and Bush thwarted every attempt at a true
investigation into the "attack" to know that something is rotten in
Denmark.

Did you perhaps miss all the examinations of every stick, piece and
pile of the stuff that hauled out of there before it was buried in
landfills and or shipped off as salvage?

The "steel was destroyed" before it was retested by UL Labs.

See Trad's reply for the answer to the rest of your wet dream.

snip

Harry K

Suppose you read the NIST report about it.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

I like this one the best.http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked
"Fired for writing a letter" questioning the 911 Report.
"The collapse should have taken 36-40 seconds."

So these guys are just kooks too huh?
You guys a ****ing blind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you resort to insults? Shows you lost.

plonk

Harry K

Nope, shows you don't research.
And then you hand wave away what experts say.
Then you don't do anything to refute what the experts say.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked

You gonna prove Dr Jones wrong?

wrote:

Nope, shows you don't research.
And then you hand wave away what experts say.
Then you don't do anything to refute what the experts say.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...eport-debunked

You gonna prove Dr Jones wrong?

Try something other than k00k-site propoganda. Talk about a circle-jerk of
incestuous circular logic. "The conspiracy is real because the k00k sites
say so, because the conspiracy is real.

Next time, at least have the courtesy of doing a reach around when trying to
screw with the facts.