9/11 Truth Events in New York to Be Biggest in History

Hobo said:

JOIN US STARTING SEPTEMBER 7th IN NEW YORK CITY. VISIT WEARECHANGE.ORG
FOR FULL DETAILS AND A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS.

Charging people $20 a pop to hear the "truth" at Ground Zero.
Capitalism at its finest.

On Aug 30, 12:57 pm, Hobo <[email hidden]> wrote:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Aug 30, 12:57 pm, Hobo <[email hidden]> wrote:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I wonder what tap dancing will occur when the turnout is less than
expected. I bet there will be hecklers, too.

BDK

BDK said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Aug 30, 12:57 pm, Hobo <[email hidden]> wrote:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I wonder what tap dancing will occur when the turnout is less than
expected. I bet there will be hecklers, too.

Of course there will be. There will be people there to actually
commemorate the event and those that died during it as well, but they
won't be charging people $20 to hear them bleat into a bullhorn like a
pompous ass.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

BDK said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Aug 30, 12:57 pm, Hobo <[email hidden]> wrote:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I wonder what tap dancing will occur when the turnout is less than
expected. I bet there will be hecklers, too.

Of course there will be. There will be people there to actually
commemorate the event and those that died during it as well, but they
won't be charging people $20 to hear them bleat into a bullhorn like a
pompous ass.

But the "truthers" are so important!

BDK

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day. And they just aid
our terrorist enemies who can use this [censored] to support their cause.
This loosechange propaganda video and group is among the worst. The
Loosechange video was put together by a few 20 year olds with no
technical expertise to back up any of their bizarre claims. And as
expert after expert demolishes their BS, they just move on to the next
bizarre claim.

I watched an MSNBC report that showed not only these jerks, but others
as well. They went through the [censored] that they claim is truth and had
credible experts refute it, claim by claim. Some examples:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft. Some were made from cell phones and cell phones do
work up to even 50,000ft. In fact, that is one reason they don't
want them used on aircraft, as it confuses the land system by
contacting too many cell sites.

Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degrees. The fires in the towers were
only half that.

Fact: Any who has seen a blacksmith work a horseshoe, or heated a
piece of plastic, knows that materials lose strength long before they
melt. Material engineers stated that at the temps reached, the steel
in the towers had lost half it's strength. Now, combine that with
the fact that an airplane had already taken out part of the structural
support and much of the fireproofing on the steel, and its' obvious
what happened.

Mysterious sinister small white plane was seen flying over site where
93 crashed in PA

Fact: MSNBC found the crew of the corporate Falcon. They had been
nearby and were contacted by ATC and asked if they could go take a
look where they believed 93 had crashed. They did and the ATC tape
records the conversation directing them there and their report of
seeing the smoke rising from the crash.

C130 Cargo plane was flying over the Pentagon and it launched a missle
that hit the pentagon, not the hijacked plane.

Fact: MSNBC found and interviewed the Lt Col in the Air NAtional
Guard. He was on a routine flight that day, was near DC and was
contacted by ATC and asked to spot and follow the hijacked plane. He
did and saw it go into the Pentagon.

Building 7 was brought down on purpose. Larry Silverman (owner) gave
the order and later said in an interview that he told them to "pull
it" This is a common demolishin term used.

Fact: Silverman was talking with firemen who had been battling the
blaze for several hours. Silverman says he meant he thought they
should pull the firefighters off and not risk more lives. Demo
professionals told MSNBC they had never hear the term "pull it" used.

The list goes on and on. But truth and the obvious will never stop
these scum bags.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day. And they just aid
our terrorist enemies who can use this [censored] to support their cause.
This loosechange propaganda video and group is among the worst. The
Loosechange video was put together by a few 20 year olds with no
technical expertise to back up any of their bizarre claims. And as
expert after expert demolishes their BS, they just move on to the next
bizarre claim.

I watched an MSNBC report that showed not only these jerks, but others
as well. They went through the [censored] that they claim is truth and had
credible experts refute it, claim by claim. Some examples:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft. Some were made from cell phones and cell phones do
work up to even 50,000ft. In fact, that is one reason they don't
want them used on aircraft, as it confuses the land system by
contacting too many cell sites.

Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degrees. The fires in the towers were
only half that.

Fact: Any who has seen a blacksmith work a horseshoe, or heated a
piece of plastic, knows that materials lose strength long before they
melt. Material engineers stated that at the temps reached, the steel
in the towers had lost half it's strength. Now, combine that with
the fact that an airplane had already taken out part of the structural
support and much of the fireproofing on the steel, and its' obvious
what happened.

Mysterious sinister small white plane was seen flying over site where
93 crashed in PA

Fact: MSNBC found the crew of the corporate Falcon. They had been
nearby and were contacted by ATC and asked if they could go take a
look where they believed 93 had crashed. They did and the ATC tape
records the conversation directing them there and their report of
seeing the smoke rising from the crash.

C130 Cargo plane was flying over the Pentagon and it launched a missle
that hit the pentagon, not the hijacked plane.

Fact: MSNBC found and interviewed the Lt Col in the Air NAtional
Guard. He was on a routine flight that day, was near DC and was
contacted by ATC and asked to spot and follow the hijacked plane. He
did and saw it go into the Pentagon.

Building 7 was brought down on purpose. Larry Silverman (owner) gave
the order and later said in an interview that he told them to "pull
it" This is a common demolishin term used.

Fact: Silverman was talking with firemen who had been battling the
blaze for several hours. Silverman says he meant he thought they
should pull the firefighters off and not risk more lives. Demo
professionals told MSNBC they had never hear the term "pull it" used.

The list goes on and on. But truth and the obvious will never stop
these scum bags.

Your name calling exposes you for your deserved lack of credibility.
You're forgetting about the core columns, even if a couple of upper floors
had collapsed. And the burning jet fuel theory has already been debunked.
And the insult to the families of those who died that day is the
Administration's photo op with the firemen stating that they were going to
get those responsible for the attacks, and the rush to invade Iraq and cause
the death of thousands more Americans as well as a countless number of
Iraqis.
Gullible people believing in the mainstream media owned by only 5
corporations is what's wrong your picture.
Your facts don't have any basis as they are only your opinion as well as the
continueing parroting of the official story. There are lots of pilots and
other professionals that have not only argued against the official story but
have referred to it as a fairy tale.
WTC7 was obviously pre-wired with demolition charges before 9/11.

Why was there no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 mentioned in the 911
Commission Report?

Rhetorical question as you won't be able to answer it, so don't embarrass
yourself.

WTC7 is the smoking gun of 911.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated

Even the former chief of NIST's fire science division calls for Independent
review of WTC investigation (Aug 22, 2007)

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://911truth.org/

http://www.investigate911.com

Everybody Knows said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day. And they just aid
our terrorist enemies who can use this [censored] to support their cause.
This loosechange propaganda video and group is among the worst. The
Loosechange video was put together by a few 20 year olds with no
technical expertise to back up any of their bizarre claims. And as
expert after expert demolishes their BS, they just move on to the next
bizarre claim.

I watched an MSNBC report that showed not only these jerks, but others
as well. They went through the [censored] that they claim is truth and had
credible experts refute it, claim by claim. Some examples:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft. Some were made from cell phones and cell phones do
work up to even 50,000ft. In fact, that is one reason they don't
want them used on aircraft, as it confuses the land system by
contacting too many cell sites.

Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degrees. The fires in the towers were
only half that.

Fact: Any who has seen a blacksmith work a horseshoe, or heated a
piece of plastic, knows that materials lose strength long before they
melt. Material engineers stated that at the temps reached, the steel
in the towers had lost half it's strength. Now, combine that with
the fact that an airplane had already taken out part of the structural
support and much of the fireproofing on the steel, and its' obvious
what happened.

Mysterious sinister small white plane was seen flying over site where
93 crashed in PA

Fact: MSNBC found the crew of the corporate Falcon. They had been
nearby and were contacted by ATC and asked if they could go take a
look where they believed 93 had crashed. They did and the ATC tape
records the conversation directing them there and their report of
seeing the smoke rising from the crash.

C130 Cargo plane was flying over the Pentagon and it launched a missle
that hit the pentagon, not the hijacked plane.

Fact: MSNBC found and interviewed the Lt Col in the Air NAtional
Guard. He was on a routine flight that day, was near DC and was
contacted by ATC and asked to spot and follow the hijacked plane. He
did and saw it go into the Pentagon.

Building 7 was brought down on purpose. Larry Silverman (owner) gave
the order and later said in an interview that he told them to "pull
it" This is a common demolishin term used.

Fact: Silverman was talking with firemen who had been battling the
blaze for several hours. Silverman says he meant he thought they
should pull the firefighters off and not risk more lives. Demo
professionals told MSNBC they had never hear the term "pull it" used.

The list goes on and on. But truth and the obvious will never stop
these scum bags.

Your name calling exposes you for your deserved lack of credibility.
You're forgetting about the core columns, even if a couple of upper floors
had collapsed. And the burning jet fuel theory has already been debunked.
And the insult to the families of those who died that day is the
Administration's photo op with the firemen stating that they were going to
get those responsible for the attacks, and the rush to invade Iraq and cause
the death of thousands more Americans as well as a countless number of
Iraqis.
Gullible people believing in the mainstream media owned by only 5
corporations is what's wrong your picture.
Your facts don't have any basis as they are only your opinion as well as the
continueing parroting of the official story. There are lots of pilots and
other professionals that have not only argued against the official story but
have referred to it as a fairy tale.
WTC7 was obviously pre-wired with demolition charges before 9/11.

Why was there no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 mentioned in the 911
Commission Report?

You really need to learn what the 9/11 Commission's job was so you stop
making yourself look like an ignorant parrot.

On Sep 2, 7:52 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <[email hidden]/Odm>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day.

You forget, you dumb son of a [censored], that it was a coalition of the
deceased's families that started the 911 truth movement by causing
the instigation of the first semi-legitimate investigations. Had it not
been for the relatives of the 'victims'... there may never have been
ANY investigations.

Its davey boy the pile-it with his 'vacuum under the wing' science
again

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:52:18 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"

/Odm said:

Quoted message said:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Quoted message said:

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft.

Wow... I've flown all of my life, and I've never had a phone in front of
me until they started appearing in 2003 after portable cells began being
installed on the aircraft itself.

Davey the "pile-it" shows his ignorance once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-ground_radiotelephone_service

"AirFone commenced its service in the early 1980s starting with
first-class under experimental licenses; the FCC's formal allocation
was in 1990. AirFone handsets were gradually extended to include one
unit in each row of seats in economy."

And "portable cells"?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/10/travel/trshark.php

"The clearest indication yet that mobile phones and airplanes are
getting into sync came in mid-September, when Airbus announced the
successful completion of an in-flight trial of a personal mobile phone
system. Airbus said the system, which relays signals from a picocell
unit on the plane to a Globalstar satellite for distribution to
ground-based GSM networks, will be ready for installation on
commercial aircraft in early 2006."

And back to when AirPhones were first installed from that same
citation:

"All of the airlines want broadband," said William Pallone, the
president of Verizon Airfone, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications
that installed the first airplane seat-back telephones in 1987."

Davey the "pile-it" ought to quit flying the Cessnas and try one of
the big planes some time.

"Everybody Knows You're an Idiot" <[email hidden]> wrote in a
message

Quoted message said:

You're forgetting about the core columns, even if a couple of upper floors
had collapsed.

What about the core columns? They weren't a free standing structure. Without
the perimeter columns and floor trusses, the core columns woulnd't remain
standing.

Quoted message said:

And the burning jet fuel theory has already been debunked.

As have most conspiracy kook theories. I don't know why people like you ever
bought into the burning jet fuel theory as it was dismissed very soon after
9/11.

Quoted message said:

Gullible people believing in the mainstream media owned by only 5
corporations is what's wrong your picture.

Kind of like gullible people believeing kook pages set up by 12 year old
kids with mental problems.

Quoted message said:

Your facts don't have any basis...

Except for the evidence.

Quoted message said:

There are lots of pilots and other professionals
that have not only argued against the official
story but have referred to it as a fairy tale.

But they haven't refuted the facts and evidence. ... and it is only a very
small group of these people who are willing to parrot the kook theories -
less than 1%.

Quoted message said:

WTC7 was obviously pre-wired with demolition charges before 9/11.

Really? There are witnesses who claim to have seen these explosives?

Quoted message said:

Why was there no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 mentioned in the 911
Commission Report?

Same reason there was no explaination for the collapse of the towers in the
9/11 Comission report - the 9/11 comission was not tasked with investigating
the collapses of the buildings. That task was handed to the NIST.

How can you have had 6 years to research all this, and yet still be unaware
of such a simple, basic and obvious fact?

Quoted message said:

Even the former chief of NIST's fire science division calls for
Independent review of WTC investigation (Aug 22, 2007)
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Good point. He has some excellent quotes you should have shared...

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST's conclusions and its
investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories
that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. "If you go
to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a
line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the 'conspiracy
theories' that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to
somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it's
one of the floors falling down."

"Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students' research that
contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the
collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the
truss rods in the Twin Towers. "I suggest that there's an equally
justifiable theory and that's the trusses fail as they are heated by the
fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the
accountability for each is dramatically different," he said."

The questions are, as you are obviously now a supporter of Dr. Quintiere;
-What made you to depart from the kook theories of controlled demolition?
- What evidence have you seen that causes you to support Dr. Quintiere's
conclusion that the collapses were caused by insufficient application of
fireproofing material?

Everybody Knows said:

Why was there no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 mentioned in the 911
Commission Report?

You've read the report. Right?

The 911 Commission Final Report says;

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Pref.htm

"Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate "facts
and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001," including those relating to intelligence agencies, law
enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border
control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial
aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource
allocation,
and other areas determined relevant by the Commission."

- facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001

relating to

- intelligence agencies
- law enforcement agencies
- diplomacy
- immigration issues and border control
- the flow of assets to terrorist organizations
- commercial aviation
- the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation
- other areas determined relevant by the Commission

See anything there about building collapses Knows Nothing?

Shill #312

Quoted message said:

Davey the "pile-it" ought to quit flying the Cessnas and try one of
the big planes some time.

davey boy in a Cessna ?
Nope.
He'd have to get off his fat [censored] and try to get the same fat [censored]
into an aircraft..
never happen

David Morgan (MAMS) said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day.

You forget, you dumb son of a [censored], that it was a coalition of the
deceased's families that started the 911 truth movement by causing
the instigation of the first semi-legitimate investigations. Had it not
been for the relatives of the 'victims'... there may never have been
ANY investigations.

There is quite a difference between some family members wanting to know
what the government knew and conspiracy kooks saying the government did
it by means of controlled demolitions and other absurd gibberish. A
massive difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And they just aid our terrorist enemies who can use this [censored] to
support their cause.

What a fool you are. Have you lived long? Have Nazi parents, do you?

Conspiracy kooks do give comfort to the enemy. Not least because a fair
slice of them assert the "jews did it". I wonder how many radicalized
muslims have swallowed that [censored] too. It wouldn't surprise me if many
suicide bombers and other terrorist recruits since 2001 actually
believed "the jews did it", partly because of conspiracy kooks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This loosechange propaganda video and group is among the worst.

In your mind perhaps... that's because it's the most basic of truths
and available facts, put out for examination without much bias.

The loosechange video has been debunked on a line by line basis. It is
lies, distortions, bad science and quote mining. It is drivel from one
end to the other. The fact that the authors have to keep recutting it,
snipping the more ridiculous claims should be a clue you need. How many
recuts are they up to now?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Quoted message said:

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft.

Wow... I've flown all of my life, and I've never had a phone in front of
me until they started appearing in 2003 after portable cells began being
installed on the aircraft itself.

2003? Airphones have been on domestic flights far long than that. Cell
phones would work remarkably well from the air too, and obviously did
that day.

Though of course you're probably going to assert that these people who
heard the last words of their loved ones were fooled right? You're one
sick delusional [censored] if you are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some were made from cell phones and cell phones do
work up to even 50,000ft.

That's a bald-faced lie... that's almost 8 miles from the nearest cell and
moving at several hundred miles per hour. Proof exists that the best
cell phone of the era was tested and found to be completely unreliable.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, that is one reason they don't
want them used on aircraft, as it confuses the land system by
contacting too many cell sites.

That too is a LIE. They didn't use them because they interfered with
communications and navigation equipment in the cockpit.

Wrong. Cell phones do not interfere with flight instruments or
communications. The reason cell phones are banned is because overhead
phones would play havok with ground based cellular networks with
handovers and so forth. Some modern aircraft offer pico cells in the
aircraft to overcome this problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fact: Any who has seen a blacksmith work a horseshoe, or heated a
piece of plastic, knows that materials lose strength long before they
melt.

ANYONE with a BRAIN of more consistency than Jello, knows that
construction grade steel beams are so far from the "pot metal" and
[censored] used by blacksmiths, that it isn't even comparable.

Are you asserting that construction steel does not lose strength when it
heats up? Please tell me then oh wise one why they should go to the
expense of coating steel with fire retardant?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The list goes on and on. But truth and the obvious will never stop
these scum bags.

I got'cher truth beanie-brain.....

Start with these, get an education, have proof of your assertions before
placing your foot into your mouth, and call us back when you're finished....

Save us the trouble and provide some credible evidence to support
whatever the hell other claim you think is the real cause of 9/11.
Please tell us whatever the hell this other claim is with detail. A
proper cite, not a mess of incestuous and incredulous kook links
parroting each other's lies, insinuating but never saying what this
alternative is and all the usual debunked [censored] and misquotes.

Oh, you're all crazy. [censored] Cheney alone is sane. Besides, Popular
Mechanics debunked all those crazy theories. When I'm looking for the
truth about 9/11, Popular Machanics is always the first place I look.
If I want to know how to build a dune buggy, I'll consult the 9/11
Truth movement.

Cardinal Chunder said:

David Morgan (MAMS) said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These 911 denying scum bags are absolutely dispicable. They are an
insult to the families of those that died that day.

Quoted message said:

You forget, you dumb son of a [censored], that it was a coalition of the
deceased's families that started the 911 truth movement by causing
the instigation of the first semi-legitimate investigations. Had it not
been for the relatives of the 'victims'... there may never have been
ANY investigations.

There is quite a difference between some family members wanting to know
what the government knew and conspiracy kooks saying the government did
it by means of controlled demolitions and other absurd gibberish. A
massive difference.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And they just aid our terrorist enemies who can use this [censored] to
support their cause.

Quoted message said:

What a fool you are. Have you lived long? Have Nazi parents, do you?

Conspiracy kooks do give comfort to the enemy. Not least because a fair
slice of them assert the "jews did it". I wonder how many radicalized
muslims have swallowed that [censored] too. It wouldn't surprise me if many
suicide bombers and other terrorist recruits since 2001 actually
believed "the jews did it", partly because of conspiracy kooks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This loosechange propaganda video and group is among the worst.

Quoted message said:

In your mind perhaps... that's because it's the most basic of truths
and available facts, put out for examination without much bias.

The loosechange video has been debunked on a line by line basis. It is
lies, distortions, bad science and quote mining. It is drivel from one
end to the other. The fact that the authors have to keep recutting it,
snipping the more ridiculous claims should be a clue you need. How many
recuts are they up to now?

Maybe when that scum bag Charlie Sheen shows up, he can help get it
right. According to MSNBC, he contacted the Loosechange boys and
offered to narrate the next version. I won't be watching any of his
movies ever again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Call couldn't have been made from flight 93 because cell phones won't
work at cruising altitude.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fact: most calls were made from air phones that were in the backseats
of the aircraft.

Quoted message said:

Wow... I've flown all of my life, and I've never had a phone in front of
me until they started appearing in 2003 after portable cells began being
installed on the aircraft itself.

This alone shows what a complete fool this jerk is. Anyone who has
been flying for the last 20 years, knows that air to ground phones
were deployed widely long before 2001. I clearly remember using them
myself during the 90's on flights on American or United. They were
either available in seatbacks in front of you, or on some aircraft
they were on bulkheads with wireless handsets that you took back to
your seat. In fact, contrary to the claims of the imbecile, AFTER
911 they disappeared from aircraft. I can't remember the last time I
saw one.

Plus, we're supposed to believe that only this handfull of nut cases
knows that these phones never existed at the time. No airline
captains, flight attendants, maintenance people, management, or 99% of
the billions that have flown planes during that time have come forward
to dispute it. No, just a few 20 something imbeciles that continue
to get caught in their own ignorance. But then, as Cardinal pointed
out, they just re-edit their lies to take out the most discredited
ones and conitnue with the [censored] that's left

Quoted message said:

2003? Airphones have been on domestic flights far long than that. Cell
phones would work remarkably well from the air too, and obviously did
that day.

Though of course you're probably going to assert that these people who
heard the last words of their loved ones were fooled right? You're one
sick delusional [censored] if you are.

I wouldn't be surprised. I saw outraged families on MSNBC denouncing
these scum for doing exactly that. When confronted by the fact that
mostly Airfone type eqpt was used, as well as cell phones that would
work at that altitude, they then claim the govt used voice modifying
eqpt and the families were talking to an imposter. Really sick.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some were made from cell phones and cell phones do
work up to even 50,000ft.

Quoted message said:

That's a bald-faced lie... that's almost 8 miles from the nearest cell and
moving at several hundred miles per hour. Proof exists that the best
cell phone of the era was tested and found to be completely unreliable.

[censored].

LOL, since when does moving several hundred miles an hour have
anything to do with it? The little imbecile obviously has no
understanding of when Airfone even existed, so now he wants to talk
physics? Does he think radios are designed specific to the speed of
the vehicle? Does your radio sound different at 100MPH, that it does
standing still? As for being 8 miles from the nearest cell being a
barrier, there is actually a big advantage with a clear line of sight
path through air as opposed to normal ground based use. Cell phones
work reliably inside metal cars, inside buildings, etc., where they
have numerous obsticals to overcome. And no one is saying all the
phones worked that day or the connection was reliable. Just that
some did manage to make brief calls.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, that is one reason they don't
want them used on aircraft, as it confuses the land system by
contacting too many cell sites.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That too is a LIE. They didn't use them because they interfered with
communications and navigation equipment in the cockpit.

Wrong. Cell phones do not interfere with flight instruments or
communications. The reason cell phones are banned is because overhead
phones would play havok with ground based cellular networks with
handovers and so forth. Some modern aircraft offer pico cells in the
aircraft to overcome this problem.

Yes, wrong again and more ignorance of science and current events.
The clear shot across the sky to multiple ground stations is very much
an issue, because the ground system was not set up to handle it. And
as for interfering with aircraft electronics, that was a concern as
well. However, if he paid any attention to the news, instead of
making up fantasies, he's know that a couple years ago, the technology
was being tested to allow ordinary cell phones to be used in
aircraft. In the end, flyers concerns about all the chatter boxes
using them indiscriminantly won out, and the industry dropped the
idea.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fact: Any who has seen a blacksmith work a horseshoe, or heated a
piece of plastic, knows that materials lose strength long before they
melt.

Quoted message said:

ANYONE with a BRAIN of more consistency than Jello, knows that
construction grade steel beams are so far from the "pot metal" and
[censored] used by blacksmiths, that it isn't even comparable.

Are you asserting that construction steel does not lose strength when it
heats up? Please tell me then oh wise one why they should go to the
expense of coating steel with fire retardant?

Yes, isn't this an unbelievable one? Who should we believe, material
engineers and common sense or junior conspiracy buff? Losing
strength with when exposed to fire is a characteristic of all steel
used in construction. You can buy a nice new I beam, heat it to
around 1300 degrees, and it loses around half it's strength. And as
you point out, why bother to cover strutctural steel with
fireproofing, if heat from a builiding fire can't weaken it. And
this was no ordinary building fire. It was fueled with thousands of
gallons of kerosene.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The list goes on and on. But truth and the obvious will never stop
these scum bags.

Quoted message said:

I got'cher truth beanie-brain.....

Quoted message said:

Start with these, get an education, have proof of your assertions before
placing your foot into your mouth, and call us back when you're finished....

Save us the trouble and provide some credible evidence to support
whatever the hell other claim you think is the real cause of 9/11.
Please tell us whatever the hell this other claim is with detail. A
proper cite, not a mess of incestuous and incredulous kook links
parroting each other's lies, insinuating but never saying what this
alternative is and all the usual debunked [censored] and misquotes.

To add to the stupid [censored] and misquotes, here's one of my
favorites. One of these terrorist denyers used one of the reports
issued by one of the airlines and reported in the press to support
their position. The denyer claimed the terrorist names were not on
the flight list and the passenger count was short by the 5 hijackers,
so the terrorists could not have been on the plane. Well, unlike
the denyers, I'll go take a fair look. So, I find the statement
reported by the press and what is says is here are a list of VICTIMS
of the crash. So, the press left off the terrorist names, because
they were writing about VICTIMS. And that then gets totally
distorted and used to undermine this country, aid terrorist enemies
and insult the families of 911.

So, I too would like to hear the story of exactly how they think this
whole conspiracy thing took place and what really happened. It won't
be forthcoming because as crazy as all this individual BS is, if they
tried to explain the whole alternate picture, it would have to be so
bizarre, no one would believe it.