Discussion about 09/11/2001: [911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 403

Sunday, February 26, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 403

There are 15 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Nico's Bizarro's
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
2. Naudet second hit
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
3. Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "inphoman911" <inphoman911@yahoo.com>
4. Re: Nico's Bizarro's
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
5. Re: Naudet second hit
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
6. Bizarro Plane #3: killed twice
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
7. Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
8. Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".
From: "Bill Giltner" <bill.giltner@gmail.com>
9. Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
10. Re: Coast to Coast: comment abou audio played about flight 93 at the beginnging
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
11. Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
12. Ploy of "Arab Port Deal" continues...
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
13. Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "malaprop" <malaprop2@msn.com>
14. Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
From: "malaprop" <malaprop2@msn.com>
15. Re: Explosives Residue - 911
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:59:42 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Nico's Bizarro's

http://911closeup.com/nico/invisible.htm
http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro.htm
and this is a closeup I made from a different part of the "invisable"
sequence, cos it shows where the "plane' changes from what may well be
an actual video'd plane and changes to a black blob "plane."
http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:14:42 -0000
From: "alexldent" <alexldent@yahoo.com>
Subject: Naudet second hit

Rosalee--

So, the first hit footage was real. What about the brief Naudet
second hit plane image? Did they insert a digital plane into their
film? Is their brief shot of the second hit definitely fake too? Can
you tell?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:45:01 -0000
From: "inphoman911" <inphoman911@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

Fetzer fell into the gatekeeper trap of Blaming Bush. Several
callers asked how Bush could have been behind 9/11 and WTC 93 too and
Fetzer flunked.

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
wrote:
>
> ...just finished finally listening to CoasttoCoast
>
> I have no final opinion on the Noory show yet.
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1)
> Generally the 9/11 scholars did a good job to corner Noory,
> who wasn't convincing at all, when he tried to turn around
> the wheels as usual.
>
> 2)
> The political message was slightly increased
>
> 3)
> Personal disappointment here, that Reynolds didn't mention
> the wtc-aircraft research yet and seemed to me careful to go there.
> See also quotes below
>
> 4)
> Only a little bit nonsense compared to other interviews of Jim
Fetzer.
> The few low lights, compared with 2 hours strong emotional interview
> (without commercials), in the minority:
>
> -Fetzer supports A3 Sky Warrior drone theory at Pentagon
> -Some distractions on global warming again..
>
>
> 5)
> Morgan was generally okay. Some highlights:
> Morgan Reynolds mentions that AA77 wasn't in BTS-database.
> No 757 at Shanksville.
> commercial aircraft possible in the area, but debris seems to be
somewhere
> else...
>
> There isn't "any straight flight manifest on any of these 4
flights..."
>
> Then Noory still tried to educate him, that he still believes
> in some "idiots ..they found as hijackers..."
> Believes also, that Al-Quaeda does exist.
> Morgan and the other scholars did a good job to correct Noory.
>
>
> Then Morgan Reynolds on WTC and the possible real fate of the
passenger :
> (paraphrased) "...There are various ideas, that people had been
gassed...
> or planes being remote controlled or substitute with drones..."
> [this is a]contagious region of 9/11 research..."
>
> then corrected by Jim Fetzer:
> "...flight path programmed into the planes..."
>
> So this was the weakest act of the show. The idea of remote
controlled
> wtc-aircrafts
> appeared as the final clue of the Scholars....
>
>
> More notes:
>
> Fetzer said, an ukrainian editor and BBC was in contact with him.
>
> Asked by Noory, on possible criticism against the group, Fetzer
didn't
> mention
> my internal analysis of this group, but apparently just refered on
> every 100 positive responses there are "3 non-believers"
>
>
> Then WING TV called in, apparently allowed and scheduled to do
so...
> Basically applauding the show so far and the 9/11 Scholars.
> Until that point i would also give them 7 from 10 thumbs up points,
> but it had some bad taste in it, though minimal.
>
>
> Then some call-ins, who got educated on PNAC.
> An idiot, who asked for Barbara Olsen, then educated on physics by
Fetzer.
> Also, well done, having the callers under control.
> Weak: When confronted with Clinton, Fetzer only refers to Bush
> Administration regarding 9/11. The usual leftgatekeeping mistake,
but
> whatever....
>
>
> Then a caller, pushing the incompetence crap of this government.
>
> I didn't listen carefully to all of fetzer responses, but another
weak low
> light
> was the promotion for the book "House of saud, house of lies" by
limited
> hangouter Unger (WTF??!).
>
>
> Then this BS about missing paper trails for e-voting machines,
> where i really get upset, because it doesn't come to the problem at
all.
> Also, BS influence from Bev Harris, who totally ignored the military
> background
> of all other e-voting producers, including their ties with
Accenture and
> Lockheed.
> Bev, a former republican was a puppet, to distract from
investigative
> research on e-voting, like from Lynn Landes. She also pushed too
many red
> herrings and this kind of crap still manipulates many so called e-
voting
> activists...
>
>
> Some callers have been kinda informed and supported the idea of
controlled
> demolition, including "removing bomb-sniffing dogs" prior 9/11...
>
> Then some discussion about Bent Scowcroft, who was on some Bush
advisory
> boards.
>
>
> Noory still tried to re-promote Bin Laden, but was corrected by
Fetzer, that
> he was just a "boogieman". Not sure, if Fetzer won this argument,
it was a
> bit lame for me from his side.
>
> Noory said, he couldn't agree with everything what the scholars
said but
> pointed out,
> that there are many "anomalies"...
>
> Noory seems to be still an idiot.
>
> He also had the final thought, that he believes that Al-Quaeda
exists, then
> in informed
> by Fetzer about the CIA-taliban connection...
>
> Also, one more dumb caller at the end, that 9/11 was a "surprise
attack" and
> Noory supported the idea, that Bush is incompetent.
> This caller also bashing Clinton and his intelligence apparatus and
the so
> called
> "non partisan" view of 911scholars was not very convincing at that
point...
>
>
>
> Again, the general PR of the 911Scholars on standard '9/11
truthling stuff'
> plus science, appeared to me okay, especially against dickhead
Noory,
> who wasn't strong enough at all and less counterproductive as usual.
>
>
> What other missing stuff depends i am still not sure...
> There was no real 'screw-up", but some low-lights, but not too many
> to turn it against this group. Improval is from need, especially
reg. "9/11
> VR".
>
>
> I hope, that Reynolds will release his new article pretty soon (i
read a
> fascinating draft), to figure out and prove, if he really is much
more
> progressive and credible than the other scholars...
>
> --
> DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
> GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:07:00 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Nico's Bizarro's

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Nico's Bizarro's
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:59:42 -0600
>

great, cool :)

I should have removed more planes (in the frames), coz with this speed it
almost looks like it's hiding behind this building, but i believe, the
"invisibility" effect is still clear, especially with 'bizarro 2'.

I also noticed the 'object change' in your bonus file.

I think, they maybe corrected the object accidentally, or had a wrong upload
at that time. I think, also at one point it's not the tripod, which is
"jumping" but the aircraft object only.
To notice that effect, you have to watch the original file maybe 15, 20
times, then you notice a slight 'jump'.

The white rendering dots at the beginning could point on a glitch in the
software when they replaced the 'video'ed' object with 'blob' object (i'm
using now your language).

I think, it's one and the same object, but they "rotated" it a little bit to
hide some simplified windows, which they didn't want to see....

It's also possible that object no.1 would have crashed/"scratched" the
brown/black building, therefore they changed the route a little bit as
well...

>>>>>http://911closeup.com/nico/invisible.htm
http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro.htm
and this is a closeup I made from a different part of the "invisable"
sequence, cos it shows where the "plane' changes from what may well be
an actual video'd plane and changes to a black blob "plane."
http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm<<<

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:00:02 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: Naudet second hit

I've already made a flashie I'll have to hunt up.
The angle is insane.
It must have taken a while for them to figure out where/how to insert
the "plane' into that footage.
Then it cuts away without showing the explosion:
Inexplicably the video suddenly found the back of people's heads more
interesting.
I just found a wonderful battered hand made solid wood dresser in the
alley, and I have to get it inside before I do my hunt. Just stopped to
catch my breath and check mail.

alexldent wrote:
> Rosalee--
>
> So, the first hit footage was real. What about the brief Naudet
> second hit plane image? Did they insert a digital plane into their
> film? Is their brief shot of the second hit definitely fake too? Can
> you tell?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:28:15 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Bizarro Plane #3: killed twice

...here i am killing the "plane" twice.
I addded another sloppery on purpose at the beginning to
show the absurdity of easyness...

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/bizarro_aircraft3.GIF

--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:48:40 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "inphoman911" <inphoman911@yahoo.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:45:01 -0000
>

agree...

>>>>
Fetzer fell into the gatekeeper trap of Blaming Bush. Several
callers asked how Bush could have been behind 9/11 and WTC 93 too and
Fetzer flunked.

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:32:25 -0000
From: "Bill Giltner" <bill.giltner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".

I just looked here
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm
and found it more compelling than I did the last time I read it.

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Ertell"
<lynnertell@...> wrote:
>
>
> The complete implausibility of the Towers collapsing in perfect
> free-fall symmetry, has been an obvious Achilles heel of the 9/11
> psy-op from the very first day.
>
> And surely, the perps must have anticipated the problem of
> rationalizing and explaining the apparent controlled demolition of
the
> Towers.
>
> So why do it that way ?
>
> We can come up with any number of banal or dramatic motives for
taking
> the Towers down so perfectly and completely:
>
> 1) The various insurance scams at play.
> 2) The theft of the gold stocks and other valuables stored there.
> 3) The avoidance of costs for asbestos removal and clean-up.
> 4) The sheer shock-value of the total collapses - pure trauma and
> brainwshing...
>
> But, after some reflection, I have arrived at an idea that has
> probably occurred to some of you already:
> TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES.
>
> I first thought about this after someone in the group posted a
story
> about a drawing done by a little school kid, as part of some
> therapeutic exercise to "excorcise" the chilhood trauma of that
> morning's events.
> The child's drawing showed a building with a plane sticking out of
it.
>
> I think it was either Holmgren or WEBFAIRY (or maybe both) who
pointed
> out that, ironically enough, the child's intuitive understanding of
> the Tower hits was actually much closer to the reality of what
SHOULD
> have "happened", had planes really crashed into the behemoth
Towers.
> Airplane wreckage, wings, fuselage, luggage, etc., would have been
> scattered on the streets below, certainly... but, scientifically
> speaking, a plausible impact scene might easily have shown airplane
> wreckage and debris "hanging" out of the building itself.
>
> The Towers would have smoldered for a while; firemen would enter
and
> put out the remaining fires ...
> and one would expect to find PLENTY OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE ..ESPECIALLY
> DNA EVIDENCE remaining in the smoldering Towers.
>
> The absence of such evidence would be very difficult to explain, if
> the Towers had remained standing ... as we all know they should
have.
> That much is a no-brainer.
>
> But controlled demolition eliminates the whole problem of physical
> evidence for "planes crashing" into the Towers.
> Along with the chaos, confusion, complete control of the crime
scene
> and hasty removal of debris, thus preventing any close examination
of
> the crime scene.
>
> Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:
>
> Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
> gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary.
>
> Just fake it by media hoax.
>
> Anyone see any flaws in my logic ?
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:16:07 -0000
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
Subject: Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

But that shouldn't detract from his mastering of the case for controlled demolition. Just think, where could Bush go [or have been sent] to give the impression that he was such a nice guy and absolutely innocent? To an elementary school who had a new program to teach kids to read? You can't get a more appropriate venue. Who then set up this visit?

Another visit was Myres and Cleland. Who set this one up? And the most important one is Shelton, who set his plane trip up? And where were the Chiefs of Staff when all this was going down?

----- Original Message -----
From: inphoman911
To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:45 PM
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

Fetzer fell into the gatekeeper trap of Blaming Bush. Several
callers asked how Bush could have been behind 9/11 and WTC 93 too and
Fetzer flunked.

SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women
Government lease Government contract Government money

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:02:22 -0000
From: "ron_winn" <ron_winn@lineone.net>
Subject: Re: Coast to Coast: comment abou audio played about flight 93 at the beginnging

A faked hijacking of 93, a hole in the ground or a shoot down? The likelihood of the landing of 93 in Cleveland. Enough people to fill one 767 in all 9/11 "planes", a plane that we know existed and we know was only confirmed at mid day as "crashed" or "missing". Both UA flights. Was 93 the only UA plane in the sky in the vacinity? A common factor is they are both US flights. All the people booked with UA. Think of the likelihood of 175 having a full contingency of passenegrs instead of the official number of 56. This would be far more normal than 4 undersubcribed flights.

No 93 at Shanksville and a real 175. A very late but instanteous hijacking of 93 [almost immediately after the UA despatcher notified Dahl of cockpit intrusions]

Was the "crash" or "shoot down" of 93 [on land] to cover the real life crash or shoot down of 175 out at sea? Why was there a ridiculously low number of passengers on board 93? Would any airline have performed this trip with this low number?

Another possibility is that passengers on board 175 were "allocated" to the "other two or three planes"?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Giltner
To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Coast to Coast: comment abou audio played about flight 93 at the beginnging

I just started listening to the mp3 of last night's show.
At much as I had been skeptical of Vialls, it was interesting that the
first web page to match my google search about "bomb on board" and
9/11 found this page seems to describe facts that match what would
match what I believe about the MO:

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Faked-Flt93-messages.htm

Maybe Nico or others know better web page references?

SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women
Government lease Government contract Government money

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:56:56 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Re: Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no planes".

> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: "Lynn Ertell" <lynnertell@comcast.net>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Why controlled demolition ? To cover-up "no
> planes".
> Datum: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:59:25 -0000
>

I see no flaws in that logic and that's what i'm saying all along.

The controlled demolition was also done to cover-up missing debris
of commercial aircraft.
If they would have used real commercial aircraft, let's assume

a) remote controlled
= embarrasment big, if wreckage including wings outside building,
but plane is empty

b) full of passengers, which most of them think, they're in a 'drill'
= calculated risk of survivors too high

I personally think, the risk factor wasn't even that biggest point.

It's just plain logical to me that they couldn't deceive
all FAA and ATC personell and keeping military out of that area for so long

Also, technically it was most obviously not easy, to crash
a commercial airliner into the towers.
That's maybe what they tested for some years, but then skipped it.
A 767 isn't perfect for this kind of stunt yet...

>>>>after some reflection, I have arrived at an idea that has
probably occurred to some of you already:
TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO PLANES.

I first thought about this after someone in the group posted a story
about a drawing done by a little school kid, as part of some
therapeutic exercise to "excorcise" the chilhood trauma of that
morning's events.
The child's drawing showed a building with a plane sticking out of it.

I think it was either Holmgren or WEBFAIRY (or maybe both) who pointed
out that, ironically enough, the child's intuitive understanding of
the Tower hits was actually much closer to the reality of what SHOULD
have "happened", had planes really crashed into the behemoth Towers.
Airplane wreckage, wings, fuselage, luggage, etc., would have been
scattered on the streets below, certainly... but, scientifically
speaking, a plausible impact scene might easily have shown airplane
wreckage and debris "hanging" out of the building itself.

The Towers would have smoldered for a while; firemen would enter and
put out the remaining fires ...
and one would expect to find PLENTY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ..ESPECIALLY
DNA EVIDENCE remaining in the smoldering Towers.

The absence of such evidence would be very difficult to explain, if
the Towers had remained standing ... as we all know they should have.
That much is a no-brainer.

But controlled demolition eliminates the whole problem of physical
evidence for "planes crashing" into the Towers.
Along with the chaos, confusion, complete control of the crime scene
and hasty removal of debris, thus preventing any close examination of
the crime scene.

Ergo: our logic should proceed along the following simple lines:

Complete controlled demolition of the Towers -> impossibility of
gathering forensic evidence -> no planes necessary.

Just fake it by media hoax.

Anyone see any flaws in my logic ? <<<

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:16:36 +0100 (MET)
From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@gmx.li>
Subject: Ploy of "Arab Port Deal" continues...

...the ploy continues:

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm
February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON —

Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three
years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a
disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the
terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen
detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in
the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks....

...

The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured
by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for
Combating Terrorism at West Point...

now look who's sitting over there:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/
CENTER STAFF General (Ret.) Wayne A. Downing, Chair

see see, Downing is my alltime favourite for one of the 9/11 mastermind
coordinators as well:

neocon close, also sitting during 2000 in the "Bremer Commission".
He also wrote before 9/11, together with former CIA officer Duane (Dewey)
Clarridge, the strategy for the Iraq War.
He also already ran a Special Forces command during Gulf War 1

He also created the Downing Assessment Task Force, which investigated the
bombings of Khobar Towers in June 1996.

CTC SENIOR FELLOWS

Dr. Bruce Hoffman (RAND)
Dr. Rohan Gunaratna (the idiot who planted the kurdish-gas-al quaeda
connection)

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:27:49 -0800
From: "malaprop" <malaprop2@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

Anyone going on the air needs to be prepared for that and other
questions which can succeed in changing the subject, and not provide
tempting speculations---to focus on what DIDN'T happen, what WASN'T
seen in photographs that should have been seen--that. "I may not be
able to prove what actually happened, but we can prove what didn't
happen..." immediately followed with a question of your own, i.e.,
"Why did the tapes made by the flight controllers get torn up into
little pieces?" "Why has the Pentagon refused to turn over the
security videos?" "Why were the bomb dogs sent home before 9/11?"
"Why were the videos of the

(The radio host is far more likely to ask questions that call for a
speculation that will risk getting put on the spot, that a call-in.)

----- Original Message -----
From: "inphoman911" <inphoman911@yahoo.com>
To: <911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

Fetzer fell into the gatekeeper trap of Blaming Bush. Several
callers asked how Bush could have been behind 9/11 and WTC 93 too and
Fetzer flunked.

Yahoo! Groups Links

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:33:30 -0800
From: "malaprop" <malaprop2@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re: More thoughts on 911Scholars at Noory

I hit the "send" before I was finished. On guest's line of fending off
rhetorical traps.

On blaming Bush: Only natural and as long as he is the #1 spokesman
for the official version of "evil doers", "war on Terrorism" and maybe
appropriate.

Also: The reactions of the Secret Service point to Bush's
foreknowledge, and the SS, as well. Also Bush's not asking Card any
questions about the attack suggests he knew already.

Fetzer fell into the gatekeeper trap of Blaming Bush. Several
callers asked how Bush could have been behind 9/11 and WTC 93 too and
Fetzer flunked.

Yahoo! Groups Links

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:47:48 -0600
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Subject: Re: Explosives Residue - 911

No explosives residue doesn't mean no controlled demolition.
Microwave or laser energy would do the job with other side effects that
were found at the crimescene.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect

http://aic.stanford.edu/health/wtc1.html
World Trade Center Dust: Its Potential to Interact with Artifacts &
Works of Art
Mary Ballard, Senior Textiles Conservator and Member of the AIC Health &
Safety Committee

Laser Beam Weapons and
the Collapse of the World Trade Center
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm
Burning Dust
Burning Dust
The rubble of the World Trade Center, which was a steel and concrete
construction, burned for more than three months, quite unlike a normal
fire, despite having been sprayed with a nearly constant jet of water.
The fires were only reported extinguished on December 19.

The television evangelist Dr. Robert Schuller visited the ruins and said
that there "was not a single block of concrete in that rubble,"
suggesting that the nearly 425,000 cubic yards of concrete had
disintegrated into dust.

Television viewers saw the immense amounts of dust, described by one
observer "as if some high-energy disintegration beam or laser had been
focused on the towers, and pulverized the concrete into minute particles
of ash and dust."

Thermite and the
WTC Collapses
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/thermite

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=461
UR Moves to Next Phase of WTC Dust Investigation

Scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center are beginning
an investigation into the effects of World Trade Center dust on the
body?s immune system. The research is part of an ongoing, collaborative
effort that began in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, to assess the
short- and long-term health implications of the terrorism.

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/summary.html
OSHA SAMPLING RESULTS SUMMARY AS OF 10/08/2002

Radiation coverup:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html
Depleted Uranium Released During Canadian Plane Crash
Little-Known Use of DU in Commercial Jets Exposed

World Trade Center debris pile was a chemical factory
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/sept_03/EDU_news_091103_d.php

dreamslaughter wrote:
> Being a skeptic of the official story of 911 is easy.
>
> All the evidence seems to contradict it.
>
> I'm amazed that no one has done this, but it seems to
> me that a very easy way to prove or disprove the
> controlled demolition theory would be to analyze the
> dust from the buildings.
>
> Fifteen hundred pounds of explosives per building adds
> up to more than a couple of tons of explosives.
>
> I'm sure explosive residue would be found in the dust
> if analyzed and there.
>
> It's either there or it's not. Case closed.
>
> Has anyone done this?
> Do you have the facilities to do it?
> Have you heard of any results of any analysis?
>
> Mike

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion about 09/11/2001

Sunday, February 26, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] Digest Number 403

No comments:

About Me

Last posts