1) you should ask him if massive explosions in the building could have
given a Richter signal
2) if fuel bombs also could have created the fireball
3) if plane wings are really good at cutting through steel columns--
have him read Holmgren's piece on this
4) ask him if pre-planted cutting charges could have made the plane
wing slices in the WTC
5) finally, why if there were no planes at the Pentagon and
Shanksville, why he thinks there HAD to be planes in NYC
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...>
wrote:
>
> ..please everyone correct or improve me on the wording and details.
> This comes from a debate with pilot Ralph Omholt from the
> "hardevidence"-list:
>
> > Von: "RALPH OMHOLT" <skydrifter@...>
> > An: <hardevidence@...>
> > Betreff: RE: [HardEvidence]Hologram Disinformation - Why bother?
> > Datum: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:33:21 -0800
>
> Ralph,
> sticking to the explosion is perfect for this topic.
>
> The explosion was real, therefore also identical with seismic records.
>
> However i still disagree with you, as also earlier in a private CC,
> that the color of the fireball points on Jet-A fuel.
> We're talking here about JP8.This is a fire fueled by JP 8:
> http://bushsupporter.org/war/pi060702a5.jpg
> http://bushsupporter.org/war/pi060702a4.jpg
>
> According to
> http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3218
> "in 1991, military and commercial jet fuel was changed from JP4 to
JP8..."
>
> Therefore nothing liquid was shipped into the building.
> There was no exploding kerosene, JP4, 8 or whatsoever.
> They used conventional explosives for this effect.
> If you watch on a monitor an incoming "flying object", then you
know, when
> to 'explode' via button.
>
> Can you also explain the 14-15 US Military Helicopters between time of
> impacts and during and before both collapses? They could have
triggered this
> explosion, as they also did for the collapse (2 of these 14!!)
> (Unfortunately Rick Siegel/911eyewitness.com started filming them
after both
> attacks, but 1 helicopter at TIME of second impact is also visibly
in one
> video, lately again on TV in "i missed flight 93" (A+E)
>
> Also, the explosion of alleged jetfuel would have come too fast
> and 'jet fuel' would also not burn off within 10 seconds, 20 seconds.
>
> The US tested these kind of impacts in Dryden Flight Research in mid80s
> and if you compare these experiments with our videos, you will even
figure
> out another astounding effect.
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/HTML/ECN-31808.html
>
> Noise of alleged aircraft is often muted or in one absurde case
louder than
> the impact. In many clips there is no sound of the impact, but from the
> following explosion.
>
> Conclusion 1:
> The explosions at the WTC dissipate too quickly to be burning
hydrocarbon.
> Therefore the video was manipulated.
>
> Facts:
> The secret service guy on the Fairbanks video does not react to the
aircraft
> "behind him", but turns around after the explosion takes place.
> Also this tape had no sound at all. Coincidence?
>
> Fairbanks, a cameraman didnt use his own camera, "someone gave" it
to him,
> according to his own words? Who was someone and why was the sound down?
>
> Fairbanks himself who, let assume he's not part in it, wonders
himself, why
> by looking through his lense, it looked like a hollywood effect.
> Why? Because he used a prepared camera, getting the same signals in real
> time. The camera was then confiscated by the FBI, the film only
shown hours
> or days after the recording-- still no sound but a buttering planc.
>
>
>
> > Blue screen or holography; why did they require a crane to load the
> > non-existent engine that came out of the "technical illusion" of the
> > second WTC strike??? They picked it up, right where the news videos
> > and/or the hologram/blue-screen illusion had it; quite a trick!
> >
> > Amazing how they got the forward velocity of the burning fuel, just as
> > though a real 767 had hit the towers.
> >
> > More amazing is how they got 9,000 gallons of jet fuel into the office
> > area, just for the 9-11 illusion of an aircraft strike. Thousands of
> > witnesses telling identical stories, with physical evidence to
> > corroborate the accounts; amazing.
> >
> > Then, there is that forward moving damage INTO the two WTC towers.
> > Perfect profile of an impacting 767. How did they do that???
> > Blue-screen?
> >
> > Maybe a couple of 767s were actually involved. Anybody got any
guesses?
> >
> > I've always wondered why the real-time news presentation matched the
> > timing on the seismic data - that's a lot of blue-screen trickery.
> >
> > Now the Pentagon - there, the 'official' seismic data is sampled eight
> > minutes AFTER the factual 'event.' The WTC strikes are not so plagued.
> >
> > There were no aircraft at the 9-11 Pentagon & Pennsylvania; but
there is
> > no doubt in MY mind that two 767s hit the WTC towers.
> >
> > My two-cents worth.
> >
> >
>
> --
> DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
> GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
>
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/
No comments:
Post a Comment