[Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?]

You're totally right about how empty (of any plane parts) that hole in
the north tower is. It is very suspicious. But in the Naudet video,
there was a fairly significant fireball after the first hit. Just
that we only have that one shot and one angle to see it from, and the
camerawork is not great.

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@...> wrote:
>
> I believe "11" should be the centre of attention which people may
take to rather than the non- existent "175" because that 155' long
plane went straight into the centre core of the north tower and none
of it can be seen around the hole which the videos all zoom into. And
even a woman stands at the hole which she couldn't have done if 155'
of aluminium plane was burning in this area because of the toxic fumes
being given off and of course flames which can't be seen either. What
is the distance between the outer wall and the core? A tail end should
have been seen somewhere inside around that hole. And how dramatic the
explosion created by "175" into the atmosphere is not seen with "11".
If a similar explosion ocurred inside the north tower how come it was
contained within the building. Why wasn't there a dramatic scene after
"11" penetrated the wall?
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: perpetualynquisitive
> To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:46 AM
> Subject: SV: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition
Limited Hangout?]
>
>
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kofod <slashkofod@>
wrote:
> >
> > I agree with alex here.
> > To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the
towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan
hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould
be a totally different case.
> >
> > Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz,
since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want
to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably
isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this
is a matter of taste?
> >
> > Best,
> > Peter Kofod, Denmark
> >
> > alexldent <alexldent@> skrev:
> > Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't
mind if
> > he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you
just SAY
> > that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the
towers
> > were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it
> > properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I
> > look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the
> > plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks.
> >
> > The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the
truth,
> > no matter how crazy it might initially sound.
> >
> > > Do you really want Professor Jones to
> > > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and
that the
> > > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> > > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> > > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of
Jones
> > > stature started doing things like that?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Governmentprocurement Government leasing
Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract
Government money
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been
working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively
covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts
of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to
date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with
my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was
done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results
are encouraging.
>
> In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the
presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the
window, etc.
>
> For now, I will give you the title of the presentation:
>
>
> 9/11:
> Collusion
> Illusion
> Delusion.
>
>
> Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative
scenarios).
> Illusion is the actual attack and coverage.
> Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception.
>
>
> FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about
no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the
Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several
months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my
presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that
the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that
morning than any other analysis.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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/