official story no matter what.
The so-called alleged "hard evidence" list is a haven for irrational
planehugging of all stripes.
Ask him to back up this notion of needing a crane to move a "plane part."
The "plane parts" documented are not that big.
The "plane part" in the Naudet Snuff Film somehow landed under a canopy
and didn't even dent the wastebasket with the Don't Litter sign left
there like a cosmic joke.
Ron Winn posted a piece of mystery debris just 2 days ago.
There is more mystery debris waiting in the background of the first hit
reaction shot . . . even tho the "plane" that supposedly left the debris
wasn't even thought of yet.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I suppose to stake them in their den is the only hope.
Also, send these walking dead over to
http://thewebfairy.com/demolition/demolition.htn
and to
http://fallenhope.com/portfolio.html
for a look at the extent of the devastation.
If there's still any resistance, visit
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm
to see the filing cabinet squashed down like a basketball, burned
crunchy with unburned bits of torn filefolders inside.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect
http://www.google.com/search?q=reductio+absurdum
Is the logical technique of making the opponent take his view to it's
logical conclusion where it can be giggled at.
Pilots have to see chemtrails nearly every time they fly, yet they
haven't raised the alarm.
Airliners.net is full of phoney pictures that are allegedly passenger
planes blowing chemtrails.
They are knowingly lying, for reason I cannot comprehend.
Some sort of brainwash universally applies. Marcus Ickes, a brilliant
Flight Simulator artist, claims to be a pilot too.
He has extreme inability to understand that photoshopping something does
NOT make it real.
I betcha Olmholdt believes anything he can imagine is true, and if he
can't imagine it then is false, and trying to change what he can imagine
is viewed as a personal attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alexldent wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Fuel vs. Explosion
> Datum: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:50:34 -0600
>
thx, good stuff :)
>>>>>>
Ralph is masonic, proudly masonic, and is sticking to the masonic
official story no matter what.
The so-called alleged "hard evidence" list is a haven for irrational
planehugging of all stripes.
Ask him to back up this notion of needing a crane to move a "plane part."
The "plane parts" documented are not that big.
The "plane part" in the Naudet Snuff Film somehow landed under a canopy
and didn't even dent the wastebasket with the Don't Litter sign left
there like a cosmic joke.
Ron Winn posted a piece of mystery debris just 2 days ago.
There is more mystery debris waiting in the background of the first hit
reaction shot . . . even tho the "plane" that supposedly left the debris
wasn't even thought of yet.
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I suppose to stake them in their den is the only hope.
Also, send these walking dead over to
http://thewebfairy.com/demolition/demolition.htn
and to
http://fallenhope.com/portfolio.html
for a look at the extent of the devastation.
If there's still any resistance, visit
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm
to see the filing cabinet squashed down like a basketball, burned
crunchy with unburned bits of torn filefolders inside.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect
http://www.google.com/search?q=reductio+absurdum
Is the logical technique of making the opponent take his view to it's
logical conclusion where it can be giggled at.
Pilots have to see chemtrails nearly every time they fly, yet they
haven't raised the alarm.
Airliners.net is full of phoney pictures that are allegedly passenger
planes blowing chemtrails.
They are knowingly lying, for reason I cannot comprehend.
Some sort of brainwash universally applies. Marcus Ickes, a brilliant
Flight Simulator artist, claims to be a pilot too.
He has extreme inability to understand that photoshopping something does
NOT make it real.
I betcha Olmholdt believes anything he can imagine is true, and if he
can't imagine it then is false, and trying to change what he can imagine
is viewed as a personal
attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alexldent wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Government procurement Government leasing Government grants 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.
--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
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