FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Going In Search of Planes in NYC

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Going In Search of Planes in NYC Reply with quote

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=134&Itemid=60

Going In Search of Planes:

Re-visiting NYC 9-11 First-Responders’ Accounts

by

Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld.com)

 

Based on a report which contains

Contributions by

Morgan Reynolds s Russ Gerst s Jeff Strahl

CB Brooklyn s Cathy Palmer

 

Listening to Those Who Were There

As we continue to delve into what happened on Sept 112001, we seem to be uncovering more evidence that some very strange things were happening near and at the World Trade Center in New York City when the towers were destroyed.

 

A re-examination of videos of the plane crashes and both the actual destruction of the towers and the aftermath seems to strongly suggest or even prove that (a) unconventional weaponry destroyed the towers and (b) the stories of large planes hitting the towers are bogus. For (a) one can simply ask “Where did the building go?” (and no, it wasn’t “into the basements”). For (b) one can simply ask “How can a hollow tube made of light materials cut through multiple steel girders, with little or no deceleration?”

 

A repeated pondering of the answers to questions (a) and (b) can lead on to a re-examination of other data about 9/11. Such a re-examination of existing data was proposed by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, in September 2007. Jerry brought to our attention the accounts / “oral histories” as given by over 500 Emergency Service “First Responders” to the 9/11 Tragedy, as posted on the New York Times Website, at the link given below.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/2005081 2_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

 

These accounts were published on 12th August 2005. Jerry originally tasked us with analysing the accounts of the responders to see what was contained in their accounts of 9/11 about seeing the plane crashes – particularly the 2nd one. We therefore shared our findings and they are discussed in the report linked at the end of this article.

 

Tribute

However, I must pause for a moment and say that, whatever the conclusions of this study and however it is interpreted, we must pay a large tribute and debt of thanks to those people who responded on the day of 9/11 and think of the lives they undoubtedly saved and the injuries they helped to prevent. Many of them have suffered severely due to the adverse long term health effects of the dust they worked in while working to save people. I hope for their sake, too, that we can learn the truth about 9/11.

 

Delving Deeper

I decided to go “one step further” and, once I had downloaded all 500 accounts, I used text searching software to scan all the accounts and determine, primarily where each person was when the 2nd plane is supposed to have hit the tower. I also tried to determine where witnesses were when the 1st crash occurred. I then entered all this information into a database, which allowed me to more easily count who saw or heard the 2nd plane. (All the details of how this was done are contained in the report.)

 

In going through the accounts, I also decided to look for any use of the words “Missile” or “Rocket”, “Plane Parts”, “Luggage/Suitcases”, “Landing Gear” and witnesses hearing the F-15/F-16 planes. The witness accounts of the latter are particularly interesting to compare to their accounts of the sound of the 2nd Boeing, before impact.

 

A number of reports of FBI Agents talking about a possible “3rd Plane” heading for New York were also discovered, along with a number of other accounts of witnesses describing anomalous occurrences.

“I Saw The Plane… I Heard The Plane…”

The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.

 

16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 Witness reported clearly  seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.

 

I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact.

 

  • Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.

 

  • Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

 

  • Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.

 

  • Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.

 

  • There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.

 

  • There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2  before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.

 

  • There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2  before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

 

“I Wasn’t Initially Sure it Was A Plane”

Quite a few witnesses were not at all sure that large planes had been responsible for the damage at the WTC. Accounts where they said “I didn’t realize it was a plane at the time” or “I only realized later it was a plane” were studied. Due to the different ways witnesses described being unsure about the true nature of the crash, it was difficult to pick out keywords to find these accounts. (Most of these accounts were discovered in reading them for other parts of this study.) Time limitations may have prevented finding them all.

 

A number of witnesses reported that they didn’t realize that the second impact was that of a plane – many of them “found out later”. This is in direct contradiction to those who reported to seeing plane parts, engine parts and landing gear.   For example, from the account of Patricia Ondrovic  (File No: 9110048):

 

I saw a police captain that I knew, and he came out to me. He looked absolutely terrified, he was shaking, he was pale, he was sweating. I looked at him, I said what's wrong? He said there's another plane headed our way, and they just blew up the Pentagon. I said, another plane? What are you talking about? I hadn't realized that planes had hit this, I thought they just set bombs off. I didn't realize when I got there that planes hit it. I said, what do you mean another plane? He said two planes hit the World Trade Center. So I'm thinking a little Cessena. How can a little Cessena do all that damage? He said no, 757s. I said big things? See I was there for about 25 minutes before I knew that planes had crashed into this.

Similarly, the account of EMT David Timothy (File No. 9110156) expressed some doubt that he saw a plane.

 

The next thing I heard was a loud like an engine roar. I looked up, and the next thing I knew I just saw -- I don't know if it was the tail end of the plane or what, but I saw something. When I looked up, I heard ‘boom’. I'm sorry, the north tower was the first one. The south tower then got hit when we were right there.

Perhaps even more significant was where 2 witnesses who were standing next to each other, initially, did not agree upon the idea of a plane crash. From the account of Scott Holowach (File No: 9110114)

 

At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.

There was some additional confusion and rumours circulating about the nature of any planes involved. From the account of Anthony Bartolomey (File No: 9110013)

Q.  When you arrived there, did any civilians report anything to you?

A.  Yes. Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.

There are other instances of this type of confusion. The account of Peter Fallucca (File No: 9110388) mentions a “fireball or something” and a missile attack as witnessed by a police officer:

It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower.

Landing Gear and Tires

There were over 10 different reports of Landing Gear being found. Some of these put the Landing Gear on Vesey Street, West Street, in a Parking Lot (which may be on West or Vesey Street), in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman or in Rector Street. From the account of Dean Coutsouros (File No:  9110049)

…we got in front of 90 West Street, we held up there for a few minutes underneath the scaffolding to reassess the situation, how we were going to get into the building.  There was all kinds of human debris.  The landing gear of the aircraft was in that parking lot there. There was all kinds of stuff all over the floor. 

From the account of  John Breen (File No:  9110321)

We did see part of -- I didn't  see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did  see part of the landing gear actually fell right  through the roof and it was in one of the  Jacuzzis in another room.

With 4 apparently separate reports of aircraft landing gear or tires being found in different locations, it is difficult to believe that these the tires genuinely could have survived the crash. For example, from the account of Steve Grabher (File No: 9110241):     

We came right down West Street, down here. We couldn't get too close, because by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy.  Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts.  I don't know if it was from the plane or what.  But there was just body parts all over the place.  Chunks of meat.  I saw an airplane tire.  I walked past an airplane tire.  What looked like an airplane tire.  Again we were looking up the whole time.

Reading accounts like this, and seeing the picture of the tire under the scaffolding, one is immediately reminded of the story of the survival of Mohammad Atta’s passport.

 

Similarly, the sightings of luggage and suitcases do not seem to be explainable other than by the idea that this evidence was planted – how could such items survive the enormous impact and fireball, which is said to have been sufficient to destroy the WTC’s structural integrity?

Federal Bureau of … Information…?

It seems like there were a good number of FBI agents on the scene – at least one of them seemed to be promulgating reports of a 3rd plane being en route to NYC. How were they so sure, considering the confusion in the “fog of war”? Terence Rivera’s account (File No: 9110343) has some interesting details.

There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard.  He had a weapon on him.  I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious.  His pants were still smoldering.  I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious. At that time, I had asked him where did this individual [had] come from.  He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby

Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack.  You guys are too close.  It's a terrorist attack.

Then I went -- that same individual, the security or -- he told me to go over to the command post and let them know it's a terrorist attack.  There are more planes in the air.

With repeated accounts of the FBI agents mentioning a 3rd plane attack was imminent, one is given the impression that they were unwittingly or deliberately promoting the plane stories at a time when the picture of what was happening was very likely still not at all clear.

Hearing the F15’s/F16’s

There seemed to be more consistency in the witnesses who reported hearing the F15’s/F16’s than the sounds of a Boeing (other witnesses may have reported these as different planes). From the account of Robert Larocco (File No: 9110081):

 

At that point we hear a plane -- it  turned out to be two planes, and they were  closing in on us and the motors were getting  louder and louder. All eyes went up to the sky and were  looking.  I kind of thought to myself as I looked  at guys running for their lives and for cover  that now we're going to get kamikazed.  The  rescue workers, they are trying to take us out. I stood there and looked at the sky all  around in all directions and couldn't really tell  where the sound was coming from.  It was getting  louder and louder.  Then I spotted them, they  were coming out of the west, like out of Jersey  City, that way.  They were two F15 fighters.

Strange Events

On page 13 of his account, Paramedic Robert Ruiz (File No. 9110333) describes an apparently spontaneous car fire:

Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire.

In his account (File no: 9110179), Frank Cruthers, Fire Chief mentions WTC 7 was expected to collapse:

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it.

Controlled Demolition of the WTC?

For quite some time, I was convinced that the mechanism of the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 had to be similar to controlled demolition – it was the only thing that could account for the near free-fall time of “collapse”. However, I have since been enlightened through the results of Dr Wood’s study – the overall evidence does not support the idea that controlled demolition was the primary method of destruction of the towers. In examining the witness accounts, I found quite a few where the collapse was described as possibly like the sound of an approaching plane or rocket. For example, from the account of Faisel Abed (File No: 9110071):

 

You just heard this thrushing, thrushing noise like a rocket. I thought the building was under attack again. You just start seeing this smoke coming down. We just took off. We went north. We actually -- sorry, we went west. We went towards the river. All right. Then we just went towards the river and went up north a little bit behind the building. That was after the first one went down.

He describes a continuous noise rather than lots of explosions going off. Let us not confuse this part of the account with those accounts of earlier explosions before the towers came down, rather than as they were coming down. The repeated sequence of timed explosions heard during a controlled demolition is very distinctive and none of the witness accounts I studied described hearing this sort of sound as the towers collapsed.

What Aren’t We Allowed to Know?

Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony, mentioned earlier, contains redacted portions and there were a number of other portions discovered in this research, and there are almost certainly others. Having used the file searching software, it would suggest there are redactions in at least 46 accounts. One can understand why certain parts of certain accounts may be obscured – perhaps so as not to cause upset to relatives of victims or where they might reveal certain small points of sensitive information. However, suspicions should be raised in the cases where significant portions of accounts were redacted, such as those of Rene Davila (over 10 pages in File No: 9110075) and Ronald Coyne (over 4 pages in File No: 9110395).

Conclusions

On studying the accounts of the plane impacts, a confused picture appears. For the first plane, only one witness - William Walsh (File no: 9110442) specifically describes an American Airlines Plane. Other witnesses describe a whole variety of planes – some seen “out of the corner of their eye”. Some describe a military plane, some initially thought it was a small Cessna type plane. Of those witnesses who describe specifically seeing or hearing the planes, there are a number of instances where a curious turn of phrase is used at one or more points in the account. For example, the account of Thomas Fitzpatrick (File No: 9110001).

The noise from the plane was enough to make you not want to look up. I thought the plane was actually going to land in the street to be honest with you. The noise was outrageous. When it hit the building it was even worse.

Overall, I conclude the descriptions of planes given by the witnesses do not give one any more confidence than the video material, such as that presented in the September Clues series, that large planes hit the towers. With something as unique as 9/11, it was easy to “sell” people the plane stories in the midst of such a terrible tragedy.

 

There is a need for some witnesses to be questioned again about their experiences to determine the true nature of the crashes - and other anomalous events at the time of the WTC towers’ destruction. I hope that someday this is possible and that the true 9/11 perpetrators are brought to account for their heinous actions.

 

 


_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!


if you insist.



Quote:
A re-examination of videos of the plane crashes and both the actual destruction of the towers and the aftermath seems to strongly suggest or even prove that (a) unconventional weaponry destroyed the towers and (b) the stories of large planes hitting the towers are bogus. For (a) one can simply ask “Where did the building go?” (and no, it wasn’t “into the basements”). For (b) one can simply ask “How can a hollow tube made of light materials cut through multiple steel girders, with little or no deceleration?”



first of all how the hell do you know none of the building fell down into the basement?

or are you just dismissing it without really knowing?

the answer to question (b) would surely be:

the towers being hollow would explain where a large portion of the building went, the actual steel was scattered around the area and did not all fall into its footprint, the rest was mainly dust which spread out over a very large area.

Quote:
Reading accounts like this, and seeing the picture of the tire under the scaffolding, one is immediately reminded of the story of the survival of Mohammad Atta’s passport.



may i ask what is strange about a tire under scaffolding?

are you presuming that is where the tire actually landed? do you know where exactly the tire landed?

i admit i do not know that either, so it would be foolish to jump to conclusions given the possibility of plane debris being moved to the sidewalk to allow emercancy workers to do their job with out road obstructions.

emercancy usually means sirens and driving fast on the road, you can imagine what would happen if landing gear engines and what ever else was obstructing their work. lives were in danger it made sense to move them.



Quote:
Overall, I conclude the descriptions of planes given by the witnesses do not give one any more confidence than the video material, such as that presented in the September Clues series, that large planes hit the towers. With something as unique as 9/11, it was easy to “sell” people the plane stories in the midst of such a terrible tragedy.



what kind of description do you expect one to give of an object moving at 500 ish miles an hour? did you expect them to pick out all the detail on the plane? oops sorry there was no plane.

so how the hell could they of witnessed it to strat with? your witnesses must be bogus and made up.

also september clues has had numerous flaws pointed out, yet for someone who i use to think held the truth in high regard, you still promote or use examples that are misleading and you fail to address any of the issues pointed out with such things but continue to promote them as fact or truth when they are obviously are not, and it has been proven to be the case, and not just with september clues.


in regards to your witnesses can i ask you if you included ALL witnesses or did you only include a few like the commission report did?

you know the ones that fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoa!

I don't think AJ meant your questions to be quite that tough, Marky!

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Andrew expects to post this stuff in Articles or News, he's sadly mistaken if he thinks its going to prevent it being questioned

"Truth Controverises" is not the problem:

The weakness of the theories and the evidence most certainly is

But then that extends, ultimatley, to the "faked alien invasion" scenario Andrew supports:

All mind and no substance

Mind (imagination) has its uses: but when its all mind, those uses have distinct limits

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Re: Going In Search of Planes in NYC Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
For (a) one can simply ask “Where did the building go?” (and no, it wasn’t “into the basements”).

The facts. Much of the building(s) were pulverised into tons of very find dust. Much of the remaining material (and some of the dust) did go into the basements (and the remaining material of that was pilled on top) and as we know, much of the steel was quickly taken away. How anyone can surmise that the buildings didn’t go into the basements is beyond me, because obviously some of it did – as was seen.

Quote:
For (b) one can simply ask “How can a hollow tube made of light materials cut through multiple steel girders, with little or no deceleration?”

It couldn’t and it didn’t. And I don’t think that anyone here is going to be saying that planes did a lot of damage to the steel core. However, one thing often missed is that ‘a hollow tube’ can be very strong especially when the impact is at the end of the tube.

If we continue to argue one theory against another theory, we are really missing the point. The point is that by whatever means, the towers were brought down and it wasn’t because of planes or fires and this (along with other things) strongly suggests an inside job.

How about the possibility that several things could have been used together to bring the towers down? This could indeed be closer to the truth but no planes? Even if NPT were true, who is going to buy that? Not many.

The general public have a hard job accepting that the towers were brought down by conventional means, even less so if we’re going to be telling them that there were no planes and/or that secret weaponry was used. In regard to the public, all we have to show is that the official story is impossible – and a lot is at stake if we fail to get that point across.

Quote:
I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact.

• Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
• Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.
• Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.
• Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.
• There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.
• There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.
• There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

“I Wasn’t Initially Sure it Was A Plane” . . . .

So as admitted, some people did say they heard and/or saw a plane. Why only a small percentage? Obviously, most people were not looking into the sky expecting to see a (or another) plane! So just because most people didn’t see a plane it doesn’t mean there were no planes, especially when some people said they had seen a plane.

But once again, if there were no planes and we insist on telling that, it will be even more difficult to convince the public and we would have lost the battle and the war against humanity will continue.

Not sure about Andrew but I gather that some on here are into the Bible. Look into proverbs and we see both knowledge and wisdom and there is a difference between them. What is that difference? In the Bible context wisdom involves applying knowledge in the right way. Having some knowledge is one thing but it only becomes wisdom when applied in the wisest way.

I am not trying to preach a religion (nor would I do such a thing) but I trust that no-one will object to me quoting one very well known Bible verse, because whether we believe in God or not, it applies very well here.

“be as cautious (or wise) as serpents and as innocent (or harmless) as doves” (Matt 10:16)

So please, let’s all be wise – or humanity will be in very serious trouble because we didn’t convince enough people that 911 was an inside job.

John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html


Yes, that really kicks arse. Excellent article by Salter

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
in regards to your witnesses can i ask you if you included ALL witnesses or did you only include a few like the commission report did?

you know the ones that fit.

what are you trying to say marky?

that this is just the usual NPT nonsense dressed up as research?

that the article consists of totally biased interpretations of cherry-picked evidence to fit a pre-defined conclusion?

surely not?

incidentally - anybody who is tempted to even think about taking Dr Judy Wood seriously should watch this video:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8110

her explanation of the science of "dustification" is particularly enlightening ("the steel....er....erm....just went POOF!").
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:

first of all how the hell do you know none of the building fell down into the basement?

or are you just dismissing it without really knowing?


Mark, I am somewhat puzzled by your attitude and rudeness. I came to your house, gave you disks, stickers and leaflets and offered you more (nothing to do with NPT or DEW issues). You have never contacted me for more.

But to answer your questions (would be nice if you phrased them a little more politely, but hey-ho):

Here is why the debris wasn't ALL in the basements:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html#RoadrunnerRe scue


Quote:


the answer to question (b) would surely be:

the towers being hollow would explain where a large portion of the building went, the actual steel was scattered around the area and did not all fall into its footprint, the rest was mainly dust which spread out over a very large area.


There were SOME steel girders - the rest turned to dust as the towers fell. this has been discussed time and again on these threads - I see little point in re-posting images to illustrate this. Oh, well, here's a link.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html#disintegrate

Now then, let's think: 236 exterior columns... 47 interior steel columns ... in each building - approx 1350 feet tall.... that's 566 times 1350 feet of steel (just roughly) = 764100 feet = (764100/5280) miles = 144.7 miles length of steel which should've been in the debris piles!!

Blimey!!


Quote:
may i ask what is strange about a tire under scaffolding?

Why no bounce/scrape marks? How did it survive the fireball/vaporisation/shredding unburned? Why were there multiple reports of landing gear in different places?

Quote:

are you presuming that is where the tire actually landed? do you know where exactly the tire landed?


I don't actually know for sure where it landed - but the only thing that SUPPOSEDLY penetrated was an engine (standing upright, of the wrong type and with no impact crater).

Quote:

i admit i do not know that either, so it would be foolish to jump to conclusions given the possibility of plane debris being moved to the sidewalk to allow emercancy workers to do their job with out road obstructions.


See note about state of rubber (unburned)

Quote:

emercancy usually means sirens and driving fast on the road, you can imagine what would happen if landing gear engines and what ever else was obstructing their work. lives were in danger it made sense to move them.


Yes I can. I can't, however, imagine how rubber would survive unburned from a huge fireball like that "plane" made travelling at 440 mph or "really fast" depending on what you read.

Quote:

what kind of description do you expect one to give of an object moving at 500 ish miles an hour? did you expect them to pick out all the detail on the plane? oops sorry there was no plane.


I wouldn't expect witnesses standing UNDERNEATH THE IMPACT ZONE to describe hearing no sound. Read the accounts - they are not consistent enough with each other.

Quote:

so how the hell could they of witnessed it to strat with? your witnesses must be bogus and made up.


Sorry Mark - you're being a bit rude again here. And they aren't my witnesses. It's the same witness pool (I understand) that David Ray Griffin used in some of his work. It's all referenced for you to check out yourself - original data still available. I just did the "grunt work" of converting to a more searchable format.

Quote:

also september clues has had numerous flaws pointed out, yet for someone who i use to think held the truth in high regard, you still promote or use examples that are misleading and you fail to address any of the issues pointed out with such things but continue to promote them as fact or truth when they are obviously are not, and it has been proven to be the case, and not just with september clues.


This is separate to the Witness Testimony, so you are mixing evidence here. But that's OK - and you are being rude again . Are you accusing me of lieing?

We each ultimately form our own opinion. September Clues I regard as a compelling set of evidecnce/arguments/analyses and I have also added elements discussed (often rudely) such as the "delayed fireball". You haven't mentioned specific problems with Sept Clues here either. If you e-mail them to me, I will try and respond and repost on this or another thread.

As I have mentioned, my background is in Software Engineering and such like. I have a degree in Computer Science and Physics. What's your background Mark?

Quote:

in regards to your witnesses can i ask you if you included ALL witnesses or did you only include a few like the commission report did? you know the ones that fit.


I made it clear which witnesses were included. They are listed in the access database and in the report's appendix. They are pulled from the NYTimes collection. All this is in the full report. I have no idea which if any were interviewed by the 911 commission.

The sample size was 291 - out of about 500 on the NYtimes site - and they were ones who reported either seeing the 2nd impact on the way into NYC or they were actually at the WTC.

The logic was simply that those near or inside the WTC working would have a better chance of HEARING the plane as it approached even if they didn't see it. I established this figure as being 117 - there may be a few more, but some witnesses didn't report their exact location clearly, so weren't included.

As I put in the report, 20% of witnesses near the WTC did report seeing or hearing the plane.

Does that in of itself prove that a plane didn't cause the 2nd explosion? Of course is it doesn't!!!

One of the most interesting aspects of the study was the discovery of several "FBI" agents spreading stories about a 3rd plane. It was also interesting how people seemed to hear the F15 jets more clearly than the supposed 2nd Boeing.

The data is linked and freely available for anyone to search and review and publish their own report on same. As I spent quite a few hours converting it to searchable text, I have saved anyone who wants to do their own study that amount of time.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
[September Clues I regard as a compelling set of evidecnce/arguments/analyses and I have also added elements discussed (often rudely) such as the "delayed fireball". You haven't mentioned specific problems with Sept Clues here either. If you e-mail them to me, I will try and respond and repost on this or another thread.

hi Andrew - please could you comment on these detailed descriptions of specific problems with "september clues" that were posted on this forum very recently?

September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608

another example of deception in "September Clues"
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664


the file below lists hundreds of others:

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gruts wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
[September Clues I regard as a compelling set of evidecnce/arguments/analyses and I have also added elements discussed (often rudely) such as the "delayed fireball". You haven't mentioned specific problems with Sept Clues here either. If you e-mail them to me, I will try and respond and repost on this or another thread.

hi Andrew - please could you comment on these detailed descriptions of specific problems with "september clues" that were posted on this forum very recently?

September Clueless - Plain Dishonest or Plane Disinfo
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608

another example of deception in "September Clues"
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664


the file below lists hundreds of others:

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf


Are we really to believe Andrew has not been exposed to this information? (though clearly: he should be!). Am I to consider he's never actually read of followed up links from any of the Truth controversies threads hes complained so vociferously about?

Well thats an interesting situation: becuase whilst on the one hand the request to "provide information" may seem reasonable, what it reveals is either that:

A) Andrew has given unswerving support to theories without considering the counter point of view, or even being aware said POV exists or

B) Andrew is fully aware, and chooses to pretend such information doesnt exist leading to:

C) Andrew falsely claiming not to know of any such evidence in an effort to put off valid objections

It's a bit of a farce from a guy running a site called "check the evidence"

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eric Salter
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dontbelievethehype1970
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You both believe the twin towers were not brought down for the reasons specified in the OCT.

1. Nuff said.

2. What if planes were flown into the buildings, and there was a DEW involved?

3. I get the impression there is a need for all the vocal contributors to become DEWs. Get some focus!

4. Those who are with some scientific knowledge cast the first post.

5. Remember the PFJ (Peoples Front of Judea - Monty Python)!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
Eric Salter


Which would be a lot more respectable if "Thomas the Tank engine" had the nessacary integrity to actually put his name to it: and to be fair to Andrew, thats something hes always been very insistant people should be doing

Mind you, from the style, I sniff the hand of "Fred"

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gareth
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 398

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was under the impression that Andrew Johnson was not going to be a moderator

Andrew Johnson wrote:

For some time now, I have been unhappy with the “goings on” on this forum and therefore now “resigning” from it. I will not be acting as an admin or moderator directly, though will be assisting with some technical issues in getting the site to run smoothly again

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11268 - posted Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:56 pm


What happened? Sad

I've read all of the critiques* to the stuff he pushes and have come to the conclusion that he is either:

a. shy a few marbles and unaware of the damage he has done and continues to do

or

b. possibly something more sinister

Either way what's the lowdown with the mod role? Big Tent is so 2006.


*the critiques:

No Planes Theory:

No Planes Theory Counter Evidence

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the “Conspiracy Theory Method

Star Wars Beam Weapons Theory:

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center

Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper "The Star Wars Beam Weapon"

Why the damage to WTC Bldgs. 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it

Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis


Link


Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples

_________________
www.truthaction.org/forum
www.wearechange.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dontbelievethehype1970
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gareth, thanks for that - The truth speaks for itself and doesnt need to resort to ad honimememem attacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dh wrote:
Eric Salter


A quick glance through that immediately revealed two fundamental and glaring errors - with the probability of more which I can't be arsed to check out right now.

Are you saying it's a good case against Salter, dh?
Or is merely dressed up to look like one?

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mark, I am somewhat puzzled by your attitude and rudeness. I came to your house, gave you disks, stickers and leaflets and offered you more (nothing to do with NPT or DEW issues). You have never contacted me for more.


first of all im amazed i even got a reply because i was'nt expecting one, without being called a troll or shill or even reminded i don't have a scientific qualifaction and therefore cannot comment or have the compacity to understand(which in itself is insulting).

secondly, i appreciate 100% what you did for me and do inregards for the 9/11 truth movement, however that dos'nt mean i have to accept or agree with what ever you say is true. infact if i disagree or question things it is nothing personnal against you, it is only because i see flawed evidence or speculation or cherry picked evidence, it would'nt matter if i saw it coming from you or a critic i'd have my say and ask questions!

yes i admit being a little rude, but this was to try and provoke an answer, simply because 9 times out of 10 people are ignored and issues are never addressed, but at the same time people are expected to believe what is being claimed, another part of it is frustration of people promoting proven lies to support their case.

overall as far as im concerned promoting theories and campagining for a new investigastion are two seperate things, and i will not stand for bull no matter where it comes from, because if it is truth that is being fought for here then truth has to be spoken regardless of who it is or what it is or if you know someone.

so please don't think i don't appreciate what you do, but at the same time please don't think i'll not have my say when i think people are wrong.

i do know 100% however you have been using examples that are misleading to promote your theories because they have been proven so.

to me that is worring, and its about time your theories and the people who promote them seperate the disinfo from the truth, untill that happens people can never move forward and will always see flaws in your theories.

so please look at my comments as more as a wake up call, its times to cut the bull**** and start to get to the bottom of what is truth and is'nt truth, what can be proved and what cannot.

my frustration and anger(if you believe i am showing signs of some) is directed at the theories and researchers who i feel are not being entirely honest about what case they have for their theories and will result to misleading people to convince them. yes i was replying to you but no my anger is'nt directed at you personnally.

im looking over your other replies and links, i just felt it was important to make myself clear about your first comment, remember truth is what this is about, not following each other like sheep just because we have met.

i would be very civil to you if we ever met again and would hope we could talk about some of this stuff in a civil way if we ever met again, but please don't think i have to agree just because you bought leaflets around.

im like it with everyone, its just me and anyone who knows me knows it, i can be there best friend, disagree or agrue and let the truth of what i think all out and then 5 minutes later its forgot about and we are having a laugh again. i don't hold grudges but am honest with people.

some people don't like that but i don't care, if they cannot handle it then they are not worth knowing as far as im concerned. i only associate with people who hold honesty and truth at the top of their list.

i don't build relationships based on lies, if i see a friend going of track or making mistakes i WILL tell them, it is up to them if they listen.

so i just hope everyone understands that, and start to pull together and stop taking offense when people disagree with them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Here is why the debris wasn't ALL in the basements:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html#RoadrunnerRe scue


i never claimed ALL the debris were in the basement. i asked if you knew that NO debris went into the basements, which is what you claimed.



Quote:
There were SOME steel girders - the rest turned to dust as the towers fell. this has been discussed time and again on these threads - I see little point in re-posting images to illustrate this. Oh, well, here's a link.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html#disintegrate

Now then, let's think: 236 exterior columns... 47 interior steel columns ... in each building - approx 1350 feet tall.... that's 566 times 1350 feet of steel (just roughly) = 764100 feet = (764100/5280) miles = 144.7 miles length of steel which should've been in the debris piles!!


the problem here is no images do demonstrate your claim. i see smoking ends on certain steel columns yes, but i do not see them turning to dust.

there is quit clearly lots of steel all over ground zero, they are not limited to where the towers stood, i see them on buildings, i see them piled on top of each other where the towers were stood, and i see them in a wider area. aswell as stuck into the sides of buildings and also inside surrounding buildings that were badly damaged, as well of course the possibility that some did fall down into the basement area, which was 6 floors, so showing a picture of men down there dos'nt disprove that the first 2-3 floors were not filled with debris.

we can look at the actual place the towers were stood and base all our claims on what is VISIBLE. but that is what i feel the problem is here and all people are doing. nobody seems to want to account for the steel beams that would not be visible but quit clearly was there on closer inspection.


Quote:
Why no bounce/scrape marks? How did it survive the fireball/vaporisation/shredding unburned? Why were there multiple reports of landing gear in different places?


no bounce/scrap marks? the debris exiting the wtc do so a such speed from impact to exit, they hardly even get caught up by the fireball, brief exposure to the fireball would not be long enough to melt the rubber, the rubber on the tire is clearly damaged if you look at all angles of it.

the rubber on the wheel of a passenger aircraft is much tougher and harder than your average car tire, and needs to be so with the weight they have to carry on take of and landing, so expecting them to melt when they have only had brief exposure to a fireball is puzzling.





Quote:
I don't actually know for sure where it landed - but the only thing that SUPPOSEDLY penetrated was an engine (standing upright, of the wrong type and with no impact crater).


ok im glad you can admit something and i admire that honesty. yes, none of us know where exactly the tire landed or if it was moved due to being in the road etc. so it is foolish to presume it being on the sidewalk under scaffolding is mysterious.

what type of engine was found in the street? and again whats strange about it being upright? and do we know that is exactly where the engine landed? or could it of been moved into postion to avoid an accident?

the only claim there worth knowing is the evidence it was the wrong engine, i have questioned other NPT'ers for such evidence that parts were planted on numerous occasions, with none being able to do so.

so i would fully appreciate it if after all this time you were able to do so.



Quote:
See note about state of rubber (unburned)


see note about rubber not being caught up in the heart of the explosion, and only breifly, enough to heat it not to melt it.

Quote:
Yes I can. I can't, however, imagine how rubber would survive unburned from a huge fireball like that "plane" made travelling at 440 mph or "really fast" depending on what you read.


ok a quick question, how long does a passenger jet tire (bigger, tougher and harder) take to melt if it was in a fire as oppose to a fireball the tire was only in briefly?

Quote:
I wouldn't expect witnesses standing UNDERNEATH THE IMPACT ZONE to describe hearing no sound. Read the accounts - they are not consistent enough with each other.


i am sure there are witnesses saying that, as im sure there are witnesses who did hear something. i ain't saying there are no witnesses, i am saying only including the ones who fit your theory is misleading.

Quote:
Sorry Mark - you're being a bit rude again here. And they aren't my witnesses. It's the same witness pool (I understand) that David Ray Griffin used in some of his work. It's all referenced for you to check out yourself - original data still available. I just did the "grunt work" of converting to a more searchable format.


therefore you took other witnesses who fitted your theory and used them as evidence. they are your witneeses you are using to prove your theory.

Quote:
This is separate to the Witness Testimony, so you are mixing evidence here. But that's OK - and you are being rude again . Are you accusing me of lieing?


hmmm, thats a hard question. ok its like this..... if you made september clues then yes you are a liar. if you are only using it as evidence then you are promoting lies. now if you are doing that purposly or because you want to believe it because it promotes your theory or you think it proves your theory correct, only you will know.

all i do know is september clues is misleading and that is never addressed and is continued to be promoted as fact.

if you held the truth in high regard you would debate and address the issues about september clues where it has been proven to be misleading.

if you cannot do that then you should stop using misleading evidence to convince people.

Quote:
As I have mentioned, my background is in Software Engineering and such like. I have a degree in Computer Science and Physics. What's your background Mark?


i could not give a monkeys what you have a degree in, that dos'nt mean you are right. as for my background i really feel it is irrelivant.

it dos'nt matter what job you have or what your profession is to beable to tell when something is wrong or misleading.

and people don't have limited skills that match their jobs.

but if you must know my main skill for my background work is an eye for detail, being able to spot errors and being very vigilant and use of computers and graphics however that is'nt what i do now.

my hobbies however are entirly differant and skills are not limited to work.

and since when was there a degree for logic and common sense anyway?



Quote:
The data is linked and freely available for anyone to search and review and publish their own report on same. As I spent quite a few hours converting it to searchable text, I have saved anyone who wants to do their own study that amount of time


thats great and i have no problem what so ever with it, but i do when proven disinfo is given as examples to sway peoples opinons.

if NPT and beams can be proven honestly then great, however currently there is speculation, misreading data or making things out of nothing as well as promotion of flawed examples and logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do we know if anyone has asked the authorities about any of the wreckage from the planes?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just found this FOI request to the FBI:

Quote:
Posted 10/02/2007 (2nd Oct)

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for documentation confirming the recovery and positive identification of debris from the commercial aircraft allegedly used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (N334AA, N612UA, N644AA, N591UA), has been denied.

An appeal is pending.

According to the FBI, "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)."

This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."


More here

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alwun
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 282
Location: london

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:37 pm    Post subject: what you say? Reply with quote

FOI request denied, you say?

Just imagine that.

Quote:
According to the FBI - "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5,etc. subsection (b) (7) (A)."

This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."


Indeed..


well found Mark.

cheers Al..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes well found.

but what does it mean? or prove?

it certainly makes you wonder why the information is sensitive, however unless you jump to conclusions it dos'nt really prove or disprove anything.

there would still be a number of possibilities.

1. there was no planes and the plane parts were planted.

2. there were planes but not the stated planes so identification of the plane parts would expose it was not the plane they said it was.

3. they are telling the truth about: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

4. the plane part is from the stated plane which hit the towers, but they do not want the information released inorder to fuel conspiracy theories(which they expected after the attacks) inorder to debunk the theorys in one fell swoop by realsing the data at a time of their choosing.

which would work perfectly if they were directing the theories or creating some of the theories themselves inorder to make people believe things they can later disprove.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group