major explosive flashes (3) from WT2 upper floors sw side..

[DemInDistress]

My eyes see an explosive charge detonating high above the crash site as well as 2 other quick flashes on the east side. This video is 3-4 seconds but clearly shows the force of the blast. Then take time to view other videos off this page. Be sure to click the window to activate the image.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/popup.php?url=911.wtc.2.implosion.sw.flashes.high.up.flv



http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/ more videos.. try #5 another detonation there.

I will add to this soon

[KJF]

1. Good catch. I see them. (n/t)

[DemInDistress]

4. Kevin...what do you think that "flash " was?.. I counted 3 of them..

be reasonable with your answer.

[KJF]

6. Explosives. I count three too.

What else would they be?

What did you think I was going to say - light bulbs?

[DemInDistress]

7. no not lightbulbs .. maybe the sun reflecting from a shattered piece

of aluminum. I can't figure you out kcf. Are you a "debunker" or a "researcher?" look over this page Kevin and view the 5 windows down the page.. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/ what do you see?

Thanks anyway for the feedback.

[KJF]

16. All three

I debunk ideas I don't think are true, for example that the entry hole in the Pentagon was only 13 feet.
I research ideas I'm not sure about, for example how many of the hijackers' calls did the NSA intercept? 6? 12? 100?
I promote ideas that I think are true, but are often not widely known, for example that the hijackers were in the centre of the FBI's counterterrorism coverage.

Which five windows? There's lots of them.

[file83]

40. How about a shattered piece of glass (there was a lot of glass on WTC)?

It looks like a big piece of broken glass just reflected the sun while it was rotating (probably broke up into tiny pieces shortly after).

[sabbat hunter]

2. the clip

is so distorted and blown up, you have no idea what is even being looked at, nevermind a perspective of where these flashes are or what they are.

[DemInDistress]

3. these 3 detonations are high up in WT2 well above the crash

site. I also noticed you offered no other explanation as to what else it could be. Explosives brought down the WTC what was needed was a "cover" like a commercial jet crashing into them. Here is another "detonation" on the NE corner well above the crash site (78th.fl.)






Edit to add link for that photo http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/



Do I believe NIST..FEMA.. and that ludicrous 911 Report or my "LYING EYES?" Watch the video a few times. Click on the image and replay the clip.
Explosive flashes on the north side, south side and east side of WT2. People like yourself don't want to believe the " BUSH CRIME FAMILY" would perpetuate such a horror but I do.
Would scumbag oilmen from Texas commit Murder? Answer-- faster than you can debunk any new 911 finds. Look again my friend and say a prayer for the Murdered victims..

[Americus]

5. Are you sure that's not just someone with a big flashlight up there? n/t

n/t

[seatnineb]

8. ...or someone with a big blow torch down here in the South Tower!..

Just 5 minutes before that building collapsed.......

[DemInDistress]

9. he must have been a busy guy that morning...

molten steel dripping from the 80th floor on the north side. There is a better video of that at the camera planet.

[seatnineb]

11. Maybe he was busy on the roof of the WTC too!

There is what apprears to be a huge explosion in the southwest portion(enclosed in red box) of the roof of the North Tower....just BEFORE it collapses.......













Maybe the perps used the smoke generated by the fires to act as a smoke screen.....obscuring the upper portion or the roof of the tower until the time was right.

The roof ..which was made of concrete was used as lead weight to drop onto the floor below.......

[DemInDistress]

33. that certainly is not an explosive flash...here is proof

watch this video and look on top of WT1 and see what you claim is an "EXPLOSION"... CHECK IT OUT.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

ITS AN OBJECT/DEVICE..NO EXPLOSION SEAN snd not even a good try..

[DemInDistress]

49. look at this video and tell me that the shower of sparks is not

exactly the same as the sparks seen in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&search=thermite

maybe an errant thermite cutter charge became visable for all to see. Sort of like the same dripping molten steel from the 80th floor on the north side of WT2 seconds before it collapsed ..

[DemInDistress]

12. let me add this to that photo..

Now we have explosions on the south,east and north sides of WT2 all occurring between the 60th and 90th floors
I read somewhere that there were about 10 floors inside WT2 that were unoccupied might have been 60-70 0r 65 to 75. Great place to plant "thermite cutter charges" "shaped linear charges" or even some new high tech explosives we're not aware of check out the "line of explosion" just under the crash site.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/index.php?url=lines.of.explosions.flv&p=1#player also notice the explosive flash in the center of the line of explosions.

Pancake my ass...controlled demolition !!!

[mirandapriestly]

15. Yes, there were many unoccupied floors

which is why it is so ridiculous when people say "how could they have planted them? Also, I am beginning to have some questions about some of the tenants after what I have been hearing about Marsh McLennan.

[Jazz2006]

17. Really? Do tell.

Which floors in each of the towers were unoccupied, and for what length of time?

[mirandapriestly]

19. why don't you keep up

with reading and/or documentaries and find out for yourself for once. What's with the pink triangle what are you pretending to be now?

[Jazz2006]

20. Pfft. Why don't you answer the simple question that

arises from your post which claims as a fact that there were many vacant floors in the towers at the time?

I think you're wrong about that.

But you claimed it as a fact.

Thus, it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence to support your claim.

I won't be surprised if you can't. But I'll ask you again to do so.

And as for the pink triangle ~ you REALLY should get out of the dungeon once in a while and see what's going on in other areas of DU and in the real world. And you REALLY should be embarrassed by your pathetic post in that regard.

[mirandapriestly]

23. look it up yourself,

although you don't seem to know how to.

[Jazz2006]

26. So, you admit it's not true.

No big surprise there.

But come on, just this once...

Produce some evidence for once to support your assertion.

Which floors were empty at the relevant time and how long had they been empty?

Come on, this should be simple in light of your assertion.

Just this once... a tiny little piece of evidence to back up something that you say.... surely you can do it.

[mirandapriestly]

43. What's sad is it took 2 minutes to find this

You couldn't even do that. It's because you are not interested in the results. You are only using this as a way of harassing me. You can see for yourself that there were unoccupied floors on the tenant lists below.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/north-tower.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/south-tower.htm

Also, here is an account from a survivor who says there were several unoccupied floors between the 90th & 97th
"Taking the elevator to the 95th Floor of Two World Trade Center is something that had become a mindless, involuntary action for all of us who worked there. Our offices at Fiduciary Trust had consisted of the 90th to 97th Floors, with a few unoccupied floors in between. I had been working at Fiduciary for over two years, and it had become a second home to me."

http://www.globalcomment.com/current_affairs/article_39.asp

Additionally, there were about 8 mechanical floors in each building and some floors had tenants that did not fill the entire floor. There were also reports of workmen who were remodeling different floors, which, although they had tenants on them, they were not occupied temporarily.

[Jazz2006]

47. LOL

You call that proof of your assertions and of your insinutations?

:rofl:


Sad, sad, sad.

[Grateful for Hope]

48. Looks like UsaToday did their homework

Quite a number of empty floors, particularly in the north tower. Thanks for the links!

[Jazz2006]

50. Sure, if you believe that there were no tenants below the 33rd floor...

of the north tower, which is what miranda's link shows.

That is patently wrong.

Miranda's assertion that there were "many unoccupied floors" is not supported by the facts. The USA Today link she provided is wrong.

Just ask anyone who was working at, for example:

Continental Insurance Company
CINDE
Xerox Document Company
Johnston & Murphy
Nichols Foundation, Inc.
Verizon Communications
Colortek Kodak Imaging Center
EuroBrokers, Inc.
Union Bank of California
Patinka International (USA) Inc.
Charna Chemicals, Inc.
Paging Network of New York
Mancini Duffy
Candia Shipping
John W. Loofbourrow Associates, Inc.
John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.
Orient International
Law office of James T. Ratner
National Development & Research Institute
N.Y. Institute of Finance
Showtime Pictures
Professional Assistance & Consulting
Intera Group Inc.
Alliance Consulting
Pines Investment, Inc.
Caserta & Company
Law Offices of Abad, Castilla, and Mallonga
Weiland International
Chen, Lin, Li, & Jiang, LLP
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
N.Y. Shipping Association
Thacher, Proffitt & Wood
Career Engine
Adecco SA
Charoen Pokphand USA, Inc.
Sinochem American Holdings, Inc.
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Antal International, Inc.
SCOR U.S. Corporation
Unistrat Corporation of America
Allstate Insurance Company
TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.
China Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Globe Tour & Travel
Sinolion (USA)
December First Productions, LLC
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Big A Travel Agency
Law Office of Joseph Bellard
Hua Nan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Weatherly Securities Corp.
Hartford Steam Boiler
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
Commerzbank Capital Markets

They were all tenants in the north tower on floors that the USA Today piece doesn't mention.

[mirandapriestly]

53. indeed. tsk tsk. chortle.

here this took me ONE minute: http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/wtc_info/tenants_by_floor_wtc1.asp
I'm not sure why they didn't list those floors, I think the lower floors are on another page. Oh and 14-17 were vacant in bldg 7 and that is from NIST.

[Jazz2006]

55. Yeah, and your last one also got it wrong...

and it took a whole 2 minutes.

Like I said, your assertions were faulty and your "proof" wasn't proof at all.

Not surprising, of course.

That's what happens when you rely upon google as your only source of information and when you adopt the first link you read as fact.

In the real world, however.... it doesn't work that way.

[mirandapriestly]

57. Tactic #1,000,000

ask for evidence then say that evidence is invalid. Floors have more than one tenant. Maybe you can ask Tony Snow, he is a source of info that you seem to believe.

[Jazz2006]

58. How pathetic.

You're the one who claimed that there were "many unoccupied floors".

You presented as "proof" a document that alleged no tenants below the 33rd floor. You apparently "believed" what you were asserting as fact.

You were wrong.

You have been proven wrong.

And you now twist and twirl and try to justify your wrong assertions by trying to move the goal posts in a wholly ridiculous manner.

And in true tinhat fashion, you toss in an ad hom dressed up in a stawman in hopes that other tinhatters will follow your false trail instead of looking at the actual facts.

Absolutely pathetic.

But not surprising.

[mirandapriestly]

61. Shhhh!..You have no interest in 9-11 or any other DU topics

You are here to browbeat & ridicule others perhaps because it makes you feel important, you can pretend to be anyone you want. You are also lying about being a lawyer and a pilot.
I know what I've read and there was a high occupancy rate most of the time at the WTC's. Additionally, there was a lot of remodelling and construction going on, which are in many eyewitness accounts. It is also in the NIST report that 14-17 in wtc7 were empty.

[Jazz2006]

67. You are, once again, quite wrong.

I have never claimed to be a pilot. But you know that.

In fact, I specifically stated that I am not a pilot. But you know that, too.

I am, in fact, a lawyer. Why you think I would make it up is beyond me. What do you want, photos of my degree, my membership cards, my notary stamp, my law school transcripts, my various and sundry documents (suitable for framing) that confer upon me the right and privilege of practicing law in various courts, my current issue of Lawyer's Weekly?

I do not browbeat anyone. But you know that, too.

I ridicule only the ridiculous.

I have plenty of interest in Sept. 11 and many other DU topics. But you know that, too.

I have never lied about anything on these boards. Not once.

The fact that you constantly accuse me of doing so is not only against the DU rules, but it is also blatantly apparent that you resort to such unfounded and pathetic attacks when you know that you have stepped in something ~ such as your assertion above that there were "many unoccupied floors", followed by your purported proof of same which was clearly not proof of it at all, and your subsequent - and continuing - inability to back up your unsupported assertion.

In other words, when you put your foot in your mouth, you try to divert attention from that by calling me a liar.

Sad, that.

And very telling.

[Jazz2006]

60. See also #51 and #56

in addition to the obvious here.

[mirandapriestly]

54. I doubt "Big A travel agency" has their own floor.

It's not supported by your linkless "facts".

[Jazz2006]

56. That's the best you can come up with from a long list of tenants that

inhabited floors that YOUR link didn't mention?

They inhabited space on a floor that YOU alleged was "unoccupied".

That was simply untrue.

Now you suggest that it doesn't count unless a single entity occupies an entire floor?

Nice try.

You're the one who claimed that there were "many unoccupied floors" and your alleged "proof" was clearly wrong.

It seems that you are now trying to move the goalposts to say that if any given floor had any empty space whatsoever, that somehow validates your previous assertion which was clearly not backed up by the link you posted, nor supported by reality.

Wrong.

And all of these tenants would disagree with you:


Continental Insurance Company
CINDE
Xerox Document Company
Johnston & Murphy
Nichols Foundation, Inc.
Verizon Communications
Colortek Kodak Imaging Center
EuroBrokers, Inc.
Union Bank of California
Patinka International (USA) Inc.
Charna Chemicals, Inc.
Paging Network of New York
Mancini Duffy
Candia Shipping
John W. Loofbourrow Associates, Inc.
John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.
Orient International
Law office of James T. Ratner
National Development & Research Institute
N.Y. Institute of Finance
Showtime Pictures
Professional Assistance & Consulting
Intera Group Inc.
Alliance Consulting
Pines Investment, Inc.
Caserta & Company
Law Offices of Abad, Castilla, and Mallonga
Weiland International
Chen, Lin, Li, & Jiang, LLP
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
N.Y. Shipping Association
Thacher, Proffitt & Wood
Career Engine
Adecco SA
Charoen Pokphand USA, Inc.
Sinochem American Holdings, Inc.
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Antal International, Inc.
SCOR U.S. Corporation
Unistrat Corporation of America
Allstate Insurance Company
TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.
China Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Globe Tour & Travel
Sinolion (USA)
December First Productions, LLC
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Big A Travel Agency
Law Office of Joseph Bellard
Hua Nan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Weatherly Securities Corp.
Hartford Steam Boiler
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
Commerzbank Capital Markets

[mirandapriestly]

62. Lack of abstract thinking abilities

again. I wondered if I would have to go into detail on what I meant. The point is most of those businesses were only several offices, not an entire floor. They have several of them per floor. Do I really have to explain further? It was an example. You can easily look it up yourself if you want to, but you don't want to know you are only trying to harrass me.

[Jazz2006]

68. Ha!

Nice try, but your assertion that there were "many unoccupied floors" is not helped by this latest attempted save.

You have not been able to support your statement, and your attempt to move the goalposts in order to pretend that your statement was accurate is blatantly obvious.

But engaged readers will not be fooled by it.

[Grateful for Hope]

86. Link please n/t

[Jazz2006]

89. You're asking me for a link?

How about asking the person who asserted it as fact for a link that actually proves her point?

Since, you know, she couldn't and didn't.


Sheesh.

[Grateful for Hope]

90. Yes, I am asking you for a link

Anytime I see info posted without a link, I like to check the info for myself. So, please provide a link.

Thanks.

[Jazz2006]

91. To prove a point that the poster already admitted was wrong?

It was your friend, miranda, who made an unsubstantiated claim, not me.

She posted a link that did not support her claim.

You posted something in support of her link even though it was obviously faulty (as it purported that there were no tenants below the 33rd floor, which is clearly, obviously, and patently wrong).

I posted a partial list of tenants who occupied floors that she (and you, perhaps, by adopting her incaccurate link as factual,I guess) suggested were unoccupied.

Since then, she's reverted to saying that there were some mechanical floors and some floors that were not fully tenanted (i.e. there were some empty offices on some floors) as being the basis of her original unsupported assertion that there were "many unoccupied floors". Even though she hasn't specifically admitted that floors 1-33 were occupied (she does seem to have a problem with mea culpas), it is blatantly apparent that she has accepted that I was right about that, thus her fallback to (paraphrasing) "oh, I read something somewhere about there being some unoccupied floors".

Then the sidekick dailykoff jumped in asserting that there were 4 mechanical floors in each tower and pretended that this somehow validated miranda's inaccurate original assertion. Nonsense, obviously.

In all fairness, and as I said earlier, I think there were more than 4 mechanical floors but hey, I'm not the one making bald faced assertions that there were "many unoccupied floors" in the towers at the relevant time.

So....

I think you really ought to be asking your friend, miranda, for links.

She's the one making bald assertions, after all.

[Grateful for Hope]

92. No, I would like a link supporting the info you posted

I am not asking about the info MP posted, I am asking about the info you posted. I would really like a link as I would like to continue investigating. You must know where you got your info, so please post the source.

[Jazz2006]

93. ??

Please specify what info you want a link to.

And please specify why you want a link from me and yet you were content to adopt miranda's admittedly wrong info without question and why you were so quick to adopt her obviously wrong info as factual.

Because, frankly, I think your motives are suspect when you ask me for links to disprove that which has already been disproven yet you never asked your friend for any proof of her obviously wrong claims.

If I thought you were serious and that your query was legitimate, I'd indulge you, but I don't think that's the case, and I don't play those kind of games.

[Grateful for Hope]

94. You know what info you posted in two posts

Your list of companies is below. My one and only post suggested that USAToday had done their homework. This statement does not indicate whether I thought the info was completely accurate or not. So, please do not tell me what I thought was factual or not. Also, please do not attribute motives to me.


Here is the list of tenants you provided in two posts. Please provide the source (this is ocmmon courtesy here at DU):

"Wrong.

And all of these tenants would disagree with you:


Continental Insurance Company
CINDE
Xerox Document Company
Johnston & Murphy
Nichols Foundation, Inc.
Verizon Communications
Colortek Kodak Imaging Center
EuroBrokers, Inc.
Union Bank of California
Patinka International (USA) Inc.
Charna Chemicals, Inc.
Paging Network of New York
Mancini Duffy
Candia Shipping
John W. Loofbourrow Associates, Inc.
John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.
Orient International
Law office of James T. Ratner
National Development & Research Institute
N.Y. Institute of Finance
Showtime Pictures
Professional Assistance & Consulting
Intera Group Inc.
Alliance Consulting
Pines Investment, Inc.
Caserta & Company
Law Offices of Abad, Castilla, and Mallonga
Weiland International
Chen, Lin, Li, & Jiang, LLP
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
N.Y. Shipping Association
Thacher, Proffitt & Wood
Career Engine
Adecco SA
Charoen Pokphand USA, Inc.
Sinochem American Holdings, Inc.
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Antal International, Inc.
SCOR U.S. Corporation
Unistrat Corporation of America
Allstate Insurance Company
TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.
China Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Globe Tour & Travel
Sinolion (USA)
December First Productions, LLC
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
Big A Travel Agency
Law Office of Joseph Bellard
Hua Nan Commercial Bank Ltd.
Weatherly Securities Corp.
Hartford Steam Boiler
Oppenheimer Funds, Inc.
Commerzbank Capital Markets "

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Americus]

98. I'd also like for you to provide a link. A link, not a dodge.

Thank you.

[Grateful for Hope]

87. Link please n/t

[Jazz2006]

51. No, what is sad is that

you started with a weak and unsubstantiated premise as you did above, that "there were many unoccupied floors" which you presented as an established fact, and when asked to provide proof of your assertion, you couldn't but pretended that you did.

What is also sad is that you tried to support your unsubstantiated premise that there were "many" unoccupied floors by saying "here is an account from a survivor who says there were several unoccupied floors between the 90th & 97th floors" when the quote (as vague as it is) actually says that there were "a few", not "several".

What is also sad is that you tried to support your unsubstantiated premise by resorting to mechanical floors and somehow conflating that into your "unoccupied" floors assertion. Mechanical floors house equipment that is critical to the building's core operations. As such, and particularly in buildings like the towers which had previously sustained a terrorist attack, they are closely monitored and accessibility to them is subject to strict security.

Your wishful thinking notwithstanding.

What is also sad is that when confronted with the reality that your initial assertion was unsubstantiated, you - true to form - resorted to a personal attack to try to bolster your faulty assertion.

[mirandapriestly]

63. there were many unoccupied floors

in the world trade center. Every directory I found shows that and witnesses have also described it it.

[Jazz2006]

70. Sure.

And you can't produce a single one of them.

Got it.

[dailykoff]

71. Here are eight unoccupied tower floors:

WTC1 41, 42, 75, 76, WTC2 41, 42, 75, and 76.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

Happy now? :eyes:

[Jazz2006]

73. Nope.

Not convincing at all.

The tenants on those floors would also disagree with you that they were unoccupied floors.

And your pom poms are looking awfully ragged.

[dailykoff]

76. What tenants?

They were mechanical floors.

[Jazz2006]

78. Actually, yeah,

those were mechanical floors. My mistake.

Not unoccupied, but yes, untenanted.

Four mechanical floors in a 110 storey building does not equate to "many unoccupied floors". Floors housing essential mechanical equipment are not "unoccupied" at all, and certainly not in the sense that the poster was attempting to present.

By the way, I think there may have been more than four, but none of that takes away from the fact that the premise that there were "many unoccupied floors" is still not substantiated. Not by a longshot.

[dailykoff]

79. Don' worry, everybody makes mistakes.

In fact you just made several more. HVAC ducts aren't "occupants" and mechanical floors are not occupied.

[Jazz2006]

80. delete - dupe

[dailykoff]

81. You mean the mistakes you made up there?

I was trying not to notice.

[Jazz2006]

83. Wow ~

You must have been hanging off your keyboard waiting to respond to that.

I was adding to my post and then accidentally double posted it.

See #82.

[Jazz2006]

88. delete

grrr...

computer issues.

[Jazz2006]

82. You can't be as

obtuse as you're pretending to be, I'm sure.

Read upthread.

Mechanical floors are not "unoccupied" and having 4 of 110 floors utilizing mechanical equipment doesn't equate to "numerous unoccupied floors" as alleged, nor does it equate to the illusion that the poster who asserted same was trying to project.

[dailykoff]

84. Ducts and blowers are not "occupants."

Do I really need to point this out again?

:crazy:

[Jazz2006]

85. Oh my. Perhaps you really ARE

as obtuse as I thought you were only pretending to be.

Pardon me.

I thought you were faking it.

Wow.

Ahem ~ as you were.

[Grateful for Hope]

97. Wikipedia seems to have a comprehensive listing of tenants

What do you think of this info? It appears there were quite a number of empty floors in both buildings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center_tenants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_World_Trade_Center_tenants

Also, a site compiled in the aftermath, Again, a number of empty floors altough it's a little more difficult to determine what floors are empty:

http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/wtc_info/tenants_by_floor_wtc2.asp

[Jazz2006]

21. You should be ashamed of yourself .

Yeah, it's worth repeating that.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Have you no concept whatsoever of what goes on in the world outside of the dungeon?

How sad.

Do I really have to spell it out to you that there are hundreds of new pink triangle avatars and rainbow avatars being adopted this week for very good reason?

And you have the fucking audacity and utter fuckwittery to suggest that I'm "pretending" something because you haven't a clue?

God, that's pathetic.

On edit: No, it's disgusting that you would use such a thing as yet another non-answer to a legitimate question and as yet another attempt to disparage someone for disagreeing with you.

I don't even care if this gets me tombstoned ~ your post was truly beneath contempt. I'd rather be tombstoned for standing up for the rights of those whose rights are being abused than lay down and die and agree with people who haven't a clue and haven't even the wherewithal to look for or find a clue.

[mirandapriestly]

24. well you pretend to be everything else.nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

39. That's quite untrue.

I've never pretended to be anything I'm not.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

45. Outside of the dungeon, DUers have been...

switching their avatars to pink triangles/rainbow flags/HRC equality signs in a sign of solidarity against the Republican attack against gay equality.

[Jazz2006]

74. Sadly, the person in question

doesn't seem to venture out of the dungeon very often and therefore makes a fool of herself on a regular basis such as she has done in this particular instance.

She'll probably show up at some point pretending that she knew what it was about all along, because she seems to have an aversion to telling the truth, but as is obvious, she hadn't a clue.

[Americus]

75. "she seems to have an aversion to telling the truth" Why the insult?

Isn't it against the rules to insult a poster? Here, as in many if not most of your posts, your only purpose seems to be to insult someone. It's one thing to disbelieve facts that someone may post, but when you stoop to calling someone a liar, I believe you've crossed a DU line. With what little credibility YOU have, I'm surprised you apparently think that by calling one of your many superiors here a liar some people will think you're really clever. Some might, but most DUers will assume things about your character and your motivation here, even if some of them aren't true.

I think you owe an apology. Will you give one?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KJF]

22. Any idea...

... who the Marsh and McLennan guy who got thrown five blocks was? I doubt it's important, but it just occurred to me. Is it the guy who was in one of the Moussaoui trial photos?

btw, I surprised you don't make more you of the ignore function.

[mirandapriestly]

27. I remember something about that

can you remind me? I always thought there was something interesting about the timing of their (&other) fraud litigation with 9-11 and now there are people starting to go into more detail, so maybe there is something to it.
I did use the ignore and took it off for some reason, I will turn it on again, I always get fooled into responding and getting upset and sidetracked.

[Jazz2006]

28. Nah...

You just pretend to use the "ignore" function when you find yourself unable to answer legitimate questions and when you find that you've dug youself into a hole, and when you find that your biases have come out in the open.

Nobody will be surprised (or fooled) by it, though.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

44. no, you have never made a venomous post

here is you to Will Pitt:
"The OP made at least 10 spelling errors in his long winded, self-serving piece of tripe."
You've got some agenda, I don't know what.

[Jazz2006]

46. For once we agree. I haven't posted anything venomous.

Surely, you don't think it's venomous to point out hypocrisy.

Oh, and you're wrong on everything else you said, too. Reading comprehension problems again, obviously.

a) it wasn't a post to Pitt as you allege;
b) it wasn't venomous by any stretch of the imagination;
c) it was a response to someone (person A) who jumped on a single and obvious typo by another poster (person B) and compared person B to the opening poster (person C) in the process while person A ignored entirely the numerous typos by person C whom person A was holding up as a beacon of superiority to person A, based on spelling and typos, even though person C had made a whole raft of typos and spelling mistakes in his post.

Sheesh. You may be content to let blatant hypocrisy slide when it suits your purposes to do so, but I dislike it wherever I see it, and especailly among progressives.

And yes, the opening post really was a long winded, self serving piece of tripe. It was 14 pages of self serving banality with a few lines of qualified mea culpas spread sparingly over several of those pages.

And no, that was not a typo. The opening post was YES - 14 pages long.

You really should educate yourself on what it was about if you're going to reproduce it here wholly out of context, as doing so without having a clue what you're referencing only makes your ignorance of the issue more glaringly apparent than it already was.


Jesus.

[mirandapriestly]

64. Why did you read it then?

If you saw it was long why didn't you just ignore it, instead of reading it and then criticizing it? Why do you come here where you disagree with people and pick fights with them? That isn't healthy behavior.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KJF]

29. I used to work for M+M (I think)

Just a couple of hours a week for a few months (years ago), but I don't remember it very well. My impression is that it's the sort of company that's always getting involved in some sort of fraud (who isn't in insurance? - grins), whether wittingly or unwittingly. I really doubt any trouble at M+M is in any way relevant to 9/11, but you never know...

Flynn and Dwyer write in 102 Minutes:
"The remains of one man who worked for Marsh and McLennan, which occupied space on the 93rd to 100th floors, would later be found five blocks from the tower." (p. 20)
When I saw the guy in the Moussaoui trial photo (at some crossroads), I thought he was a jumper, but couldn't figure out how he'd gotten so far from the towers. I guess it must be the M+M guy.

Re ignore: my policy is that if somebody annoys me I put him on ignore for a few weeks and then, when I turn it off, I only respond to posts which have substance - or accuse me of being a government agent (grins again). Smart alec comments, mock outrage and attempts at browbeating don't interest me, my time is too valuable.

[mirandapriestly]

35. Well, I don't think MM planned it or anything

but a lot of information and, sadly, people who had information, was/were lost that day, both at the Pentagon and the WTC. It's the old "Qui bono?" that pops up every now and then with 911.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. When you look at digital images

you get all kinds of refractions. Pixels can only capture so much information.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

30. in the video that was presented

i cant even tell what the heck i am looking at. it could be just about anything. it is so distorted i dont know how some can claim "aha it is....."

[DemInDistress]

31. can't tell that's WT2? look closer...as the clip ends look at the

roof line of WT2. It's there s.h. replay the clip a few times and look "CLOSE" look "DEEPER" into that clip. See the "FLASH(S)?" Your lying brain won't allow you to accept the (DETONATION(S)) caught in that clip.
Click on the clip and replay it then get back to me.
Remember we just looking for "controlled detonations" and if your eyes are good you'll count three (3) of them before the clip ends.

[sabbat hunter]

32. my eyes arent lying

the video is so blown up it has become distorted. once you start doing things as you say, your mind will play tricks with you and let you see what you want to see. you want to see dentonations so that is what you see.

[mirandapriestly]

13. Oooh, these are good, DiD

the terrorize guy is great.I'll have to go look and see what else is new over there.

[DemInDistress]

34. thanks for the note of recognition miranda....terrorize.dk has the

best video's not yet confiscated by the FBI. Imagine if all the folks who voluntary surrendered their captured
video "DIDN'T." I understand there are 7,000 photo's and hundreds of hours of videotapes in their hands (FBI)
Professor Jones would like to see those films and photo's and so would all of us but when you control the intelligence community you can hide the evidence and even ship off to China the most damaging pieces of evidence which could certainly shed new light on these Murders.


see you later..

[mirandapriestly]

37. Yes, Bob Pugh, the photographer who got the video

of the Pentagon and was one of the first on scene went back to the scene later in the day and was getting some footage when some MP's approached and demanded he turn over his film. They didn't care about him being at the Pentagon (there was no protection anyone could have walked around , he drove his car right to the site. What does that tell you?) they didn''t get his plate numbers, license #, or i.d., they just wanted to confiscate the tape. They tried to get it all (the earlier stuff, too), but he refused and only gave them one he had just taken. Later he tried to get it back and they would not return his calls, he can't get it back. That is HIS government! What right have they to do that?
Anyway, how can anyone say they are not trying to hide something?

[mirandapriestly]

14. What is going on in this one

The south tower collapses, then the television commentator says there has been another explosion to the right side of the building and he isn't talking about the one that just fell, I don't think. After the collapse, you can see a dust plume raising up to the right, which is clearly A SEPARATE EVENT. What is this? Maybe it's something really obvious that I'm missing. Also the lady at the beginning is talking about bombs.


http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25/911.wtc.2.implosion.sw.avi

[rman]

36. Doesn't have to be a separate event

it can very well be the dust cloud from the collapsing tower bellowing up against a nearby building. In fact i'm pretty sure there's footage showing it from a different angle, which shows just that. I think it's in "9-11 Eyewitness".

However there is an explosion visible on the right hand side of the left tower some distance above the impact zone, at the moment the tower starts collapsing. it's at 00:34.

[mirandapriestly]

38. I'll try to find it on 911 eyewitness , good idea.

I guess something that obvious would have been noticed before :blush:. I'll watch for the other explosion. I was kind of wondering, though, the shockwave seems to occur during the end of the collapse and I wondered if another explosion was going on using the collapse as cover.

[mirandapriestly]

52. Is this real?

If so, explosivarama, but fire on the roof?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3271072997794635077&q=wtc+second+plane

[file83]

59. That is a composite video with addidtional CG fire....

...the buildings and smoke are real, but that fire isn't.

I've seen tons of videos of the towers and this is simply disinformation or somebodies idea of a stupid joke. That fire is so fake looking.

Not to mention, the British "live" news report was a dead giveaway - there were no live shots by British news crews that day coming from the ground, not to mention, there weren't even any station graphics on that shot.

[mirandapriestly]

65. thought so, thanks.

this kind of stuff is all over now.

[DemInDistress]

66. miranda,. look over this video of WT7.. I seen this video 50 times

and only tonight did I spot 2 explosive flashes on the North face of WT7. Focus your eyes on the right side of the north face just past center. Now count down 11 floors from the roof line. Focus your attention on the bunch of "puffs,black squibs" emanating from the building (I counted over 20 squibs)but inside that black smoke is a confirmed flash. Then 1 second later another flash 14 floors down from the roof line a few feet in from the edge of the building. Watch it a few times and you'll spot both flashes.
here: http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.naudet.wmv

see you later, its late...

[mirandapriestly]

72. Yes, that's a classic

there is no question. A lot of information that was in that building will never see the light of day again.