I saw William Rodriguez speak in Nanaimo BC last year - he has a powerful presence and his story is truly amazing:

William Rodriguez & the Key to 911

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM

  (0+)

Willie witnessed the truth on 9/11 as he describes the multiple explosive demolitions in the B-1 to B-6 sub-level basement floors even before the plane hit the 82nd floor of the WTC North Tower. 

A hero of 9/11 with almost overwhelming grief that he was not able to go higher than the 42nd floor, on orders from the fire fighters, with his master key to rescue more of his dear friends who he knew were at the higher floor levels.

Willie, with sincerest humility, does not brag about, or even show any slides of his successful world tour with his dear friend and fellow truthseeker extraordinairre, Philanthropist Jimmy Walter, who dared to produce a stunning, revealing, scientific 911 video during the most popular days of Bush, a time during which telling the truth was a revoluntionary act, and who's $1,000,000 reward to anyone who can prove to him that explosives were NOT used to bring down the Towers, remains unclaimed, "Confronting The Evidence"  click here         

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:00:18 PM

  (0+)

Rodriguez was not the last man out of the North Tower, there were 16 survivors in stairwell B, including FDNY personnel also rescuing people, who came out well after he did. He was definitely a hero on 9/11, and has been cited several times for his bravery, but that doesn't give him license to distort the truth and file frivolous lawsuits against the US government, based on outright lies and no evidence. If there had been "multiple explosive demolitions" in the basement levels of the North Tower before the plane hit, which is what you and he are claiming, then why did it stand for more than 102 minutes before collapsing? Why did the collapse initiate near the floor where the plane hit, which wasn't even close to these alleged explosives? Why were the lower floors the last to collapse, and why did the lower part of the core stand for 10-20 seconds after the main collapse was over? Why does no one even a few floors above where he was corroborate his story about these explosions, especially the timing of them relative to the plane impact? How does he know what was happening 100 floors above where he was, since there weren't even windows down there? Explosives powerful enough to have damaged the structure at that level, where some of the column steel was 7" thick, would not only have deafened everyone on or around those floor levels, they would have killed all of them, and been heard for miles. In 1993, a deadly bomb that was the equivalent of a ton of TNT went off in an underground garage, and it didn't take out one column. And what would he have done with his master key, since people were trying to get into the emergency stairwells, not out of them and into locked office spaces? What he heard was falling debris, exploding transformers, and other very explainable loud noises having nothing to do with a controlled demolition, but he's made himself wealthy and famous by touring the world and lying. And btw, Flight 11 did not hit the 82nd floor of the North Tower, it hit the 96th. 

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 6:03:46 PM

  (0+)

there were no demolitions? How about "dozens" of other firemen who heard explosions around the time of the plane crash? What reason do these people have for lying? Rodriguez was quoted initially on the morning of 9/11. He had no reason to "lie" at that time. He wasn't trying to be famous. He was simply telling it as he saw it. And for this his observations seem most candid. Would you not agree? Why was his report ignored by the Commission?  Why would an interview with him by the 9/11 commission occur behind closed doors? What was there to hide? I would say to the contrary that your comments questioning Rodriguez appear to be defending the commission's report like "My country right or wrong," like "my government can do no wrong." Well who the hell wants a government that's wrong? Or worse yet, possibly murderous? Let's investigate it further, don't you think enough evidence has been brought forward to at least warrant an investigation or would you like to simply assume these things are just not true? I would say hope for the best (that they are untrue) but expect the worst, the government was involved, and in the meantime DEMAND another, "outside" Impartial" investigation. Are you afraid of what the truth might be?

by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:10:28 PM

  (0+)

The WTC debris took eight months to remove, and there were engineers all over the site the entire time. I'm "so convinced" because no evidence of explosives was discovered at GZ, and that would be impossible if multiple structural members had been severed with them or incendiaries. It just simply would not have been missed by the 40,000 people who worked there at one time or another during the cleanup. Not unlikely; impossible. There was also no evidence of them prior to any collapse.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:30:36 PM

  (0+)

Richard Gage and Stephen Jones have evidence of explosives.

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:44:35 PM

  (0+)

have "theories," and no evidence for any of them, which would have been found by people who were actually at GZ in late 2001 if there had been any. Gage claims that explosives turned 90,000 tons of steel and 400,000 yards of concrete to dust, and Jones says that incendiaries melted the steel and caused the collapses. There were no reported shortages of steel when it was scrapped, the two towers combined had less than 100,000 yards of concrete above ground level, and Jones could "find" thermate residue in a ham sandwich using his methodologies. These two "researchers" are competing to see who can make the nuttiest claims, but my vote goes to the so-called engineer in Gage's group who says explosives collapsed the towers before the planes hit them. Second prize goes to the one who said they were nuked. There's something wrong with anyone who takes either of these guys or their followers seriously.   

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:15:20 PM

  (0+)

a shortage of steel if explosives or incendiaries were used?  This is a red heiring.  Matter doesn't disappear, as you're implying.  Again, physics 101.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:22:37 PM

  (0+)

Talk about distorting the truth. If by wealthy you mean he makes more than $35,000 a year, which is about what a paid spook like Albury Smith makes, then yes he's wealthy.   

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:40:20 PM

  (0+)

now he's a hero of the "truth movement" who's traveling all over the world collecting speaking fees for lying about 9/11. He's wealthy by his former standards.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:53:41 AM

  (0+)

and has something to say about the event.

Yes, I believe he qualifies as a HERO.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:13:34 PM

  (0+)

A true hero. And a very moving video. Highly recommended!

by B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 6:24:02 PM

  (0+)

Sorry, it's too late now for Albury to claim his $1,000,000 reward by proving that explosives were not used to bring the Towers down. Keep in mind that no one has claimed this reward in all those years after 9/11, proving, without a doubt, to everybody and anybody, that all 3 WTC buildings were indeed brought down by explosive demolitions on 9/11 

"This site remains up for those who want to know. I have given up. I no longer answer email, give away DVD’s, or support the $1,000,000 challenge (which no NIST, FEMA, or other credible engineer or scientist has dared to accept). Good luck to all. It will not be a good night.

Regrettably,

Jimmy Walter" http://www.reopen911.org/               

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:59:00 PM

  (0+)

but getting the guy to pay is. As a reminder, you wrote "and who's [sic] $1,000,000 reward to anyone who can prove TO HIM that explosives were NOT used to bring down the Towers."

230+ NIST scientists and engineers, and 40,000 people at Ground Zero during the cleanup proved it to any rational person beyond any doubt at all, but "Jimmy Walker" apparently knows more than all of them, and won't accept irrefutable proof. When are you going to explain how explosives in the basement of a hi-rise at or before 8:46 AM triggered a collapse ~100 floors above there around 10:28 AM? And feel free to tell me why no severed columns or other signs of explosives were found in the debris. I previously asked you a number of other questions about the lies of Willie Rodriguez, but you seem to be a little short on answers.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:27:57 PM

  (0+)

When are you going to explain how explosives in the basement of a hi-rise at or before 8:46 AM triggered a collapse ~100 floors above there around 10:28 AM?

Accept no one is actually saying the basement explosions caused the collapse.

What a stupid spook!

As for the question "why did the onset of the towers collapse originate at the impact zone"?

Is it really difficult to grasp that the demo started at the point of impact?

Like that's some technological feat that couldn't easily be accomplished.

Jesus A. Smith is a douche!!!

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:30:34 PM

  (0+)

of posting anything worthwhile, I wouldn't mind discussing this with you, but since all you can do is change your user name and stalk me, directing all of the 34 posts under your new identity at me with nothing but childish insults and name calling, why don't you just go back to being "Dave Rogers" and get lost?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:32:54 PM

  (0+)

Ms. Smith, how totally feminine of you. If I was your shill supervisor, I would walk thru a remedial course on how not to give away your age and gender while blogging on behalf of the Stormtroopers that write your checks. Seriously, you're sloppy! That's why your colleagues had to go back and pull your old opednews bio off of the shelf. I mean stating that you have 40 plus years in construction management experience on your bio, which then puts your age as being in the mid 60's range is a major F@#k up, but then using language that befits someone in their early 20's......well that's pretty irresponsible on your end. You created alot of work for your IT Department, with them having to delete the links to your old opednews bio throughout the worldwide web. I own a software company, so I know that's no small feat. I would have thought a quality institution like RICE would have produced someone better prepared to be a professional spook. In the end, I was wrong. 

Ohh and if you feel as though I'm stalking you, I would be flattered. Because I've seen the student body at RICE and lets just say that you working for the government and sitting in a cube, away from the general public, is the best place for you. I mean that in the nicest way possible.

 Training paid disinformation agents since 1912

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:20:28 AM

  (0+)

Where Willie is far from a new subject, I'm reposting an exchange I had with Munich in February 2008 - click here .  He never explained Willie's confusing and ever-expanding recollections - can you, Mr. Cappa?

----------

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1603 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 9:29:38 AM

----------

Willie is nothing more than an opportunist who plays to the Truther sympathy because it brings him the things he wants.  If this is the poster child offered up by the Movement, then - I trust - it knows the dire straits that it is in...

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:35:51 PM

  (0+)

Still siting the bogus NIST report I see....

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:46:19 PM

  (0+)

Hmmm

Still siting [sic] the bogus NIST report I see....

Only because it was written by qualified people who studied every aspect of the collapses for several years, and it makes sense. Are you a structural engineer, scientist, or fire safety expert? Or do you just read conspiracy web sites and agree with anything that isn't consistent with the official account of 9/11?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:22:40 PM

  (0+)

"who studied every aspect of the collapses for several years"

 They never investigated the case for Demolition.  Instead, they were told why it callapsed and were told to prove that it happened that way.

I guess you don't believe in the scientific method, eh?  There was no real investigation.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:38:39 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM

  (0+)

"It couldn't have been controlled demolition because we were told that it couldn't have happened that way"

Brilliant

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:05:58 PM

  (0+)

 watch it here:

Zero - An Investigation Into 9/11

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:15:44 PM

  (0+)

William Rodriguez, who I might add is a brave man, who did infact help save the lives of many people on 9/11, the explosions he heard were timed to go off before the jet hit the Tower. They needed to begin taking out the core columns to make room for the buildings debris. "Willie is an opportunist - like a bottom feeding crab?" Say it to his face, Murphy! If and when OpEdNews does incorporate an ignore feature, you'll be the first added.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:27:01 AM

  (0+)

No one has ever said that Rodriguez wasn't brave on 9/11, but his claims are ludicrous and his activities after the attacks have been reprehensible. There were no explosions reported anywhere in the North Tower prior to the plane crash except by him, and any that were powerful enough to have affected the structure would have been witnessed by many thousands of people, both inside the tower and for miles in any direction. He is an opportunist and a liar, and he surrounds himself with "believers" like you and won't face legitimate scrutiny, so even politely questioning his nonsense in any of his chosen venues would be hazardous to any sane person's health. In his lawsuit, naming all of these people as defendants: 

George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, John “Jeb” Bush, Neil Mallon Bush, Marvin Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condoleeza Rice, John Ashcroft, Robert S. Mueller III, David Frasca, George J. Tenet, Porter Goss, Norman Y. Mineta, Larry K. Arnold, Tom Ridge, Mark Racicot, The Republican National Committee, Inc., Alan Greenspan, Thomas A. Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Phillip D. Zelikow, John F. Lehman, Fred F. Fielding, Karl Rove, Thomas Delay, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Myers, Ralph E. Eberhart, Kenneth R. Feinberg, Halliburton Company, Kellog Brown & Root Services, The Project For The New American Century, Inc., Election Systems & Software, Diebold Voting Systems, Inc., Walden O’Dell, Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss, New Bridge Strategies, LLC, Joe M. Allbaugh, James A. Baker III, John Sweeney, Matthew Schlapp, Thomas Pyle, Michael Murphy, Garry Malphrus, Charles Royal, Kevin Smith, The United States Of America, The Federal Emergency Management Agency, and “DOE #1 Through DOE #100.”  

he claims that the US government bombed the WTC as an excuse to invade Iraq (but doesn't explain why Iraqis weren't used as hijackers), that the FDNY destroyed WTC 7 on orders from Larry Silverstein (but when asked about it, called the firefighters "heroes"), and even suggests that Flight 93 was shot down with a “high-powered microwave weapon.” After this ridiculous 237-page pile of crap was thrown out of court, he falsely claimed that he withdrew it voluntarily, and when questioned about some of the more absurd allegations in it, blamed them on his lawyer, saying that he didn't read it carefully enough.

You're following in his tradition if you think "They needed to begin taking out the core columns to make room for the buildings [sic] debris." If the core columns had been "taken out" more than 102 minutes before the collapse, what held the core up for all of that time, why did the lower part of it still remain standing for 10 seconds or more after the main collapse was over, and why was no evidence of these "taken out" core columns found in the debris? Do you have a lawyer to blame for your blatant absurdities, or are you going to try to explain them yourself? 

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:33:44 AM

  (0+)

"'Willie is an opportunist - like a bottom feeding crab?'  Say it to his face, Murphy!"

Why are you acting like you're on the school playground, Munich?  "Oh yeah!  I double dog dear you to say it to his face!" 

If I ever had the pleasure meeting Willie, I would certainly share my opinion of him and his actions since 9/11 (aka benthic-like).  He has been an opportunist that has milked his 15 minutes of fame far beyond where it existed in the reality of the 9/11 attacks.  Why?  Well, you Truthers have pumped him into a cream-puff of sorts - delecious to behold but all air and little substance once you bite into it.

You, Munich, are more than welcome to recommend Willie for canonization in the Truther Hall of Saints and Heros.  Idol worship, though, is often misplaced and non-constructive to a fulfilled life.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:32:40 PM

  (0+)

Notice the traitors can spin the most fantastic stories about George Bush's and Dick Cheney's 911.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:57:01 AM

  (0+)

They tour foreign countries spewing unsubstantiated nonsense for notoriety and profit, exonerate Islamic terrorists for the atrocities they committed on 9/11, and accuse their own government of murdering its people, with no evidence at all to back it up. What's incredible to me is that anyone would call that patriotic, or even rational.  

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:45:05 AM

  (0+)

Grandstanding, ad hominem, and purporting rational logical thinking wilts into it's own preposterousness when selling and conflating the ?theory? that "19 Arab/Muslim guys with boxcutters" overcame the United States systems of defense. 

This Fallacy is hideously offensive and certainly un-patriotic.  It flings "stupidity" and "witlessness" upon "incompetent" and "fools", insulting Americans and those individuals with brains, instincts, and commonsense. 

This BS "construct" doesn't fly in the face of preponderance of evidence.  It is idiotic to continue to use fear, demonization of Truthers, et al. to attempt to obfuscate the obvious.  Children would see what you're selling.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:14:44 AM

  (0+)

Yet you and the other 9/11 deniers here haven't addressed even one of the objections I raised in my first response to the article glorifying Rodriguez for his irrational, dishonest claims and his blatantly anti-American activities. You don't have any evidence at all that explosives were detonated in Tower 1 before the plane hit, let alone a "preponderance of evidence" for your witless "theories," and there were no ad hominems in any of my responses, so that's just another lie to add to the list. If your "goes to Washington" remark means that your only argument is that I'm blindly supporting the official account of what happened because I like the present administration or can't come up with a good reason, then you're not only guilty of ad hominem, you're  also wrong, and incapable of arguing intelligently.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:13:47 AM

  (0+)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I used to be a conspiracy theorist, but now I have seen the light. It is perfectly obvious that these two buildings 

- are on ther verge of collapsing into their own footprints within minutes - it's a miracle they're still standing, really , with those horrendous fires all through them. Only a moron would think otherwise, right al? 

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:47:27 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:22:21 PM

  (0+)

OK you pinheads. There is clear proof of demolition in the images of the cleanup. The support beams sticking out of the ground cut at the exact angle used in controlled demolition. I suppose it's just a coincidence.

by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 466 comments [68 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM

  (0+)

Do you really believe that union ironworkers who were cutting up the steel with acetylene torches wouldn't have noticed stuff that was already cut by something that didn't leave the same slag and other evidence behind? Cuts from incendiaries or explosives look nothing like torch cuts, and the torch cuts were on an angle for the same reason that C/Ds cut columns on an angle. Find an ironworker who was there and ask him why they do it that way.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:37:05 PM

  (0+)

1> Clean up crews cut the metal at 90 degrees, the shortest distance through the metal, not at 45 degrees

2>  Demolitions clean up crews reported molten pools of STEEL.  You think they would know.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:35:03 PM

  (0+)

Ironworkers clearly angled their cuts on some of the columns, or there wouldn't be photos of them at GZ with two tanks on a cart right next to them, a torch in their hands, and columns nearby that were obviuosly cut by those torches, and not at 90 degrees. Steven Jones made a fool of himself presenting pictures like that as evidence of thermite, apparently assuming that not only are his readers all stupid, but so are the guys in the picture, who never reported steel cut by thermite when they uncovered it in the debris. If you've ever seen what steel looks like after being subjected to thermite, you'd know that it couldn't possibly be mistaken for an oxygen and gas torch cut. And assuming that there were pools of molten steel in the debris, which is doubtful, although I believe that there was molten METAL found, what would that prove, except that there were very hot fires burning under the debris piles for months after 9/11? Without a continuous, slow-burning fuel source, all of it would have cooled in a few days, and incendiaries are spent within 5 minutes at the most and then start cooling. NIST has explained how much thermite it would take just to melt a pound of steel, so why do you think more than the minimum would have been planted, and why would it still be giving off heat 100 or so days later? These are not some of the better arguments of the "truth movement," but I haven't seen any that make much sense.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:44:45 PM

  (0+)

"Ironworkers clearly angled their cuts on some of the columns, or there wouldn't be photos of them at GZ with two tanks on a cart right next to them, a torch in their hands, and columns nearby that were obviuosly cut by those torches, and not at 90 degrees."

 Show me a picture of them cutting beems at 45 degrees please.  If you don't have it, it's circumstantial, not proof of anything.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:27:29 PM

  (0+)

Bob Smith, this has been discussed at length before... if only you take the time to research the issues rather than regurgitate the Truther bile. 

Here's a series of posts between Mac McKinney and myself from December 2007 - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091 .  Mr. McKinney (being the dutiful Truther) was non-plussed, though, he tried to explain away the glaring obviousness of empirical fact by declaring "linear thermites cutting charge", which was also proved to be non-existent later in the thread, made the angled cuts.

No, they didn't, but Mac got an "A" for effort.

----------

Eyes wide shut

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1609 comments) on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 5:40:16 AM

And some more links here within the same thread:

More deflections

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1609 comments) on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 10:12:52 PM

Sorry, Bob Smith, but the empirical evidence btter supports NIST and not the Truther-offered silliness.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:21:18 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:00:05 PM

  (0+)

of jagged hand cut beams.  I image you've seen pics of the perfect 45 degree cuts in the steel beams too (don't need to post more links)?  Although this is circumstantial at best, it's still suspicious.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM

  (0+)

What's suspicious to me is that the ironworkers at GZ aren't corroborating your "theory," which is only taken seriously by people who weren't even there during the 8-month cleanup, and that the collapse progressed toward the points in these heavy columns where you claim they were severed by explosives at such a low elevation in the building. I can only conclude that skyhooks were holding up the lower floors while the collapse zone approached them, and that all of the ironworkers there were in on the conspiracy, or at least part of the cover-up.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM

  (0+)

it was exploded from the top down, just as our eyes tell us?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:34:29 AM

  (0+)

that it collapsed from the top down, but whatever you want to think it did, you still haven't explained how explosives set off in the basement could have been a factor in a collapse which started 102 minutes later and roughly 100 floors above there. Neither tower had all of its intact floors below the collapse zone falling simultaneously, as would be expected if the columns were severed in the basement. Neither even had multiple intact floors dropping at the same time. That makes me wonder what you think those loud sounds that Rodriguez heard actually did.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:48:19 PM

  (0+)

piece of steel.  I believe whoever made this PERFECT cut should be awarded for their steady hand and creative abilities.  We all know how important it was to get it sooooo straight and clean.

 http://www.waarheid911.nl/911column.jpg 

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:33:58 PM

  (0+)

Do you REALLY think explosives leave slag around the cut? That's frickin' priceless. And if that's supposed to be evidence of thermite, then you've never seen steel after it's been melted by an incendiary. The slag isn't gray, and the cut sure as hell isn't straight. That may have been done free-hand  with an oxy-acetylene (or other flammable gas) torch, or a straight edge was clamped on, not to make a straight cut, but to give the guy something to rest his torch on while he was cutting. That's only evidence of a C/D to people who don't know any better or are lying.  

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:14:35 PM

  (0+)

here's a whole gallery of evidence: http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:19:22 PM

  (0+)

Did you find the page where you get to send Gage $911/mo to become an"AE911TruthHero," Bob?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 6:34:39 PM

  (0+)

to anyone.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM

  (0+)

You should be donating to Richard Gage on a regular basis, Bob. How else are we all going to learn the "truth" about 9/11? Alex Jones has DVDs and some really nifty "9/11 Was an Inside Job" tee shirts on his web sites, InfoWars, and PrisonPlanet, and the proceeds also go to a great cause. If you're not supporting this "research," you're as big a traitor as I am.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:34:20 AM

  (0+)

The column was hand cut and noting more.  Bob Smith, you need to reconcile the FACT that no such thermite-based linear cutting charge exists on 9/1101 or even today for that matter - NONE.  No evidence existed of their being used at the WTC complex.  You and others points to angles cuts as proof that such charges exist because they appear "perfect"?  For real?  Mac McKinney thought something similar, as well - http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050921_no_exit__descending_.htm

----------

When good minds go bad

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1614 comments) on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 9:22:56 PM

And Mr. McKinney finally conceded later on in the thread that the ONLY patent holder on such a cutting charge has NEVER produced a product.  Imagine that!  In Mr. McKinney's own words, "I finally talked to a representative of Spectre Enterprises this Friday, December 14 as regards US Patent 6183569, Cutting Torch and Associated Methods, and the rep told me they never actually manufactured this prototype. They are a leading edge thermite delivery system designer and have developed other patents, but he also said that they haven't developed any patent meant to cut thick steel of the column size indicated in the column in this article."

Being a good Truther, what was Mr. McKinney's reply?  Well, it doesn't mean that the government hasn't created such a cutting charge; more research is needed.  Baloney!  Until you can produce evidence that demonstrates thermite-based linear cutting charges existed on 9/11, you cannot speculate their exists.  If you do, then you might as well use alien death beams because they have the same logical validity.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:10:13 PM

  (0+)

as I stated before.  I think it's suspicious, yet it's only circumstantial at best.  (in my opinion)

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 4:43:04 PM

  (0+)

OK... then what do you have to offer as "circumstantial" for the use of thermite-based linear cutting charges having made those diagonal cuts?  And please don't claim that thermite residue and reaction by products were found in the dust samples by Dr. Jones.  I'll post a whole host of past comments and articles here at OpEdNews.com that flush that one down the toilet.

But seriously... you're offered visual evidence, a type of evidence that Truthers' claim is essential and final, that the cuts were made by a thermal cutting torch, which you dismiss as "circumsatntial".  Then what empirical evidence to you have to show that better supports the claim of low-veloccity explosives over the use of thermal cutting torches?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 6:16:00 PM

  (0+)

a plethra of audio, video, and testimony of firefighters supporting "bombs" going off.

When they corroborate each other, it is called "evidence".

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM

  (0+)

Once again, the senses can be deceived.  Tell me, is there even one report of bomb casings being found in any of the debris at the WTC complex?  Even one? 

You are aware, I presume, that even though a bomb explodes, casing fragments are always left behind.  Where there were a plethora of these "bombs", according to you NYFD buddies and yourself, I'd expect a plethora of frgaments to have been generated.  Now, are you going to include the NYFD in the official conspiracy because they found and disposed of these fragments?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:44:10 PM

  (0+)

You didn't click on Tom's link because you're sitting next to him in a cube and will see him in the breakroom later. That's because your both paid shills that post on all 9/11 related comment boards.

If you two dipshits have so much faith in the official conspiracy theory, then why defend it around the clock?

Answer: because you're both spooks and the OCT needs to be defended around the clock because it's an obvious joke. Kind of like Albury Smith's fake opednews bio.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:25:17 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:43:50 PM

  (0+)

Alburara has had another alias here at OEN - Boris Becker.  That nickname has a decidedly male persona.  So, it's anyone's guess as to who Alburara is - other than someone filled with fear, anger, and resentment. 

And I suspect, but have not you gained full confidence, that Alburara may have another active profile here.  Now, a person that knowingly changes their gender and nickname, and possibly keeps another account open, is someone to be watched as COINTELPRO.  Who knows, Alburara could be sitting in the cubicle next to me...

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:46:23 PM

  (0+)

directs all of its posts at me, or at least mentions me in them, and showed up right after "Dave Rogers," which did the same thing, disappeared. It also posts with the same colors, makes the same spelling errors, uses the same tiresome insults and profanity as "Dave Rogers," and seems to be just about as all-around stupid as "Dave Rogers." It even believes the planes on 9/11 were faked. I hope there aren't two of them.  

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:47:06 AM

  (0+)

Yes.  Dave's the other nickname that I thought was associated with Alburara.  I find it interesting that person has accused you (and me previously) of being not just shills - but female shills.  I think it's fetish-related thing of the poster.  Whatever work for them!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:48:14 AM

  (0+)

I know how you ARMY guys and gals like to operate and lets just say you guys can get a little kinky.

Tom, is this you with the gloves on. No it couldn't be because he's not wearing an ultra cool beret. This must be Ms. Smith's ex boyfriend. Tom was away on patrol looking for another Iraqi family to ice!

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM

  (0+)

USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, lack of video evidence of actual plane hitting most secure building in the world.

It would be simple to shut everyone up.  Show us the video of an actual plane hitting the Pentagon!

It's simple!!!!

by Hal Smith (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 67 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:57:17 AM

  (0+)

 http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM

  (0+)

THIS IS CALLED CORROBORATING EVIDENCE:

TESTIMONY OF FIREFIGHTERS:
  http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

AUDIO OF EXPLOSIONS:
  click here

VIDEO AND AUDIO OF EXPLOSIONS:
  click here
click here


Hey look everyone! It's the PSYCHIC COP:

"Step back, the buildings about to blow up."

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_yQ7k4OUBU

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM

  (0+)

Let's just call him a conspirator, since you find his figure of speech so damning. When huge buildings collapse, stuff flies everywhere, and he was just trying to get people as far away from it as possible.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:48:52 PM

  (0+)

that we have psychics to predict such devestation before it actually happens.  Don't you think?

Again, A. Smith:  Just because someone repeats something they heard doesn't mean they are conspirators to anything.  This is your nonsense remark, not mine.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:33:03 PM

  (0+)

Yours is trying to turn that figure of speech into proof that the buildings were brought down by planted explosives. Are that cop and all of his buddies part of the "truth movement" now, or could he just have meant that all hell was about to break loose and three blocks wouldn't be far enough away for safety?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:51:14 PM

  (0+)

in the video what he meant.  In fact he repeated "explode" and "it's coming down" several times.  Maybe you should watch it again?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:30:30 PM

  (0+)

There's another nice BOOM right before it collapsed.  Another transformer, right A. Smith?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:32:30 PM

  (0+)

AS HARD as the culprits tried to cover their tracks and commit a perfect crime on 9/11 by immediately desecrating the crime scene and quickly removing the evidence without a careful examination, then impeding any investigations for more than a year, the tell tale signs of explosive demolitions remain as evidence, with thermite molten slag and sulfidised residue left on the massive steel core columns that were cut precisely into 30 foot sections for easy transport on flat bed trucks (photo link attached), indicating an extensive use of explosive thermite cutter charges and is the only known method of slicing construction grade steel of the strength and volume in the alloted times Link CLICK HERE http://www.vic911truth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=487               

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM

  (0+)

Think about this: how did the so called terrorists know how to get to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers? They were 30,000 ft in the air traveling at 500 MPH and they had no help from air traffic control.

Did they look out the windows at landmarks??? I know, maybe they were navigating using the starts.  LOL.

It is impossible to know where you are going without help from people on the ground.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:12:05 PM

  (0+)

for starters. Do airline pilots with coordinates for their destination need help from the ground too? This was a simple navigation exercise, and all of the targets were large buildings that were highly visible from miles away.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:43:03 PM

  (0+)

Have you ever been on a passenger jet before?  You believe you can see landmarks from 30,000 feet?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:27:31 PM

  (0+)

Although totally impossible at 30,000 feet, the content makes me laugh even harder:

"Hello Mom this is your son, Mark Bingham, you know me mom"

HEHEHEHEHE H HAH HA  HAH AH AHHAHAA

Someone talks to their mom like that????????

You believed really bought that one too???? HAHAHAHAHA

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:01:34 PM

  (0+)

Bob Smith, you are the image of the typical Truther, boldly displaying not just you rignorance but intellectual laziness for all the readers to witness.

This too has been discussed previously here with Stephen Demetriou - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6594 .  Mr. Demetriou had no response to this response.  Perhaps once you're done laughing, you can enlighten us with your knowledge of cell-based telecommunications in 2001.  Until then, please read.

----------

Wrong again... you need to "phone a friend", buddy

"The FBI has admitted the Olsen calls did not take place. A record shows one attempt, zero minutes."

Where are you getting your information from? You really should confirm the evidence that supports your so-called assertions.

"57. The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage," Sept. 20, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Theodore Olson, Sept. 11, 2001; FBI report of investigation, interview of Helen Voss, Sept. 14, 2001; AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document request, Jan. 20, 2004," - click here .

"Seat back phones were not install [sic] on that particular plane."

Could you please provide evidence (ideally a link) that such was the case on 9/11 for AA Flight 77, aside from Mr. Griffin's baseless claim - http://www.news.com/2100-1033-831093.html and click here .

"Furthermore, the FBI has no records that any of the planes involved on 9/11 have been positively ID'd."

This is a red herring that'll go nowhere because "the thing speaks for itself." It's like asking the NFL to turn over the means by which it certified that the New York Giants are the winners of Superbowl XLII and are entitled to claim the Lombardi Trophy. Only a Truther would watch the Superbowl (either in person or via broadcast), see the winner, and then question whether or not the NFL certified the winner. If it didn't, then the team isn't entitled the trophy and the whole process is questionable at best.

In a world – silly. I believe it reflects the growing desperation of the Movement to produce some sort of "revelation" that will lend it creditability for its supporters and minions. After all, it's been six plus years... of nothing... and the rapture is no closer today than it was on 09/12/01.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1611 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 9:46:06 PM

You need better talking point, Bob Smith.  Otherwise, you're fast becoming odious.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:10:28 PM

  (0+)

spot on here Murphey.  However I think it's still a VERY ODD thing to say to your mother.  Just another oddity from that day perhaps?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM

  (0+)

The aircraft had been hijacked; there may have been public death(s) on the flight; and yet, the hijackers did not appear to prevent anyone from calling out - whether on their cell phones or via the airfones.  That is what I find ODD. 

Those events combined, I think, would have placed me in an abnormal state of mind.  Perhaps even to the point of announcing my own name to my mother.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:19:54 PM

  (0+)

Have you ever been on a passenger jet before?  You believe you can see landmarks from 30,000 feet?

I believe that they did what any other pilot would do, and got within 20 miles or so of their destinations and then steered toward them without instruments, and had both eyes firmly fixed on the sides of large buildings when they prepared to meet "Allah." Has the "truth movement" now determined that runway lights are just as useless as fireproofing on steel? They weren't at 30,000 feet for the whole ride, or even for most of it, and obviously not for the last 10-20 minutes.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:03:35 PM

  (0+)

First you can spot a 3 story building from cruising altitude and then you go back and change your old profile to cover up your mistakes. WOW!! well take solice in the fact that I picked your little profile apart. Don't feel bad that I made you look like the douche that you are. You can't help. When you have your ass kicked everyday in High School like you did, the next logical move is to become a subhuman parasite that posts on all 9/11 related comment boards.  

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:44:03 PM

  (0+)

Maybe you're just confused? Maybe you're a psych-ops wannabe Tom Murphy? Maybe you're just stupid? Maybe you're worse?

But there comes a time when a line is crossed.

You see if it were just 1, 2 or even 3 inconsistencies, coincidences, oddities, and out-right lies of the events of that day, I'd be right there with you calling Truthers what you call us, but its not. There are hundreds, if not thousands of questions that need attending to, and it this shear number that exposes you.

By this you are condemned. By this you are either labeled a tool or a fool, for you can't be anything elsie.

Rodriguez arrived late to work, his testimony aligns with seismic-graph readings of an underground disturbance.

You know about seismic-graphs, don't you? I know how adverse your ilk is to science.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/craigfurlong/

Of course there is other collaborating evidence for anyone to gleam with a few taps of ones keyboard to get to the truth. You know about "truth"? I'm also aware of how your ilk avoids that too.

There is something Native American Indians do when faced with a fool, they remain silent. Their reasoning being good breath would be wasted trying to reason with a fool.

I have already wasted too much.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:04:26 PM

  (0+)

Your comments are more than welcomed.  The shills and fools try to get you down, but really they only help advertise your comments.   Now others who happen to "drop by" will get a wealth of knowledge and you might accidentally awaken others.  So you see, your efforts are not in vein.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:43:03 PM

  (0+)

Spot on you are...  and Yeh, you probably wasted too much breath.

A. Smith and T.M. are merely exhibiting the fetid fruit of their day jobs here. This is what they do for a living. I've pretty much ceased paying much attention to what they do or 'say' .... not only because so little of it makes any sense but more, because they exemplify much of what's wrong with the power structure of this hapless, disappearing Republic.

Unfortunately, when the 'bad breath' of shill-disinfo lingers, the best thing to do is to spray some Lysol about or simply leave the room. I don't believe even Listerine could  help A.S. or T.M. Maybe bleach would work. If it can kill the disease organisms designed by our germ warfare industry, maybe it could help here.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:23:56 PM

  (0+)

why don't you, Bob, and Mr. M go up to my "What a comedy of errors" post and address some of the questions I raised in it? The article we're discussing is grossly inaccurate, and the claims made in it are completely absurd. You're all wasting your breath, as the M-meister has just lamented, if you can't do anything but insult people for being rational and pointing out facts to you.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:40:05 PM

  (0+)

Very eloquent, as always, Mr M and richard, at depicting the vile "Faithers" as the fetid scum they are.  Give the rhetoric a break, kids; you sound like a couple of evil villains "monologuing" from a bad episode of Batman the TV series. 

You carelessly throw around accusations of shilling for any who "dare" take a perspective that is not sanctioned by the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Where I come from and when you attempt to malign someone by false labeling, it's called slander and libel, kids - for you are acting like children here. 

What slays me the most, though, is the pomposity that you two attempt to evoke with regard to your intellects.  You, Mr M and richard, are the wannabes when it comes to the attacks of 9/11.  You lack reputable sources to support your baseless accusations (a YouTube video from an idiot is not a reputable source); you parrot the self-proclaimed "intellects" of the Movement (e.g., the good Drs. Jones and Griffins) as if they were demi-gods; you label events as "too coincidental" yet show no statistical analyses to demonstrate the actuality of that convenience; you place all trust in the human senses (sight and sound), which quite easily are deceived multiple times daily; you selectively discard data that fails to fit your Land of Truth and False Flag Dreams; etc...

In short, you're wannabes.  When you kids grow up, you can petition the adults to take your training wheels off your bicycles.  Until then, stay in the driveway - please and for your own safety.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:51:57 PM

  (0+)

What a complete load of sh*t. I mean who would really try to pass that off as truth. If this all out campaign of deception isn't proof that Albury Smith is a spook, and a really stupid one at that, I don't what is. First of all, the flight school in Vero Beach is a well known CIA Front for Brittania Aviation. The owner Rudi Dekkers, was arrested for fraud.

Second, A commerical certificate only allows you to fly during daylight hours, and would allow you to be compensated for the following:

banner towing, agricultural applications, and photography

Beyond that, only three (3) of the 19 hijackers had commerical certification, as if that means anything. Hanjour couldn't fly a Cessna, per his Arizona flight school instructor, yet the commission says he had his commerical certification? I guess I'm stating the obvious when I say the certificates were a fraud. On flight 93 Ziad Jarrah didn't possess a commercial certificate or a mutil engine certificate.

In the end, their commerical cerification, which doesn't amout to sh*t, isn't really relevant, since there isn't one single piece of evidence that they actually boarded the flights. Their names aren't even on the flight manifests and the only video footage that was produced could have been my uncle flying to Des Moines. The video quality is absolutely laughable. So I say to Ms. Smith. Produce one piece of evidence that they actually even boarded the flights. Christ you're a stupid b#$ch!

Here's some quotes about Hanjours flight skills:

Hanjour attended CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Duncan Hastie, the owner of CRM, said Hanjour attended the school the last three months of 1996. Then Hanjour "sort of disappeared," he said, returning in December 1997.

Hastie said Hanjour wasn't much of a pilot.

"One of the first accomplishments of someone in flight school is to fly a plane without an instructor," Hastie said. "It is a confidence-building procedure. He managed to do that. That is like being able to pull a car out and drive down the street. It is not driving on the freeway."

Hastie said that three months normally would be enough to earn a private pilot's certificate, but Hanjour "did not accomplish that at my school."

The 9/11 Commission says Hanjour received his commerical, multi engine certification in December of 1999, yet they fail to say where he obtained it. In fact, of the four (4) total hijackers with any experience, the 9/11 Comedy Commission, headed by Bush's associate and Zionist a**hole Philip Zelikow,  only mentions where Atta and al Shehhi received their certificates. That sounds like a pretty thorough investigation..........

So Hanjour received his certificate, but couldn't fly per his flight school instructor, but then he majically has his commercial-multi engine certification at the end of 1999, but we don't know where from? If it sounds like they made this sh*t up as they went along, that's because they did.

Again, all totally irrelevant as there is no proof of their existence on the flights. The reason being of course, that they purchsed the tickets within 24 hours of the planes departure, so their names didn't appear. WOW!!! that is some spectacular bullshit.   

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:57:11 AM

  (0+)

are a complete waste of time.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:07:32 AM

  (0+)

and I do mean Ms., because lets face it, no one is going to marry a butch military gal like yourself.

Planes, maybe. Hijackers? absolutley no proof.

Lets see the flight manifests little lady?

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:36:41 AM

  (0+)

The four planes just crashed all by themselves. The FAA issues commercial pilot's certificates to anyone, and the people who claimed that they talked to passengers on the four planes were all part of the plot. There's just no fooling a deep thinker like you. 

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:12:38 PM

  (0+)

You mean two of the four don't you Darwin?

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:59:04 AM

  (0+)

All of the targets were large buildings?

You mean two of the four don't you Darwin?

Towers I & II, the Pentagon, and whatever Flight 93 was intended to hit were all large buildings. You may have thought there were two, but I counted four.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:25:42 AM

  (0+)

"and whatever Flight 93 was intended to hit were all large buildings."

WOW you're really retarded. The target that flight 93 intended to hit was a large building? You make me laugh little lady.

Actually, you wouldn't be able to easily identify the Pentagon from cruising altitude and D.C. itself doesn't have a lot of tall building like Houston, so i would say you're a f*cking moron. By the way, I fly at least once a week and I'm still trying to get my cell phone to connect mid flight. I must have tried over 100 times by now. It's almost as if you can't make a cell call while on a plane. Ohh well, i'll keep trying.   

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:05:08 PM

  (0+)

been able to make a call either.  Oh well...

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:26:27 PM

  (0+)

to fake phone calls to close relatives yet? Why doesn't the "truth movement" give us a demonstration of that?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:21:30 AM

  (0+)

A+B=C  Right?   

A) Guys who take flight lessons in small one engine planes “might be” called “pilots”.

B) Pilots fly planes

C) These guys are experts (better than military or commercial pilots who stated they could not execute these maneuvers),  and hit 3 of 3 targets, except for outside interference on the PA flight.    sh*t, A.S.

Convenient Assumptions Implied:   Assuming no difference between “guys who could barely fly a Cessna” and commercial pilots cleared for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and Instrument rated (IR) for flying a cross-country solely by instrumentation, AND the 1000’s of hours required for Commercial Pilot ratings, AND 1000s of hours for flying JETS and heavy-bodied aircraft which operate wholly different with regards to aeronautics, AND the exceedingly more sophisticated avionics and specific understanding required for the specific plane flown, + the FAA protocols and procedural AND military fail-safe systems to conquer and fool to pull off this escapade…WOW…and vector and target and successfully strike 3 targets (WTC 1,2, Pentagon) WITHOUT INTERCEPT OF ANY KIND – is…NOT POSSIBLE.  Addendum:  REAL pilots with Top Gun and commercial experience have stated “they could NOT execute these maneuvers”.   Of course, you can micro-examine the collosal implications of my posit, but that would be mental and take up entirely too muh time and energy.  So, why not sit in your own flambe?

A)      Fire is hot.  It burns stuff up.  It can melt stuff that has a lesser melting point than the fire itself.

B)      Kerosene and office item fires in upper floors of reinforced Steel Buildings got REALLY HOT --and simultaneously  weakened and caused to collapse ALL STRUCTURALLY SUPPORTING BEAMS AT THE SAME TIME to cause a catastrophic failure of 3 such buildings in under 2 hours burn time.  Collapsed into their footprints.  Never happened before.  Same DAY.  WTC 7 was NOT struck by a plane.  Small Fires.  Fell Down into it’s footprint.  Housed the Control Center for all Emergency Ops.  Giuliani’s special catbird seat.  Last to collapse straight down.  Pulled.  Unfortunate loss.  Big Insurance claim and payout to guy who insured against “terrorism” two weeks before.  Just lucky I guess.

1 MORE for U:

A)     I dissected a frog when I was a kid

B)      I’m a “surgeon”

C)      I’m going to remove your Gall Bladder now.  You’ll be fine.  While I’m “IN” I should fix your hernia and remove your prostate.  It’s definitely enlarged.  I don’t think you’ll need any anesthetic – you’re already THERE.

Willie?  He was there.  He "knows".  You do NOT.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:52:50 PM

  (0+)

"Willie? He was there. He 'knows'. You do NOT."

I trust you realize just who moronic this logic or reasoning is? To demonstrate, read these:

McCain? He was a POW. He "knows" the meaning of service. You do NOT.

Bush? He served in the military. He "knows" the meaning of service. You do NOT.

Palin? She is a governor. She "knows". You do NOT.

Many people throughout history have been "there"; however, that is a far, far cry from making the claim that they "know". Thank you for the flawed lesson in logic. While it seems to "work" for you, I find it... lacking for me.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:51:08 PM

  (0+)

STEPPING OUT in YOUR ARROGANT ATTIRE only diminishes yourselves to the puny fascistic organisms you portray!  YOU call THOSE WHO DEMAND THE TRUTH "kids"?!  While you petulantly insult those possessing the intelligence to question YOUR LIES?!  tm -- your beret'd picture has always reminded me of John Larroquette's immature and singularly insouciant bravado in the classic movie -- STRIPES, with Bill Murray as your foil.  Jutting out your chin like an 8yr old and calling ADULTS children is ... well, I guess it's just you soldier.  Get some help.  You and your ilk are missing the traits of empathy and civility and commonsense.  I'm sorry for your loss.  If you pay attention to the ADULTS who squish your hogwash you might see the paradigm that eludes you. Snap out of it! You are embarrassing yourself.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:17:28 PM

  (0+)

"STEPPING OUT in YOUR ARROGANT ATTIRE only diminishes yourselves to the puny fascistic organisms you portray!"

Did you folks all chip in and take a creative writing lesson recently? Where are you people coming up with these wordy descriptions?

You sound like Dr, Evil, "No Mr. Powers, I expect them to die. Even after they pay me the money I'm still going to melt every city on the planet with liquid hot magma. Release the sharks. Mr. Powers you'll notice that all the sharks have laser beams attached to their heads. I figure every creature deserves a warm meal."

"YOU call THOSE WHO DEMAND THE TRUTH 'kids'?!"

No, I call those who claim to know the truth when they are intellectually lazy by design and fault – kids (see Mr M and richard – and now, you, boomerang for ongoing examples).

"You and your ilk are missing the traits of empathy and civility and commonsense."

Really? And how do you "know", boomerang, if you have never been me?  For you see, I've been "there". You have NOT. Whatever the hell THAT meant when you said it... You're monologuing here just like like Mr M and richard. Your eyes are shut and that's all they'll ever be because your truth is the ONLY truth. Isn't it, boomerang?

"If you pay attention to the ADULTS who squish your hogwash you might see the paradigm that eludes you."

Okay. If you can explain Willie's contradicting statements in a rational manner, then I'll snap out it.  After all, your intellect should easily squish my hogwash, right?  You do claim to be an ADULT.

Why does Willie's story become more and more... embellished as time progresses? Why didn't Willie aid the Commission as he indicated he would? Why does Willie have an online 9/11 store? What does Willie charge for speaking fees? Why do you support "Roudy the Magician's Assistant" as if you've been his drinking buddy since he first started exposing faith healers? Even Wikipedia can't attest to the validity of the man's biography because it's become so fantastical - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez .

"You are embarrassing yourself."

"The rate at which a person can mature is directly proportional to the embarrassment he can tolerate," – Douglas Engelbart.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:24:04 PM

  (0+)

My dearest TM,

I don’t recall, from earlier battles, that you ever ‘won’ an argument. I recall a couple of draws. I recall reams of ad hominem from you, tediously expressed. There was never an occasion that I didn’t believe you were simply a troll. Nice hat, maybe, but not much else. I still believe, and I acknowledge it is simply a belief, that you find your sustenance through the Pentagon’s ‘Operation Information Roadmap’ gruel.

It didn’t matter whether the topic was 9/11, DU, the behavior of the ‘Empire’ or whatever. You always took the side of the hegemony. You always take the side of the Empire. (Although I am sure you wouldn’t agree with the characterization of the U.S. as an ‘Empire’ in spite of the many authors from both sides of the false right-left paradigm who do.) And it is an Empire characterized by murder, the overthrow of democratically elected leaders, Wars based on lies and false flag events, millions dead, insurrection and assassination,  death squads, dishonor, and support of corporate greed. 

Your support for the Empire puts your moral compass 180 degrees off from mine. Frankly, I’m glad I am not ‘wherever it is’ you are. 

To the ‘Batman’ Empire, you are simply a miniscule robin. An amazingly arrogant, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing fowl … but still just a robin.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:01:33 PM

  (0+)

When is one of you ultra-patriotic 9/11 "researchers" going to answer the questions I raised in my first response to the article here? Please explain these delayed-reaction "demolition explosives" that blow up the bottom of a building so that it can collapse from the top 102 or more minutes later, and that don't leave severed columns scattered throughout the debris. And why is Rodriguez the only one in the North Tower who claims that explosions were heard before the plane hit? Like the rest of your truther crap, that makes no sense at all, and anything powerful enough to have damaged basement columns which had 7" steel sections would have been heard down in Atlantic City.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Monday, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:28:25 PM

  (0+)

"anything powerful enough to have damaged basement columns which had 7" steel sections would have been heard down in Atlantic City."

I still believe that thermate with explosives would have softened steel enough to allow it to "pop" with relative ease.  Besides, if you swear by the official explanation then you can't have it both ways.  Either intense heat softens steel, or it does not.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:25:48 PM

  (0+)

I don't want it both ways. Intense heat of even 1000 F causes steel to lose roughly half of its room temperature strength, and a hydrogen bomb could have "softened steel enough to allow it to "pop" with relative ease." Does that mean that it did?

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:08:38 PM

  (0+)

"anything powerful enough to have damaged basement columns which had 7" steel sections would have been heard down in Atlantic City."

?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:19:35 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:38:02 PM

  (0+)

challenging the powers that be IS NEVER a waste.  Unchalleged authority leads to corruption.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Thursday, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM

  (0+)

...is a waste of time. Come on guys, keep in mind a troll is just another ugly fixture under a bridge. Their entire ploy is to bait you into debate. If you refuse to play their game, they'll go away eventually. Remember they are only bottom feeders, not truth seekers. Just maggots consumming decaying flesh. And that's a compliment. After all flies have only one purpose in life - laying eggs to create more maggots. I'll wager every one is either a paid shill or an absolute idiot. Maybe both. Create your own rules, don't play their game.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:52:01 AM

  (0+)

just as you suggested in your comments. You've called me a "troll," "ugly fixture under a bridge," "bottom feeder, not truth seeker," "maggot consumming [sic] decaying flesh," "paid shill," and "absolute idiot" without addressing even one of the issues raised in the article, or any of the valid criticisms of it that have been posted by Tom and me. You "don't play their game," you waste everyone's time on here and then run away, just as you do on every other 9/11 article you comment on. What's even more amusing is that most of your fellow truthers have done just about the same thing here, and one of them even complained that I was using ad hominems. You guys are priceless. 

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:43:49 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Albury Smith: I never called you any names, but obviously you must be one of the trolls to take my comments so seriously. Poor boy, did someone beat you up in the sandbox this morning at kindergarten? The problem with your logic circuits is they are shorted out. Either that, or the closest thing you have to a brain is a chip on your shoulder.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:06:20 PM

  (0+)

Whom were you referring to in your previous post? You pulled this same crap the last time we both commented on an article, and you still haven't addressed any of my criticisms of this one. Can you do anything but call names and then lie about the people you're targeting with them? 

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:39:09 PM

  (0+)

You admit you and TM are trolls. Well, ok, I agree with you. You said it, not me. It just shows your ignorance and how unwilling you are to seek truth, but deny it. I don't debate shills and trolls, because bottom feeders are only good for one thing - cleaning bottoms. Good luck with your nonsense elsewhere. I wish I could make the same money placing honest posts. How much does the RNC or the pentagon pay you? No one else would waste their time spouting such gutter logic.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:57:47 AM

  (0+)

You don't debate anyone because you're not bright enough to do anything but insult people and call them names. You've posted three times on here and have yet to address one comment I've made about the article, and your "truther" buddies haven't done much better. Get back to me when you can discuss this subject intelligently, because the name-calling and insults are just getting tiresome.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:33:54 AM

  (0+)

Poor boy, sorry your charade has become so tiresome for you. Isn't it about time for your nap? Maybe then you might have a fresh approach. You don't get it. Real people don't debate boors, they simply let them go about their business of being, well, boorish. If you were a little more open minded, debate would occur naturally. As is, it's futile to debate brick walls, or even blockheads for that matter. Maybe truth just isn't your game. I know, how about a spelling contest? Or even a tug of war - no intelligence required whatsoever. You might have a chance then. Until then, my sub cranial rectal insertion friend, enjoy your evening with your head in a place where it might be recharged with more gas for tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll light a candle and pray for your enlightenment. On the other hand, life would be quite boring without you and your admitted friend, TM. Maybe if you're as smart as you think you are, you might find other topics to voice your opines, and not on just one subject like you do. That's the sign of a true troll. At least you admit it.

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:26:15 AM

  (0+)

and still not one attempt to explain or even address the obvious fallacies I pointed out in the article, just more insults and name-calling. You need to take up a new hobby, sport.

by albury smith (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 813 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:46:02 AM

  (0+)