ALUMINUM HAT-4/3/07
there seem to be a lot of brain-damaged individuals out there. and any effort to reveal some of the realities of the events of 11/09/01 seems to summon them.
AL COA is one. when he first erupted, i was supposed to be the wearer of the aluminum foil. but, i think, as COA has continued to erupt, that he has revealed his hattery.
let us consider mr aluminum, for a moment.
1. observe the aerial photos of WTC 6. DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE CRATERS WERE CAUSED BY THE NORTH TOWER DEBRIS? if you do, you are as much as a fruitcake as mr aluminum.
more to the point, those craters were created before the fall of the south tower, the furthest away from WTC 6.
2. i hear some say that there would have been no way for explosives to have been installed. huh? hello....
WTC 6 was exclusively a usg-tenanted building. much like the murrah building, a major tenant was the ATF.
3. and how about fixing explosives in the towers and WTC 7? how could that have been accomplished.
some say that it would have been impossible because of the 24/7 access to the buildings. but that wasn't always the case. in fact, several days prior to 11/09/01 the buildings were closed, for a weekend, upon little or no notice. ostensibly for the installation of communication wiring. hmmmmm. could it have been detonation wiring, instead?
4. many who poohpooh the possibility of shaped charges being installed, assert that no group of demolition techs could have had access to a public building. hmmm
let's think about that for a moment.
how many floors of the towers were vacant? 20? 40? suffice it to say, the towers were not 100% occupied. on those empty floors, could shaped charges be fitted? you bet.
5. how could the buildings be accessed? the most interesting method would be for demolition experts to access the buildings as moving crews. moving crews have access to the entirety of most office buildings. they can park their vans outside on the street. security gives them unlimited access. they might even be given exclusive access to an elevator.
let us not forget, now, that the israeli intell services were operating in the usa at this time under the cover of a "moving" company.
6. but, you could also access the entirety of the buildings with "credentials". con-ed, etc et alia. wear the right coveralls, have the right forged id's and you could go anywhere throughout the buildings.
7. and then there is the issue of the entity that controlled security for those buildings.
my recollection is that it was a company controlled by the resident's brother, marvin bush, and his cousin, will walker. securacom?
do you think it a matter of serendipity that this same company was responsible for concourse security at boston's logan airport, and dc's dulles international? the sites from which the purportedly "striking" airliners launched?
8. under statute, as soon as the the north tower was the victim of an airliner strike, the entirety of the wtc complex would have been a de jure crime scene. everyone would have been escorted out of that tower immediately. that didn't happen. why? upon whose order was that regulation erased?
9. the same strictures applied to all the other "collision with terrain" sites.
who suspended those rules?
the potus. or was it the vpotus?
10. by the way, had those rules been adhered to, the loss of life in the towers would have been significantly mitigated.
11. the fires were very low intensity[less than 650°F] and of short duration. completely unable to soften or melt structural steel.
12. an issue that goes undiscussed is the requirement for symmetricity if the towers and wtc 7 are to collapse as they did. what this means is that every bit of the structure had to fail simultaneously. not only couldn't happen. didn't happen. could never happen. unless there was a programmed demolition.
13. how has the media obfuscated engineering realities? exhaustively. NPR, THE HISTORY CHANNEL both produced shows[that they have not amended - and this is interesting since NIST HAS REPUDIATED THEIR STORY] that propounded the 'PANCAKE" theory of structural failure.
of even greater interest was the BBC broadcast on this subject of last week. despite the NIST repudiation of this scenario in 2005, the BBC asserted this methodology of the towers' collapse. hello.....
what is the reason that the BEEB continues to float a fiction?
14. now the NIST study has to be understood. explosive demolition was excluded from the investigation.
that is why the NIST conclusions as to the towers' collapse don't add up. without explosives, there isn't enough energy for the take-down.
and WTC 7 is so contradictory to the desired conventional reality, that NIST avoided it...NIST said that this building collapse was so anomalous that it had to be subjected to further study. STUDY THAT WILL NOT BE OCCURRING!
15. and to the best of my recollection, NIST didn't even consider the explosive blow-out of WTC 6. hmmmmm.
16. when i investigated the shoot-down of AS 261, what intrigued me the most was the destruction of the most probative evidence, the controller tapes. neither the NTSB, nor any plaintiff attorney, subpoened them within the 14 day statutory interval. hmmmmm.
it is my understanding that the fbi seized all controller tapes within hours of the 11/09/01 events. and that they have never been heard. t or f?
17. passenger manifests. no al-fresco's appear on those records. passenger manifests are the gold standard of accounting, by the way.
18. proofs of hijackings are predicated upon cellphone communications. a grotesque mistake. cellphone communications could not have occurred then. can't happen now.
i could say so much more. but i shall just close this way...there have been many discussions of FAITH recently. even at many irreligious blogs.but the most extraordinary illustration of FAITH is the individual who believes the bushit lies about 11/09/01.
that individual is a true believer in bullshit.
AL COA is one. when he first erupted, i was supposed to be the wearer of the aluminum foil. but, i think, as COA has continued to erupt, that he has revealed his hattery.
let us consider mr aluminum, for a moment.
1. observe the aerial photos of WTC 6. DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE CRATERS WERE CAUSED BY THE NORTH TOWER DEBRIS? if you do, you are as much as a fruitcake as mr aluminum.
more to the point, those craters were created before the fall of the south tower, the furthest away from WTC 6.
2. i hear some say that there would have been no way for explosives to have been installed. huh? hello....
WTC 6 was exclusively a usg-tenanted building. much like the murrah building, a major tenant was the ATF.
3. and how about fixing explosives in the towers and WTC 7? how could that have been accomplished.
some say that it would have been impossible because of the 24/7 access to the buildings. but that wasn't always the case. in fact, several days prior to 11/09/01 the buildings were closed, for a weekend, upon little or no notice. ostensibly for the installation of communication wiring. hmmmmm. could it have been detonation wiring, instead?
4. many who poohpooh the possibility of shaped charges being installed, assert that no group of demolition techs could have had access to a public building. hmmm
let's think about that for a moment.
how many floors of the towers were vacant? 20? 40? suffice it to say, the towers were not 100% occupied. on those empty floors, could shaped charges be fitted? you bet.
5. how could the buildings be accessed? the most interesting method would be for demolition experts to access the buildings as moving crews. moving crews have access to the entirety of most office buildings. they can park their vans outside on the street. security gives them unlimited access. they might even be given exclusive access to an elevator.
let us not forget, now, that the israeli intell services were operating in the usa at this time under the cover of a "moving" company.
6. but, you could also access the entirety of the buildings with "credentials". con-ed, etc et alia. wear the right coveralls, have the right forged id's and you could go anywhere throughout the buildings.
7. and then there is the issue of the entity that controlled security for those buildings.
my recollection is that it was a company controlled by the resident's brother, marvin bush, and his cousin, will walker. securacom?
do you think it a matter of serendipity that this same company was responsible for concourse security at boston's logan airport, and dc's dulles international? the sites from which the purportedly "striking" airliners launched?
8. under statute, as soon as the the north tower was the victim of an airliner strike, the entirety of the wtc complex would have been a de jure crime scene. everyone would have been escorted out of that tower immediately. that didn't happen. why? upon whose order was that regulation erased?
9. the same strictures applied to all the other "collision with terrain" sites.
who suspended those rules?
the potus. or was it the vpotus?
10. by the way, had those rules been adhered to, the loss of life in the towers would have been significantly mitigated.
11. the fires were very low intensity[less than 650°F] and of short duration. completely unable to soften or melt structural steel.
12. an issue that goes undiscussed is the requirement for symmetricity if the towers and wtc 7 are to collapse as they did. what this means is that every bit of the structure had to fail simultaneously. not only couldn't happen. didn't happen. could never happen. unless there was a programmed demolition.
13. how has the media obfuscated engineering realities? exhaustively. NPR, THE HISTORY CHANNEL both produced shows[that they have not amended - and this is interesting since NIST HAS REPUDIATED THEIR STORY] that propounded the 'PANCAKE" theory of structural failure.
of even greater interest was the BBC broadcast on this subject of last week. despite the NIST repudiation of this scenario in 2005, the BBC asserted this methodology of the towers' collapse. hello.....
what is the reason that the BEEB continues to float a fiction?
14. now the NIST study has to be understood. explosive demolition was excluded from the investigation.
that is why the NIST conclusions as to the towers' collapse don't add up. without explosives, there isn't enough energy for the take-down.
and WTC 7 is so contradictory to the desired conventional reality, that NIST avoided it...NIST said that this building collapse was so anomalous that it had to be subjected to further study. STUDY THAT WILL NOT BE OCCURRING!
15. and to the best of my recollection, NIST didn't even consider the explosive blow-out of WTC 6. hmmmmm.
16. when i investigated the shoot-down of AS 261, what intrigued me the most was the destruction of the most probative evidence, the controller tapes. neither the NTSB, nor any plaintiff attorney, subpoened them within the 14 day statutory interval. hmmmmm.
it is my understanding that the fbi seized all controller tapes within hours of the 11/09/01 events. and that they have never been heard. t or f?
17. passenger manifests. no al-fresco's appear on those records. passenger manifests are the gold standard of accounting, by the way.
18. proofs of hijackings are predicated upon cellphone communications. a grotesque mistake. cellphone communications could not have occurred then. can't happen now.
i could say so much more. but i shall just close this way...there have been many discussions of FAITH recently. even at many irreligious blogs.but the most extraordinary illustration of FAITH is the individual who believes the bushit lies about 11/09/01.
that individual is a true believer in bullshit.
posted by albertchampion at 11:32 PM
13 Comments:
17. passenger manifests. no al-fresco's appear on those records. passenger manifests are the gold standard of accounting, by the way.
Not true.
Yet another piece of half truth and misinformation that people such as yourself use to justify your continued obsession.
I'm done here. You're beyond hope.
al coa is the deceiver here.
let us consider how the purchase of an airline ticket is handled.
as soon as you purchase one, you are on the manifest for the flight that you have selected.
unless you cancel that ticket, you will be on the passenger manifest.
so, mr coa, would have you believe that this system did not work on 11/09/01.
that the purported perps boarded the planes, but that there was no manifest entry identifying them.
please, mr coa. you are the man in the tinfoil hat.
you have to ask, has mr coa ever flown?
i don't think so.
you cannot get on an airliner without a ticket[boarding pass].
and you cannot stay on board unless your name corresponds to a name on the passenger manifest. and this is really the case in the first class cabin.
i think coa has never traveled.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May points out:
"On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to travel. A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil government. Years ago, the United States government took the first step toward a national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all passengers present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane.
"This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in routine together. Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card." .. And, you guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest held by the airline ground staff!
so, mr coa, would have you believe that this system did not work on 11/09/01.
Again, you are operating on a false assumption. The hijackers names DID appear on the flight manifests.
The rest of your comment is worthless chatter. More obfuscation.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks.
Again, a flawed argument. And more worthless chatter.
For some time i actually thought you were a rather intelligent person. But the content of your attempts to justify your belief in a government conspiracy involving 911 has disabused me of that notion.
I pity you.
For chrissake, all you had to do was see the live coverage to know that the buildings were demolished.
Why?
Because it fit your layman's preconceived notion of what a demolition should look like? Regardless of the fact that it didn't look like a typical building demolition?
I watched it with my own eyes. It didn't look like a demolition to me. It looked like a building collapsing.
What made you think it was a demolition based just on one realtime viewing?
18. proofs of hijackings are predicated upon cellphone communications.
Another false statement. The planes deviated from their flight paths and flew into buildings. Do you propose that the flight crews were responsible for this? Or were the controls taken over remotely by ‘the government’ and flown via remote control into the buildings? Do you suppose all the relatives of passengers who received these calls are lying? Or did they receive calls from people pretending to be their relatives thereby increasing the scope of people required to be 'in on' the conspiracy even further?
cellphone communications could not have occurred then. can't happen now.
Ever hear of Airphones? Ya know, those phones that are in the backs of many airliner seats. You use a credit card to make call. And they do function while inflight. Many of the calls were made using Airphones.
But regardless, there are sources that claim it is, and was, possible to use cell phones from commercial airliners flying at altitude.
and WTC 7 is so contradictory to the desired conventional reality, that NIST avoided it...
False. They chose to complete their inquiry into the collapse of towers 1 and 2 first.
NIST said that this building collapse was so anomalous that it had to be subjected to further study.
That's correct. It was not hit by a plane. There were no clear indications of the extent of what damage occured as a result of the collapse of towers 1 and 2. It seems rather obvious that one would want to consider it as a seperate issue.
STUDY THAT WILL NOT BE OCCURRING!
False. They have already produced a working hypothesis regarding the collapse. It's available from the NIST website. In December of 2006 a representative from the NIST presented an update on the progress of the investigation including a breakdown of their methodology. It turns out the NIST intends to include an investigation of hypothetical detonation events as a possible cause of the collapse. They are doing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of it having occured. Apparently, they intend to determine whether such an explosive demolition could have taken place without the overpressure from the explosives blowing out most of the windows in the building. Seems fair enough.
NIST has said that they anticipate having a draft of their conclusions regarding the collapse of WTC7 available in spring of 2007.
13. how has the media obfuscated engineering realities? exhaustively. NPR, THE HISTORY CHANNEL both produced shows[that they have not amended - and this is interesting since NIST HAS REPUDIATED THEIR STORY] that propounded the 'PANCAKE" theory of structural failure.
of even greater interest was the BBC broadcast on this subject of last week. despite the NIST repudiation of this scenario in 2005, the BBC asserted this methodology of the towers' collapse. hello.....
Wow! Media inaccuracy! Who'd imagine?
And yet so many of the asertions of 911 demolition adherents such as yourselves rely on accounts as reported in that very same inaccurate media.
Another example of you wanting to have it both ways.
12. an issue that goes undiscussed is the requirement for symmetricity if the towers and wtc 7 are to collapse as they did. what this means is that every bit of the structure had to fail simultaneously.
not only couldn't happen.
COULDN”T happen you say.
didn't happen.
So you’re saying it DIDN’T HAPPEN. Right? 'Symmetricity' DIDN'T HAPPEN.
could never happen. unless there was a programmed demolition.
So let me get this right. In order for the towers to collapse AS THEY DID there would have to be ‘symmetricity’. But unless there was a programmed demolition ‘symmetricity’ could NEVER happen. Ok? You maintain that ‘symmetricity’ DIDN”T HAPPEN. Yet the towers did collapse AS THEY DID. Right? We all saw them collapse AS THEY DID. So it would seem that since programmed demolition is a requirement for ‘symmetricity’ of collapse BUT ‘symmetricity’ DIDN'T HAPPEN the towers could indeed have collapsed AS THEY DID without ‘symmetricity’. Thereby ruling out the requirement of programmed demolition for the towers to collapse AS THEY DID.
8. under statute, as soon as the the north tower was the victim of an airliner strike, the entirety of the wtc complex would have been a de jure crime scene. everyone would have been escorted out of that tower immediately. that didn't happen. why? upon whose order was that regulation erased?
Could you cite the statute for me?
do you think it a matter of serendipity that this same company was responsible for concourse security at boston's logan airport, and dc's dulles international? the sites from which the purportedly "striking" airliners launched?
Well, did the 'purportedly "striking" airliners' strike the buildings or not? You seem scepticle. If airliners did not really strike the buildings, as is 'purported' then whoever 'controlled the company' responsible for airport security at those two airports doesn't really matter. Does it? If there were no hijackers who breached security, as you've maintained elsewhere, then who cares who 'controlled the company' responsible for concourse security?
A little advise. You need to pick a scenerio and stick to it. Your shit is all over the place.
Some one seems to have a real interest in squelching your 9-11 questions, ac.
Tin Man, it's a wrap. You get paid for hammering the Party foil?
Some one seems to have a real interest in squelching your 9-11 questions, ac.
Gaaaawd you people are so predictible!
If I wanted to 'squelch' his questions I'd just use my connections to the nefrarious government to shut down his blog. No?
Tin Man, it's a wrap.
Apparently, since no one here seems capable of responding with an actual attempt to engage the issues.
You get paid for hammering the Party foil?
Because, of course, anyone who doesn't buy wholly unsubstantiated theories about how the government blew up the WTC must be on the government payroll.
Could you at least make an attempt to post a comment that responded to my critiques of Albert's post? Just once?
Post a Comment
<< Home