Some video evidences of explosives in Twin Tower collapse

From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael

You amaze me sometimes, petukhov, you post comments intended to annoy as many
people as possible "our stuff is better than your stuff" and come up with a
site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
to swallow it.

What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: "TJ"
Date: 1/10/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Michael Petukhov off his medicine wrote:


just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

Michael

Michael, you have completey lost it! You have in the last couple of weeks
provided proof that you are gullible and naive in the extreme. The
newsgroups are laughing at you! Explosives in the WTC? The same idiots who
also believe in the WTC explosives theory also believe in the 767s being
remote controlled and fitted out with underfuselage fuel pods:

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...kWTClarger.jpg

"The 2nd remotely controlled plane just before it crashes into the WTC.
Notice the odd shape under the fuselage, at the level of the wings"

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...nt_display.jpg

"Was the strange attachment on the plane actually an extra fuel tank filled
with gasoline, for creating a big fire and huge media show? Such tanks can
be seen on many army aircrafts, but have never been seen on a Boeing 767
which normally has no fittings (so called "hard points") to fix such a tank
to..."

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...ane_unders.jpg

"How come a plane could have taken off without anyone noticing the odd extra
tank? How probable is it some foreign hijackers "customized" a Boeing 767 in
this way for their purpose "

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...om_beneath.gif

"And if any doubt was left, then this angle definitely shows a tank was
fitted under the 767"

TJ

I wouldn't want to be the load master on an aircraft like that. It looks like
the "tank" is mounted only on the right side of the fuselage.

And to think all this time I tought the WTC collapses were an illusion and the
towers are still in fact there and fully occupied by the NWO, Bilderberg Group,
Illuminati.... etc.

I notice all the 9/11 citations used by petukhov seem to be in France which
also is the only place Jerry Lewis is viewed as a great actor. Coincidence?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

I notice all the 9/11 citations used by petukhov seem to be in France
which also is the only place Jerry Lewis is viewed as a great actor.
Coincidence?

One of the better-selling books (hundreds of thousands of copies) in
France (The Appalling Fraud, by Thierry Meyssan) over the last couple of
years was a fairly evil conspiracy piece which claimed that the whole
9/11 event was an American plot to make Muslims look bad.

Then, of course, there was a nasty little fiction book called "Windows
on the World" by an asshole named Frederic Beigbeder which appeared to
have been written merely to slander the folks killed in the atacks.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael

You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,

Glade to hear.

you post comments intended to annoy as many
people as possible

If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.

"our stuff is better than your stuff"

Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
better than yours. Does it annoy you?

and come up with a
site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
to swallow it.

I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
care about anyones opinions on my personal account.


What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).


All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?


Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.

Michael

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

This man is seriously demented, please don't encourage by responding
to hiis posts anymore.


On 11 Jan 2004 01:02:58 -0800, (Michael
Petukhov) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael

You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,

Glade to hear.

you post comments intended to annoy as many
people as possible

If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.

"our stuff is better than your stuff"

Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
better than yours. Does it annoy you?

and come up with a
site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
to swallow it.

I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
care about anyones opinions on my personal account.


What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).


All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?


Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.

Michael

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"tim gueguen" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
kirill wrote:

The video evidence speaks for itself. All
that absurdly improbable
symmetry in the collapse. Also the complete
absence of any support
for the pancake collapse theory.

This whole "explosives took the building down"
theory is interesting in
a psychotic fashion.

So... the US government used planes (either
remote-controlled or stolen
and piloted by suicidal CIA types), crashed
them into some buildings,
and *then*, after some time, set off some
explosives in several places
in order to knock the buildings down and blame
it on Al-Qaeda... instead
of taking the much easier tack of just putting
explosives into the
buildings and setting them off, while blaming
it on Al-Qaeda, which had
tried it before.

Its amazing how many conspiracy theories are
like that, requiring the
supposed perpetrators to concoct ridiculously
elaborate schemes when much
more simple ones would lead to the same results.

tim gueguen 101867


That's the nature of conpspracy theorists: the more complicated the conspiracy,
the more likely no one will believe them. The simple explanations don't make
sense to such people: Not with JFK's assassination, nor with Princess Di's
death, not with 9-11, and the Mars rover (already the "it's a hoax" crowd
is springing up, like with Pathfinder in '97).

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"TJ" wrote:

Michael Petukhov off his medicine wrote:


just to have a break in hot and very productive
discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

Michael

Michael, you have completey lost it! You have
in the last couple of weeks
provided proof that you are gullible and naive
in the extreme. The
newsgroups are laughing at you! Explosives in
the WTC? The same idiots who
also believe in the WTC explosives theory also
believe in the 767s being
remote controlled and fitted out with underfuselage
fuel pods:

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...kWTClarger.jpg

"The 2nd remotely controlled plane just before
it crashes into the WTC.
Notice the odd shape under the fuselage, at
the level of the wings"

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...nt_display.jpg

"Was the strange attachment on the plane actually
an extra fuel tank filled
with gasoline, for creating a big fire and huge
media show? Such tanks can
be seen on many army aircrafts, but have never
been seen on a Boeing 767
which normally has no fittings (so called "hard
points") to fix such a tank
to..."

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...ane_unders.jpg

"How come a plane could have taken off without
anyone noticing the odd extra
tank? How probable is it some foreign hijackers
"customized" a Boeing 767 in
this way for their purpose "

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.f...om_beneath.gif

"And if any doubt was left, then this angle
definitely shows a tank was
fitted under the 767"

TJ



Anyone notice that these sites are all from France? Where some diphead
wrote a book claiming that 9-11 was a Pentagon/CIA plot? He ought to come
over here and meet with families of victims and some of those who survived
the Pentagon and WTC. Assuming that he doesn't get lynched in the process
of making his asinine case....

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

fudog50 wrote in message . ..
This man is seriously demented, please don't encourage by responding
to hiis posts anymore.

Scared? Good.

Michael


On 11 Jan 2004 01:02:58 -0800, (Michael
Petukhov) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: (Michael Petukhov)
Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael

You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,

Glade to hear.

you post comments intended to annoy as many
people as possible

If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.

"our stuff is better than your stuff"

Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
better than yours. Does it annoy you?

and come up with a
site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
to swallow it.

I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
care about anyones opinions on my personal account.


What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).


All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?


Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.

Michael

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill wrote:



Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and oxygen.

Sure. The jet fuel just flowed down to the right floor and then exploded. LOL.

These folks really need to learn how those building were built before
they start coming up with these dumb theories.

The video evidence speaks for itself. All that absurdly improbable symmetry
in the collapse. Also the complete absence of any support for the pancake collapse
theory.


Michael Petukhov wrote:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael


To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of the towers
the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable, given the damage
they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories are simply ridiculous.

Al Minyard

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Mark and Kim Smith wrote in
:

Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
were built before they start coming up with these dumb theories.

Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
when the airplane impacted?


Regards...



No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Al Minyard