Tuesday, May 29, 2007

UA 175 wtc impact mystery (or bumsteer?)

UA 175 wtc impact mystery (or bumsteer?)

[Image]

1. Video clip shows alleged U.A. Flight 175 (Boeing 767) entering the building.

2. Clip shows plane proceeding to enter building, however the left horizontal stabilizer seems to be missing (yellow arrow).

3. Clip shows where right engine entered building (orange arrow) and the right wing tip still sticking out (green arrow). Building between right engine and wing tip looks undamaged (yellow arrow).

4. Clip seems to show no entry point or damage to the building where the right wing was seen going through (yellow arrow).

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294...

COMMENTS:

While it seems highly

While it seems highly unlikely that there wasn't a plane... there is of course no way it just disappeared into the WTC towers... odd.

Thanks for reposting this

I forgot I had this posted up at LF!

You'll notice how much I got attacked for posting that from fellow "truthers".

And notice only 5 people have rated this blogpost with the score of only 4.8 at the time of this reply, yet only one person has commented and they even it admit it's "odd".

[dz - (modified comment) reason: please do not make negative comments against those of a different opinion, it only serves to start arguments instead of rational discussion]
[dz - (deleted comments) reason: deleted 4 responses to initial 'attack' comment]

ill try to explain the

ill try to explain the perspective of those against this position as best i can since i think i understand where they come from..

i think these types of topics are largely disagreed with by others in the community because of the level of speculation which is involved. a good example might be the 'magic bullet'. the 'magic bullet' from the jfk assasination is the only thing which the majority of americans know regarding jfk's assasination, and both those that disagree and those that agree with the official story base their opinion largely on the 'magic bullet' because it is largely open to speculation, perception, and pre-determined and desired perception.. meanwhile all the hard facts which have very limited ranges of perception are completely ignored and covered up..

another issue for many is that we can all speculate on what we think, but the time for focusing on speculation instead of activism is past. a majority of the community would rather focus on that which is less based on speculation, and more based on tracable/provable information.

when you show a person an image, or a video, then they have to perceive what it is that they are seeing, and will largely see that which goes along with their already existing perceptions.

from my personal perspective these subjects which focus on video analysis could possibly strengthen if the original interlaced source tapes were what is used in these arguements, because so long as there is compression and resizing (especialy on a fast moving object) then most would expect there to be some sort of anomalies and distortion.

i think those that are questioned most in the movement however are those that insist on only focusing on that which is largely open to perception, even so far as to be intentionally divisive over these largely speculative subjects.

with that said, i personally couldn't care less what anyone thinks, i dont think any of us agree on everything, and i am much more interested in accountability than determining whose version of 'truth' is correct.

on a side note, i would like to point out that to many this subject is very similar in nature to the 'pod' theory, which still garners much more support than most might think, and which is again a largely speculative arguement. seeing as how the community as a hole has been burned in the past on the pod theory, there is probably an overall desire to stay away from anything which invovles analyzing grainy footage and using that as the 'smoking gun', which it wont be viewed as to the average citizen - because it is open to personal perception.

as for these photos, do they look odd? sure, but i would expect them to given the overall crappy quality of what is being analyzed.

My "negative comment" was not intended

I admit I didn't write my comments as well as I should of, but my comment wasn't meant as an insult to those who believe 767's hit the towers, it was meant to show that even when the evidence is in front of one's face, it doesn't mean that person will automatically realize it especially if they've been conditioned (ie brainwashed) with the wrong story before that.

My saying even truthers can be brainwashed was in regards to ME! I used to think Flight 93 still caused that hole in Shanksville after being shot down even though all the crash scene photos showing no plane were starring me in the face. I was brainwashed.

I used to believe 767 drones hit the towers even after first realizing that some of the WTC videos were fake and that planes can't disappear into buildings like that. I was brainwashed.

So again, when saying truthers can even be brainwashed, I know that first hand because I was brainwashed and if I, a truther, can be brainwashed, then it shouldn't be too hard to believe other truthers may be brainwashed also.

So sorry if it came out wrong and I'm not saying that anyone who still believes 767's hit the towers is necessarilly brainwashed, but the fact of the matter is that MAY be a reason why they still believe 767's hit there because that is what happened to me, I was brainwashed into believing 767's hit there along with a 757 causing the hole in Shanksville.

Hope all that made sense.

i find even this comment to

i find even this comment to still be insulting. your entire comment here is based on the perspective that your opinions are correct, and that others who disagree with you are probably brainwashed (or at least could be).

example:
"when the evidence is in front of one's face"

those not of your perspective do not find your 'evidence' to be conclusive, or it to even be convincing, which is why they disagree with you.

your point that people may have their position from being 'brainwashed' is an insult, especially given that from their perspective you being 'brainwashed' may be a possibility as well.

if you want to have a debate on 'facts' then any type of allusion to others being 'brainwashed' does nothing to facilitate that, but instead encourages massive flame wars, which you gladly jumped into after the response to your initial generalization against those that disagree with you.

i dont want to moderate this crap, so it would really be appreciated if you could do your best to at least not provoke others to respond, most people who disagree on these subjects are happy just to avoid the entry altogether, and that is their right.

I don't think you understand my point

do you not doubt that sometimes when people are shown evidence that they might not except it because they've been brainwashed with the wrong evidence before?

I was trying to say this in a general sense, but apparantely it was taken waaaaaaaaay out of context.

i understand the point you

i understand the point you make here, but that is not the same as what you initially posted whereby your specific example of brainwashing was those of the opposite opinion, which is why it was interpreted as an insult by those with that opinion.

anyways....

Yes and I apologized for writing it that way

sometimes people write things hastily of forums without checking it first. No one's perfect.

ROTFL

When are you people going to stop this BS?

This series of low res video clips shows absolutely NOTHING of value except that all you no planners are reaching deeper than Dubya.
Enough of this manure.

The left horizontal tail wing is there just no light shining on it.
How ignorant can you people get?

Dz,

"...think these types of topics are largely disagreed with by others in the community because of the level of speculation which is involved..."

Dz,
with all respect, but this is a cop-out argument.

You overstep the status of a moderator, which is your right as an owner of this forum, but here is where you opinionizing instead of moderating but your argument becomes even irrational and illogical.

Most of the 9/11 truth movement's biggest smoking guns are based on visual evidence: Pentagon, Controlled Demolition, Shanksville.

"...desire to stay away from anything which invovles analyzing grainy footage ..."
I wonder what pentagon and shanksville visual researchers have to say on that point.

What does look "odd" or not, is not the focus of our hypothesis. It's about discrepancies and illogical contradictions within live- and non-live footage and vice versa.

You also constantly refer to photos, while the 9/11 TV Fakery research is based on *videos*.

I also don't get where you have the notion, that the pod research has in any form anything to do with what TV fakery research does?

The pod people glorified cartoons, *we* opposed them.
The pod people support the official version, we don't.
The pod people do not back up any alleged evidence on remote controlled planes, *WE* back up evidence on doctored footage.

You also censored my appropriate comment on why planehuggers constantly attack us first and i cited the rules.

You wrote the other day a blog, which was obviously a result of 911blogger members begging you to either censor or ban TV fakery research supporters.

So why don't you moderate insults only, instead of pretending loyality to your own rules, where you constantly side with the planehuggers. Or better, it makes actually sense, if you express that in an own internal blog (for sure minus personal attacks, as properly laid out in your rules)

I'm personally only still here because you didn't appear to be a censorship admin.

Moderate the real trolls, who have nothing in their argument, but abuse or aggressive hostility.

Nothing was debunked of our findings so far. The evidence is solid and where the investigation on forensics begins, i personally fade out anyway.

The conclusion on that matter is still:
Nothing + x hit the South Tower.

Noone can prove the opposite.
And we can prove that TV Fakery took place.

And that's the current conclusion, nothing less, nothing more.

lol

Yes your research is based on low-res(distorted) videos from youtube.com. WTG !!!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

And talk about insults

"Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!"

How childish.

is it ? Its truth.

You hurt my feelings :D
Don´t try to judge me.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

You overstep the status of a

You overstep the status of a moderator, which is your right as an owner of this forum, but here is where you opinionizing instead of moderating but argument becomes even irrational and illogical.

my post tried to explain what i perceive as the general perception of those who disagree with you, whether or not you find those perceptions irrational is of course up to you, i was merely trying to explain why posts like this receive little response, and receive negative ratings, which is what killtown was asking about.

I also don't get where you have the notion, that the pod research has in any form anything to do with what TV fakery research does?

The pod people glorified cartoons, *we* opposed them.
The pod people support the official version, we don't.
The pod people do not back up any alleged evidence on remote controlled planes, *WE* back up evidence on doctored footage.

obviously the two theories are completely different in what they argue, but from my perspective they seem quite similar in that they are largely based on speculation of video evidence. i didnt say they argued the same thing, i said they were both largely based on speculation and perception of video evidence.

You also censored my appropriate comment on why planehuggers constantly attack us first and i cited the rules.
labelling an entire group of people under one derogatory term can quite easily be interpreted as an attack in and of itself. i would suggest you avoid calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'planehugger' if you desire to have any sort of rational discussion.

You wrote the other day a blog, which was obviously a result of 911blogger members begging you to either censor or ban TV fakery research supporters.
actually it was't, it was actually partially in response to a user complaining that we dont allow discussions such as this to be rational, and instead allow them to turn into flamewars which removes the ability for the subject to be discussed. that entry was also partially in response to another user who was abusing the blog system by posting a blog entry that would contain nothing but a link, as well as other general thoughts on the usage of blog entries and comments.

So why don't you moderate insults only, instead of pretending loyality to your own rules, where you constantly side with the planehuggers. Or better, it makes actually sense, if you express that in an own internal blog (for sure minus personal attacks, as properly laid out in your rules)
i did moderate the insults. youll notice those responses are gone. as for siding with the 'planehuggers', this is purely your perception, i could pull up angry comments and emails from both sides convinced that i am siding with the opposite side.

Noone can prove the opposite.
And we can prove that TV Fakery took place.

And that's the current conclusion, nothing less, nothing more.
if you have conclusively proven your case, then why not just post what you consider your conclusive proof in a well organized fashion and move on? what is the point in debating with someone who is already convinced that they are 100% right, just like those with whom you are so quickly to judge and label as 'planehuggers'?

im trying to facilitate you being able to have a rational discussion here, i hope you will make use of that instead of focusing entirely on me.

"...from my perspective they

"...from my perspective they seem quite similar in that they are largely based on speculation of video evidence.."

"Speculation" is an assertion from you, which isn't backed up by anything. What's the point?

In that context, also the first evidence of Controlled Demolition during 2002 was based on video evidence.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.

"..If you have conclusively proven your case, then why not just post what you consider your conclusive proof in a well organized fashion and move on? ..."

The conclusive proof was presented here several times but wasn't confronted at all. What happens now, is just the result on fruit-loop attacks.
Apparently some 911blogger members, supportive of 9/11 TV fakery research are presenting some details again to make their points.

These points are getting confronted with insults.

"...what is the point in debating with someone who is already convinced that they are 100% right, just like those with whom you are so quickly to judge and label as 'planehuggers'?..."

I'm not here to debate with anyone. We're constantly in the defensive and when we finally fight back, that's what the critics turn against us.

Planehuggers is an appropriate label.
We never called ourselves "no-planers" either.

If they reject finally these labels, i reject mine.

one more point.. whenever i

one more point..

whenever i try to discuss this subject with either those who support it, or those who disagree with it, i always put myself in the position of those which the person opposes so that i can try to explain their position better.

at this point i bet half of those i talk to think i believe one side, and the other half think i believe the other side, in reality i dont see what anyones personal opinions really matter, i would think looking at things objectively from both sides would be the only way to have any sort of rational discussion.

simple statements like 'noone can prove the opposite' are not statements of objectivity, but statements of absolution whereby any discussion is pointless, which is why most will no longer get involved in these discussions.

I beg you to start

I beg you to start moderating the real insults, that's how a political correct moderator earns respect and you still have mine.

Explaining a conflict by explaining an asserted view of the opponents is siding with the anti-issue and doesn't minimize trolls.

It is also distractive.
The title of this blog wasn't
"Why 9/11 TV Fakery is popular "or
Why 9/11 TV Fakery is not popular"

Therefore a moderator, if he wants to opinionize, should either also focus on the related topic of the header, or just focus on moderating hostile insults.

i dont follow you here, i

i dont follow you here, i did moderate the insults in this thread did i not? are you suggesting i moderated opinion and not insults?

your posts were specifically removed because they were in response to the higher level node which contained the insult.. therefore when the higher level response is removed, so is your response to it. your 2nd comment which was removed in response to another user as well. but i will note that in that comment you called out other users of the site who hadn't even said anything in this thread, who would of course then feel it necessary to respond to the attacks themselves.

anyways, i am trying to help here, and i would appreciate everyone avoiding any intentionally divisive names, labels, or insults.

As far as i recall i didn't

As far as i recall i didn't use the word "Planehugger" in my first (censored) response, where i pointed out that it's always DemBruce, Stallion + Co., who are overstepping the rules by insulting us first.
It was also a symbolically call for the moderator.

In case, if i used that word, i see also a double standard on your side.

If "Planehugger" is indeed an *insulting" label for you, which i don't think so it is, why do you allow "NoPlaners", which could be understood as an insulting label as well?

your first response did use

your first response did use the term 'planehugger':
Again we see that 'planehuggers' are always the first who violate the rules of this forum and support hostility, while we try to do our work.

and your comment is indeed valid (asside from the name calling), although almost everyone here is guilty of participating in these types of negative responses.

and yes, i would consider both 'planehugger' and 'noplaners' to be somewhat derogatory, unfortunately they have become pretty common labels, and i wont be deleting comments just for the use of them, i was just pointing out how they were intentionally divisive. again, the comment was removed as it was in response to another comment which was removed.

It was also a symbolically call for the moderator.
please contact me directly instead of responding back when possible, although i do understand why you would respond to a personal attack, just like i hope you understand why your naming of other users would in turn make them feel the need to respond to your calling them out.. its a never ending cycle.

btw, on this list you provide labels for pretty much anyone and everyone in the 9/11 community, but i see no label under which people of your position fall under. i would think 'no-planer' is at least a bit more reasonable than your labels of 'planehuggers' and 'truthlings', wouldn't you think?

Dz,

Dz,

this is hopefully my last off-topic statement on a blog, which obviously started as research topic and not as a political debate or an analysis of the reflection of this research topic itself.

These off-topic distractions are getting constantly triggered by those, who are opposing the issue with personal attacks, while we just wanna do our work and focus on it.

Whether they itself got triggered by meaningless labels is on another page.

Skipping these labels aside, where i agree that they're not backing up any evidence, we're having here an apparent notion, which is also not backed up by anything:

The findings of 9/11 TV Fakery are not in any form divisive, which is just based on another assertion, but have their value to make a political point:

Generally Mainstream Media and also Alternative Media *HAS* and still does produce doctored footage, fabricated news and is mashing up reality with fake reality, with "reality tv" and their staged elements including actors and scripts as the most common form of deceptive reality, occasionally also called "augmented reality" (not in the context of using virtual reality, which is the technical brother of this definition).

We're therefore making a valuable case, which does break apart the official story completely and point on the complicity of mainstream media.

9/11 TV Fakery researchers, though i cannot speak for everyone ,are not in the way of any organized activism of the 9/11 truth movement.

Closing into the 4th week after the anniversary (protests) however it also reflects the current political struggle of this movement itself:

1) MSM is and never was on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement and furthermore radically cut the pipe on this movement since the anniversary , including on the protests itself.

2) MSM was therefore, as also predicted by the progressive fringe of this movement, playing this movement and not helpful at all.

3) 9/11 TV Fakery research does therefore, as the fringe it is anyway, not damage at all the movement, if the movement itself is already rejected or belittled by mainstream media.

4) The 9/11 Truth Movement still isn't popular within alleged oppositions against this government, this movement desperately still try to reach:

left-liberal media
anti-war movement
democratic party
etc...

As a matter of fact, after 5 years research and activism, today should prove again, how much this movement is rejected and degraded by the anti-war movement.

After negotiations for almost 1 year, "World can't wait" rejected an appropriate speech for ny911truth, but reduced it to (5!) minutes, with 4 for Les Jamieson and 1(!) for one of our best motivation speakers, Luke Radowski, a very close friend of Loose Change.

Apparently even 5 minutes was already too much.

As expressed by NYC Indymedia today, it says, "First, and foremost, lose the 9-11 alliance. I understand that we need to be big tent and actually change anything, but conspiracy theorists aren't merely wrong.

They get us painted with the same brush: shoddy analysis strung together with chicken-wire, grating paranoia, and an implicit embrace of a lot of American problems (Did I hear a 9-11 person say something antisemitic today? Yes.). Worse, they handed out anti-war stuff while wearing 9-11 shirts. Cut the 9-11 people loose, let them have their own events.."
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/76927.html

5) The 9/11 Truth Movement, if i take 911blogger.com as their most important dynamic reflection, does actually run out of topics since 4 weeks and oddly backpeddled much more than ever before to LIHOP- and hangout topics, not even pushing their once favourited "controlled demolition" anymore.

So where is the political reflection of this movement on all this?

Where this movement is not able to analyse this dilemma, the evidence of TV Fakery and its own political expression of opposing any orwellianized truth, can and still DOES help out.

And that's why we will continue, whether it is possible *here* on 911blogger or elsewhere and that means, worldwide, not just in the U.S.!

You might or don't want to understand, where we going at, but i hope you will understand it soon.

For god's sake, this diversion was scripted by the same people who also opposed the facts on any other physical
evidence, which included Shanksville, Cell Phones, Pentagon and Controlled Demolition.

9/11 TV Fakery just follows the same reflections.
It isn't popular for whatever reasons, but that doesn't mean to illiminate this research.
If i would go by this attitude, the evidence on controlled demolition would never have reached mainstream.

Can we know go back to the topic and make sure that we don't get interrupted by abusive insults and hostility??

"...i would think

"...i would think 'no-planer' is at least a bit more reasonable than your labels of 'planehuggers' and 'truthlings', wouldn't you think?..."

If it is about the forensic evidence, we used to use the word "non-commercial aircrafter". That was back in 2004.

If you want to have an insight into history of this movement, then ask Mark Bilk and Ralph Omholt why they responded with the label "no-planer".

I am loyal to the researchers of the forensic evidence, but 9/11 TV Fakery isn't about forensics and just scratches it in the close-up footage where it is a cross-over topic.

9/11 TV Fakery is about TV fakery on 9/11.

If you want to minimize the use of labels as in risking alleged insults, then please don't merge the issues to begin with.

PS: A truthling isn't meant as an insult either.
It just describes in a cartoon language the expression of an orwellianized truth, formerly called "1/2-truth".
Truthlings occasionally do not respond to the critique of oppressed truth which makes them even more 'truthling' :)

dz, imho, things will get

dz, imho, things will get better after the direct attacks stop. I post a blog about this topic and automatically get attacked by multiple people Several times, in several blogs. My blogs were not attack pieces on any individuals, yet I get attacked, called disinfo agent, etc, numerous times. Any comments from killtown or Nico that I've seen are absolutely nothing compared to the direct attacks and personal ad hominem insults from those some call "planehuggers".

you are absolutely correct

you are absolutely correct in that a lot of baseless insults have been thrown around, but there has been some pretty bad stuff from both sides.

i am going to do my best to moderate this in the future, but please know that i cant be on the site 24 hours a day. please email me if/when these attacks happen so that i can handle the moderation.

part of the larger issue here is that when i moderate (as i did in this thread) i am criticized for not moderating properly (which i will be accused of from both sides since i deleted posts from both sides), and when we dont moderate we are criticized for allowing people to completely ruin a thread and effectively prevent any real discussion.

so, either people want moderation, or they want a free-for-all, and we had pretty much just let a free-for-all occur for the last few weeks, which apparently is not a reasonable solution either.

which is why i want to get the moderation in the hands of the community, because quite frankly noone should be in my position if the site is truely intended to be for the community as a whole.

I agree, dz

from my personal perspective these subjects which focus on video analysis could possibly strengthen if the original interlaced source tapes were what is used in these arguements, because so long as there is compression and resizing (especialy on a fast moving object) then most would expect there to be some sort of anomalies and distortion."


Just like mp3 audio, compression could cause all sorts of artifacts in video.


As I've said a hundred times before...

Anything will look "odd" crashing into a building at +500 mph, especially on ordinary video!

Why don't you analyze the Pentagon videos like this...

Why don' t you analyze the Pentagon videos like you do the WTC? Now that would be something useful.

OK

In fact, now I'm even more doubtful of you WTC no planers...

Why do you spend what seems like thousands of hours on the WTC videos when the Pentagon videos are outrageously suspicious and truly do need more analysis???

..because we did that at the

..because we did that at the same time for years too, including with "9/11 science and justice alliance", co-founded by me (2002-2006).
And Killtown is a veteran Pentagon researcher, are you kidding?

Anything more intelligent to say?

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html

Submitted by ewing2001 on Fri, 10/06/2006 - 12:48am

Yes , we have all seen your

Yes , we have all seen your bio, and we know it is impressive. I kind of get the feeling that its about 'been there done that' for you. 'Pentagon was ok in 2002, but its over now. The lack of planes is whats in fashion now'.
Is 911 a hippster thing ?
Where did your pentagon research get you to ??
All done and clear, hence had to move on?
Or did it just get boring studying the same thing for 5 years?
I dont get it.
Just a little tip: people with impressive bios and research-experience dont have to force that fact down other peoples throats all the time. This makes you look kinda dodgy and desperate.

Do you think I just made that 77 video analysis page

right after your reply or something???

no

I have this video in hi-res and nothing is missing !!!
Why are they allowed to post such lies here ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

Can you post this hi-rez video or email it to me?

I'd LOVE to see it.

?!

Try to watch some 9/11 DVDs or are they manipulated ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

Well if you have this "hi-res" video

why don't you post it or send it to us so we can see?

Hi-res means DVD for me, not

Hi-res means DVD for me, not 1080p :(

Killtown you are clever, do u really think that the left stab is missing ??? It´s about position of sun and shadows, that´s why we cant see left stab on this frame.

And how did they fake the sound of the plane in real time ? Hologram with sound ? Wow.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

unfortunately the footage in

unfortunately the footage in this image was only captured after it was broadcast.. as far as i am concerned little could be proven until the original film was sopoena'd.. until then we are really just speculating on what is a de-interlaced/resized/broadcast/recording..

ok

Thats right.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

"...Every banned no-planer =

"...Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!..."

I consider this signature also as a violation of the forum rules, triggering flame bait.

No it's like saying the sky

No it's like saying the sky is blue, its a fact. Please leave this site Nico.

Dear no-planer hater

what did your hi-res video show about the facade not being disturbed from the wing passing through it as my pic #3 shows?

Zerrox,

Zerrox,
why are you talking about a hologram?

Can you please point out, what CGI research has anything to do with Holograms?

You are confusing the issue.

I am not implying now, that you did that in the past as well, as often done by non-associated saboteurs, but i can advise you on not following up on this anymore, to minimize flame bait.

hmm

Ok, Im sorry, if I mixed hologram and CGI.
No ofense, but for me its the same B.S.
You are all clever, I just dont understand, why are you pushing the NPT so hard. There are thousands other things. You can be helpful elsewhere.
NPT dont help us, dont you see it ?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Every banned no-planer = 1000 new Truthers !!!

It´s about position of sun

It´s about position of sun and shadows, that´s why we cant see left stab on this frame.

if you want to really see about the position of the sun and shadows in regards to alleged ua175 then you should look at marcus icke's ghostgun. he has done the most comprehensive analyses on that to date.
click my name to access that.

Blah blah blah blah

[Image][Image]
While you men are blathering...
The perps are laughing.

At least World Can't Wait. are on the streets!!!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1006iraq-protest1006.html

Ewing, Just in case you haven't seen this:

[Image]

http://mm33p.tripod.com/wtc-911-impact/

7th last picture shows the No-PLane NOSE exit, with a shadow, from another angle.

What happened to you u2?

I must have been so wrong to assume you had a brain, "debunk" this please Einstein;

The following is an exchange between me and Nico (Click on the images to see them separately, the second image might be cut of by the page);

I really feel sry for you Nico, you’re a hopeless case it seems.

“quot;...when the plane hits the building the momentum it carries with it translates into the direction of the impact....quot;

Nico: There is no crumbling of the walls. Are you blind?

Crumbling of walls? The walls are being blown out as the jet tanks in the wings and elsewhere explode. WTF do you mean "There is no crumbling of the walls"?

"...In that video the plane hits from the left..."

Nico: But according to the WABC7 live footage it couldn't have come from *this left direction. You ignored this all over again.

I don't give a shit about "WABC7", the plane is coming from the left hand side from the perspective that the video was taken.

"...the debris is hurled through the building and out the other side to the right...."

Nico: Which comes from internal explosives.

Your logic is utterly mind-boggling, these "explosives" that you imagine would have been stationary. And so the material that they displace would have travelled at the same speed, and over a similar predictable distance. In reality the plane parts travelling at 500mph-plus crash through the building, and maintains a certain degree of that initial Kinetic momentum. As you can see here in an illustration that I’ve just made for you;


Unless what you’re imagining is that the A-Team’s evil twins got to work, and kitted out the twin towers with something that would launch debris at a faster rate then the expanding fireball. And direct it out of the opposite side of the building from where the plane enters.

"...Furthermore an explosion of jet fuel inside the building would have to be generated by huge tanks of jet fuel..."

Nico: I never claimed that jet fuel was used.
As a matter of fact, the color of the explosion does not point on JP4 or JP8 and the fire does INDEED dissipate too quickly for jet fuel. Therefore there was none. No jet fuel, no plane.

Total insanity, the behaviour of the fireball is entirely in keeping with jet fuel, from the fast yellow to orange dissipation of heat, to the fast developing black smoke.

"...which trained sniffer dogs can detect..."

Nico: Not to play devil's advocate for you now, but you have no clue about ANY 9/11 research. All sniffer dogs had been removed a week earlier in advance, very often pointed out by controlled demolition researchers and widely reported at Killtown's smoking gun list.

Laughable, I know all about the sniffer dogs being called of assclown.

Finally, if you look at the initial impact area for both buildings you will see that what’s produced is initially a greyish cloud that eventually gives way to an orange fireball;


The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material.

I don't know, why DemBruce

I don't know, why DemBruce is posting this exchange all over again.
There is nothing to substantiate anything from what he's talking about.

He continues to ignore the discrepancies of geographical (not visual) flight paths between ABC7 and FOX11.

He continues to ignore the butter effect of the outer wall of the South Tower.
"There is no crumbling of the walls" is a fact on the side of where the alleged aircraft is entering.

DemBruce is confusing this with the side of the walls, where the internal explosion started. Dem was informed on this confusion many times and continues to ignore it.
This is what we expressed in a cartoon language as "fruitlooping".

He was also several times provided with this link, which shows in a loop, that the wall did not crumble at the side of where the object entered into the "butter wall":

http://911closeup.com/nico/secondhit_nocrumble_loop.swf

Explain the colouration of

Explain the colouration of the initial impact zones Nico!

Which "colouration"?

Which "colouration"?
Make yourself more clear please.

There was no crumbling at time and side of impact.
That is all what you need to know.
You are posting screeenshots from many moments later.

Why should i talk about an authentic fireball instead?

I produced a f*cking graphic

The greyish colouration can only be caused by smashed building/smashed plane mixing with the explosion of the jet fuel. The rest of the explosion doesn’t have this appearance because the fuel hasn’t got as much smashed concrete etc to mix with. Thus proving that something impacted the side of the building creating that initially displaced material.

[dz - (removed part of comment): please refrain from derogatory language, even if it is starred out with asterisks]

*This* is the initial impact

*This* is the initial impact and not what Dem presents to us:

PS:
"I produced a f*cking graphic for you f*cktard"
=Violation of Forum Rules

this is also from a

this is also from a perspective whereby the side of the tower being hit is titled away from the camera..

i have a question

you are co-admin for Team 8+, which looks into the military precision of the flights on 9-11 and other oddities of the flights.

how do you rectify this great research with what you are peddling now? military precision flight plans from non-existant planes?

what's the point? You seem to contradict your own research...and yet you still clamor that there were no planes.

and if you want to know what i think.....i think every term you use for "us" is insulting, truthlings makes it sound like you are better than us and we are just little kids who need to be told what to believe (the very reason why reject the official story is because we don't succumb to that authority), twoofers? well that is even worse than truthling. planehuggers? don't get me started.

everything you say is a jab at those who are trying to save this country, you seem to enjoy getting into petty arguments....as if you are just here to disrupt and divide the community.

you insult every major researcher in this community that doesn't fall in line with what you believe, why? why do you constantly seek to divide us? are you trying to conquer? do you even care about what is going on in this world?

if you do, you have a horrible way of showing it.

i won't ask that you be banned because that would make us just as bad as those trying to crush this open society we call America. But if you insult everyone here, then you are no better than the fascists who control this country and methinks your shirt is beginning to look a little brown.

peace

RayRay,

RayRay,

interesting question.

When Team8+ started we made sure to concentrate on the evidence for non-existing flights, potential stand-in planes, radar blips, switch points, tail numbers and concepts for geographical locations, where potential stand-in planes landed instead at the official targets.

The result of this research at team8+ does logically support two sides:

1)
Both Flights 11 (which did not exist in the BTS database) and Flight 175 did never arrive in NYC.
"Potential UA175-stand-in" also was too far away at time of second attack. Same to "potential stand-in AA11".

2)
Both "potential stand-in planes" could have been theoretically replaced with remote controlled planes at point of radar-drop off.

Team8+ 's rule was to declare video research as off-topic (and it still is) to allow different conclusions on that matter.

While research teams from outside already debunked 2) as impossible via the forensic evidence, i don't see any contradictions on the topic. It is basically a front end research. The video research and forensic research is a back end research.

Both angles do not contradict each other, but harmonize in the best scenario.

Supporter of the remote-controlled plane theory are actually abusive of the research of team8plus and did not explain where their remote controlled planes did come from and how it did violate physical rules.

I will not respond on the topic on alleged "insults" to reduce flame baits.

This is another off-topic issue, which has to do with the political expression of the history of this movement.
You are obviously refering to a Cartoon Language which was used to make a point on the orwellianisation of 'truth'.

alleged?

alleged? that's just it you don't get it. everytime you use divisive language, you insult.

if you haven't realized that by now, then i don't understand why you are here....but i think you do get it and therefore do it on purpose...call it NHOP....that is to insult all those who are credible on purpose.

your tarnishing of Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman and others who are the face of this movement is not alleged, it is right here on 911Blogger in text and thrown to the corners of the internet.

and Cartoon language? this isn't a kids game, why do you try to inject humor into a very serious situation? it ain't funny. it ain't something to laugh at. Are the deaths of 3000 americans, the shredding of our constitution, the bankrupting of our country and moral values and endless war funny?

why even go there?
why divide the movement unless you are purposely here to bring it down from within?

i don't think your research is damaging to the movement but i do think your labels and attacks are.

but that's just my opinion. sadly, many others feel the same way.

bruce lee are you seriously

bruce lee are you seriously going to rehash the nose out phenomenon? if you are going to cite some phenomenon or other as evidence supporting your side then you'd better cite all of the said phenomenon.

yes a nosecone looking object appeared to poke out the other side of the wtc2 and even appeared to cast a shadow, but when we look at a photo of that other side of the wtc2 we see that no significant hole was made where the nosecone looking object was observed poking out:
http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/newyork-5.html

and your "the initial impact is a grey cloudy mixture thus proving" is nonsense. the alleged ua175 entered wtc2 entirely before the explosion which caused this grey cloudy mixture occurred. the grey cloudy mixture had nothing to do with impact.

Total retardation, or

OF COURSE THE COLOURATION HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE IMPACT! THE PLANES DISLODGED MATERIAL MOST SUBSTANTIALLY AROUND THE IMPACT ZONES, SO YOU GET THIS GREY CLOUD THAT GIVES WAY TO AN ORAGNE FIRE BALL. THE GREY CLOUD IS THE MATERIAL DISLODGED BY THE IMPACT. THE REST OF THE FIRE BALL IS ORAGNE BECUASE THERE ISN'T AS MUCH DISLODGED MATERIAL (CONCRETE, GLASS, PLANE, PEOPLE ETC) TO MIX WITH!

[dz - (removed parts of comment): please dont deride into attacks]

DemBruce continues to

DemBruce continues to violate the rules of this forum.

By expressing anger he apparently thinks to win the argument.

The colouration he's referring to have to do with the autheniticty of the internal explosion.
Why should i talk about authenticity if fakery is the issue?

Why should i continue to allow him and me the luxury to debate about the logistics of internally planted explosives?

The controlled demolition did also start with an explosion and therefore doesn't prove the negative, that a controlled demolition did not take place.

You continue to distract from the issue and furthermore adding meaningless assertions about my person and the topic which have nothing to do with anything to make a point.

If DemBruce is apparently irritated about this topic then my recommendation is that he should avoid these blogs.

i dont see how anyone with

i dont see how anyone with an opposing viewpoint could not be irritated when discussing this subject matter with you. you've already stated that your theories are 100% provable fact, and that you are absolutely correct, so in essense any debate with you is relatively pointless i would think, but it would obviously be irritating to others that you state it as absolute fact when in essense it is really just your personal opinion. i think that 'well, this is what i think, and i think i can prove it' would be a lot more receptive than 'absolutely noone can refute the undeniable evidence', especially given that any counter-arguement that is ever given is so easily disregarded. so it isn't so much that there is no counter-arguement, or that your 'proof' is undeniable, its that from your perspective absolutely nothing could make you rethink your opinion, so again, what's the point of debate?

last night you said this:
Noone can prove the opposite.
And we can prove that TV Fakery took place.

i would ask, who can you prove it to? obviously you think that you can from your perspective, but how successful have you really been? if you had absolute proof then it shouldnt even be open for debate. post your 'proof' and move on. and if noone still believes in it then i would suggest that you should spend more time on organizing a cohesive arguement which is beyond individual interpretation and speculation.

you said you had film from your st. mark's church appearance, and that you convinced large parts of the audience, if you did make such a convincing arguement in a relatively short period of time then i would think that would be useful to share with the community. last we spoke you said this was being worked on, do you have any idea when it will be available?


Dz,

Dz,

you continue to opinionize.
No problem here, but it has nothing to do with allowing a constructive flow of the topic of this blog.

You stated that i "stated that " my "theories are 100% provable fact".

I never described anything as a "theory".
I am analysing facts. I am talking about undisputable findings which have to be analysed in their details.
The details are not 100% reflected by this movement or anyone outside the movement.

It also wasn't reflected yet by the rare exceptions of mainstream media (FOX, Statesmen, WP, Villager, Salon).

I put up parts of my presentation (without my own appearance) at 911cgiwatch.blogspot.com
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FINALnicotvfakery002RM.rm

I still plan to splice this presentation, because it was too big for YouTube.

I continued with compiling other presentations at youtube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cFfvQJ1r9-Q
http://youtube.com/watch?v=se7-c4WKgPI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x4Yceg-ZxQ&mode=related&search=
etc...

The other parts of the St. Mark's presentation got stucked in a buggy firewire. I'm not sure if i start working on this again.
I'm still satisfied with the results of this presentation, because there is no hostility on that matter at St. Mark's anymore, but instead growing interest.

i feel i have just as much

i feel i have just as much right to opinionize as anyone else here.. i got rid of the attack comments, and that is seperate from my own attempts to participate in this discussion.

ill check out the .rm tonight.

Thanks for getting rid of

Thanks for getting rid of the attack comments.

"how successful have you really been?"

I'm very satisfied with the success. Many new supporters did finally start to analyse the concept of the fakery, among them CB_Brooklyn, Peggy Carter and many others, also outside this forum, i.e. "StillDiggin" at BreakforNews.
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006/09/stilldigginbfn-wescam-concept-09...

It's like trying to debate

It's like trying to debate the colour of the sky with you Nico, it's blue not green! Although your reasoning skills do suggest you are some what cognitively impaired and so if that’s because you've been dropping acid then I'm sure the sky would appear green to you, BUT THAT'S NOT THE REALITY! You dodge the issue everytime because you can't respond adequately to common sense, and if you can't respond then that means you surly understand the giant fallacies in your obscure reasoning.

So AGAIN I'm asking you Nico to explain, if as you "contend" that "no planes hit the wtc", why then do both impacts on both Towers produce a grey cloud around the impact area that gives way to an orange fire ball. While the rest of the explosion/fire ball, not in the immediate vicinity of the impact, did not have this property? What is this grey colouration observed, other then something of being a product of an external impact that dislodge material.

And why the f*ck am I having to say the most COMMONSENSE things to someone like this, seriously Nico GET A CLUE! Although I know you are incapable of taking such advice as previous exchanges have proven. You say I break "the rules" on this site for getting frustrated with your disinformation campaign. Well I'll admit this disinfo you spread everywhere infuriates the crap out of me, but do you want to know why Nico? I'll tell you, it infuriates the crap out of me because I want to see success, I want the Movement that's concerned with Truth to win! You it strongly appears are not concerned with either success or Truth. You by definition break the rules of being in "the Truth Movement". In fact based on your actions I don't even think you want to be in the Truth Movement in the first place to be honest. You don't display any compassion or understanding for the people who died and are sick and dying because of the attack, both in the US as a result the ground zero dust, and abroad where innocent people are murdered in the "war on terror". You show no interest in wanting to succeed or see a criminal agenda derailed, and if I’m wrong you at least display zero urgency about stopping the madmen behind 9/11, and I could go on. You break the rules of being associated with 9/11 Truth, it's as if you're some kind of trainspotter and this "no planes" shit is some kind of hobby to you. THIS ISN'T AND HAS NEVER BEEN A GAME NICO! AT LEAST REALISE THAT!

I'm not sure why DemBruce is

I'm not sure why DemBruce is starting to analyse the sky.

It has nothing to do with the topic.
If furthermore DemBruce would actually analyse the footage of the second attack, he would figure that all footage was additionally filtered with brownish, greyish, greenish color codes and didn't show the realistic color of the sky on that morning.

Interestingly this all stopped with LIVE broadcast footage at around 9:30 AM +.

"...it infuriates the crap out of me because I want to see success, I want the Movement that's concerned with Truth to win..."

I have the same goal. Everything else what you're talking about was already mainstreamized but lacks of confidence, because of constantly arriving at MSM with a hangout spin.

"...You don't display any compassion or understanding for the people who died..."

Yet another assertion. I started with passenger research in late 2001 and we offered at team8plus various concepts on where these people really died.
Furthermore my group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" (2002-2006) have been responsible for the success of distributing the evidence on controlled demolition, against endless attempts to attack this evidence, by former leaders of this movement.

I'm not playing any games.

I created ny911truth.org in late 2003 to support a successful breakthrough of activism, at least here in NYC.
You have to forward your concerns to Les Jamieson if you are frustrated with the results of their outcome.

Since i am also not member of 9/11 Scholars, you have to forward your concerns to them as well.
Same to 911truth.org etc...

why then do both impacts on

why then do both impacts on both Towers produce a grey cloud around the impact area that gives way to an orange fire ball. While the rest of the explosion/fire ball, not in the immediate vicinity of the impact, did not have this property? What is this grey colouration observed, other then something of being a product of an external impact that dislodge material

for gods sake man how many times does it have to be said? the explosion occurred some time after the impact. obviously the grey powdery cloud was concrete dust blown out by the explosion.

911tvfakery has been established by nico, peg carter, marcus icke and webfairy, just to name a few.
tv fakery does not necessarily mean there were no planes.
if there was a real plane that hit wtc2 it was covered over on the videos with obvious fakery.
no planes means tvfakery but tvfakery does not mean no planes.

Dem Laws of Physics

Although your conclusions are suspect, your observations are accurate. There is indeed different coloration of the fireballs in various areas, ranging from bright yellow to dark orange. I will submit that this is proof of both multiple and varying explosions.

Upon close inspection, the concrete dust is ejected in the direction from whence the "plane" entered. The heavy dust is visibly prevalent as it trails downward in front of the "impact" face. Interesting to note is that this is the only face from which it trails.

This contradicts your contention that this observation is a product of an external impact that dislodges material. Clearly, the observation of a grey cloud moving away from the tower indicates that its existence is a product of an INTERNAL source of energy.

I'm relatively certain that we would all agree that this source of internal energy was an explosion. However, the observation of the behavior of the dust cloud would seem to indicate a directed explosion. Otherwise, we would expect to see somewhat of an equal dispersion of the grey cloud ejected from other faces opened up by the explosion. If anything, due to the momentum and air draft which would be associated with any REAL plane entry, we would expect any dust cloud to be travelling in the that same direction prior to any explosion.

This means that the majority of ANY airborne particulate matter prior to a central explosion would have been ejected anywhere but back out of the "impact" hole, were a plane actually to have caused it.

Due to these factors, the conclusion I derive from our common observations is that there were multiple and varying outward-directed explosions which include, but were not limited to, at least one that pulverized concrete.

With repect to your accusation that to believe that there were no planes is to by definition exclude oneself from "The Truth Movement," then by all means, exclude me. If this name is copyrighted, do smarter people need to come up with some tacky alternative like "The Real/Whole/Nothing But The Truth Movement" if they wish to base their conclusions on the principles of physics (a.k.a. reality)?

With respect to your allegation that to believe there were no planes somehow renders one less sympathetic to those who died/are still dying, I can see no correlation there. Perhaps your goal is to dissuade one's belief in the laws of physics by way of instilling guilt?

I won't pretend to be able to understand your motivation by attempting to interpret your words. All I can do is sit here in my chair and hope that your perception of physics doesn't suddenly trump reality. After all, I would hate to fall upward and smash my head into my ceiling, all because of your potential interpretation of the laws of gravity.

StillDiggin is onto it!! Dem

StillDiggin is onto it!!

Dem Fake Karate immitation needs a come-uppance... probably a young male person.

In any case, All these are good observations, they are all needed for the years of TV programming for after the 911-truth came out...

Tonight:

How the explosion sequence was done..

Example of how concrete particles behave when impacted...

If anyone questions the physics behind my "grey cloud analysis," feel free to revisit the F4 vs. a concrete wall: http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

Instead of examining what happens to the plane, pay attention to the right hand view at the end of the video and observe where the concrete dust goes. Every single concrete particle is trying to move forward in the same direction that the F4 was traveling. Unfortunately, the remainder of the intact wall prevents this, so these particles are redirected parallel to the face of the wall. Any smoker can observe this exact particulate behavior by blowing smoke against a flat wall or a pane of glass.

Any particles that are not impeded by the intact remains ot the wall are rapidly moving forward. For an applicable screenshot of what I am referring to, click here: http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/F4vsConcrete.jpg

The concrete floors of the WTC were much thinner than this wall, so we should be able to conclude that any dislodged concrete particles, regardless of their size, would have had ample opportunity to move in the direction they were supposed to; forward and away from the opening in the outside of the tower.

bruce lee the grey powdery

bruce lee the grey powdery cloud was produced by the explosion which occurred after the initial impact -
as seen on all 4 video recordings of alleged ua175 actually hitting wtc2 the plane had entirely disappeared before any explosion whatsoever.
what point are you trying to make anyway? so far you have asserted that U2R2H has no brain and that nico is a fucktard. make your point and then hit the road.

Christ, ok use your brain!

Christ, ok use your brain! The plane enters the building at 500mph, it dislodges and damages parts of the building around the impact hole, the fuel tanks in the wings then explode inside the building milliseconds after impact, the explosion spreads out and is orange everywhere except the impact zones where it is a grey cloud initially, a grey cloud that gives way to an orange fireball. The rest of the fireball is not grey. Why? Because it hasn’t got as much smashed building to mix with. What smashed the building and created that displaced material that gave the fireball around the impact it's initially grey colouration? MUTHAFUCKING PLANE IMPACTS!

[dz - (removed parts of comment): please avoid attack comments, they solve nothing]

What smashed the building

What smashed the building and created that displaced material that gave the fireball around the impact it's initially grey colouration?

maybe the explosion smashed a hole in the building rendering the concrete in the vicinity of said hole into dust.

The plane enters the building at 500mph,

according to john albanese it made a slow bank - how fast does 500mph look anyway? does this alleged plane look like it's going 500mph?:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv
this is the one and only "live" shot of alleged ua175.

how could the wings supposedly filled with fuel fail to ignite instantly as they encountered and shredded the steel columns of wtc2? the fireball should have occurred as the plane hit wtc not after.

[dz - (removed parts of comment): please do not respond to attacks with further attacks]

the 'nose out' is an

the 'nose out' is an interpretation of what is seen, not a provable reality of what happened. you can view the 2nd impact from multiple angles and see this same phenomenon, but in the videos with the most clarity it is easy to see that the 'nose out' is just the point from which the first debree was ejected, hence it shot out in a radial shape around the initial point of explosion.

you can see this affect quite clearly in the first few frames of this google video of a standard explosion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2272772080381493407&q=explosion+...

look, its a nose cone:
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

now take that image, make it grayscale, resize it a few times, and put it next to the building.. yep, looks like a nose cone alright..

show me the windows on the 'nose cone', or anything else besides a gray mass which can be interpreted however you wish.

MSM is not on the side of

MSM is not on the side of 9/11 TV Fakery researchers.

Today YOUTUBE started to remove our stuff, based on "repeated incidents of copyright infringement".

Youtube writes :

"...Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability..."

I didn't receive these kind of letters yet, but i should be prepared.
The 9/11 media perps continue of getting nervous.

Since they're apparently not having a problem with controlled demolition reaching mainstream media, i assume all YOUTUBE members with footage on CD are safe.

sorry dz - i was guilty as

sorry dz - i was guilty as charged -
i will just reiterate that while no-planes definitely indicates tvfakery, tvfakery does not necessarily indicate no-planes.

WWW = We Will Win.

First...

Watch it again:

[Image]

Now everyone get their Hi-rez footage out (URL please!) and
show us the

  • traces of the left horizontal stabilizer.
  • the wtc damage between wingtip and right engine
  • right wing damage

make a screenshot AND SHOW US. We haven't seen it.

If you cannot show it.. conclusion No1 is:

That particular 767 aeroplane (as show on this video)
is a fiction.

This fact alone should be enough for daily TV news reports
for AT LEAST as long as Monica Lewinsky (2 years!).

Now, please make a fax of my blog-post and fax it to
your congress-person. Add the following sentence:

See for yourself! Take the Time-Life DVD "America attacked"**
and step-motion that scene on your DVD player.

** (WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE ACTUAL DVD?)

We can successfully attach the SMELL of TV-fakery
We will win.

> footage was additionally filtered with brownish,
> greyish, greenish color codes and didn't show the
> realistic color of the sky on that morning.

I noticed that, too.

During transfer videos between systems and accross machines
(PAL, RGB, CMYK, NTSC = Never Twice the Same Color, ICM etc)
little mistakes have large outcomes.

> Interestingly this all stopped with LIVE broadcast footage at around
> 9:30 AM +.

I think you are right.

> The 9/11 media perps continue of getting nervous.

tHEY ARE!! after 5 years!! Imagine what it will be like in 10 years.
And in 50 years they will shit their pants... and in 75 years they will
die of nervousness.

Has anyone searched this for clues?
http://www.madotv.com/wtc-uncut.html

High[er] Resolution at...

There are some clips of high[er] resolution located at http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit3/

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit3/911.wtc.2.hit.south.1.avi (720 x 480 pixels, 30 fps, 0m06s, 858KB
DivX 5.2.1)

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/

Update:

Update:
We cannot longer rely on YOUTUBE as a presentation portal, if NSA/SAIC front Google (already in cohut with NASA, CIA firm In-Q-Tel and 1 ex-NSA guy in their team) will suceed with this:

Google in talks to buy YouTube
TVNZ, New Zealand - 51 minutes ago
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411416/845580

YouTube itself is already run by 3 ex-ebay guys close to Richard T. Schlossberg (Ex-U.S. Airforce)
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3223
Internet Portal Community Watch

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 12:07 AM

1 Comments:

Anonymous teh anon said...

Killtown hangs around with "ozzybinoswald" whose real name is Neil Edward Thomson, a kiddie porno collector who resides in Canada. You would be wise to take Killtown's crap off your site unless you like associating yourself with pedophiles and internet stalkers.

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:48:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home