SPEEDING FINES BANNED BY GERMAN JUDGE

<* US *> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:40:30 -0800, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> Start with John O'Neill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill

That poor guy. In just the 19 days that he was working at the World Trade
Center I wonder how close he came to discovering the explosives that had
been planted in the 4 foot crawlway between every other floor. He would
have had to have access to more than just the elevator shafts to discover

And John could have been dealing with memories of the 1993 bombing where our
government was not involved so he failed to prepare for the worst.

Rocky

US *" wrote in message ............more laughable nonsense.<<<<<<<<<<<<


This newsgroup has become funnier than any joke newsgroup I have ever seen.
Keep up the nonsense, I love to laugh.
haw haw haw

--
JerryD

In article >,
"Rocky" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rocky" > wrote:
> >
> > It wasn't relatively small in comparison to the two or three floors that
> > were on fire. That's all it needed.
>
> That is laughable because I was in LA when they had a big fire in the First
> Interstate Bank building and that building didn't disintegrate at the push
> of a button.

Different buildings behave -- GASP! -- differently.

>
> > A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.
>
> That is laughable too because we were talking about steel reinforced
> buildings and you want to remove any evidence of the steel.

Nope. Sorry.

>
> >> 2. There have been a lot of strange deaths too and maybe people have
> >> come
> >> forward only to be killed off just like poor souls in the Twin Towers
> >> were
> >> killed off.
> >
> > Sure there were. Present some actual examples. Please note: I'm not
> > interested in looking through a link to find them. You provide the
> > example, a quote of the text and the link which supports it.
>
> I just posted a youtube video of that earlier today on this same thread so
> you are running me around in circles now.

Sorry. But I'm not watching a long rambling video. You precis the
information you think it provides and give me a specific time at which I
can watch it.

>
> >> 3. Even without "leak" as you call it, there is more than enough
> >> evidence
> >> to show Bush and Cheney knew more than they are saying about things
> >> related
> >> to 9-11-01.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Dick Cheney had people out playing war games on 9-11-01 and even when he
> found out one flight was for real he prevented apprehension of that flight.

No link. No support. No nothing.

>
> Cheney is a crook who would shoot a friend in the chest with the same effort
> he would use to kill thousands.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Ch...nting_incident

Non sequitur.

I'll wait while you look up "precis" and "non sequitur".

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

In article >, * US * wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:28:10 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> >... make me laugh...
>
> Normal healthy people don't find anything about
> 9/11 to be funny.

Which is fine...

....because your nonsense has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

>
> >... there hasn't been a
> >single leak ...
>
> There have been thousands of people secretly
> imprisoned since 9/11.

And you know this... ...how?

>
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:17:18 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
>
> ><* US *> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:21:31 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
> >>><* US *> wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> http://www.911hardfacts.com/
> >>>Thanks for the links and please tell me if you were one of the people like
> >>>myself that had their doubts on the "official" explanation of events on
> >>>9-11-01?
> >> Many of us knew immediately because of the
> >> odd laxity of the air defense systems.
> >
> >Yes that was a very big give away but I thought someone would answer for the
> >lack of defense a long long time ago and it looks like they never have.
>
> Exactly.

What defense from airliners was there supposed to be prior to that day?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:58:07 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:

>
><* US *> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:40:30 -0800, Alan Baker >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Start with John O'Neill.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill
>
>That poor guy. In just the 19 days that he was working at the World Trade
>Center I wonder how close he came to discovering the explosives that had
>been planted in the 4 foot crawlway between every other floor. He would
>have had to have access to more than just the elevator shafts to discover
>
>And John could have been dealing with memories of the 1993 bombing where our
>government was not involved so he failed to prepare for the worst.
>
>Rocky
>

"...the first red flag that popped up. His name was John O'Neill - or more precisely, he
is the seam that shows. Dated September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb,
it was revealed that O'Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security for the World
Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI Counterterror chief responsible for the
investigation into Osama bin Laden."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:44:24 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:

>Different buildings behave -- GASP! -- differently.

The WTC buildings were designed and constructed
to withstand impacts from large jets.

"Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to
determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies
concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the
airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people
would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the
attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example,
Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he
"designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the
attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but
also of ensuing fires."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
40% of the capacity of a 707."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the
resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest
plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of
jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this
intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It
really does nothing to the screen netting.""

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html



"WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th"

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball...kyscraper.html

2002: "The Justice Department announces that it has
put 1,182 people into secret custody since 9/11."

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...=a080202reveal

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:47:18 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:

>... nonsense ...

Too bad for you that's all you have.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:28:10 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:

>... make me laugh...

Normal healthy people don't find anything about
9/11 to be funny.

>... there hasn't been a
>single leak ...

There have been thousands of people secretly
imprisoned since 9/11.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:17:18 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:

><* US *> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:21:31 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
>>><* US *> wrote in message ...
>>>> http://www.911hardfacts.com/
>>>Thanks for the links and please tell me if you were one of the people like
>>>myself that had their doubts on the "official" explanation of events on
>>>9-11-01?
>> Many of us knew immediately because of the
>> odd laxity of the air defense systems.
>
>Yes that was a very big give away but I thought someone would answer for the
>lack of defense a long long time ago and it looks like they never have.

Exactly.

> >>I know I had my doubts on 9-11-01 because of the way the Twin Towers
>>>disintegrated and the inconsistency between the damage done to the Twin
>>>Towers and the PentaCon.
>>>
>>>Now the government is trying to pass laws so they can regulate the Internet.
>>>If they get away with that we will no longer be the land of the free but the
>>>land of people enslaved by a visibly crooked government.
>
>> They already got the people enslaved with
>> electronic 'voting'.
>
>True.
>
>The more I see how quickly the massive Twin Towers came down along with the
>fact I stood on top of one of them a long long time ago only makes me madder
>when I see how quickly they disintegrated. Especially when no amount of
>kerosene could take them down at the speed they came down.
>
>Rocky

Indeed.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:34:55 -0500, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" > wrote:

>... funnier than any joke ...

Normal healthy people don't find anything about 9/11
to be funny.

"Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to
determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies
concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the
airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people
would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the
attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example,
Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he
"designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the
attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but
also of ensuing fires."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
40% of the capacity of a 707."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the
resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest
plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of
jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this
intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It
really does nothing to the screen netting.""

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th"

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball...kyscraper.html

http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html

In article >, * US * wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:34:07 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> >... just make me laugh...
>
> You're way-too-easily amused.
>
> >... there hasn't been a
> >single leak ...
>
> You simply don't know what there has been,
> much less why, how, or who did what.
>
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:40:30 -0800, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> >It wasn't relatively small in comparison to the two or three floors that
> >were on fire. That's all it needed.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> "Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
> mid-1960s to
> determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all
> cases the studies
> concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the
> jetliners."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The studies were wrong.

>
> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the
> fuel (from the
> airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A
> lot of people
> would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

And they were wrong. The fires soften the steel and caused one floor to
pancake down on the one below.

>
> "Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have
> stated, since the
> attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For
> example,
> Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack,
> said he
> "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents
> predating the
> attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner
> impacts, but
> also of ensuing fires."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

And they didn't get it right. It would hardly be the first time that
someone has designed something not to fail under a given set of
conditions...

....only to have it fail.

>
> "Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
> would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
> slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
> The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
> about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
> 40% of the capacity of a 707."
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

The kinetic energy didn't bring the buildings down, the fires did.

>
> "Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center,
> spoke of the
> resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
>
> "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was
> the largest
> plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain
> multiple impacts of
> jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen
> door -- this
> intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen
> netting. It
> really does nothing to the screen netting.""
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

And the buildings survived the impact.

>
> "WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September
> 11th"
>
> http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball...kyscraper.html
>
> >A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.
>
> The WTC towers were not, however, constructed of loose snow.

The point was that it doesn't take a huge initial incident to cause a
huge structure to fail.

>
> >> 2. There have been a lot of strange deaths too and maybe people have come
> >> forward only to be killed off just like poor souls in the Twin Towers were
> >> killed off.
> >
> >Sure there were ...
>
> Start with John O'Neill.

Nope. You start with him. I've never heard of him.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>