SPEEDING FINES BANNED BY GERMAN JUDGE

In article >,
"Rocky" > wrote:

> <* US *> wrote in message ...
> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:21:31 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
> >
> >><* US *> wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> While their posts do not merit replies per se,
> >>> important subjects do.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>
> >>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

Guys like you just make me laugh...

You imagine a vast conspiracy good enough that there hasn't been a
single leak, yet you think that they couldn't have made the buildings
collapse in a manner that you wouldn't find suspicious....

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

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rocky" > wrote:
>
>> <* US *> wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:21:31 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
>> >
>> >><* US *> wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> While their posts do not merit replies per se,
>> >>> important subjects do.
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>>
>> >>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
>
> Guys like you just make me laugh...
>
> You imagine a vast conspiracy good enough that there hasn't been a
> single leak, yet you think that they couldn't have made the buildings
> collapse in a manner that you wouldn't find suspicious....

1. The Twin Towers certainly did not "collapse" and that is proven by what
they did. The Twin Towers disintegrated before they ever reached the ground
and then they floated all over New York leaving 4 inches of debris all over
the place. Do you honestly think a fire that was relatively small in
comparison to the size of the Twin Towers could case a catastrophic
disintegration of an entire steel reinforced building?

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.

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.

Rocky

In article >,
"Rocky" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rocky" > wrote:
> >
> >> <* US *> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:21:31 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >><* US *> wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >>> While their posts do not merit replies per se,
> >> >>> important subjects do.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> >>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
> >
> > Guys like you just make me laugh...
> >
> > You imagine a vast conspiracy good enough that there hasn't been a
> > single leak, yet you think that they couldn't have made the buildings
> > collapse in a manner that you wouldn't find suspicious....
>
> 1. The Twin Towers certainly did not "collapse" and that is proven by what
> they did. The Twin Towers disintegrated before they ever reached the ground
> and then they floated all over New York leaving 4 inches of debris all over
> the place. Do you honestly think a fire that was relatively small in
> comparison to the size of the Twin Towers could case a catastrophic
> disintegration of an entire steel reinforced building?

It wasn't relatively small in comparison to the two or three floors that
were on fire. That's all it needed.

A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.

>
> 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.

>
> 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?

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

"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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

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

Rocky

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 16:25:40 -0600, "Rocky" > wrote:

>"Alan Baker" > wrote in message ...
>> In article >, "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.
>>>
>>> >>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.
>>
>> Guys like you just make me laugh...
>>
>> You imagine a vast conspiracy good enough that there hasn't been a
>> single leak, yet you think that they couldn't have made the buildings
>> collapse in a manner that you wouldn't find suspicious....
>
>1. The Twin Towers certainly did not "collapse" and that is proven by what
>they did. The Twin Towers disintegrated before they ever reached the ground
>and then they floated all over New York leaving 4 inches of debris all over
>the place. Do you honestly think a fire that was relatively small in
>comparison to the size of the Twin Towers could case a catastrophic
>disintegration of an entire steel reinforced building?
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Rocky

Exactly.

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 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

"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

>A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.

The WTC towers were not, however, constructed of loose snow.

>> 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.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:45:35 -0500, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" > wrote:

>... the nitwit ...
>I don't need to ... think ...

You probably can't.

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

"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

>A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.

The WTC towers were not, however, constructed of loose snow.

>> 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.

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

"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

>A skier is very small in comparison to the avalanche he causes, too.

The WTC towers were not, however, constructed of loose snow.

>> 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.