Questions for 911files about his research - Page 3

Drudgewire · 9th December 2008, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

SHE.

Six minutes too late.

Turbofan · 9th December 2008, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

I KNEW that. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

Well, the victory dance has been downgraded from "Snoopy" to "Snoop Dogg."

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoop.gif

Considering LashL has shown more than hatred for CIT, I wouldnt be so quick to do a victory dance till the verdict is in from the OC Prosecutor. I also didnt realize she is in Toronto. Although it shouldnt matter much as does her bias.

But I will admit I was wrong in reading her past interpretations. I'd look for them to quote, but I suppose none of this matters on a message board. The victory dance will come for one of us eventually though...

I'll still hold to my theory that the OC Prosecutor will tell Farmer to pound sand and stop his crying.

By the way 911Files, what type of "investigator" do you have? A guy with a badge as deduced by Drudge? Is it a detective? If so, which PCT in the OC? The first clue is you said "agency" instead of precinct. Sounds like a private investigator. If part of a Federal Agency, well then he should be familiar with CFR Title 18 when recording other Federal Officers.

Tricky · 9th December 2008, 06:15 PM

This thread is going downhill in a hurry. Switching to moderated status.

Posted By:Tricky

LashL · 9th December 2008, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Ever practice law in the US?

I have done quite a lot of cross-border litigation, thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

By the way, does anyone know if the "prostitute" or Globe International was prosecuted by PA for violating their recording/consent laws?

I have no idea. You'll have to check the state courts to find out.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

According to LashL, they should have been prosecuted.

I did not say any such thing.

TheLoneBedouin · 9th December 2008, 07:09 PM

911files,

You just stated in this thread:

Quote:

I have found solid evidence that may have been altered, the operative word is MAY.

The words "solid" and "may" make for a rather interesting contrast. So is it solid or not? But you really answered this question further as you continued...

Quote:

And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered.

Ahh ok so you admit that the NTSB data definitely HAS been altered. Thanks for that.

You continued...

Quote:

Was some of the public release information altered and doctored? There is no doubt in my mind that it was.

Once again reaffirming this belief that you obviously have held since early 2007 and possibly before. Curious though....do you understand how this would set a precedent wherein other government provided data should be automatically considered suspect?

If not why? Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime?

You went on...

Quote:

The Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon.

Really?

Care to make a poll thread to see how many members here think the Pentagon security gate camera footage has "issues"? Any members here care to back him up on this? And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that you currently think the security camera has also been "doctored" just as you believe regarding the NTSB data?

Now you go on to say "that's a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon" but you also just sent an essay to publish in Gaffney's book that asserts just that. And as Gaffney said you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it.

The physical evidence he was referring to of course is the citgo security video that you believe supports the citgo witnesses' independently corroborated claim of a plane on the north side.

So please help me understand why you would allow these assertions to be published in this new book if you don't believe them, or think that evidence is "wanting" for this as you said in this post.

I really find it odd that you could possibly think that the citgo security video corroborates the unanimous claim of the citgo witnesses (and many more) yet still call corroboration of evidence on this level "wanting".

To sum it up....you agree that government data has been altered, you agree that the citgo video confirms the citgo witnesses' north side account, you have no problem publishing these assertions in a distributed book as completely valid and evidence based, and naturally you must understand that all of this points to a military deception on 9/11.....yet you insist on quitting the "truth movement" and remaining hostile towards CIT who uncovered the majority this evidence that you have asserted as valid and corroborated?

Correct?

chillzero · 10th December 2008, 02:04 AM

To support the switch to moderated status I have moved posts to AAH, and rejected some responses. Please stop the bickering about CIT, and personalised posts.

Keep this thread civil and on topic from this point.

Posted By:chillzero

BCR · 10th December 2008, 10:36 AM

LB, this will be my final response on this thread, because I agree with Chillzero. If it was constructive, I would participate, but it is more argumentative than anything.

Yes LB, as I have already said, many of these folks I have communicated with outside of the forum, and we agree there remains a lot to be learned about the events of 9/11. There are anomalies in a lot of the government data and if an applicable thread devoted to any single one opens, I will happily discuss it.

Here is the difference that escapes you. An anomaly in the data set does not mean "inside job" or alteration for nefarious purposes. There can often be technical explanations for the same anomaly (or simply someone messed up). I have learned over the past several years that if a person keeps digging, some questions can be resolved without any such speculation. I have seen these folks work with the NTSB animation to great lengths for example. They do not deny that the heading is greater than the FDR reports, but they don't go from that observation to ... "911 is an inside job". The key is, they should not make that jump, and through thorough research a number of alternative explanations have been offered. Some I agree with, some I do not, but they remain valid explanations non-the-less.

These are very intelligence folks residing here. If you give them evidence in the terms an intelligent person can work with, then I think like me they would love to explore it. But if you give them an anomaly in the data and scream "911 is an inside job", they are going to rightly tell you that you are...well pick the response.

So yes, it may surprise you, but JREF folks are rational, thinking individuals. Honest folks can disagree about what the data means and work together to find a common resolution, unless one of them is wearing the blinders of seeing everything as evidence of a pre-determined conclusion.

Alareth · 10th December 2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Not our burden to offer a theory. It is up to the govt to prove theirs.

Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works.

TheLoneBedouin · 10th December 2008, 12:55 PM

911files,

So does that mean you changed your position from yesterday when you said there was "no doubt" in your mind that publicly released information was "altered and doctored"?

Obviously that is a far cry from an "anomaly". This thread is about your previous statements and research. Nobody has claimed that an innocent technical anomaly = 9/11 was an inside job so I'm not sure why you went off on that tangent. Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime and set a precedent wherein all forthcoming data from the implicated party should be considered automatically suspect?

But you have gone much further than that. You only recently sent an essay to be published in a distributed book asserting a north side flyover and you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it.

Obviously you must see this evidence as valid since you cited it and had it published only weeks ago. Certainly you understand how a north side flyover of anything at all at the same time of the attack proves a deliberate deception and cover-up on 9/11.

Right?

twinstead · 10th December 2008, 12:56 PM

Artificial burden of proof shifting ROCKS!

Drudgewire · 10th December 2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Alareth

Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works.

It's actually quite telling in regards to what the most lofty goals of the movement actually are. If their purpose/mission was discover "what really happened" and get the word out... or for that matter to truly gain insight about the events leading up to 9/11 and the day itself, they'd start with a hypothesis and work towards proving it. For everything that can be said about the early "names" in the movement, there was at least a blueprint towards this end.

But "it's up to the government to prove their story" is not only circular, it's a clear indication the "just asking questions" nu-twoof contingent is perfectly content to simply throw stones at the wall. Considering, even if there WAS a conspiracy, they've successfully stifled it to the point the already miniscule amount of people who ever believed otherwise dwindles by the day, what would the conspirators POSSIBLY have to gain by attempting to placate the tiny percentage of people who not only won't believe anything they say regardless, but who haven't provided a shred of evidence worth answering to?

I was talking to a girl the other day who wasn't really educated to the facts on 9/11, and she brought up things like "stand-down orders" and a few of the other long-debunked issues. I told her the same thing I've said on here a hundred times: the SECOND any kind of valid evidence which can honestly contradict everything we do know, I'll be back on the CT bus quicker than you can say "cover-up."

But TLB's response, despite the furor a lot of truthers have brought me over the last few years, did something far worse: It saddened me. It belies a motivation perhaps not as sinister as some of the more paranoid "critical thinkers" think twoofers have... but it's far more pathetic.

Obviousman · 20th January 2010, 01:09 AM

Turbofan is trying to make a comeback:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...=172289&st=135

leftysergeant · 20th January 2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Obviousman

Turbofan is trying to make a comeback:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...=172289&st=135

Good to know that the residents of the venue he has invaded readily recognized him as a freaking moron.

thecritta · 25th January 2010, 02:33 AM

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for civility.

thecritta · 25th January 2010, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Considering LashL has shown more than hatred for CIT, I wouldnt be so quick to do a victory dance till the verdict is in from the OC Prosecutor. I also didnt realize she is in Toronto. Although it shouldnt matter much as does her bias.

But I will admit I was wrong in reading her past interpretations. I'd look for them to quote, but I suppose none of this matters on a message board. The victory dance will come for one of us eventually though...

I'll still hold to my theory that the OC Prosecutor will tell Farmer to pound sand and stop his crying.

By the way 911Files, what type of "investigator" do you have? A guy with a badge as deduced by Drudge? Is it a detective? If so, which PCT in the OC? The first clue is you said "agency" instead of precinct. Sounds like a private investigator. If part of a Federal Agency, well then he should be familiar with CFR Title 18 when recording other Federal Officers.

So turbofan why did you leave pilotsfor911truth.org as one of the self pro claimed experts over there, you did leave in quiet a hurry i may say?

Huh come on now give us an answer

thecritta · 25th January 2010, 05:08 AM

Yeah well anyway demolishing the towers with explosives powerful enough to cut
steel would have been a very bad idea, because the gig would be up straight away
oh yeah right huge booms and flashes as the towers come down in a apparent collapse
and of course if they did this everyone would realise what is really going on, and the
perps would be faaaarked bad idea if they did demolish the towers the had to use
super duper nanothermite or something else what else could have they have used besides nanothermite?

And please dont say GRAVITY

W.D.Clinger · 25th January 2010, 05:33 AM

Telltale Tom may not be the only truther here who's talking sense...

Originally Posted by thecritta

Yeah well anyway demolishing the towers with explosives powerful enough to cut
steel would have been a very bad idea, because the gig would be up straight away
oh yeah right huge booms and flashes as the towers come down in a apparent collapse
and of course if they did this everyone would realise what is really going on, and the
perps would be faaaarked bad idea

Yep. Your argument destroys that hypothesis.

Originally Posted by thecritta

if they did demolish the towers the had to use
super duper nanothermite or something else what else could have they have used besides nanothermite?

And please dont say GRAVITY

Here's a possibility that deserves to be more widely considered: a kinetic energy weapon bearing a substantial thermobaric payload.

DGM · 25th January 2010, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by thecritta

So turbofan why did you leave pilotsfor911truth.org as one of the self pro claimed experts over there, you did leave in quiet a hurry i may say?

Huh come on now give us an answer

Just to let you know, your talking to yourself. Turbofan was banned (along with a few of his socks).

thecritta · 25th January 2010, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

Just to let you know, your talking to yourself. Turbofan was banned (along with a few of his socks).

Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files?

DGM · 25th January 2010, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by thecritta

Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files?

9/11 files is John Farmer (now BCR on this forum) no relation to John Farmer of the 9/11 commission or Turbofan.

Dave Rogers · 25th January 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

9/11 files is John Farmer (now BCR on this forum) no relation to John Farmer of the 9/11 commission or Turbofan.

But if they'd all been called Waleed al-Shehri, we'd know for certain they were the same person.

Dave

tsig · 25th January 2010, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by thecritta

Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files?

This is really basic information that I would think anyone posting here would be aware of.

I think you're in the wrong end of the pool.

ETA: God doesn't post here either.

9th December 2008, 06:06 PM	#81
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ SHE. Six minutes too late.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

9th December 2008, 06:14 PM	#82
Turbofan Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143	Originally Posted by Drudgewire I KNEW that. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif Well, the victory dance has been downgraded from "Snoopy" to "Snoop Dogg." http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/snoop.gif Considering LashL has shown more than hatred for CIT, I wouldnt be so quick to do a victory dance till the verdict is in from the OC Prosecutor. I also didnt realize she is in Toronto. Although it shouldnt matter much as does her bias. But I will admit I was wrong in reading her past interpretations. I'd look for them to quote, but I suppose none of this matters on a message board. The victory dance will come for one of us eventually though... I'll still hold to my theory that the OC Prosecutor will tell Farmer to pound sand and stop his crying. By the way 911Files, what type of "investigator" do you have? A guy with a badge as deduced by Drudge? Is it a detective? If so, which PCT in the OC? The first clue is you said "agency" instead of precinct. Sounds like a private investigator. If part of a Federal Agency, well then he should be familiar with CFR Title 18 when recording other Federal Officers.
Turbofan Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,143

9th December 2008, 07:09 PM	#85
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733	911files, You just stated in this thread: Quote: I have found solid evidence that may have been altered, the operative word is MAY. The words "solid" and "may" make for a rather interesting contrast. So is it solid or not? But you really answered this question further as you continued... Quote: And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered. Ahh ok so you admit that the NTSB data definitely HAS been altered. Thanks for that. You continued... Quote: Was some of the public release information altered and doctored? There is no doubt in my mind that it was. Once again reaffirming this belief that you obviously have held since early 2007 and possibly before. Curious though....do you understand how this would set a precedent wherein other government provided data should be automatically considered suspect? If not why? Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime? You went on... Quote: The Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon. Really? Care to make a poll thread to see how many members here think the Pentagon security gate camera footage has "issues"? Any members here care to back him up on this? And what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that you currently think the security camera has also been "doctored" just as you believe regarding the NTSB data? Now you go on to say "that's a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon" but you also just sent an essay to publish in Gaffney's book that asserts just that. And as Gaffney said you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it. The physical evidence he was referring to of course is the citgo security video that you believe supports the citgo witnesses' independently corroborated claim of a plane on the north side. So please help me understand why you would allow these assertions to be published in this new book if you don't believe them, or think that evidence is "wanting" for this as you said in this post. I really find it odd that you could possibly think that the citgo security video corroborates the unanimous claim of the citgo witnesses (and many more) yet still call corroboration of evidence on this level "wanting". To sum it up....you agree that government data has been altered, you agree that the citgo video confirms the citgo witnesses' north side account, you have no problem publishing these assertions in a distributed book as completely valid and evidence based, and naturally you must understand that all of this points to a military deception on 9/11.....yet you insist on quitting the "truth movement" and remaining hostile towards CIT who uncovered the majority this evidence that you have asserted as valid and corroborated? Correct?
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733

10th December 2008, 12:18 PM	#88
Alareth Expert Expertologist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 6,683	Originally Posted by Turbofan Not our burden to offer a theory. It is up to the govt to prove theirs. Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works.
	__________________ Pixelated Reality \| Alareth Does Art! Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak

10th December 2008, 12:55 PM	#89
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733	911files, So does that mean you changed your position from yesterday when you said there was "no doubt" in your mind that publicly released information was "altered and doctored"? Obviously that is a far cry from an "anomaly". This thread is about your previous statements and research. Nobody has claimed that an innocent technical anomaly = 9/11 was an inside job so I'm not sure why you went off on that tangent. Don't you agree that "alteration" or "doctoring" of evidence would implicate a cover-up of a crime and set a precedent wherein all forthcoming data from the implicated party should be considered automatically suspect? But you have gone much further than that. You only recently sent an essay to be published in a distributed book asserting a north side flyover and you provide "eyewitness testimony and physical evidence" to support it. Obviously you must see this evidence as valid since you cited it and had it published only weeks ago. Certainly you understand how a north side flyover of anything at all at the same time of the attack proves a deliberate deception and cover-up on 9/11. Right?
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733

9th December 2008, 06:16 PM	#84
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,256	Originally Posted by Turbofan Ever practice law in the US? I have done quite a lot of cross-border litigation, thanks for asking. Originally Posted by Turbofan By the way, does anyone know if the "prostitute" or Globe International was prosecuted by PA for violating their recording/consent laws? I have no idea. You'll have to check the state courts to find out. Originally Posted by Turbofan According to LashL, they should have been prosecuted. I did not say any such thing.

10th December 2008, 10:36 AM	#87
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	LB, this will be my final response on this thread, because I agree with Chillzero. If it was constructive, I would participate, but it is more argumentative than anything. Yes LB, as I have already said, many of these folks I have communicated with outside of the forum, and we agree there remains a lot to be learned about the events of 9/11. There are anomalies in a lot of the government data and if an applicable thread devoted to any single one opens, I will happily discuss it. Here is the difference that escapes you. An anomaly in the data set does not mean "inside job" or alteration for nefarious purposes. There can often be technical explanations for the same anomaly (or simply someone messed up). I have learned over the past several years that if a person keeps digging, some questions can be resolved without any such speculation. I have seen these folks work with the NTSB animation to great lengths for example. They do not deny that the heading is greater than the FDR reports, but they don't go from that observation to ... "911 is an inside job". The key is, they should not make that jump, and through thorough research a number of alternative explanations have been offered. Some I agree with, some I do not, but they remain valid explanations non-the-less. These are very intelligence folks residing here. If you give them evidence in the terms an intelligent person can work with, then I think like me they would love to explore it. But if you give them an anomaly in the data and scream "911 is an inside job", they are going to rightly tell you that you are...well pick the response. So yes, it may surprise you, but JREF folks are rational, thinking individuals. Honest folks can disagree about what the data means and work together to find a common resolution, unless one of them is wearing the blinders of seeing everything as evidence of a pre-determined conclusion.

10th December 2008, 12:56 PM	#90
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,578	Artificial burden of proof shifting ROCKS!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

10th December 2008, 04:52 PM	#91
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Alareth Wow, you have a deep and intrinsically flawed understanding of how all this works. It's actually quite telling in regards to what the most lofty goals of the movement actually are. If their purpose/mission was discover "what really happened" and get the word out... or for that matter to truly gain insight about the events leading up to 9/11 and the day itself, they'd start with a hypothesis and work towards proving it. For everything that can be said about the early "names" in the movement, there was at least a blueprint towards this end. But "it's up to the government to prove their story" is not only circular, it's a clear indication the "just asking questions" nu-twoof contingent is perfectly content to simply throw stones at the wall. Considering, even if there WAS a conspiracy, they've successfully stifled it to the point the already miniscule amount of people who ever believed otherwise dwindles by the day, what would the conspirators POSSIBLY have to gain by attempting to placate the tiny percentage of people who not only won't believe anything they say regardless, but who haven't provided a shred of evidence worth answering to? I was talking to a girl the other day who wasn't really educated to the facts on 9/11, and she brought up things like "stand-down orders" and a few of the other long-debunked issues. I told her the same thing I've said on here a hundred times: the SECOND any kind of valid evidence which can honestly contradict everything we do know, I'll be back on the CT bus quicker than you can say "cover-up." But TLB's response, despite the furor a lot of truthers have brought me over the last few years, did something far worse: It saddened me. It belies a motivation perhaps not as sinister as some of the more paranoid "critical thinkers" think twoofers have... but it's far more pathetic.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

20th January 2010, 01:09 AM	#92
Obviousman Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 652	Turbofan is trying to make a comeback: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...=172289&st=135
	__________________ Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. Jack White Little White Lies.......

20th January 2010, 07:21 AM	#93
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Obviousman Turbofan is trying to make a comeback: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...=172289&st=135 Good to know that the residents of the venue he has invaded readily recognized him as a freaking moron.

25th January 2010, 05:03 AM	#95
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by Turbofan Considering LashL has shown more than hatred for CIT, I wouldnt be so quick to do a victory dance till the verdict is in from the OC Prosecutor. I also didnt realize she is in Toronto. Although it shouldnt matter much as does her bias. But I will admit I was wrong in reading her past interpretations. I'd look for them to quote, but I suppose none of this matters on a message board. The victory dance will come for one of us eventually though... I'll still hold to my theory that the OC Prosecutor will tell Farmer to pound sand and stop his crying. By the way 911Files, what type of "investigator" do you have? A guy with a badge as deduced by Drudge? Is it a detective? If so, which PCT in the OC? The first clue is you said "agency" instead of precinct. Sounds like a private investigator. If part of a Federal Agency, well then he should be familiar with CFR Title 18 when recording other Federal Officers. So turbofan why did you leave pilotsfor911truth.org as one of the self pro claimed experts over there, you did leave in quiet a hurry i may say? Huh come on now give us an answer
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203

25th January 2010, 05:08 AM	#96
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203	Yeah well anyway demolishing the towers with explosives powerful enough to cut steel would have been a very bad idea, because the gig would be up straight away oh yeah right huge booms and flashes as the towers come down in a apparent collapse and of course if they did this everyone would realise what is really going on, and the perps would be faaaarked bad idea if they did demolish the towers the had to use super duper nanothermite or something else what else could have they have used besides nanothermite? And please dont say GRAVITY
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203	Last edited by thecritta; 25th January 2010 at 05:11 AM.

25th January 2010, 05:33 AM	#97
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,442	Telltale Tom may not be the only truther here who's talking sense... Originally Posted by thecritta Yeah well anyway demolishing the towers with explosives powerful enough to cut steel would have been a very bad idea, because the gig would be up straight away oh yeah right huge booms and flashes as the towers come down in a apparent collapse and of course if they did this everyone would realise what is really going on, and the perps would be faaaarked bad idea Yep. Your argument destroys that hypothesis. Originally Posted by thecritta if they did demolish the towers the had to use super duper nanothermite or something else what else could have they have used besides nanothermite? And please dont say GRAVITY Here's a possibility that deserves to be more widely considered: a kinetic energy weapon bearing a substantial thermobaric payload.

25th January 2010, 05:58 AM	#98
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by thecritta So turbofan why did you leave pilotsfor911truth.org as one of the self pro claimed experts over there, you did leave in quiet a hurry i may say? Huh come on now give us an answer Just to let you know, your talking to yourself. Turbofan was banned (along with a few of his socks).
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

25th January 2010, 09:24 AM	#99
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by DGM Just to let you know, your talking to yourself. Turbofan was banned (along with a few of his socks). Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files?
thecritta Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 203

25th January 2010, 09:29 AM	#100
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by thecritta Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files? 9/11 files is John Farmer (now BCR on this forum) no relation to John Farmer of the 9/11 commission or Turbofan.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

25th January 2010, 09:38 AM	#101
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by DGM 9/11 files is John Farmer (now BCR on this forum) no relation to John Farmer of the 9/11 commission or Turbofan. But if they'd all been called Waleed al-Shehri, we'd know for certain they were the same person. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

25th January 2010, 10:11 AM	#102
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by thecritta Goddamit i was hoping for some answers is turbofan 911files? This is really basic information that I would think anyone posting here would be aware of. I think you're in the wrong end of the pool. ETA: God doesn't post here either.
	Last edited by tsig; 25th January 2010 at 10:13 AM.