Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it" - Page 9

bio · 17th June 2008, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment".

Firefighter Terence Rivera:
QUOTE
As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source)

How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner.
"At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:"

QUOTE

„Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

from
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=18745&st=0

funk de fino · 17th June 2008, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by bio

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

I'm sorry, could you show me where he says he knows there are no bombs in the basement?

mrbaracuda · 17th June 2008, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just - unlike you apparently - sane and can comprehend everything in its proper frame or at least accept help from people who do and make more sense than something a delusional tard wrote up on a blog for insane people.

phunk · 17th June 2008, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by bio

at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment".

Firefighter Terence Rivera:
QUOTE
As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source)

How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner.
"At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:"

QUOTE

„Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

from
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=18745&st=0

Where did he say there were no bombs?

A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other.

By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects.

WildCat · 17th June 2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by bio

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?

abenja1 · 17th June 2008, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

Well I guess what I'm trying to ask is that since truthers know so much that this guy was "in on it" and that's a direct quote from the title of this thread, obviously they must know what this rescue worker got in return for following the evil gov'ts plan. I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him.

WildCat · 17th June 2008, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by abenja1

I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him.

Besides that, it says "banned" under his name now.

But maybe his latest sock will answer you.

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives.

First you say the above then later you say this?

Quote:

I know Mr. Rodriguez didn't see bombs. I know he didn't claim to see bombs, either. [...]

How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.

Quote:

In an attempt to be charitable, I'd even be faintly interested in everyone who thinks there were bombs, at any time (1993 doesn't count!), in any structure. As far as I know, the population of this group is one -- Mr. Rodriguez. I could be wrong, there could be one or two other confused folks out there. Or maybe even someone credible. Surprise me.

So, what have you got

Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.

R.Mackey · 17th June 2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

First you say the above then later you say this?

How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.

My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of a bomb". Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.

How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place.

It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me.

funk de fino · 17th June 2008, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.

Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke?

bio · 17th June 2008, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

Where did he say there were no bombs?

A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other.

By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects.

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of a bomb". Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption.

How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place.

It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me.

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FF Timothy Julian
FF Joseph Meola
FF William Reynolds
FF Kenneth Rogers
Cpt Dennis Tardio

Do you want me to keep going?

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke?

Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong.

R.Mackey · 17th June 2008, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FF Timothy Julian
FF Joseph Meola
FF William Reynolds
FF Kenneth Rogers
Cpt Dennis Tardio

Do you want me to keep going?

No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do.

For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Gregory

[Gregory] No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

[Interviewer] Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

[Gregory] No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange.

Source (Emphasis added)

This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all.

WildCat · 17th June 2008, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Do you want me to keep going?

You have to, because none of those people think there were bombs in the building. Apparently you and Dylan Avery share an ignorance of similes.

Jonnyclueless · 17th June 2008, 01:25 PM

What exactly do the sounds of a building collapsing, burning, debris dropping, steel cracking,jet fuel erupting, etc sounds like for real since that day consisted only of bomb explosions?

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do.

For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote:

Source (Emphasis added)

This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all.

I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD. Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions.

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,

Quote:

"You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

Arus808 · 17th June 2008, 01:54 PM

and you have problems comprehending. a whole "thought" and "like" is in that sentence

lapman · 17th June 2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD.

The "low level flashes" are not consistent with anything especially since the collapse did NOT initiate from that location. Most importantly, there are no sounds associated with said flashes.

Quote:

Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions.

There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains. So, what's your point? What nobody states is that they heard, yes heard the sound of the distinct sequence of explosions that always, repeat, ALWAYS accompanies a CD. Add to that the fact that any such sound would have been recorded, yes, actually recorded by the many audio recording devices that were recording that day, yes, during the actual time of said flashes and "explosions." Why do twoofers always have such a huge problem with that?

pomeroo · 17th June 2008, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton

You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

Well, you failed to acknowledge that your lie about the Gulf of Tonkin was exposed. So, nyah-nyah.

Let me respond to your message about the 1993 WTC bombing: Nonsense.

pomeroo · 17th June 2008, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?

It's a great question, but the liars who were asked it by Mark never responded. I doubt that you'll have better luck.

Dog Town · 17th June 2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains.

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

!!00lolz!!!!!

ETA: Another D'oh P sock gone. How many is that now, twenty, or thirty, or more?

Priceless!

pomeroo · 17th June 2008, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

pomeroo · 17th June 2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.

Drs_Res · 17th June 2008, 05:11 PM

Except the accounts say nothing of synchronized explosive devices going off right BEFORE the buildings colapsed.
Except for the fact that none are recorded by any video or audio equipment.
Except that fact that none of the recue workers and firemen think there were explosive devices planted in the buildings and set off to bring them down.

But you know this already. Why do you have to be dishonest about all of this again?

Grizzly Bear · 17th June 2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,

Quote:

"You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

Once again, do you fail to observe analogies?

Grizzly Bear · 17th June 2008, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.

Last time I mentioned that controlled demolitions don't damage near-by buildings the response I got was:

"That these were non-conventional demolitions..."
However, that that's grasping at straws...

Besides, anybody trying to demo the WTC towers from the bottom without having pre-weakened them would have been totally stupid for neglecting the fact that the core columns were given added lateral bracing as the perimeter columns contributes less to that function on the 1st 7 floors.

In controlled demos they actually have this concept of weakening the structure to make it easier to take down, usually removing a significant amount of the building materials in the process. To demolish the buildings in their original state, would have required many thousands of tons of explosive which would need to have been packed somewhere in open office spaces...

Cl1mh4224rd · 17th June 2008, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by bio

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...

What... the hell are you talking about?

RedIbis · 17th June 2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. [/b]

You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.

Jonnyclueless · 17th June 2008, 07:42 PM

If 10,000 people reported explosions, it would still NOT prove explosives.

R.Mackey · 17th June 2008, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,

That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.

I'm tempted to believe that you don't even recognize Mr. Gregory's comments when quoted in proper context.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

Even one would be a good start. The point you fail to grasp is that even the witnesses themselves do not believe their experiences are evidence of "controlled demolition." You are working from much lower fidelity information, i.e. their words, occasionally distorted, often from much after the fact. Your feeling about what their words mean cannot trump their feeling. This is exactly what Aldo and Craig are doing with their Pentagon witnesses, and it's equally asinine.

Since you cannot produce a witness who supports your position, and the whole idea of witnesses was brought up by your side in the first place to shore up a complete absence of physical evidence, a rational investigator would drop this matter entirely at this point.

lapman · 17th June 2008, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

I would agree with Ryan. One would be nice. Now, to clarify, the sequence would be right BEFORE the start of the collapse and not after the collapse was already underway. BTW, "detonators" are not CD explosives. As a point of reference, it would sound like:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(notice the roof structures collapse with the section they are on top of and not faster)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I think you get the picture.

Cl1mh4224rd · 17th June 2008, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.

Random explosions in the preceding 45 minutes don't count, for obvious reasons. Sounds that could be described as a series of explosions during the collapse don't count, also for obvious reasons.

funk de fino · 18th June 2008, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by bio

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...

FAIL

You claimed he said there were no bombs. You were wrong.

try again

funk de fino · 18th June 2008, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong.

Vaguely aware? Of something your "friend" that you feel the need to defend has said?

I think you know fine well what he said. If he said it do you think he misspoke?

ETA to add link

http://web.archive.org/web/200612210...p-175130c.html

RedIbis · 18th June 2008, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.

You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?

Alt+F4 · 18th June 2008, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

How is molten metal found for weeks after 9/11 characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is a top down collapse characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is extensive damage to nearby buildings characteristic of a controlled demolition?

When, in the history of controlled demolitions of buildings has the TNT and/or nitroglycerin used survive the burning of a building for over an hour?

funk de fino · 18th June 2008, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?

How many? If this was true then there would be thousands of accounts from people who were there. Also on video and audio evidence. No truther has supplied me with any evidence of this. How about you trump them?

Bring it.

Also was Willie misspoken when he claimed his story about the hijacker or was he lying?

WildCat · 18th June 2008, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?

Since bio seems to have left the building, any other truthers want to take a crack at this?

17th June 2008, 01:07 AM	#322
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by bio The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists." I'm sorry, could you show me where he says he knows there are no bombs in the basement?
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

17th June 2008, 08:12 AM	#324
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by bio at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment". Firefighter Terence Rivera: QUOTE As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious. At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source) How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner. "At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:" QUOTE „Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“ The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists." from http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=18745&st=0 Where did he say there were no bombs? A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other. By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

17th June 2008, 08:27 AM	#326
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others? Well I guess what I'm trying to ask is that since truthers know so much that this guy was "in on it" and that's a direct quote from the title of this thread, obviously they must know what this rescue worker got in return for following the evil gov'ts plan. I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him.
abenja1 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 780	__________________ My Blog: http://andrews-views.blogspot.com/ JihadJane actually thinks its okay for truthers to call for the murder of people they disagree with. 911-Investigator believes that Jews should have no rights of any kind, even those dictated by the Constitution. Last edited by abenja1; 17th June 2008 at 08:30 AM.

17th June 2008, 11:44 AM	#328
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by R.Mackey I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives. First you say the above then later you say this? Quote: I know Mr. Rodriguez didn't see bombs. I know he didn't claim to see bombs, either. [...] How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar. Quote: In an attempt to be charitable, I'd even be faintly interested in everyone who thinks there were bombs, at any time (1993 doesn't count!), in any structure. As far as I know, the population of this group is one -- Mr. Rodriguez. I could be wrong, there could be one or two other confused folks out there. Or maybe even someone credible. Surprise me. So, what have you got Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 11:50 AM	#329
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by RedIbis First you say the above then later you say this? How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar. My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of* a bomb". Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption. Originally Posted by RedIbis* Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument. How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place. It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

17th June 2008, 01:01 AM	#321
bio Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 883	Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton False. There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs. at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment". Firefighter Terence Rivera: QUOTE As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious. At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source) How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner. "At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:" QUOTE „Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“ The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists." from http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=18745&st=0

17th June 2008, 01:10 AM	#323
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives. And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense. No, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just - unlike you apparently - sane and can comprehend everything in its proper frame or at least accept help from people who do and make more sense than something a delusional tard wrote up on a blog for insane people.

17th June 2008, 08:22 AM	#325
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,998	Originally Posted by bio The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists." Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?

17th June 2008, 08:38 AM	#327
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,998	Originally Posted by abenja1 I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him. Besides that, it says "banned" under his name now. But maybe his latest sock will answer you.

17th June 2008, 11:52 AM	#330
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by RedIbis How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar. Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke?
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

17th June 2008, 11:58 AM	#331
bio Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 883	Originally Posted by phunk Where did he say there were no bombs? A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other. By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects. well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...
	Last edited by bio; 17th June 2008 at 12:12 PM.

17th June 2008, 11:59 AM	#332
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by R.Mackey My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of* a bomb"*. Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption. How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place. It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me. Battalion Chief Brian Dixon Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory FF Timothy Julian FF Joseph Meola FF William Reynolds FF Kenneth Rogers Cpt Dennis Tardio Do you want me to keep going?
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 12:01 PM	#333
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by funk de fino Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke? Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 12:20 PM	#334
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by RedIbis Battalion Chief Brian Dixon Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory FF Timothy Julian FF Joseph Meola FF William Reynolds FF Kenneth Rogers Cpt Dennis Tardio Do you want me to keep going? No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do. For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote: Originally Posted by Stephen Gregory [Gregory] No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. [Interviewer] Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? [Gregory] No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange. Source (Emphasis added) This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

17th June 2008, 12:25 PM	#335
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,998	Originally Posted by RedIbis Do you want me to keep going? You have to, because none of those people think there were bombs in the building. Apparently you and Dylan Avery share an ignorance of similes.

17th June 2008, 01:25 PM	#336
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	What exactly do the sounds of a building collapsing, burning, debris dropping, steel cracking,jet fuel erupting, etc sounds like for real since that day consisted only of bomb explosions?

17th June 2008, 01:45 PM	#337
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by R.Mackey No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do. For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote: Source (Emphasis added) This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all. I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD. Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions. Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account. I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states, Quote: "You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 01:54 PM	#338
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	and you have problems comprehending. a whole "thought" and "like" is in that sentence
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

17th June 2008, 02:09 PM	#339
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	Originally Posted by RedIbis I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD. The "low level flashes" are not consistent with anything especially since the collapse did NOT initiate from that location. Most importantly, there are no sounds associated with said flashes. Quote: Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions. There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains. So, what's your point? What nobody states is that they heard, yes heard the sound of the distinct sequence of explosions that always, repeat, ALWAYS accompanies a CD. Add to that the fact that any such sound would have been recorded, yes, actually recorded by the many audio recording devices that were recording that day, yes, during the actual time of said flashes and "explosions." Why do twoofers always have such a huge problem with that?
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

17th June 2008, 04:33 PM	#340
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic. Well, you failed to acknowledge that your lie about the Gulf of Tonkin was exposed. So, nyah-nyah. Let me respond to your message about the 1993 WTC bombing: Nonsense.

17th June 2008, 04:35 PM	#341
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by WildCat Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens? It's a great question, but the liars who were asked it by Mark never responded. I doubt that you'll have better luck.

17th June 2008, 04:39 PM	#342
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by lapman There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains. http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/ !!00lolz!!!!! ETA: Another D'oh P sock gone. How many is that now, twenty, or thirty, or more? Priceless!
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 17th June 2008 at 04:42 PM.

17th June 2008, 04:54 PM	#343
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton False. There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs. Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore: Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?

17th June 2008, 05:03 PM	#344
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by pomeroo Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore: Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex? How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions? Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 05:10 PM	#345
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by RedIbis How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions? Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo. Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.

17th June 2008, 05:11 PM	#346
Drs_Res NWO Acorn Hoarder Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33 Posts: 1,829	Except the accounts say nothing of synchronized explosive devices going off right BEFORE the buildings colapsed. Except for the fact that none are recorded by any video or audio equipment. Except that fact that none of the recue workers and firemen think there were explosive devices planted in the buildings and set off to bring them down. But you know this already. Why do you have to be dishonest about all of this again?
	__________________ Vote Bunk and vote often. If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. "Yes, well, I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon - TBBT

17th June 2008, 05:13 PM	#347
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by RedIbis I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states, Quote: "You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw." Once again, do you fail to observe analogies?
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689

17th June 2008, 05:19 PM	#348
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by pomeroo Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings. Last time I mentioned that controlled demolitions don't damage near-by buildings the response I got was: "That these were non-conventional demolitions..." However, that that's grasping at straws... Besides, anybody trying to demo the WTC towers from the bottom without having pre-weakened them would have been totally stupid for neglecting the fact that the core columns were given added lateral bracing as the perimeter columns contributes less to that function on the 1st 7 floors. In controlled demos they actually have this concept of weakening the structure to make it easier to take down, usually removing a significant amount of the building materials in the process. To demolish the buildings in their original state, would have required many thousands of tons of explosive which would need to have been packed somewhere in open office spaces...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 17th June 2008 at 05:20 PM.

17th June 2008, 05:20 PM	#349
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by bio well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ... What... the hell are you talking about?

17th June 2008, 07:37 PM	#350
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by pomeroo Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. [/b] You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

17th June 2008, 07:42 PM	#351
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	If 10,000 people reported explosions, it would still NOT prove explosives.

17th June 2008, 07:56 PM	#352
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by RedIbis I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states, That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully. I'm tempted to believe that you don't even recognize Mr. Gregory's comments when quoted in proper context. Originally Posted by RedIbis How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions? Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo. Even one would be a good start. The point you fail to grasp is that even the witnesses themselves do not believe their experiences are evidence of "controlled demolition." You are working from much lower fidelity information, i.e. their words, occasionally distorted, often from much after the fact. Your feeling about what their words mean cannot trump their feeling. This is exactly what Aldo and Craig are doing with their Pentagon witnesses, and it's equally asinine. Since you cannot produce a witness who supports your position, and the whole idea of witnesses was brought up by your side in the first place to shore up a complete absence of physical evidence, a rational investigator would drop this matter entirely at this point.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

17th June 2008, 09:54 PM	#354
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by RedIbis You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar. Random explosions in the preceding 45 minutes don't count, for obvious reasons. Sounds that could be described as a series of explosions during the collapse don't count, also for obvious reasons.

18th June 2008, 12:22 AM	#355
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by bio well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ... FAIL You claimed he said there were no bombs. You were wrong. try again
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

18th June 2008, 12:24 AM	#356
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by RedIbis Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong. Vaguely aware? Of something your "friend" that you feel the need to defend has said? I think you know fine well what he said. If he said it do you think he misspoke? ETA to add link http://web.archive.org/web/200612210...p-175130c.html
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic Last edited by funk de fino; 18th June 2008 at 12:29 AM.