[kj] Congrats Obama/(9/11)

[Brendan]

Haha, yeah best I could do at the time. Was up late because I had a
meeting with my incredibly useless ex lawyer who lost me a small fortune,
was going through all of that crap. Hard to get to sleep with my head
spinning with all the bullshit. Anyways looking like I might be able to
clean up his mess to some extent.

"Liar lawyer what's ths difference"

-Tool, The Pot.


>

> brendan,your up late or should that be very eaerly ;)

>

> hope theres not another 9/11 in the future under obama(bin laden)  sorry

> thats a real poor joke ;P

>

>

> From: bq at soundgardener.co.nzTo: gathering at misera.netDate: Fri, 6 Jun 2008

> 01:05:03 +1200Subject: Re: [kj] Congrats Obama/(9/11)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Yeah I’ll read you the boy who cried Wolfowitz



>

>

>

>

>

>

> From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]

> On Behalf Of The ExorcistSent: Friday, 6 June 2008 12:55 a.m.To: A list

> about all things Killing Joke (the band!)Subject: Re: [kj] Congrats

> Obama/(9/11)

>

> Can you read it to me as a bed time story?I love fairy tales!

> :)Cheers,MeAt 04:40 AM 6/5/2008, Brendan wrote:

> The Wiki article on 9/11 conspiracy theories mentions that

> PopularMechanics article in particluar as being criticised

> itself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_conspiracy_theories"While not

> supporting theories that the Twin Towers were brought down bypre-planted

> explosives, James Quintiere, Ph.D., the former Chief of theFire Science

> Division of the National Institute of Standards andTechnology and who was

> a Popular Mechanics panel member for theirdebunking of 9/11 Truth article

> disagreed with their conclusions. Callingfor NIST's investigation to be

> peer reviewed and for researchers andengineers to scientifically

> re-examine the WTC collapses he stated "Theofficial conclusion NIST

> arrived at is questionable

.I hope to convinceyou to perhaps become

> Conspiracy Theorists, but in a proper way"DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the

> Popular Mechanics article or the guydebunking it, if someone else can and

> give me the Cliff notes I'd be muchobliged (and less exerted ;)(Towards

> the bottom under the heading "Criticism"> You might find this

> interesting.>

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html >>

> Have a glance in your spare time.>> Cheers,> Me>> At 11:14 PM 6/4/2008,

> Devacor at aol.com wrote:>>In a message dated 6/4/2008 6:55:14 P.M. Eastern

> Daylight Time,>>bq at soundgardener.co.nz writes:>>>>I am undecided on the

> whole idea of 9/11 conspiracy theories. One thing>>that does seem strange

> is that the 9/11 and London train bombings both>>apparently coincided with

> drills for those exact same scenarios.>>>>Also a bit strange that WTC7

> collapsed, right down the middle when it>>didn't even take a hit.>>>>I did

> read a better debunking of some of the conspiracy theories, esp the>>one

> about the jet fuel not reaching the temperature required to destroy>>the

> steel foundations of the WTC buildings. As the engineers explained,>>the

> steel only needed to be heated to the point of structural>>

> deformation,>>not actual destruction.>>>>>>As for the Pentagon hit. I was

> under the impression these "guys">>just half ass flew this plane and

> plopped it down on top of the>>pentagon- come to find out, whatever hit

> the pentagon hit the very>>front of it going top speed and parallel to the

> ground flying>>parallel just a few feet off the ground. I live maybe 20

> mins from>>the Pentagon and know the terrain pretty well- there isnt

> anyone I>>know who lives here and knows how the pent actually got hit

> who>>believes that a plane of that size got parallel to the ground

> full>>speed and hit it like it did- I know someone who worked at

> the>>pentagon  then and someone who works right next to it and the

> def>>dont believe it. Not even with a highly trained pilot what to

> speak>>of the hack "hijackers" who flew it- and if so, why would anyone

> go>>about it like that, where that is beyond high risk flying at

> top>>speed a few feet off the ground when you could much easier fly

> down>>on it at an angle towards the middle of it. Also whatever hit

> it>>proceeded to punch very neat tight holes into the inner rings

> which>>is tons of concrete and steel..there wasn't any huge explosion

> or>>big initial mess.>>  Now although no one believes it, no one also

> really wants to take>> it to the next step and say "well then what was it

> and why"? ->> That's a whole other can of worms.>>  Also first accounts of

> sightings (calls in) of whatever hit the>> pentagon was that a small

> ,sleek couple passenger jet flying very>> low to the ground at a very high

> speed was heading in that direction.>>  I knew of the Pentagon

> inconsistencies initially- it wasn't until>> later that I heard of the WTC

> issues and inconsistencies (most>> people only hear about the WTC part of

> it). The more common things>> mentioned (jet fuel, puffs of smoke etc) are

> really just one part>> of it- those could go either way if you really

> looked at it- if>> those were the only things a little fishy then it could

> be a toss>> up, but there is much more to it then that (red flag wise)-

> The>> WTC7 of course very much is but there is much more then even that.>>

>  I personally would have thought that 9/11 people were over>> reacting and

> looking into things that weren't there if I didn't>> look into it some

> myself. In order to really do so you have to look>> into it more then what

> "Penn and Teller" have to say and also get>> past our own cognitive

> dissonance.>>  I've known totally "nonbelievers" who went on to read the

> accounts>> and saw the docs and totally changed their minds...never met a

> non>> believer who went and did all of that and still remained a non

> believer.>>I definitely am not one who wants to or has to believe my

> government>>has hidden agendas and/or is corrupt. It doesn't do me any

> good to>>have that be the fact if it is the case...>>  Though if something

> smells like a rat right in front of my face, I>> cant discount it just

> because it doesn't do me any good or not fit>> into my present belief

> system...>>>>>>Adam Helfer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---------->>Get trade secrets

> for amazing burgers.>><

> http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002

> >Watch>>"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL

> Food.>>_______________________________________________>>Gathering mailing

> list>>Gathering at misera.net>>

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering>> Competition is a

> barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social> Darwinism.> We cannot

> allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone> else's

> gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers> contribute>

> to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is>

> unethical, while> a society of losers is happy and striving as a

> collective. In the> spirit of diversity,> inclusiveness, and collectivism

> our contests shall have no winners.> Everyone is declared a loser, which

> in our book means an ethical team> player.>

> _______________________________________________> Gathering mailing list>

> Gathering at misera.net>

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering>_______________________________________________Gathering

> mailing

> listGathering at misera.nethttp://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

> Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social

> Darwinism.We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss

> is someoneelse's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore,

> losers contributeto the society and winners take away from it. Being a

> winner is unethical, whilea society of losers is happy and striving as a

> collective. In the spirit of diversity,inclusiveness, and collectivism our

> contests shall have no winners.Everyone is declared a loser, which in our

> book means an ethical team player.

> No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.524 /

> Virus Database: 269.24.6/1484 - Release Date: 4/06/2008 4:40 p.m.

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.524 /

> Virus Database: 269.24.6/1484 - Release Date: 4/06/2008 4:40 p.m.

> _________________________________________________________________

>

> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/_______________________________________________

> Gathering mailing list

> Gathering at misera.net

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>