Tuesday, May 30, 2006

In Response to Perry Logan

Perry's included us in his links to other folks debunking the 9-11 "Truth" movement, but with an amusing disclaimer:

Lots of good debunking at this site, if you don't step in the right-wing BS. Needless to say, these people think the 9/11 Truth Movement are all liberals gone bad. But keep in mind, they voted TWICE for The Worst President Ever™. Thousands of women and children have died because of them. Yet even these poor, tortured souls can see right through the 9/11 Truth Movement.


I resent that remark; I only voted for Jimmy Carter once. ;)

But I would like to correct one thing. I don't see the 9-11 Truthers as liberals. Some liberals may be Truthers, but I'd suspect they're a small percentage. The Truthers are more likely to be anarchists or very far leftists. There are undeniably some people whom most of us would consider conservative also in the 9-11 Truth movement.

But more Truthers are far left than far right, just as more folks keeping tabs on the Clinton Death List in the 1990s were far right than far left (and just about as nutty). And indeed, Perry even notes that the Truthers like to snort at the "false left-right dichotomy" which is of course the favored trope of far Left celeb-blogger Arianna Huffington.

Anyway, we recognized early on that Perry was, in addition to being a 9-11 "Truth" debunker, a liberal. But in this battle we've got no quarrel with liberals. And he's very funny, which sometimes isn't easy for conservatives when you're debating folks who thought President Bush intentionally killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.

And we'll try to tone down the right-wing BS. Right Donald--errr, James?

13 Comments:

At 30 May, 2006 19:17, Blogger shawn said...

Weird, I make a comment in another thread about this and *poof* here's a new post.

Yes, Perry Logan understands that 9/11 was an Islamist conspiracy.

But he ignores that far-left and far-right people cling to these conspiracy theories. He's a partisan hack, note he doesn't just hate Republicans, but neocons (which are closer to Democrats than Republicans, oddly enough) and libertarians. Libertarians for crying out loud! They're the closest to what the Founding Fathers were and he attacks them. I see very little attacking corrupt Democrats or communists, etc.

 
At 30 May, 2006 19:17, Blogger shawn said...

While he is sometimes funny, he also comes off as a loon.

 
At 30 May, 2006 19:30, Blogger James B. said...

The 9/11 conspiracy movement seems to have both an extreme right, and extreme left component. Then there are just those generation x slacker types who hold no particular ideology other then their own arrogance.

 
At 30 May, 2006 21:29, Blogger roger_sq said...

He's a partisan hack,
ad hominem

 
At 30 May, 2006 21:29, Blogger Proud Kaffir said...

As I wrote in my Redstate diary entry:

The War On Terror has created a bizarre synergy of leftist moonbats, Islamists, and neo-nazi supremacists. I guess we can call them the "We Hate the Jews All the Time" Coalition. The CT'ers appear well represented from all corners of this coalition.

The 9/11 CT'ers also include former right-wing CT'ers who believed in black helicopters and New World order a decade ago. I don't believe you are ever going to convince these people that their ridiculous theories are wrong no matter how often you tear apart their logical fallacies. However, it is improtant to debunk the theories.

I once read that when a somewhat rational person first comes across a ridiculous theory, they summarily dismiss it. However, the more often they see similar theories expressed from different sources, the more they start to subconsciously give creedence to the theory, to the point where they may even come to believe it. This is how conspiracy theories spread and become popular(Remember Area 51 and Roswell).

That is why it is important to debunk these theories. Not to convince the hardcore CT'ers who need CT's as they need oxygen. This is to give information to people who may not be inclined to independently research things (i.e. most people) and combat the spread of disinformation.

That is why it is important to debunk CT's.

 
At 30 May, 2006 21:29, Blogger roger_sq said...

he also comes off as a loon.


ad hominem logical fallacy

 
At 30 May, 2006 21:33, Blogger roger_sq said...

Hey Junior,

Deep down inside I think you know you're just a troll searching for a sense of belonging, but since you kept asking I'll throw you a bone.

The first one's easy enough: Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed forces?

Bonus points if you can get through a response without your totally gay refrains.

 
At 30 May, 2006 21:36, Blogger roger_sq said...

As I wrote in my Redstate diary entry:

I'm a huge fan, it's hard to mix humor with conservatism.

Are you familiar with the Office of Special Plans?

 
At 31 May, 2006 06:32, Blogger shawn said...

He's a partisan hack,
ad hominem


Ah you don't even understand logical fallacies. It's ad hominem if that's my ONLY response to what he has to say. It's when my argument hinges on that. You know, like saying Marvin Bush is related to Dubya, and ergo had something to do with destroying the buildings that day. (That's poisoning the well, a specific type of ad hominem.) I guess you forgot the rest to read the rest of my entry, which goes on to say why he's a partisan hack.

Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed forces?

The head of the executive branch. What the hell is the point of that question, anyway? I'd love to call you out on yet another red herring, but I'd like to see your tortured logic for this one.

Now my question: what's the evidence for a conspiracy in the death of JFK?

Bonus points if you can get through a response without your totally gay refrains.

"Totally gay". I think someone's pretending to be older than he is. And those refrains would cease once you give your evidence (heh) for the assassination conspiracy involving JFK.

Back and to the left!

 
At 03 June, 2006 14:58, Blogger insidejob said...

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that the makers of Loose Change and In Plane Site were part of a deliberate disinformation campaign - they blend false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. the cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims. the websites below give strong evidence that both videos were intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. the author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Rumsfeld's "slip-up" about a "missile" hitting the Pentagon was an intentional part of the Flight 77 red herring (Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, but they are intentionally perpetuating the red herring to throw people off, make us argue, and discredit us, and I think the whole hoax probably originated from Rumsfeld and others as a deliberate tactic.

People are right to debunk Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job.

here is a link to a bunch of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. it would make no sense at all for the conspirators to try to hit the Pentagon with a missile, when they were perfectly capable of hitting the WTC towers with airplanes, or at least getting terrorists to do so by using ISI operatives as middle-men, especially considering that it doesn't make any sense that they would risk people seeing the missile or something other than what they said hit the Pentagon. there were so many people around to see what actually hit, and they did see it:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

this site talks about the removal of the passengers' bodies:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/13_AP70bodiespentagon.html

too many people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy for them to have hit the Pentagon with a missile (emergency responders galore, numerous FBI agents, CIA personnel, and so on).

the real question to ask ourselves is, why won't Rumsfeld release the videos that actually show Flight 77? why do they keep releasing only videos that show nothing, when they have the videos from the Sheraton Hotel (eyewitnesses there actually watched the tapes over and over in horror before they were confiscated - so they would have noticed if it was a missile instead of a 757) and the Freeway camera. they are trying to bait us. it's reeeally clear to me now. that's why Rumsfeld had his little 'slip-up' about a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, and that's why Fox News and CNN showed clips from Loose Change (Fox News actually interviewed Dylan Avery), while they completely ignore the real truth movement, the real documentaries (Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City), and the powerful evidence and numerous improbable 'coincidences,' (such as the inexplicable and methodical collapse of Building 7, which was housing files for numerous ongoing SEC investigations and was housing elements of the CIA and Secret Service, the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion in the steel beams, indicating the use of thermate cutter-charges, the unexplained evacuations of the WTC Towers in the three weeks prior to the attacks, Larry Silverstein's unprecedented privatization of the WTC just 6 weeks prior with an insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism and a 3.5 billion dollar payout, which was way more than Silverstein had paid, the multiple war games on 9-11 that crippled the Air Force's ability to respond, the 3-year project reinforcing that particular section of the Pentagon that was hit by Flight 77 against an attack of just such a nature, and the completion of that renovation on the very day of the attacks, put-options on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the weeks before the attacks, the Mossad agents (implicating Israel, the American government's bosom-buddy), Silverstein's connections with Israel, the mailing of Anthrax to Democratic officials (Anthrax which was found to have come from a U.S. military lab), Porter Goss' meeting on the morning of Sept. 11th with the Pakistani general who had had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta - all these improbable 'coincidences' that, when multipled (the multiplication rule of the laws of probability), make the probability that 9-11 was not an inside job about 1 in 1,000,000.

There are disinformation websites out there: The site www.911myths.org claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. the Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon, and the missile claim was a deliberate red herring to discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames, and this is more bait, considering that they definitely have videos that clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (such as from the Sheraton Hotel). they may be planning to later release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening nearby beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.


Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002

This has been reported on by several mainstream media outlets, but has simply been forgotten

Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)


FAA delayed reporting the hijackings for an hour, whereas it was bound by law to report them. The top FAA officials were appointed by Bush, and were close friends of Bush.

Norad (Pentagon) response was delayed, once FAA finally reported.

The jets that responded would have made it in time if they had flown at full speed. Why didn’t they fly at full speed? The Pentagon (Norad) must have given this order.

Several war games had been planned by Rumsfeld and Cheney on September 11th, in which most American fighter jets were off fighting imagined enemies. A particularly telling detail is that the CIA was conducting an exercise on Sept. 11th, under Cheney’s direction, that simulated a plane hitting NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes.


Terrorists were given visas based on incomplete forms. President Bush appointed James Ziglar commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) one month before September 1lth

 
At 01 March, 2008 13:10, Blogger Joe said...

Perry Logan seriously needs to just jump off of a bridge, it's people like that that make me never want to vote for a democrat. Do you people not notice how weird and crazy this toolbag is? He has less worth than a cockroach. And people wonder why our congress has been controlled by Republicans for so long....

 
At 09 December, 2008 20:18, Blogger DeathMcDie said...

This guy need's to be shot or returned to the mental ward.

 
At 02 November, 2009 17:56, Blogger Patrick said...

I find it odd that in this post it says a lot of Truthers are anarchists. In fact, when you look at one of the major anarchist websites, infoshop.org, there is an entire section dedicated to debunking Truthers.

http://infoshop.org/page/Debunking-911

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home