Saturday, June 17, 2006

New CT Term for the Day

The term is "plane hugger", and refers to those who insist that planes actually hit the World Trade Center.

39 Comments:

At 17 June, 2006 14:40, Blogger shawn said...

Wow.

Kind of like the nosecone penetrating 3 rings at the Pentagon and then disappearing after it punched the exit hole!

Woot for strawmen! It was the landing gear, stupid.

 
At 17 June, 2006 16:29, Blogger default.xbe said...

So the wings actually progressively fed themselves into the building from an unsupported mid air position, grinding themselves down to nothing, and at the same time cutting the steel beams in a perfect shape of themselves.
like that "perfect shape of themselves" part

flight 77 didnt leave the perfect shape of a plane in the pentagon, proving it wasnt a plane!

flights 175 and 11 left plane-shaped holes in the WTC, proving it wasnt a plane!

 
At 17 June, 2006 18:02, Blogger Chad said...

"Have you hugged a plane today?"

I have.

7 at last count. (I was bored and was hanging out at JFK all day.)

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

Like the people making those comments, you guys just seem to be running around in circles, heh heh..

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:21, Blogger insidejob said...

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

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

here is a link to a bunch of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Oh yeah! Some of those witnesses actually saw the "humans" in the windows of the plane, @ 500MPH????? LOL.

 
At 17 June, 2006 20:48, Blogger default.xbe said...

now who's going in circles, you guys cant even agree on a single conspiracy

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:37, Blogger Chad said...

now who's going in circles, you guys cant even agree on a single conspiracy

C'mon Default.... Why settle on just one truth when it's so much more fun to have 37 different truths?

Think outside the box every now and then dude....

:)

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:44, Blogger shawn said...

Oh yeah! Some of those witnesses actually saw the "humans" in the windows of the plane, @ 500MPH????? LOL.

And every one saw a plane...every going to not use a nonpoint?

 
At 17 June, 2006 21:46, Blogger shawn said...

9-11 was not an inside job about 1 in 1,000,000

The probability that 9/11 was not an inside job is 1.0. None of you people understand probability, I blame the schools.

 
At 18 June, 2006 00:11, Blogger insidejob said...

it's easy to build a big straw-man by debunking some of the errors in loose change. what is not so easy is coming to grips with all of the true claims in loose change, and especially coming to grips with all the very important facts not included in loose change.

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that both 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.


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 18 June, 2006 04:45, Blogger shawn said...

Ban this guy, he's spamming the posts.

 
At 18 June, 2006 04:48, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I don't have an opinion on this except to say that the Flight 93 crash is definitely one that could have and should have gotten the normal NTSB airplane crash investigation and it stands out like a sore thumb that it didn't.

 
At 18 June, 2006 04:58, Blogger MarkyX said...

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H2SYRGRJ

Look at the true nature behind the makers of Loose Change.

 
At 18 June, 2006 07:03, Blogger Chad said...

Great find Marky. I've only just read the opening page and it seems as though Avery has conveniently forgot about the fact the hijackers said they also had bombs.

Bombs tend to be a little bit more scary than knives.

 
At 18 June, 2006 10:16, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I don't have an opinion on this except to say that the Flight 93 crash is definitely one that could have and should have gotten the normal NTSB airplane crash investigation and it stands out like a sore thumb that it didn't.

NTSB does tests and reconstructs when the cause of a crash needs to be determined. Since the flights were caused by hijackings, this puts them under the jurisdiction of the FBI. It is the same with all the 9/11 flights.

 
At 18 June, 2006 11:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

now who's going in circles, you guys cant even agree on a single conspiracy

There is only one conspiracy! The US government was responsible with a little help from their friends in MOSSAD.

 
At 18 June, 2006 12:41, Blogger shawn said...

There is only one conspiracy! The US government was responsible with a little help from their friends in MOSSAD.

Oh those dastardly Jews!

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:09, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Once again nesnyc gets right to his Jew-hatred...

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:15, Blogger telescopemerc said...

There is only one conspiracy!

And Mohammed is his prophet.

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:22, Blogger undense said...

Oh yeah! Some of those witnesses actually saw the "humans" in the windows of the plane, @ 500MPH????? LOL.

Yeah. BWAHAHA. Some people are so stupid they even go to drag races and watch the cars, imagining they can actually see them cross the finish line when they are moving so fast. What idiots, huh?

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

And Mohammed is his prophet.

And he is a descendant of Abraham.

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

Once again nesnyc gets right to his Jew-hatred...

Zionist.

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:34, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah. BWAHAHA. Some people are so stupid they even go to drag races and watch the cars, imagining they can actually see them cross the finish line when they are moving so fast. What idiots, huh?

Doubt those cars go 500MPH and are airborne. I think there's a SLIGHT difference, or isn't that clear to you?

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 June, 2006 13:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

Oh those dastardly Jews!

They only "think" they are Jews; they are Zionists from the land of Khazars and have no relationship to the ancient House of Juda.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:24, Blogger insidejob said...

Ban this guy, he's spamming the posts.

hahahaha! you'd love to silence me wouldn't you? rather than actually respond to the evidence.

I've only given this evidence once under each posting. I'm not spamming squat. I'm just giving the real evidence once in each post, so people who wander into the blog won't be fooled by all this straw-man b/s

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:31, Blogger James B. said...

Inside, reposting encyclopedia long entries in every thread is spamming. If you want to make an argument, feel free to address whatever issue is being argued. If you want to reference some more in-depth material, then link to it. If you repost this in every thread it makes it difficult for people to read the thread. If you be disruptive, I will remove your post so that you do not intefere with others who want to actually have a discussion.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:35, Blogger shawn said...

They only "think" they are Jews; they are Zionists from the land of Khazars and have no relationship to the ancient House of Juda.

A vast majority of Jews are Zionists, ergo you're blaming Jews. They are Jews, they follow the teachings of Moses, and speak Hebrew.

 
At 18 June, 2006 14:36, Blogger shawn said...

hahahaha! you'd love to silence me wouldn't you? rather than actually respond to the evidence.

Uh if dissent were to silenced, all the idiots who keep posting debunked nonsense (as you don't read older threads) would be banned. Inside, you've posted a list of 'facts' that have been debunked six ways to Sunday. And you spam it in every thread.

 
At 18 June, 2006 16:04, Blogger insidejob said...

I'll say it again: BULLSHIT.

let's test your lie. try debunking just one claim that I gave. let's start with the Mossad agents. debunk that one.

you can pick the next one to "debunk". we can take turns.

here's a condensed list of points to choose from (which is by no means anywhere near complete):

(1)Bush’s inaction, which was explained as not wanting to “upset the children”

(2)Secret Service’s inexplicable deviation from standard protocol

(3)War games

(4) FAA delay

(5) Jets, when finally scrambled, flew at 1/3 of maximum speed

(6) Pentagon renovation

(7a) General Ahmad of ISI had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker

(7b) General Ahmad of ISI was meeting with Porter Goss and Colin Powell on Sept. 11th, talking about “terrorism from Afghanistan,” and had been having intense parleys with him over the past month, which had raised eyebrows.

(8a) Israeli Mossad Agents caught filming the Towers, while wearing Sheikh outfits, and celebrating when the Towers collapsed

(8b) Silverstein’s unprecedented privatization of the entire WTC complex and his connections with Israel

(9) Marvin Bush, his cousin, and Stratesec, and the evacuations of the WTC Towers in weeks prior to the attacks

(10) Presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion of steel beams in building 7

(11) Flowing pools of literally molten steel in the WTC rubble

(12) Rumsfeld changed protocol for response in the event of a hijacking 3 months before the attacks, so that NORAD had to get permission directly from him to respond

(13) The 9/11 Commission’s members and their omissions and distortions

(14) The Pentagon will not release the videos that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, thereby baiting the more naïve members of the truth movement into claiming that it did not hit the Pentagon. There is no other logical reason for them not to release these videos.

supplementary evidence (no, these are not intended as direct evidence):

(15) Anthrax mailings: Anthrax was mailed on Oct. 9th and sent only to Democratic officials who had opposed the Patriot Act on Oct. 2nd and Oct. 4th, and the anthrax was found to have come from a U.S. Military Lab. The FBI’s main suspect is a former U.S. military scientist.

(16) Bush pressured the military wing of the CIA to come up with “evidence” of WMD’s. There were no WMD’s, as many predicted.

(17) Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger.

(18) Bush lied about Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda.

(19) Downing Street Memo

(20) Bush Administration is now claiming, without evidence, that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

(21) The Bush Administration has shown utter callousness and lack of concern for the troops, while basically accusing dissenters of being terrorists. “If you aren’t with us, you’re with the enemy.”

 
At 18 June, 2006 16:16, Blogger undense said...

I've already debunked some of your "facts" in another thread insidejob. So why are you running to another thread and posting the same garbage, while pretending that nobody has debunked anything you've said?

This is typical behaviour of CTs. When confronted, they run and hide because they know their claims can't stand up to any real scrutiny, as well as the fact that most of their claims boil down to "OMG! This guy knew that guy! OMG!".

About the the only thing CTs seem to be expert at is using the cut & paste function on their keyboard.

 
At 19 June, 2006 05:34, Blogger Alex said...

Besides which, you should realize that when you post a 5,000 word rant, and especialy when it's the same one in multiple threads, people simply scroll past it. Nobdy wants to waste 15 minutes reading over your verbal diherrea, especialy when the first few sentences are enough to realize that you're absolutely clueless.

 
At 19 June, 2006 06:24, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Besides which, you should realize that when you post a 5,000 word rant, and especialy when it's the same one in multiple threads, people simply scroll past it. Nobdy wants to waste 15 minutes reading over your verbal diherrea, especialy when the first few sentences are enough to realize that you're absolutely clueless.

There was a USENET kook by the name of Ed Wollmann years ago. HE constantly complained about people beign skeptical in the astrology newsgroups. He tried all kinds of underhanded tactics to punish them..such as setting follow-ups to his moderated newsgroups and complaining to ISPs when replies were made.

Anyway, his favorite tactics was screed. He would post incredibly long posts with pages and pages and pages of gobbledygook. All of it was just junky pseudo-metaphysical astrology nonsense that was pure cut n' paste. He would post these a couple dozen at a time in hopes of flooding out critics of astrology. These posts were eventually called 'screed'. They wereinfamous until USENET became a complete wasteland.

Whenever a CT kook posts something that they obviously did not write, and that that requires three full rotations of the wheel mouse to get past it, I think of Wollmann's screed.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:21, Blogger insidejob said...

I've already debunked some of your "facts" in another thread insidejob.

you haven't debunked squat, as I explained in the other thread. and I've only posted this in reply to one other post.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:46, Blogger insidejob said...

wow, you guys are full of it. I was copying and pasting those facts, yes facts, into each thread because the dishonorable and dishonest tactic of this blog seems to be to ignore the real evidence completely and cherry-pick every zany claim it can find and make people look stupid. these guys also took what I said about WTC7 falling faster than freefall speed (due to implosions sucking floors downward) out of context in order to make me look stupid.

I could see that when I posted SOME of the real evidence, you guys used the tactic of simply ignoring it, saying it had been 'debunked already.'

then I challenged you to 'debunk' a single claim, and even gave you a whole list of claims to choose from to debunk another one.

you refused because you can't do it. period. you guys are full of hot air. you will do anything possible to avoid discussion of the real evidence and to deflect attention away from it.

 
At 19 June, 2006 17:04, Blogger default.xbe said...

these guys also took what I said about WTC7 falling faster than freefall speed (due to implosions sucking floors downward) out of context in order to make me look stupid.

i dont think there is a context where that doesnt look stupid

do you even know how an CD implosion works? shaped charges cut the structural supports causing the building to collapse on itself, theres nothing "sucking" anything

 
At 19 June, 2006 22:40, Blogger shawn said...

these guys also took what I said about WTC7 falling faster than freefall speed (due to implosions sucking floors downward) out of context in order to make me look stupid.

I showed how it's impossible to fall faster than free fall.

SINCE FREE FALL IS HOW FAST YOU FALL IN A VACUUM. You know, what an implosion can cause?

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:24, Blogger Alex said...

these guys also took what I said about WTC7 falling faster than freefall speed (due to implosions sucking floors downward) out of context in order to make me look stupid.

See default.xbe's explanation. Then stop for a second and realize that the stupidity inherent in your claim is so extreme that most of us now consider you little more than a somewhat well spoken incompetent. It's like having a grown man try and tell you that the sun sets every night because the gravity in the west sucks it down. It's so ridiculous that I for one will probably never again even CONSIDER any "facts" which you may decide to bring up, let alone actually bother to analyze them. Furthermore, your insistence that you're right, despite all of us trying to explain to you just how gormless your claims truly are, tells me that you'll never accept ANY evidence or logic which we present to you. When you can't even stop and acknowledge that you're wrong about implosions sucking buildings down faster than gravity allows, how am I supposed to discuss ANYTHING with you?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home