Wednesday, June 28, 2006

They Are Losing It

If you need any convincing of the mental instability of the conspiracy theory crowd, give a listen to this interview with Jim Fetzer by Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity and Colmes. Fetzer comes on and tries to pump up his academic credentials, heck I was ready to sign up for a class, but quickly degrades into lunacy. Even one of the CTers here admitted he acted like a jerk. It is obvious Fetzer is a huge Loose Change fan, he discusses many of the movie's theories and even talks admirably about Dylan giving him a spreadsheet of "evidence". This kind of puts a damper into the theory that the "scholars" are supposed to be the more conservative academic wing of the party. Warning: this will most likely get you upset, especially when Fetzer starts screaming at the caller from Seattle whose uncle died on flight 93. If you can hold on that long, the caller has a great response though.

71 Comments:

At 28 June, 2006 09:09, Blogger apathoid said...

Man, if I ever get over my eternal laziness and procrastination, I'd love to start a blog about the "Scholars" for Truth.
I think someone should seriously try to infiltrate that group and come up with a bunch of (really, really)crazy theories and see if they "take"......and then reveal themselves as "fakers".

Speaking of possible fakers, so far, I've only found that 1 of 4 of the "Scholars" who list "Pilot" as one of their credentials has an FAA certificate in the FAA's database....meaning the other three aren't pilots as far as the FAA is concerned.

This gentleman, who I searched as "T* Muga", "Theodore Muga", and "Ted Muga" in the FAA certificate database only to get 0 matches - lists these as his credentials

Ted Muga (AM)

Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering


0 for 2

Most of the scholars only list fields and don't list their schools or degrees. I wonder why??

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:13, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Fetzer is not only a jerk, he is a petty tyrant. He recently suspended one member of the Sf911T for an undetermined reason. The bylaws of the Sf911T allow him to do that at will, without informing any of his co-founders, including Stephen Jones.

That member is the one going by the name 'brumsen', who recently made the Scholars journal message board.

Brumsen has quit the Sf911T in disgust with Fetzer's actions as well as a form of protest over the poorly formed and petty tyranical bylaws of the organization.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:14, Blogger MarkyX said...

Jesus christ this guy is crazy.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:17, Blogger James B. said...

I wrote a post on their qualifications, it is quite sad. I am a grad student, so I was thinking of applying as a student member, just to see what was going on, but now I am probably too associated with the real 9/11 truth movement to sneak in. Besides, it appears to be like the mafia, I would have to prove my loyalty before they would let me in on the big secrets.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:18, Blogger apathoid said...

Brumsen has quit the Sf911T in disgust with Fetzer's actions as well as a form of protest over the poorly formed and petty tyranical bylaws of the organization.

Isn't tyranny what this group is supposed to be protesting?? Look at their "News" section for Chrissakes!

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:24, Blogger apathoid said...

Besides, it appears to be like the mafia, I would have to prove my loyalty before they would let me in on the big secrets.

Yeah, it'd probably have to be a long term Donnie Brasco type of operation.
Its probably not worth the time to join the group when its all to easy discrediting them from the outside.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:24, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Most of the scholars only list fields and don't list their schools or degrees. I wonder why??

There was a discussion on the Apollohoax forum about one of the members who was listed as being an architect and Physicist, Heller to be specific. This was a bit odd since most architects have a good idea of how buildings stand or fall, but since there are many types of architects they may not all be 'up to scale' on structuring.

Turns out, Heller's 'Architecture degree was from the 'San Francisco Architectural Institute'. An unaccredited Feng Shui 'school' with more courses of eco-design and Bhuddist influences than structuring.

So when one Heller of the Sf911T says they are an architect, he lies. No surprise.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:26, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Isn't tyranny what this group is supposed to be protesting?? Look at their "News" section for Chrissakes!

Aww, next you'll be telling me that they tell lies in the name of finding 'truth'!

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:29, Blogger James B. said...

That is a good one, I'll have to remember that. A similar example, that I found for my post

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-scholars-for-911-truth.html

Jeffrey Farrer, a full member, is listed as a "physicist". He is not a professor though, he is a lab manager at BYU. He probably has some academic credentials, but being Steven Jones' lab manager is hardly the highest posting someone can aspire to.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:32, Blogger Chad said...

Favorite Fetzer quote:

"You need a credit card to do that!!"

Referring to the use of AirFones on the flights and acting as though credit cards are rare and/or fictitous items.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:32, Blogger apathoid said...

So when one Heller of the Sf911T says they are an architect, he lies. No surprise.

Liars in the "Truth" movement?? No way!!!
There has to some other explanation for these "credential anomalies"

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:52, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:54, Blogger BG said...

James,

You refer to me as a CT (I had pointed out the Fetzer disappointing interview). I realise using terms like CT is part of the lexicon that you use based on your understanding. I'm not saying that you don't get to use what ever words that you think are appropriate. Unfortunately in the end, everybody gets to use whatever words they want to and have the words mean what they want them to mean.

In that vein, I should have made the following point here before: If you would allow me the label of my own choice, rather than what amounts to a slur (CT), I would call myself a government story skeptic (GSS).

There's a huge amount of discussion to be held about angles with respect to Mineta, Fetzer, 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

I would ask that you respect the stated preference by individuals as far as labels, and look forward to continued discussion here.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:57, Blogger shawn said...

I would call myself a government story skeptic (GSS).

You're not really a skeptic, though. Technically you're a psuedoskeptic. I, by nature, am I skeptic. I say "prove it to me." We have given proof beyond any reasonable doubt as to how WTC7 collapsed, why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, and who perpetrated these attacks. No skeptic worth his reason and logic would hold the views you (or nesnyc, or joan, or roger, etc) do.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:09, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Ok, just hold on a second here. Calling Alan Colmes a "liberal" is like saying that the hijackers were found alive. Both are false.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:27, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

Of course I don't agree with your allegation (me being a "pseudoskeptic).

Let's debate the point you are making, where you say in so many words that I am discredited because I'm refusing to accept the many proofs that has been released supporting the Govt. story.

Here's my first point (of hunderds):

Take a look at this video of the WTC towers. South WTC Tower (WTC 1) during the second hit.

As a skeptic, my first question would be whether any particular video from youtube should be taken seriously. I acknowledge that technology allows complete fakery. And, of course, there are "photoshopping" ways to take honest material and add changes / effects / whatever to tweak the video.

If you want to assert that this vid is a fake in some way, so be it. I think, in that case, our debate goes to that question, which I would want to enlist the service of experts with skills and experience far beyond mine.

Setting that point aside for now, I would ask you to, for the sake of discussion assume that this video is not fakery in any way. With that in mind, notice the bird. By the way, I'm not suggesting that the bird was a conspirator (humor arr, arr).

About 18 seconds into the vid. about the time of the 2nd hit explosion which can be viewed related to wtc 2, one sees the bird leave it's perch, you can also see a "squib" coming out from the side of WTC 1 (the one on the right).

This is one tiny example of what no-one supporting the govt. story has explained.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:38, Blogger apathoid said...

BG, this is precisely why you're not a skeptic. That squib that you're talking about is coming from the already hit WTC1, which falls more than an hour after your "squib" "detonates". Puffs of smoke coming out of a burning building is certainly not unusual, at least not to a skeptic.
Birds flying off their perch is not unusual to a skeptic.
Can you explain what is suspicious about the bird flying away?

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:39, Blogger shawn said...

Uh yes I see an explosion. The building had been hit by a plane full of jet fuel. It's not an odd thing to happen.

Again, you're using pseudoskepticism here. You're also using a strawman here, why should the government investigate something expected from a building that has been hit by a plane and is in flames? Explosions occur ALL THE TIME in building fires.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:42, Blogger BG said...

You call this (circled in yellow) a puff of smoke?

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:45, Blogger undense said...

About 18 seconds into the vid. about the time of the 2nd hit explosion which can be viewed related to wtc 2, one sees the bird leave it's perch, you can also see a "squib" coming out from the side of WTC 1 (the one on the right).

So they set off a demolition charge but the tower didn't fall? What would be the point of that?

Have you considered that there were very likely many objects inside the tower that could explode after exposure to intense heat and fire, including components of the airplane itself? It may well have been something as simple as heat from the fire blowing out a window in that area and the influx of oxygen caused a brief burst of flame. Calling it a "squib" means that you have come to one specific conclusion - that it was a demolition charge. That means you have not considered all the possible alternatives and that is precisely why you are NOT a skeptic. A skeptic doesn't have such a closed mind. You do.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:50, Blogger apathoid said...

BG, I'll rephrase. Buildings on fire causing secondary explosions and puffs of smoke is not only normal, its expected. Explain to us why they would set off an explosive device an hour before the thing collapsed? What purpose did it serve?
Also, explain why fire blowing out windows is unusual. I could've coudlve sworn I've seen many fires where there is a sudden explosion of flames blowing out windows..

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:50, Blogger BG said...

Those of you who say I have a closed mind are simply incorrect.

Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:54, Blogger shawn said...

Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.

Actually, if you were a skeptic you'd be the other way around. As all of the available evidence points to a plane (that plane no longer exists, its occupants gone, it was heading in that directions, the debris all over the lawn, the engine and wheels inside the building, etc) and not to a missle or other projectile.

You do indeed have skepticism and pseudoskepticism backwards.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:55, Blogger BG said...

apathoid,

There is eyewitnesses who claim that a huge explosive sound and shaking happened in WTC1 at the same time the the second "hit" on WTC2.

Of course, there are eyewitness accounts of an enormous variety.

I'm a skeptic. I don't say you should believe anything based on eyewitness testimony.

However, you are asking me why I consider seriously that there was a meaning squibb from WTC 1 one hour before the collapse. The reports from both building of "secondary explosions" create a large amount of interesting allegations that deserve an honest investigative treatment. This has absolutely not happened.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger James B. said...

BG, just because you don't like the conotations, does not mean it is not a correct term.

conspiracy theory
n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:59, Blogger Nutman said...

You call this (circled in yellow) a puff of smoke?
I call that a secondary explosion, and thats to be expected when a fucking building is on fire.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:00, Blogger apathoid said...

Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion

Try pentagonresearch
for 757 debris pictures. Click each photo on the right for a complete description.

The reports from both building of "secondary explosions" create a large amount of interesting allegations that deserve an honest investigative treatment. This has absolutely not happened.

bg, respectfully, if C4 charges brought down the WTCs, all of Lower Manhatten would've heard the explosives, not just a few eyewitnesses who may be describing the same thing...

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:01, Blogger BG said...

"Shawn said...

Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.

Actually, if you were a skeptic you'd be the other way around. As all of the available evidence points to a plane (that plane no longer exists, its occupants gone, it was heading in that directions, the debris all over the lawn, the engine and wheels inside the building, etc) and not to a missle or other projectile.

You do indeed have skepticism and pseudoskepticism backwards.

10:54 AM "

The comment above is exactly why I really find debating with you futile, Shawn

Skepticism has no automatic "starting point". The starting point of skepticism is whatever assertion is being made. If you go back to CNN's coverage of 9/11, specifically Jamie McIntyre, you hear him report, in so many words, there's sign of a plane....

A starting point of skepticism could be skepticism of that report. For this and many reasons, in general, I don't find your charges against me logical.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:03, Blogger BG said...

apathoid,

who says C4?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:04, Blogger undense said...

Those of you who say I have a closed mind are simply incorrect.

Initially, I was extremely skeptical of the "no jetliner hitting the Pentagon claim". If I could see any evidence (photo / video) of the plane that hit the Pentago that was persuasive and authenticated, I would immediately revise my opinion.


We have shown you the evidence of the remains of the airplane. You have been shown testimony by the people who were there who excavated the Pentagon and found many plane parts, and coroners who found bodies and body parts, as well as an autopsy that accounts for nearly every person on the plane.

Yet you choose instead to believe a theory for which you have far, far less evidence. In fact, you have no real evidence whatsoever except for supposition that's based on distortions, suspension of belief, and quote mining.

So where is that open mind?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:06, Blogger James B. said...

If you go back to CNN's coverage of 9/11, specifically Jamie McIntyre, you hear him report, in so many words, there's sign of a plane....


Yes he does say there is sign of a plane. How does this help your point?

If there was no plane at the Pentagon, how do you explain the 90 foot wide hole in the wall?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:07, Blogger BG said...

James,

The govt. contention about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory!

So, at the very least, I request that you call me someone who is considering a CT that is an alternative to the CT alleged by the govt and media.

I ask, are you more interested in the truth, or are you more interested in leading readers with ad homiem attacks?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:07, Blogger BG said...

James,

Sorry, McIntrype says "no sign" of a plane.....

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:10, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

in your expert opinion, was the Madrid tower rigged with bombs?

During that fire there were explosion heard, so....?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:12, Blogger apathoid said...

apathoid,

who says C4?


If its not C4(RDx if you like) or Thermite, then what is it?

My point was
a) Towers were enormous, meaning lots of explosives were needed.
b) explosives go "BOOM" really loud like.

That means lots of loud "BOOMS" mustve been heard by everyone within earshot of the WTC. They werent.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:12, Blogger BG said...

Video of Jamie McIntyre

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:17, Blogger BG said...

apathoidm,

In point of fact, loud booms were reported, and they are caught on tape (audio and video).

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:19, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, you might want to dig a little deeper with regard to Jamie McIntyre .

......had a camera with me. I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene.

His whole quote in context
" You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

I saw thousands of shards of metal, of pieces of the plane all over the driveway. I didn't pick up any of them or touch any of them, but I saw them everywhere. And again, took some pictures of them. ...

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:23, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, you've missed my point totally and completely when I spelled out for you that there needed to be many(hundreds?) of explosives to be able to bring down the Towers, and said explosives would have been heard by everyone...

Here is an implosion of a building about a fifth of the size of each of the Towers. The explosives and shockwave is heard/felt by everyone and they are unmistakable...

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:26, Blogger BG said...

CHF,

The Madrid building fire is, in fact, according to my best unexpert opinion, more dissimilar than similar to WTC fires. I wouldn't find it surprising if explosions were heard and seen in the Madrid case. I would find it mind boggling if demolition squibs were videoed or reported in Madrid.

Demolition squibs were reported and videoed at the WTC complex.

I tend to like to go deeper than any of the comparisons that you are making or that the GSS'ers make about steel skyscrapers never having fallen down before 9/11 or after.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:30, Blogger BG said...

"apathoid said...

bg, you might want to dig a little deeper with regard to Jamie McIntyre ."

I know about all of this.

Jamie McIntyre cried on camera during the on-site CNN coverage of the 1st 9/11 anniverary at the Pentagon. Nothing wrong with anybody crying, but there is something wrong with McIntryre revising the tone of his commentary to fit the story, which he clearly did.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:33, Blogger apathoid said...

Demolition squibs were reported and videoed at the WTC complex.

No BG, this is why we are telling you that you are anything but a skeptic. We've told you that its not unusual to hear secondary explosions in a burning building.

I know about all of this.

Then why bring up the McIntyre vid, he said he saw airplane debris, is that not good enough for you?

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:36, Blogger shawn said...

There is eyewitnesses who claim that a huge explosive sound and shaking happened in WTC1 at the same time the the second "hit" on WTC2.

Hmm I wonder why that would happen.

MAYBE BECAUSE A PLANE JUST HIT THE ADJACENT BUILDING?!

more dissimilar than similar to WTC fires

Wanna know the difference between most every other building fire and the WTC? None of the other buildings were hit by planes.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:43, Blogger BG said...

"Then why bring up the McIntyre vid, he said he saw airplane debris, is that not good enough for you?"

Airliner debris that appears "planted" that corresponds to many other details that point toward fakery are clearly not "good enough for me"

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:45, Blogger shawn said...

Airliner debris that appears "planted" that corresponds to many other details that point toward fakery are clearly not "good enough for me"


Here you are making an assumption with zero evidence. You insult skepticism at every turn.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:45, Blogger undense said...

James,

Sorry, McIntrype says "no sign" of a plane.....


bg,

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. If you don't take McIntyre's comment out of context and listen to everything he actually has to say, he's not saying there was no plane, he's saying that it was so thoroughly disintegrated by the impact that any piece you can find is "small enough to fit in your hand."

It's the stretching of the REAL truth that makes you a CT and a non-skeptic.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:46, Blogger shawn said...

A hundred people saw an airliner, there was debris everywhere...no skeptic worth his salt would ever claim anything but an airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

It's like those people who call themselves skeptics and believe in Bigfoot.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:46, Blogger undense said...

Airliner debris that appears "planted" that corresponds to many other details that point toward fakery are clearly not "good enough for me"

Proof of it being planted? A skeptic doesn't make such claims without solid proof. A CT does.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:48, Blogger shawn said...

Hell even taking the "no sign" of a plane statement out of context shouldn't degrade its meaning, they just want to change his meaning. I knew the first time I saw that statement 'quoted' by the CTs that he meant the plane was destroyed.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:53, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, you give me an idea on how the MIBs planted a 1,200 lb 757 Main Landing Gear Strut and I might be inclined to take you a little more seriously...

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:54, Blogger James B. said...

Sorry, McIntrype says "no sign" of a plane.....

On the lawn, that is because it was in the bleeping Pentagon.

Conspiracy theory logic is so inane. That is like if my wife asks me "Honey, take the car out of the garage, I want to clean in there."

And I reply, "There is no car in the garage."

Then this means that we do not own a car, rather than the fact that I parked in the driveway.

It is just unreal.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:58, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:00, Blogger BG said...

Timeout, Dudes

Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!

I admit I don't know what happened. I think there is evidence of lying and cover up. You are free to disagree. You are in fact allowed to call me a CT or a looney or whatever.

I'm not saying I have conslusive proof of anything. Even if I were saying that, I wouldn't expect anybody to take my word for it without a thorough investigation.

We have not had a thorough investigation. The honor of those who died, the honor our Nation's intregity demands that.

I want to believe that even those who support the official story and think those who don't are either anti-govt. or dulusional,would want a legitimate inquiry.

The way the crimes scenes were treated was a criminal act of mishandling evidence. This alone warranted skepticism.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:04, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, even if you get a new investigation, you won't be happy with it unless they conclude that the government was involved..

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:06, Blogger James B. said...

Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!


Bull. You cannot ignore overwhelming evidence on most issues and then use that to claim that you are just asking for an investigation.

If you want to claim that you want more investigation into the collapse of the towers, and incredibly complicated engineering job, than that would be reasonable. But ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon, including hundreds of witnesses, and then claiming you want an investigation is disingenous. You can't just ignore the evidence that is out there, in hopes that some evidence might show up to fit your views better, that is absurd.

I might as well just ignore the presence of gravity in hopes that someone will come up with something cooler, and then say I am just "asking questions" about science.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:07, Blogger ScottSl said...

I predict a further splintering between the more radical and less radical groups. I think the 9/11sft might be in for a shake up in the near future.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:12, Blogger shawn said...

Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!

We got one.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:22, Blogger BG said...

James,

As has been apparent before, we simply disagree.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:24, Blogger undense said...

Can I remind everyone that all I'm asking for is a true investigation of the crime????!!!

Hehe. Another sterling example of that "open mind" of bg's.

"the crime."

iow, you're assuming one was definitely committed. Do you desire to be judge, jury, and executioner as well?

*sheesh*

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:40, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Well, I'm listening to the show and I don't know what your problem is. I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:42, Blogger James B. said...

I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.


So does John Nash.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:51, Blogger shawn said...

I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.

Doubt it.

IQ is a measure of how quickly you assimilate new knowledge.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:52, Blogger apathoid said...

joanbasil, he may be of high intellect, but he's also been intellectually dishonest. See Pats new post about how lied regarding UL's (un)involvment with certifying WTC steel..

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:52, Blogger default.xbe said...

I would bet my IRA fund that Fetzer's got a higher IQ than any of us.

IQ and sanity are two very different things, and one does not imply the other

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:57, Blogger BG said...

JoanBasil,

My problem with Fetzer isn't his IQ. My problem isn't with a good bit of the meat of what he said.

If anyone doesn't see that his blustering ill-mannered disrepect for his Host and his callers is no way to communicate with radio listeners and create credibility, I would submit that I've entered some kind of alternative universe, of which the blind government 9/11 story supporters already
accuse.

I'm not trying to throw stones. I admit my ability to gain credibility hasn't seemed to be sterling either. But Fetzer's tone here is unacceptable. And there are news reports that I could cite that show him as a scary public speaker as well.

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:03, Blogger BG said...

By the way, this is a video from 9/11 I doubt most of you government story supporters will enjoy. It is discrediting to your insistence that there were no explosions based on exposives materials in the building.

video from BBC(Realplayer)

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:07, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

there's a reason why we keep telling you to contact a CD expert!

In a real CD you don't see CD "squibs" ONE FUCKING HOUR BEFORE THE COLLAPSE.

If you started listening to those trained in the relevant fields you wouldn't be posing such stupid questions over and over again.

And don't give me this "I'm just asking for an investigation" crap. We both know that you don't accept any evidence or experts who don't think Bush did it. We both know you only want an investigation that you agree with and that anything else will be dismissed as a cover up. So why do you keep insulting us with this bullshit about seeking the truth?

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:14, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

"Airliner debris that appears "planted"...

So they hijacked a perfectly good plane, landed it, flew something else into the Pentagon (A3, missile, helicopter?) and then planted debris?

Boy am I ever glad you're not on my side.

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:18, Blogger shawn said...

I doubt most of you government story supporters will enjoy.

We're not "government story supporters" we're "living in the real world".

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:08, Blogger ScottSl said...

Its clearly talking about the other plane hitting the building. You can see it on the video.
People are clearly in a panic as they don't know whats going on in the building.

Also there were secondary explosions as with many building fires like Madrid.

 
At 11 January, 2008 19:23, Blogger franklinS said...

The 'Official Government Account' of 911 "proves" that 19 young Arabs with boxcutters can suspend the laws of Physics.
(Good luck, gatekeepers. You can't keep a secret forever.)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home