Sunday, July 16, 2006

Bruce Willis Not a CT Nutjob

Michael Yon e-mails, as posted on Hot Air:

Bruce got back to me this morning saying the press has misconstrued his statements and that this is untrue. Bruce said in part, “…the Linklater statements have been completely misconstrued, as usual by the media.”

[I]t’s clear that some media are just attaching Bruce’s name to gain traction. I will not talk about private communications so will keep this very brief by saying I know Bruce’s support for the troops is ongoing and, if anything, increasing. Bruce does not believe this conspiracy theory.

Yippee ki yay...

27 Comments:

At 16 July, 2006 22:28, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

This was the guy who put a 2 million dollar hit out on Saddam Hussein and when the US Army bagged the bastard he tried to pay out.

The idea that he could be so easily swayed when his attitude goes so totally against the grain in trendy-lefty hollywood is itself absurd.

 
At 16 July, 2006 22:31, Blogger Killtown said...

Hey alright, continue with the immature name calling!

 
At 16 July, 2006 22:34, Blogger Killtown said...

Question for OCTs, this has got me perplexed about the Shanksville crash:

Why was just the inside of the crater burned and that small section of forest burned, but nothing immediately outside of the crater's rim and nothing between the crater and the burnt forest section?

How did this fireball jump up and over the service road to burn the forest, but nothing else?

Also, why did the fireball's direction conflict with the path of the alleged plane?

See here for diagram.

 
At 17 July, 2006 03:10, Blogger shawn said...

Also, why did the fireball's direction conflict with the path of the alleged plane?

You do know the word "alleged" is only used when something is in question before a court case?

I'm pretty sure there was a court case that had Flight 93 crashing into the field. Stop being retarded.

 
At 17 July, 2006 04:45, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, Hey man, I mean, THEY got to him.

Just like they got to the Parliment thing in England.

He's got to be in on it.

Or worse, that's not realy Bruce Willis, it's like somebody with the same name.

 
At 17 July, 2006 05:24, Blogger CHF said...

killtown, this has got me perplexed about the Shanksville crash:

Why would the government hijack a plane, make it vanish, then bulldoze the "crash" site and plant fake wreckage, as opposed to, say, just CRASHING THE FUCKING PLANE?

 
At 17 July, 2006 06:36, Blogger debunking911 said...

On what planet does explosions make straight lines? On earth the explosion would have created an oval shape (Because of the direction) setting on fire what ever was closest. Because there was nothing to catch fire on one side of the impact doesn't mean the fireball didn't get there. It simply had nothing to burn.

It's fucking imbecilic not to know this. You have to be a tool not to know this...

What the fuck is there to burn on a fucking road? What??? Gravel? At what temp does gravel burn Mr super sleuth... Hmmm?

Sorry, but you really are stupid. You're questions and answers are pathetic in an entertaining sort of way.. Heh!

 
At 17 July, 2006 07:18, Blogger James B. said...

Why would the government hijack a plane, make it vanish, then bulldoze the "crash" site and plant fake wreckage, as opposed to, say, just CRASHING THE FUCKING PLANE?


Because that is a rule of conspiracy theorists, the conspirators always do things in the most elaborate and complicated way possible, thus giving the truthseekers the opportunity to unveil their dasterdly plans. It is really quite sporting.

 
At 17 July, 2006 07:26, Blogger Manny said...

the conspirators always do things in the most elaborate and complicated way possible...

It's true. I commute from midtown to downtown by taking a train to Newark Airport, flying to one of a predetermined number of small midwestern cities, flying back into LaGuardia and then taking a cab downtown. I do this just in case I have to do something conspiracy-y later that day.

 
At 17 July, 2006 09:17, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

A better question is why must the conspirators bother crashing that plane in a field when they could hit a building and cause more death?

Is there some kind of "window" regarding the minimum and maximum people they were allowed to kill that day? They couldn't kill just three people, but they also couldn't kill over 3,000? WTF?!

 
At 17 July, 2006 10:08, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 July, 2006 10:09, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

A better question is why must the conspirators bother crashing that plane in a field when they could hit a building and cause more death?

I think the CT explanation, such that it is, is that Bushco needed a heroic story to unite the country for war, and the "Let's roll" meme was what they came up with.

Yeah, I know.

 
At 17 July, 2006 10:25, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

It's true. I commute from midtown to downtown by taking a train to Newark Airport, flying to one of a predetermined number of small midwestern cities, flying back into LaGuardia and then taking a cab downtown,



Like, hey man, you too?

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:27, Blogger Killtown said...

CHF said...killtown, this has got me perplexed about the Shanksville crash:

Nice side-step of my question!

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:35, Blogger Killtown said...

debunking911 said...
1) What the fuck is there to burn on a fucking road? What??? Gravel?
2) Sorry, but you really are stupid.


1) I'll try to make this as simple as possible:

Crater, grass, road, grass, forest.

Was that easy enough?

2) That's funny, I think the same way about you!

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:39, Blogger CHF said...

killtown,

they found a fucking plane at the flight 93 crash site.

Deal with it.

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:43, Blogger Pepik said...

Please explain. There was a plane. There was ground. They planned on telling people the plane crashed into the ground. And they had to get rid of the plane somehow.

You are telling me that it makes perfect sense to you that the conspirators then decided to make the plane disappear and then go dig a hole and scatter debris around while torching a few trees without anyone noticing.

Please explain to me how this makes sense to you.

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:02, Blogger Manny said...

decided to make the plane disappear and then go dig a hole and scatter debris around while torching a few trees without anyone noticing.

It gets better. Having decided to do all that, they then torched the exact wrong number of trees such that it is apparent to a guy on the internet that the whole thing was a frameup.

You'd think that with all the money he's rumored to have Osama could afford better minions.

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:21, Blogger apathoid said...

Please explain to me how this makes sense to you.

You have to forgive Killtown. Whatever something is, was, or will ever be - he thinks it's the exact opposite.

Here's an insight to some of his grand logic(or dementia) over @LC


And the videos show the "plane" traveling half than the claimed 590mph, so most of the plane should have bounced off(the WTC).

1) Both of the "planes" happened to impact the WTC without its wing's extending past the corners of the building. If this did happen, it would have proved if it were some kind of real plane or not because the over extending wing would have sheered off and kept traveling forward.

and...

2) Both "planes" miraculously crashed at the same angle.

3) The same fuselage piece of the alleged 2nd crash was also described as being found at the Shanksville site. See here:

Can you explain how this "2nd plane" magically "pops" out of thin air, melts into the WTC, then the fuselage comes out the other side practically intact?

Multiple videos show the "plane" melting into the building and parts of the plane disappearing before being hit

If you are going to set a building with explosives to demo, why crash a fueled 767 into it, drone or not, before demo'ing it?

....merc, you know that "live on TV" is not real-time live? There is like at least a 10 sec delay. The first "live" shot I saw was the one with Diane Sawyer and it was the shot that Gerard mentioned of the "dark" plane coming from the right hand side and DISAPPEARING behind the building.
Now tell me they couldn't easily make a dark silohette looking plane like that with CGI. ...

..that's the first CGI plane that fooled everybody.

Remember, we DID NOT SEE IT HIT. We saw it DISAPPEAR behind the building...


I could go on and on and on....
Killtown, seek help dude.

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:48, Blogger debunking911 said...

Hay, like, Road grass, man... Like, do you see grass everywhere dude...?

Can you point out the "Road grass" from your photo? I mean like, if it didn't burn it must still be there right... Yeah... And if it did burn there must still be "Road grass" in the area which didn't burn... Heh!

How far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that out? Sounds to me like you were chewing with your fingers for a while. Heh!

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:58, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I dunno...maybe living in little old canada has me sheltered, but I am 35 years old, and I have never seen an explosion in person. I am not an expert in demolition, or explosion sites, or crash sites, so I couldn't begin to answe Killtown's questions...but I am sure most of the people at the crash site had that kind of expetese, yet none of them fild complaints about how extrordinarily odd the crash site was compared to others.

 
At 17 July, 2006 13:44, Blogger Pepik said...

Apathoid:

I strongly believe that the debunkers are too easily drawn into name calling. We shouldn't get dragged down. What would you think of someone who argues with lunatics at the asylum?

Having said that, in my years debunking 9.11 conspiracies, those killtown quotes are among the mind numbingly dumbest things I have ever read. I almost feel guilty, like I made fun of a kid and then realised he was retarted.

 
At 17 July, 2006 14:37, Blogger apathoid said...

I strongly believe that the debunkers are too easily drawn into name calling. We shouldn't get dragged down.

Very true. But the CTers practically beg for it sometimes...somebody's gotta accomodate them :)

Having said that, in my years debunking 9.11 conspiracies, those killtown quotes are among the mind numbingly dumbest things I have ever read

Thats why I posted them. I'm just trying to give everyone some insight into why Killtown has trouble with the United 93 crash site. I think its clear why..

 
At 17 July, 2006 20:35, Blogger Chad said...

Both of the "planes" happened to impact the WTC without its wing's extending past the corners of the building. If this did happen, it would have proved if it were some kind of real plane or not because the over extending wing would have sheered off and kept traveling forward.

That idea of KT's is one (of countless) that bother me. The engines, the landing gear, the passengers remains.... None of them implicate an actual plane in his mind.

... But shorn-off wing tips would.

Because as we all know.... You can plant landing gear. You can plant mangled jet engines. You can even fake a person's DNA.

But shorn-off wing tips? They're impossible to plant.

 
At 18 July, 2006 09:14, Blogger Bruce Rheinstein said...

Because that is a rule ... always do things in the most elaborate and complicated way possible, thus giving the truthseekers the opportunity to unveil their dasterdly plans. It is really quite sporting.

That's so Dr. Evil!

 
At 18 July, 2006 13:15, Blogger apathoid said...

But shorn-off wing tips? They're impossible to plant.

KT also thinks the Sandia experiment, where the govt. slammed an F-4 into a concrete wall at 500mph, helps his "no plane(where is the tail?)" case at the Pentagon.
I have no clue what his argument could be, other than the fact that maybe they found too much aluminum debris on the Pentalawn because the F-4 was clearly vaporized...

KT, in defense of his no-planes at the WTC, said..
If you are going to set a building with explosives to demo, why crash a fueled 767 into it, drone or not, before demo'ing it?

Wow, that almost sounds like an argument we'd make!

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:14, Blogger Pepik said...

That's right... not too much wreckage, not too little wreckage, we want the wreckage to be exactly the right amount, an amount which any layman would obviously know from instinct.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home