Friday, August 04, 2006

More Nuttiness from the Loosers

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"--Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer.

Perhaps a classic example of this showed up in the Loose Change Forum the other day. While sifting through the evidence from the Moussaoui trial, one of the Loosers noticed something about a passenger list on Flight 93:



(Click 1-2 times to expand to readable size)

Well, the Loosers took one look at this and saw that Mark Bingham's name was not on the list! Wooooooo! The "No-Mark Bingham" theory has just been launched!

But... notice anything else about this list? Who's that Jarrah, Z? Or that Alghamdi, S? Aren't those two of the Flight 93 hijackers, along with Alhaznaw(i), and Al-Nami? What are they doing on the list? Didn't Jim Fetzer assure us the flight manifests didn't include the hijackers? At 0:55:



As for why Bingham was not included on the list, I assume it's because he was late arriving for the flight; in fact, the only reason he got on was because the plane was delayed at the gate:

One passenger was late. Mark Bingham had overslept and his friend, Matthew Hall, drove madly from Manhattan to Newark. They screeched to a halt outside Terminal A at 7:40. Bingham leapt from the car, lugging the old, blue-and-gold canvas bag he'd used as a rugby player at the University of California at Berkeley a decade earlier.

United attendants reopened the door to the boarding ramp and let him on the plane


Hat Tip: Reality Bites at the JREF Forum.

6 Comments:

At 04 August, 2006 14:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Merc is now over there arguing that if he got on so late, that he almost missed the plane, then how were they able to say he was on the plane, in the mainstream media, as early as September 12th.

 
At 04 August, 2006 14:16, Blogger Manny said...

As for why Bingham was not included on the list, I assume it's because he was late arriving for the flight...

Meh. I think this is one that would require actual research if it catches on with the Loosers. Even pre 9-11 airlines were pretty good about keeping track of the ticketed passengers, if only for accounting purposes. My guess is that he was a non-rev passenger (in fact, I think I read that somewhere). Gate attendants are a lot more lax with that group -- they're supposed to check them in and get them on the manifest but on an empty flight they'll sometimes not bother to check 'em in.

 
At 04 August, 2006 14:31, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

What a cluebat of a post!

Demolished two nutter theories with one Neo-like sideswiping roundhouse suspended along with time in midair!

Comments from the denial-based community?

 
At 05 August, 2006 14:30, Blogger shawn said...

A changing story doesn't mean jack[crap].

To you people the sun revolves around the Earth because we kept changing our ideas about that.

To think we knew the whole story as the planes crashed into the tower is retarded.

None of you has asked logical questions. None of you know what logic is.

 
At 05 August, 2006 15:04, Blogger shawn said...

Then you stick to changing stories, and truth seems to change all the time then. That's logical indeed, and wise.

Democrat, on 911conspiracysmasher you say WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. It didn't. You're the one stating errors as facts.

And none of us ever said the official story is 100 percent true. The basic story is that 19 men hijacked four planes on a mission to crash them into American landmarks.

And how do you explain the "Truther" story changing all the time? Notice there's been more than one version of Loose Change.

I'm glad you're not a prosecutor, you'd have to stick with your first interpretation of a crime scene, no matter what evidence comes up.

 
At 05 August, 2006 17:23, Blogger shawn said...

You are probably the first who can explain why you have an other opinion in this respect, so I look forward on the approach you have in this respect.

Most of the people wouldn't agree WTC7's collapse was so short (you have to take into account the penthouse). It's closer to 13 seconds.

Guess we will all be loosers if this War on Terror, more War of Terror against civil rights, really gets going. Instead of amusing yourselves about people asking questions, please call your senator asking questions about the future of this War on Terror. It won't end happily ever after.

It's ironic that the people who think we're being restricted by fear use fear in order to "prove" their point. Oh no! My civil rights are all gone! Thank you, you brave, brave man. Pal, ditch the hyperbole.

Have you ever had to talk to the Secret Service? I have. Weird they'd go for a government sheep/shill/whathaveyou instead of you antigovernment nutters, huh?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home