Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Gravy Debunks the Idiots at Ground Zero

And amazingly, they film it and put it up on the web (Quicktime file) thinking it helps their cause. By the way, the Denier who seems reasonable (brings up Paul Thompson), really isn't if you check the TruthMove site that he mentions.

• For over an hour, NORAD air defense failed to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft. Fighter jets are commonly "scrambled" and reach out-of-contact or off-course aircraft within 10-20 minutes.


That's their first piece of "evidence" and it's garbage. As we have discussed many times, the most famous recent incident of an "out-of-contact or off-course" aircraft was Payne Stewart's Learjet; in that case the fighter jets reached it in 81 minutes, not 10-20 minutes.

121 Comments:

At 28 November, 2006 10:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After watching this, I can see that Mr. Roberts behavior does not merit my relatively polite treatment (in the comments at this blog).

 
At 28 November, 2006 10:33, Blogger Manny said...

I'm sure he's extremely disappointed to hear that, defender of Osama.

 
At 28 November, 2006 10:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manny,

I'm a defender of due process.

 
At 28 November, 2006 10:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reality Check (with respect to bin Laden):

Who said:

"THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large"

The first right answer wins a prize.

 
At 28 November, 2006 11:05, Blogger ewing2001 said...

Fight the Orwellian StarWars Axis of Evil

http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/6030/orwellian911starwarsaxiuf4.jpg

 
At 28 November, 2006 11:17, Blogger Manny said...

You are part of the Rebel alliance and a traitor. Take her away!

 
At 28 November, 2006 11:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

bg;

Mark goes at thses guys with the vigor of someone who was profoundly effected by the events of 9/11, and deeply insulted by people who use soddy evidence and non-expert opinion to make their points. He can get it their face, yes, and give as good as he gets, yes, but he does so because he believes strongly in what he says, and in almost all cases has strong, solid evidence to back up his opinions. I mean he carries a binder with him, which holds his evidence. More than the truthers at GZ who simply spue their claims without the slightest bit of proof.

TAM

 
At 28 November, 2006 11:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

Maybe your words swayed somebody's opinion of Mark. I doubt it.

Mark does not say in that video, nor have I seen him say anywhere else, that the official handling of 9/11 and the official govt. story of 9/11 are bogus. Regardless of whether you disagree with Loose Change claims or other's claims, agreeing that there is a lot that stinks about the way the aftermath of 9/11 has been handled is the beginning of honesty and responsible rhetoric.

TAM,

Take a crack at my trivia question, won't you?

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:09, Blogger Alex said...

Way to quote mine you cocksucker.

THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.

If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.


And you have the gall to make fun of Loose Change for their inaccuracy? Buddy, if anything, you're even MORE useless than Dylan and Corey.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:13, Blogger pomeroo said...

I posted this on 911 Conspiracy Smasher:

Mancow, whose radio show is
apparently not available in New York, featured a debate between a NYC firefighter and a conspiracy liar, Kevin Smith, on his Fox special Sunday night. I sent him the e-mail reproduced below right after the show ended. This morning, I was awakened by a call from his producer who asked me to chat with Mancow on the radio. A old friend who now lives in Tennessee just phoned to tell me that he heard the interview. We agreed that the loons are despicable frauds, but I was delighted that something provoked him to look me up.

My thanks to Mancow for being on the right side of this silly controversy.

Here is my e-mail:

Dear Mancow,

I watched with dismay the "debate" you staged between a NYC fireman and Kevin Smith. You are, in my judgment, a well-intentioned guy, but like other hosts of FOX news shows, you simply underestimate the damage caused by allowing the conspiracy frauds to promote their pernicious message.
9/11 lunacy has seeped into the mainstream, polluting it. These people are not merely crackpots: they are truly despicable liars who say obscene things.
So far, I have done nothing but call names. Understandably, you are growing bored and want to know if their dishonesty can be demonstrated in a short segment. Here is a crash course in how to do it:
James Fetzer, a leading loon, contends that Donald Rumsfeld "stole" 2.3 trillion (that's not a typo) dollars from the Pentagon budget and needed an excuse to crash a plane into the building, presumably killing all the accountants (as that old commercial said, you can't make this stuff up). But Fetzer's source for this stunning information turns out to be... Donald Rumsfeld himself! The Secretary of Defense gave a speech the day before the jihadist attacks lamenting the antiquated state of Pentagon data storage systems. He complained of such disarray that it was impossible to account for 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions over the years. The total defense budget is 289 BILLION dollars, so we begin to see how insane Fetzer's original accusation was. Now, tell me, is Fetzer, who holds a PhD in philosophy, an illiterate moron or is he peddling snake oil to what he judges to be a hopelessly obtuse bunch of rubes?
Then there is another favorite canard of the tinfoil-hat brigade: Larry Silverstein, we are informed over and over, told a fire chief to "pull it," meaning to blow up one of his properties, WTC 7. That Silverstein should be giving away the whole conspiracy on television is, perhaps, a tad suspicious, but we'll let that pass. At some point, it must occur to a few of us that blowing up buildings is not a job the NYC Fire Department routinely performs. We dig a little deeper and discover that "pull it" is NOT, in fact, demolition industry jargon for "blow up the building." The phrase does have a specific meaning: to attach cables and literally PULL over the structure, but that procedure failed when attempted with the remains of WTC 6 and cannot be applied to such a large structure as the 47-story WTC 7. For his part, Silverstein insists that he was clearly indicating that, in view of the dangers, the contingent of firefighters should be pulled from the building.
The conspiracists chant their "proof" that Silverstein ordered his building to be "pulled" as a mantra, although they certainly understand that they simply invented out of whole cloth their false meaning of the term. They are not making an honest error. They understand perfectly well that their spin is bogus. There is no misunderstanding here: what we are getting is pure propaganda.
Smith claims that the "science" supports his insane fantasies. In reality, the real science contradicts him on every point. But--I must stress--you have to KNOW why his disinformation is wrong.
When Smith pretends that he regards firemen, or any other patriots, as heroes, you must be prepared to ask if him the anguished phone calls from the doomed planes were faked or not. If not, his whole conspiracy collapses like a house of cards. He believes, however, that those heartrending conversations were diabolical fakes, produced by the gubmint using futuristic voice-morphing technologies. This crap would be laughable if it were less sickening.
I hate mounting a soapbox foaming at the mouth, attempting to drown out the other raving lunatics, but these bastards MUST be exposed. Insinuating that they are cranks won't do. You need the knowledge to show exactly why their "facts" are falsehoods and their cause is an evil one. I can do it: I have done it (see the Google video of my debate with Les Jamieson on the libertarian cable show I occasionally host, 'Hardfire'). I want to see you do it because it's terribly important.

Best Regards,
Ronald Wieck

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex is the Winner!

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

How much research have you done on good 'ole Buzzy?

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:20, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg continues his deceptive campaign to persuade us that he's making a point.
If someone in the CIA says that there are advantages to denying Osama the status of a martyr, so what? He could be right.

Now, one mo' time, how do we deduce the existence of a gigantic, mathematically impossible conspiracy when ALL available evidence refutes such a preposterous notion?

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:24, Blogger troy said...

Here is my E-Mail exchange with that sorry shit, Kevin, from the Mancow show.....

Subject: Can't afford to fix your truck?

Boo hoo. That's about as sad and heartbreaking as Alex's bullshit lies about his escapade with the female police officer over the holidays.

I'd say that's what 95% of you paranoid twoofers have in common. NO MONEY. You know why some people don't have money? Because they're not smart. See the correlation, whizbang?

When you try to convince us sheeple that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition be sure to conveniently forget to mention the 20 story chunk that was knocked out of the SW corner. But if you could, please reference us sheeple to all the demolition firms and experts who believe WTC7 came down by controlled demolition. MMMkay.

Keeping buying into Jones' bullshit.

- Troy from WV, bought and paid for by the NWO



Response

Troy,

If you’re being paid to call in to the different shows, I hope you’re not making much, because your attacks are weak. You don’t know me, I given up a yearly salary that’s probably as much as you make in five. I’m trying to save this country; I’ll probably be killed for standing up for the truth. You on the other hand will kiss boots all the way to the camp, watch you’re children die, and thank the NWO for doing it. If you really are trying to wake-up keep listening, if you think that you’re hurting us you really need to wake-up and F..K Off.

Kevin

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following link (MORE SUPPORT FOR REPUBLICAN AFFECTIVE DISORDER THEORY) does not talk about "carrying clipboards", or writing that people are "cocksuckers", when mentioning "buying SUVs". I think they all are in the same category.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:26, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Mark does not say in that video, nor have I seen him say anywhere else, that the official handling of 9/11 and the official govt. story of 9/11 are bogus.

BG, you are a complete fucking lunatic.

Of course Mark hasn't said that "the official handling of 9/11 and the official govt. story of 9/11 are bogus." you idiot. BECAUSE THEY AREN'T!

You need lithium, zyprexa, and risperdal.

You don't merit my relatively polite treatment you sad sack of shit.

Wake up, get the help you need, or just go and kill yourself.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy,

Bad news, dude. Kevin is right.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, i see BG is still making a fool of himself over here :)

Or does he just post here for us to have a good laugh :D

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

good to see you here, too.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:33, Blogger troy said...

Go fuck yourself, BG.

I'm not going to a camp and I'm not going to watch my 4 young children being killed.

You fucking psychopath.

Just die asshole.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy, dont ket BG get to you dude, thats hiw whole tactic, while he stays calm with his stupid remarks, he hopes we will lose control :)

Just treat him like the idiot he is and have a good laugh over him :D

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy,

I wasn't trying to get personal. Just sayin' Kevin is right.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

I know Troy means well.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:42, Blogger troy said...

You on the other hand will kiss boots all the way to the camp, watch you’re children die, and thank the NWO for doing it.

This Kevin guy really wrote this to me. These people really are insane. These people aren't stupid. They are INSANE!!!

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right about that Troy. Just look at BG, who is a very good example of how insane they actually are.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:46, Blogger Lavoisier said...

bg, you're still around after I lit you up in that other thread?

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy,

Honestly, what do you expect Kevin, to say to you?

By the way, I met Kevin in Dallas a few months ago. I'm not judge of sanity, but I thought he was a pretty decent guy.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:46, Blogger James B. said...

I’m trying to save this country; I’ll probably be killed for standing up for the truth.

He should talk to Kevin Barrett, he hasn't been threatened at all, and can't figure out why more people don't speak out.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

bg, you're still around after I lit you up in that other thread?


Nice to see you again, as well.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:50, Blogger troy said...

A month or so ago Jack Blood was insisiting they (whoever the fuck they are), were going to kick in my door one day.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:53, Blogger Manny said...

I'm not judge of sanity

Dude, you should tattoo that backwards on your forehead so you see it in the mirror every morning.

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:53, Blogger troy said...

Honestly, what do you expect Kevin, to say to you?

1) Nothing

or

2) anything but me being sent to a camp and watching my children being killed.


BG, Do people like you know that youre crazy??

 
At 28 November, 2006 12:59, Blogger Pat said...

Please, folks, play the ball, not the man!

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:00, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I have a mentally ill cousin. He's a smart guy, but seriously mentally ill. On lots of meds, living in a group home... the works.

I see him maybe 2-3 times a year. His behavior is startingly close to the truthers. To his credit, he doesn't believe any 9/11 CT's (he has a huge list of other paranoid delusions though). The thing is, we can all quickly and easily tell when he is off his meds (happens quite a bit), because when he's off his meds, he doesn't realize that he is mentally ill. When he's on his meds, he REALIZES that he has paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, and other psychotic behaviors. But when he's off his meds, he will sit and talk to you, in a very stable and pseudo intelligent way, about all kinds of crazy shit. He's not someone that needs a padded room mind you, he seems somewhat rational, until you actually listen to what he is saying. There are really no (that I am aware of) outward signs that he's off his meds, like disheveled clothes, or lack of grooming. No, he looks that same, but he'll start talking, calmly, cooly, and authoratatively about some of the absolute kookiest shit you've ever heard.

When he's on his meds, he'll actually acknowelege that he is ill, and that the things he rants about are part of his illness. Off his meds, he ACTUALLY BELIEVES he is 100% sane.

BG so reminds me of him its scary.

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jujigatami said...

You really are crossing a line here. If you really have a logical case behind your arguments, stooping to call somebody mentally ill really shouldn't be called for, should it?

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:11, Blogger James B. said...

Dude, you guys are arguing that death rays destroyed the World Trade Center.

Someone is playing "A Beautiful Mind: The Home Game".

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I AM not "you guys".

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:20, Blogger James B. said...

Well you guys are so splintered and intellectually inconsistent it is hard to tell.

I am sure you all aren't mentally ill, but seriously, for those who may be, how could you tell?

Bob believes super nano-thermite blew up the World Trade Center.

Joe believes that the planes were holograms.

John believes the WTC was blown up with Death Rays.

Dick believes that the Jews did it.

Brian believes that Queen Beatrix, using alien technology was behind it.

How would you tell if any one of them were crazy?

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

Duh, James.

Why don't you simply argue the merits of your case, rather this trying to decide who to call crazy?

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:24, Blogger Lavoisier said...

BG, would you mind describing what you believe is true about 9/11? I am asking for positive claims, not negative ones.

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:24, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Calling you mentally ill is TOTALLY called for, BECAUSE YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL!

I know you don't believe it, thats why you truly, truly need serious psychiatric help.

You need to be on anti-psychotic meds.

I am not kidding. I am not insulting. You seriously need mental help, and I truly pray you get it.

I'm not "stooping" to anything. Any sane person can immediately tell that you are seriously mentally ill. Someone in your group of friends and family must have told you this before. Be honest, haven't they? I know you just ignored them, like you do whenever anyone here destroys any of your arguements with those pesky facts. Or do you just pretend they didn't say it? Like you also do here all the time.

Seriously, I'm not arguing anything. I am begging you to get the mental help you so desperately need.

You're not like many of the other CTers that are driven by anti-semitism or anti-americanism. You aren't like the many who just want to feel superior to the "sheeple" or who enjoy "raging against the machine". You don't want to just upset other posters , you seriously believe the crap you are spewing, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't see it as you do.

No, you are different, and I can see it. You are seriously mentally ill, and your posts reflect it.

I've shown my wife many of your posts and responses. She agrees, and she's a clinical psychologist.

YOU NEED MENTAL HELP.

You need to be on strong anti-psychotic meds. It will truly help you.

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I am a physician, and I would make comment, but my buddy, PDoherty would surely quote mine it and make up more shit about me, as he has here:

http://911debunkingthedebunkers.blogspot.com/

TAM

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian believes that Queen Beatrix, using alien technology was behind it.

Thats our queen you are talking about :)
And i never heard that story before :)

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

BG, would you mind describing what you believe is true about 9/11? I am asking for positive claims, not negative ones.


Here's where I stand:

Boiled down to its essence, here is my assertion:

There are serious inconsistencies of the major news footage and other news reports, including videos of the events of 9/11, that point towards conclusions that are not consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report or the FEMA studies, or the NIST reports.

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:52, Blogger CHF said...

There are serious inconsistencies of the major news footage and other news reports, including videos of the events of 9/11, that point towards conclusions that are not consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report or the FEMA studies, or the NIST reports.

In other words, something is wrong but I have no idea what.

Brilliant.

 
At 28 November, 2006 13:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...

Let's start with the topic that this post was about: Gravy's appearing on the Ground Zero video.

Does Gravy say the collapse of the towers has been explained? Any honest person on this planet should be interested in what really happened, not just bashing those who they consider wrong, crazy, dishonorable, whatever.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:03, Blogger Lavoisier said...

This is the problem bg. You've just given me NEGATIVE claims.

I ask for POSITIVE claims. The official story is filled with TONS of them. Where are the CTs'?

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:07, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

No one knows with 100% certainty that Darwin's theory of evolution is what ACTUALLY happens in terms of life on earth, but the majority of sane, thinking individuals, at least in the scientific community, believe his theory to be true.

Likewise, the most reasonable, sensible, understandable theory as to what happened that day, by a mile, is the official story, with some minor exceptions, mainly related to foreknowledge.

TAM

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:08, Blogger Jujigatami said...

There are serious inconsistencies of the major news footage and other news reports, including videos of the events of 9/11, that point towards conclusions that are not consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report or the FEMA studies, or the NIST reports.


So much like my crazy cousin, its actually scary.

My cousin does EXACTLY the same thing when he's off his meds.

He'll print out web pages, talk about "inconsistencies", but never offer a real theory. He always feels its self evident after he shows you his irrational info. He'll always ask you to explain why something or other didn't happen they way he feels it should have. And the smallest incongruity makes him SURE there is a conspiracy.

Then when you ask exactly what he thinks the conspiracy is, he claims that he doesn't know the full extent of the plans, just that there is one.

Sound familiar?

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

I've developed some level of respect of you comments here.

However, your comments comparing skepticism about 9/11 to the Theory of Evolution is a meaningless comparison.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As many of you know, I have recommended Webster Tarpley's Book ("9/11 Synthetic Terror", sold at Amazon as well as other outlets) as valuable reading material.

More recently, Barrie Zwicker's "Towers of Deception" is a recent release that I'd recommend to any serious student of the topic.

Do I say they prove anything? Of course not. We need a real investigation to provide the foundation for proof or a preponderance of evidence.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:18, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, I think he was comparing 9/11 "skepticism" to creationism, not the theory of evolution. They're amazing alike. Both refuse to acknowledge science, evidence, or reason, and instead base all their theories on faith.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:20, Blogger Alex said...

We need a real investigation to provide the foundation for proof or a preponderance of evidence.

We HAD a real investigation. It's not our fault that no investigation will ever satisfy you. Perhaps if you took juji's advice and got yourself some meds, you might come to understand that no investigation will EVER satisfy every psychopath out there.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FLIGHT 93 LAWSUIT UPDATE

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:23, Blogger Lavoisier said...

The only "real" investigation you and your ilk will accept is one that ends with "and thus the government did it."

NEWS FLASH - The evidence is in, the investigations have been done, and the MOST CREDIBLE theory is the OFFICIAL STORY.

Q - E - D

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:24, Blogger Alex said...

It's not a flight 93 lawsuit, you idiot, it's a FOIA lawsuit. Buddy, if you TRULY believe that you have the truth on your side, why do you ALWAYS lie, misquote people, and make misleading statements?

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:24, Blogger Stevew said...

It amazes me that all the toofers can do is site ths same standard BS they have been doing for years as a deflection to never address anything that is put to them.

Just once I would like to see an explanation of their lunacy backed up with scientific proof to support their claims.

They keep asking for an investigation but who would they get that are more qualified than the hundreds of experts that have already done it

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

Flight 93 FOIA Request..... sorry.

Touchy, aren't you?

I was lazy and just cut and paste the headline.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:36, Blogger Alex said...

Laziness is not a good trait in an "investigator". And you wonder why nobody believes you? There's one reason; you're too lazy to bother with details.

 
At 28 November, 2006 14:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

The details that are available are in the linked news article.

I posted a headline with a link. So what.

No way are you getting away to saying that proves my research is not careful.

You don't even think the questions in the FOIA request are of any consequence right? How careful has your research been if you don't even think there are reasonable unresolved issues about what really happened on 9/11?

 
At 28 November, 2006 15:01, Blogger Manny said...

How about the fact that her FOIA requests have been fulfilled? And that the information points away from the terrorist lies of Dylan and his ilk regarding Cleveland? Does missing that make you lazy? Or the fact that Ms. Kidd is a nuball tax protestor who believes every stupid thing ever told to her and is not credible? Would missing that make you lazy?

 
At 28 November, 2006 15:01, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Still haven't given me any positive claims, bg. Fine, let's start off easy then.

Question (1)

Do you believe that Muslim terrorists were involved in 9/11 in any capacity?

Yes or no? And if no, then who, to the best of your knowledge, was involved?

 
At 28 November, 2006 15:05, Blogger Alex said...

No way are you getting away to saying that proves my research is not careful.

Oh, that's just one example. There have been dozens of other examples over the last few days alone. Most of the time you're not careful. Sometimes you're intentionally deceiving. And other times you flat out lie.

You don't even think the questions in the FOIA request are of any consequence right?

Correct. This dumb broad can't even decide whether she beleives that flight 93 was shot down, or that it landed in Cleveland. She makes BOTH CLAIMS IN THE SAME ARTICLE. So no, her FOIA request is of no consequence whatsoever.

How careful has your research been if you don't even think there are reasonable unresolved issues about what really happened on 9/11?

Careful enough to realize that most twoofers are lunatics.

You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that every single incident in history, from a car crash to a world war, could have the exact same types of "inconsistencies" pointed out about it. It would also take an idiot not to realize that minor inconstancies are not valid grounds for accusing your government of mass murder, nor are they a reason to dwell on a matter which has already been settled. I'm just surprised that you're not a creationist BG - their methods and yours are absolutely identical.

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:03, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

How much research have you done on good 'ole Buzzy?

Douchebag avoids the quote mining issue completely.

Typical nutbar douchebag

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:11, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

By the way, I met Kevin in Dallas a few months ago. I'm not judge of sanity, but I thought he was a pretty decent guy.

Of course you think he is a decent guy.
Child molesters think say the same thing about other child molesters

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:18, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

No way are you getting away to saying that proves my research is not careful.

Your research is compete shit.
How can it be real when they dont allow you out that often?

How do your actually conduct research with soft leather restraints attached?

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:23, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

BG,
I wrote this after much research into 9-11 and I really think that you might find it very very helpful:











Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .

You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .

You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .

Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:26, Blogger CHF said...

Any honest person on this planet should be interested in what really happened

Right, but you're not. If you were then you'd listen to structural engineers and demolition experts when they tell you what happened and answer your retarded questions for the 1,000th time.

But you don't listen them or anyone else who answers your questions and explains the collapse. So spare me this "I'm looking for the truth" horseshit.

Exactly who has the "truth" if not the people who understand buildings?

You???

 
At 28 November, 2006 16:30, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

CHF speaks da truth

 
At 28 November, 2006 17:15, Blogger remdem said...

If you were then you'd listen to structural engineers and demolition experts when they tell you what happened and answer your retarded questions for the 1,000th time.

But.. But.. All the experts were paid off by the government, CHF! Trust no one, and all that jazz! Everyone knows the only sources that stood true to its values was Google Video, Yahoo, Youtube, and Blogger! After all, it's not like, you know, the internet could be used to post incorrect information or anything, right?

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...
Still haven't given me any positive claims, bg. Fine, let's start off easy then.

Question (1)

Do you believe that Muslim terrorists were involved in 9/11 in any capacity?

Yes or no? And if no, then who, to the best of your knowledge, was involved?


Lavoisier,

I've covered this before....here in comments at this blog.

1) I believe the hijackers were patsies, like Oswald was a patsie in the JFK Assassination.

If you don't understand what I'm saying here (what is based on years of JFK plot research), it isn't any wonder why you would be as clueless as you seem to be.

2) I don't have any idea who the "low level" actors were.

3) I don't dispute that some or all of the FBI named individuals match identities of actual Muslims or agents of some sort. The evidence for "multiple Attas" is particularly strong.

The only reason that can explain why you should be asking me this can only be explained by the fact that you haven't done crap for your own research.

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:06, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read this book, and then we can talk:

9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Third Edition (Paperback)

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:24, Blogger Alex said...

If you don't understand what I'm saying here (what is based on years of JFK plot research)

Well no wonder your opinions on 9/11 are such total shite. You're utterly incapable of differentiating between "research" and "clueless opinion". that explains a lot.

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:45, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:47, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

My entire point with the Darwin reference, was to point out that as a society, or as intellectuals, we do not need to have an absolute 100% answer all the time, in terms or theory as to how this or that happened.

An example, is Darwin's theory. It is still a theory, a most likely explanation, yet most rational people consider it next to scientific law. Why, because the evidence in favor of it is so strong and overwhelming.

I compare this to the 9/11 attacks. IMO, and the opinion of the majority of america, the overwhelming evidence points to 19 Islamic Extremists hijacking 4 airliners and ramming them into their targets (75%) or into the ground (25%). The towers collapsed, most believe, through a combination of extermely hot fires, covering 8-10 floors each, and severe damage to the support structure and fireproofing from the jet impacts. They believe AA77 hit the pentagon. They believe UA 93 was brought down by the passengers.

The evidence is overwhelming, IMO, and hence I do not need it to be proven with 100% certainty, to accept it as fact.

TAM

 
At 28 November, 2006 18:58, Blogger CHF said...

I believe the hijackers were patsies, like Oswald was a patsie in the JFK Assassination.

So how does that square with you once claiming that 757 wreckage was planted at the Pentagon?

 
At 28 November, 2006 19:10, Blogger Lavoisier said...

"The only reason that can explain why you should be asking me this can only be explained by the fact that you haven't done crap for your own research."

No, I'm asking you because I want to know what YOU, BG, believe.

As for research, I do research for a living. So I'm pretty sure I know the difference between good research and bad research. And I can tell you that the 9/11 "truth" movement is RIFE with POOR research methodologies, sources, etc.

Now, question (2): Do you believe planes, piloted by these Muslims, crashed into the three sites. Yes or no? If no, go into detail.

 
At 28 November, 2006 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said... ,

you asked me about the planes.

1) If I didn't have other seemingly strong evidence about the whole event of 9/11, I would simply say I don't know. I find the evidence that has been made available more convincing that the alleged flights did not

a) hit the Pentagon
b) crash in PA.

The thing is, the plane ('93) could have broken up in some form that could possibly explain the lack of wreckage at the Shanksville site.

Taken in the context of all the information that has been brought forth about 9/11, I believe that none of the flights crashed where they were alleged to have crashed.

I find the idea that any of the flights were piloted by the "hijackers" an unlikely truth as well.

My big issue is not that you have to agree with me on any of this.

My big issue is that we have had a cover-up Commission.

 
At 28 November, 2006 19:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...
I believe the hijackers were patsies, like Oswald was a patsie in the JFK Assassination.

So how does that square with you once claiming that 757 wreckage was planted at the Pentagon?

6:58 PM


I remember the strut that you pointed out in a pentagon picture.

I did not ever agree that picture was a 757 strut. I agree that there is some resemblance.

The overall evidence "trumps" this small anomoly.

 
At 28 November, 2006 19:57, Blogger Lavoisier said...

OK. 3) Where are the people on the planes? And what about their cell phone calls?

 
At 28 November, 2006 19:59, Blogger Lavoisier said...

And wait - so did planes hit the Twin Towers? Why would planes hit the towers but not the other locations? Your answer above was quite confusing...

 
At 28 November, 2006 20:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

I understand why you are confused.

My best guess is that aircraft hit each of the towers, but the objects that hit the towers were not the "hijacked" jetliners.

I have nothing further to say about phone calls from the planes: mobile phone, seat-back, or galley. This subject has been beat to death. I think it was a worthy question, but nothing is hinging on it.

I fully admit what I'm alleging "sounds crazy". I don't claim to have anywhere near all the puzzle pieces.

I am stating all of the above knowing it leaves me wide open for
derision.

I don't consider myself a "lead researcher". I do believe that many of us are following a trail provided by the physical evidence combined with all the other surrounding factors.

 
At 28 November, 2006 21:57, Blogger Lavoisier said...

So then, you can probably understand why everyone here generally disregards the conspiracy theories - we pick the theory that is the most fleshed out, that makes the most sense, is the most intelligible, that the available evidence MOST supports.

Sure, there are "anomalies" and "weird coincidences" - but if you study any major (or even minor) events, you will see that these ALWAYS happen, but they don't automatically mean that the official story is wrong. Sometimes, things just don't make sense; contingency is inherently unexplainable by definition. Nonetheless, we use IBE (inference to the best explanation) - we pick the theory that best fits the data. And that is the official story.

While the official story may or may not have "holes," the conspiracy theories are RIDDLED with holes, inconsistencies, errors, etc. Why would we select the CTs over the OS? Except if we had an axe to grind, we wanted to rage against the machine, etc.?

 
At 28 November, 2006 22:03, Blogger Lavoisier said...

It reminds me of the debate between Michael Shermer (evolutionist) and Kent Hovind (creationist).

Shermer's main talking point was that Hovind's explanation was: I don't understand this, it doesn't make sense, this is an anomaly, a "hole" in the official story of evolution, so THEREFORE "Evolution is wrong; God did it." Shermer's point was that it was NOT an explanation of anything. It's a God of the Gaps argument and ultimately useless.

It seems that the "Truth" movement does the same thing. If there is something that is strange, or kind of funky, that is not completely explainable without a shadow of the doubt, the movement cries out "The Government did it!" My response, and I'm sure Shermer's response, would be: that's not an explanation!

The message to the 9/11 "Turth" Movement is simple: Give us some POSITIVE evidence, a THEORY. Not just pointing out little holes and crying out "Big Brother did it!" Unfortunatley for them, they will not be able to do this, because no theory will ever make sense or fit the data like the OS does. Period.

 
At 28 November, 2006 22:08, Blogger Alex said...

I fully admit what I'm alleging "sounds crazy".

Try "IS crazy".

 
At 29 November, 2006 04:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

As you may imagine, my evaluation is that when you talk about there being questions or oddities with any event, the concept of scale applies.

The evidence supporting controlled demolition or blowing to kingdom come of WTC 1,2, and the evidence of controlled demolition of WTC 7 is massively inconsistent with the official story.

The Pentagon evidence is massively inconsistent with the official story.

 
At 29 November, 2006 05:38, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon and the WTC was not hit with the hijacked planes...then how does that square with there being hijackers?

Seriously, dude, you desperately need to come up with a story.

Here, I'll help you out:

Take all the "evidence" you have and all the things you believe about 9/11...

Tally it all up and put it together.

You should be left with what's called a "narrative" or a "story."

Tell us that story.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:04, Blogger pomeroo said...

The conspiracy liar BG, having been utterly routed on the facts, is in full retreat. He continues to cite Tarpley's worthless drivel, although when he linked to a specific chapter, it turned out to contain the same recycled, thoroughly debunked nonsense we've seen a thousand times.

His "research" into the JFK assassination, for obvious reasons, ignores all the serious researchers in the field. Oswald was the patsy of his own internal demons and no one else. He was the shooter and he acted alone. Case still closed, as Posner put it.

Bg's "evidence" for controlled demolition remains to be seen. None of the silly, uninformed fabrications by the fantasists have survived contact with reality.

Bg has been exposed as a fraud.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said...

You are so right. I'm a fraud. I'll disappear into a pool of shame.

Not.

The true test for any reader here is the following:

Review the evidence and watch the video of WTC 7.

If you think it's reasonable for this controlled demolition to have happened at 5:20 on the afternoon of 9/11/2001, join in with the voices of libel here at this blog.

If you don't think it's reasonable for this to have happened, ask why these otherwise upstanding men and women are viciously verbally attacking someone who is simply asking for the truth.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just noticed that there is a update at youtube on the linked video (link in my previous comment) of wtc 7.

CBS requested removal as the copyright hold and youtube complied.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:36, Blogger Stevew said...

This BG guy is whakey as they come. Like all the toofers they ignore everything that does not support their whak theories, most of them are not qualified to even have an opinion.

There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,


"Tell us that story."

As you would have seen if you have been reading my comments here and elsewhere, I have listed Tarpley's book as a compelling narrative.

I don't agree with everything offered in the book, but as a narrative to fill the need, it is a starting point.

If you chose not to read that book, and enjoy spending your time bashing me, to each his own.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:46, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

you plan on presenting a narrative of 9/11 or not?

All these years of research and you keep stumbling over yourself. One minute there were hijackers, then there were none.

Try explaining why WTC7 would be blown up at 5:20 as opposed to say, 10:30am when the area was covered in smoke and dust.

Try explaining why firefighters claimed it was unstable and feared it would collapse.

Try explaining why an FDNY transit reading showed a building that was not stable.

If you can't present a narrative or answer these questions then just post more links to that moron Killtown and I'll take it as an admission of defeat.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:47, Blogger CHF said...

In your OWN WORDS, BG.

I don't care to read a book full of crap in the hope that it might have something like a story to it.

What do you think happened on 9/11?

Tell us! Point form if you must...

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:55, Blogger CHF said...

BG is a perfect example of why 9/11 Twoof is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, as a Rolling Stone writer once said.

9/11 Twoof isn't even a theory per se - just a bunch of "holes" and stupid questions that can't be tied together into a narrative without producing multiple contradictions and the dumbest story in history.

 
At 29 November, 2006 06:56, Blogger Stevew said...

Could not agree more Chf

 
At 29 November, 2006 07:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate the interest from those of you who seem to be pushing for me to share more speculation about 9/11.

My purpose here at this blog has nothing to do with my own speculations. When pushed before, I shared admittedly unproven possibilities. I see no reason to go further, as I don't think I have any innate knowledge or understanding. I don't think my speculations stand out fundamentally from many others who have made speculation.

My attempt is to maintain a line between what are legit questions, and what are, for the most part, speculations.

I don't expect much honest discussion here in giving my aspirations credit. The fact that many of you here seem to be denying that there are gapping holes in the govt. story, or saying yes there are holes, but so what, closes the case that your rhetoric is not based on a good faith effort to discuss the truth of the matter.

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Video: 9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blog Post: Ground Zero Smoking Cannon: Where Are All the Core Columns and Beams???

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

WTC 7 comes down to this:

You either believe the testimony of those who were (1) there that day or (2) worked on the investigation, and use this testimony in cohorts with the evidence...this will certainly lead you to the official story conclusion (read Mark Roberts Paper for details on all aspects of WTC7 from firemen, rescue workers, NIST/FEMA).

Or, you watch the video, and having no other reference in history for the collapse of a 47 storey building, assume based on the video alone, that it must have been CD, despite a plethora of testimony and scientific investigation pointing away from this conclusion.

I chose the first option myself.

TAM

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

You leave out the option of taking into consideration both (1 & 2), which is what I've done.

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:39, Blogger Lavoisier said...

My purpose here at this blog has nothing to do with my own speculations. When pushed before, I shared admittedly unproven possibilities. I see no reason to go further, as I don't think I have any innate knowledge or understanding. I don't think my speculations stand out fundamentally from many others who have made speculation.

So, you're basically telling us this: I don't really know any theory, I'm just speculating. If you pushed me further, I couldn't tell you anything that I'm sure about. I'm just asking questions.

Stunning.

The funny thing is that we can all tell you a story: give you hard facts, evidence, and a narrative. All of which you CANNOT give, and admittedly so. So why should we give your work any credit whatsoever?

Why don't you come back when you have something other than "speculation" and "unproven possibilities" - and especially when you realize that "I see no reason to go further" will NEVER cut it in any type of research investigation. What are you, a researcher, or a speculator, who just asks questions? If you were the former, you would see a reason to go further because that's what inquiry IS.

My attempt is to maintain a line between what are legit questions, and what are, for the most part, speculations.
Sounds nice, but I don't see this in action. You've made up your mind that the government "did it." It's pretty obvious. So now the legit questions you are willing to ask target the OS, while you level no such "legit questions" at your own conspiracy theories.

I don't expect much honest discussion here in giving my aspirations credit. The fact that many of you here seem to be denying that there are gapping holes in the govt. story, or saying yes there are holes, but so what, closes the case that your rhetoric is not based on a good faith effort to discuss the truth of the matter.

The only discussion you will find "honest" is if we said "OMG BG you are so right, that is sure a strange anomaly, PARADIGM SHIFT!!!11" You are not looking for dialogue as we understand it; dialogue to you is us accepting your work as true, in some sense.

And about seeking the truth of the matter - I wasn't aware that this was what you are doing. I thought you were just asking questions but that you saw the need to "go no further?"

 
At 29 November, 2006 08:49, Blogger CHF said...

Thank you, BG, for admitting that you have no solid proof and that you base your opinions on mere speculation and a religious devotion to your cause.

"I see no reason to go further"

Wow, you're a real serious researcher, aren't you?

You see no reason to go beyind asking mindless questions. You see no reason as to why you should try to ANSWER these questions or present any sort of narrative.

You're pathetic.

 
At 29 November, 2006 09:13, Blogger Stevew said...

I have asked every denier I have come across to give me their qualifications
to do anaylsis and not one was qualified to look at a vid, pik or anything and
give a point by point anaylsis. The only thing that qualified them for anything
was to C&P the same BS over and over, ask dumb questions and say nothing
in 500 words.

None have any experience in:
Mechanical design
Building design
Building demolition
Building construction
Aircraft crashes
I could go on but you get the picture.
Instead of asking stupid questions, I would love to see them give a detailed explaination
of their theories and back them up with hard facts instead of the same BS.

I would love to see the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline.
None of these people understand the construction of the towers, if they did their questions would all be answered. For example, the core girders were bolted
together in 36' sections creating weak spots. There are piks of the core girders with
4 holes in them where they were bolted together and it also shows the bent bolts that
tied them together

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445992

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#wtc-7s-sudden-collapse

Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway across the street from WTC 7 was so badly
damaged it has to be demolished. WTC 7 did not fall straight down, it fell to the southwest.
The pile was neither little nor convenient; it took over 8 months to clean up the
World Trade Center site with crews working 24 hours a day. And while the
collapse appeared to take about 6 seconds, seismic readings recorded an event
lasting for 18 seconds.
WTC 7's east mechanical penthouse on top of the building fell into it

 
At 29 November, 2006 09:15, Blogger CHF said...

I gave you a very simple challenge, BG

I asked that you take YOUR OWN BELIEFS (which I assumed you were quite familiar with) and put them together in a narrative.

Yet you refuse.

You claim to be just asking questions but then you'll make a claim like "that 757 landing gear strut was planted" as if that's a question!

Clearly you have some beliefs, BG. Clearly you've decided what you think happened; you wouldn't argue about this stuff if you didn't.

So why all the trouble in putting your OWN BELIEFS together?

Simple: it would result in a story that would belong on the Comedy Network.

 
At 29 November, 2006 09:38, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 November, 2006 09:39, Blogger pomeroo said...

I posted this on 911 Conspiracy Smasher earlier today:

...Do you really think that the conspiracy liars actually swallow their own snake oil? They are in this game because they hate America--period! The lunacy regarding the collapse of WTC 7 illustrates my case. Here is a building unknown to almost everybody living outside NYC. It falls hours after the collapse of the main buildings and no one is killed. What remotely plausible, barely conceivable, role could this event play in the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's grand scheme?

It would be obvious to any bright child that bringing down WTC 7 accomplishes exactly nothing. The loons can spend years constructing one ludicrous, fantastically over-complicated Rube Goldberg device after another to make blatant nonsense appear plausible, but they always fail. The whole concept is just too dumb (Occam's Razor, and all that).

Everybody gets the idea that the collapse of WTC is a square peg that simply doesn't fit the round hole the nutters keep trying to pound it into.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:18, Blogger CHF said...

They are in this game because they hate America--period!

I think it's deeper than that.

We're dealing with people who basically have never fit in. Losers, socially inept morons - whatever one wants to call them.

911 twoof allows these people to feel important and smart for once in their pathetic lives. It takes on a religious role for them - something to believe and preach regardless of what facts and logic say.

That's why we find know-nothing goofballs like BG considering themselves as smarter than structural engineers when it comes to building collapses.

There's no logical reason for him thinking this way. His religion simply demands it.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:30, Blogger Manny said...

What remotely plausible, barely conceivable, role could this event play in the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's grand scheme?

Apparently the NWO needed to dispose of some documents but Staples was out of stock on all its paper shredders.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:36, Blogger pomeroo said...

Chf, your comments are right on the money. All conspiracists cling to the childish fantasy that a group of all-knowing, supremely powerful adults control every aspect our lives. If only these shadowy entities could be appeased, or shamed into doing the right thing, all would be well.

Conspiracists are terrified by the randomness of reality. When a shocking event occurs, such as the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01, someone simply HAD to be pulling the strings.
Conspiracy theories offer an easy, mindless alternative to real knowledge. Why spend years studying history if the key to the universe is at hand? You can understand everything that has ever happened, is happening now, or will happen in the future by simply invoking the Illuminati, or the Masons, or the Bilderbergers, or the Trilateral Commission, or the Zionists, or whatever.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:40, Blogger pomeroo said...

Manny, so help me, one loon actually tried to slip this idiocy by me. Yeah, sure, it's easier to blow up the whole building than to put the stuff in a cardboard box. Anyone can see that.

And people still wonder if the liars actually believe their own bullshit?

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

"honest discussions"

As much as you may be surprised, I give this blog credit for legit, honest posts and mostly honest discussions with respect to the various video incarnations called "Loose Change".

It is only when we get to documents such as the Pentagon debunking (just posted), and Gravy's WTC 7 debunking, that I believe there is a lack of full intellectual honesty.

Defending NIST's findings has been the ultimate intellectual dishonesty.

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:57, Blogger pomeroo said...

Yes, Bg, we understand your indignation about the rationalists' lack of intellectual honesty. Not that you and your fellow liars are complete intellectual frauds or anything, but what errors have you found in the NIST report?
Hey, I'll bet you were impressed by the dashing figure Fetzer cut in his debate with J.R. Dunn over what flew into the Pentagon. See americanthinker.com and search for J.R. Dunn for the details. It ain't pretty.

 
At 29 November, 2006 11:06, Blogger CHF said...

C'mon BG...let's see that narrative.

Any day now....

You know what you believe and so putting it all together shouldn't take much effort.

 
At 29 November, 2006 11:44, Blogger Lavoisier said...

chf, don't waste your breath (or finger muscles?). You're never going to get a narrative out of him, as he has hinted at in earlier posts. And he finds nothing wrong with that, which is the crux of the problem.

 
At 29 November, 2006 11:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said....

I don't defend Fetzer. He has acted in indefensible ways.

 
At 29 November, 2006 12:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Gravy really cares about the Heros of 9/11: Death by Dust
The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer

 
At 29 November, 2006 14:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

The Comical Coward of Conspiracy, Jon Gold (aka The Running Man) tried to pretend that he cares about the victims of the jihadist attacks by prattling about the toxic air around Ground Zero. I reminded him that he was referring to a REAL scandal, obviously no concern of his.

 
At 29 November, 2006 21:19, Blogger Alex said...

Ah yes, the "deflect criticism by linking to unrelated articles" strategy. I'll bet that works wonders on the pre-teen crowd, doesn't it BG? You won't get the same results here though....

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home