The BG Mystery!
Remember the Comair plane crash that happened in Lexington back in August, where the plane went down the wrong runway, early in the morning? Well, it turns out that some of the loons have latched onto this as somehow equivalent to 9-11 (I haven't figured that out yet) and have discovered an amazing coincidence:
That is, there are TWO Bill Giltners. The first ... happens to be (?) ... an activist in the 9/11 Truth Movement ...
The SECOND Bill Giltner witnessed the crash. Given the tell-tale repetition of ties to the Pearl Harbor of Manhattan detected in the Comair crash – Flight 5191 – this PUSHES coincidence over the edge ... kicking and screaming ...
Now, Alex Constantine speculates that possibly the government plant who witnessed the Lexington crash simply used BG's name as a psy-op against the "Truth" Movement. But isn't it obvious that BG is actually an operative of the New World Order? Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen him around the NWO cafeteria, so I can't say for certain, but....
posted by Pat @ 5:08 PM
27 comments
27 Comments:
For what it's worth, I don't have enough evidence to endorse what Alex C. is writing about.
OMG
Once again, just when you think they couldn't be any more rediculous in their paranoia...along comes another gem.
TAM
According to Alex Jones BG was also trained in covert operations at the Defense Language School...
trained?!!!, I taught classes there.
A Simple One-dimensional Model of Collapse of Some Tall Buildings
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I finally got one of the PDFs to load.
So, who is this Charles Beck guy? He ("they"?) use, I assume, a single line (one-dimensional object) to represent Tower 2, compare it to the NIST results, then claims they don't match?
Well, shit! Where did he publish this paper; Duh! Magazine ?
For what it's worth, I don't have enough evidence to endorse what Alex C. is writing about.
What, you're too much of a lazy turd to spend five seconds Googling your own name?
The web has evidence of at least five people named Bill Giltner who aren't you. It's not that rare a name.
What, you're too much of a lazy turd to spend five seconds Googling your own name?
I don't appreciate the needless slam.
I don't dispute the gist of your comment. It is odd that I am William Giltner Jr., the the person is identified in some articles as William Giltner Jr.
BG Great find on the physics paper. I look foward to getting more indepth information on it.
One dimensional...
That sums up the CTers arguements alright.
I don't appreciate the needless slam.
Needless? Please. When you assume that a random person sharing your (common) name is part of a government psyop against you, and then admit you couldn't be bothered to investigate it at all, you're pretty much begging to be made fun of.
And let me just point out that you're accusing this Comair witness -- undoubtedly a real person -- of being a willing participant in a plot to crash planes and murder American citizens, in the name of some secret world domination cabal. And you have the nerve to be upset about being called a lazy turd?
Pat/James, I apologize if my comments went too far, but sometimes the CT's disregard for other human beings is so extreme that polite words cannot adequately express my level of disgust.
that polite words cannot adequately express my level of disgust.
Wasn't it something like if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say at all becuase it reflects a lack of intelligence?
Just asking questions...
Wasn't it something like if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say at all becuase it reflects a lack of intelligence?
No, I think it goes "You can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke."
Actually,
I believe the quote you're looking for is:
Its not nice to insult the retarded.
Trite
Strangley enough I can follow that. But to totally agree with you, the dog has to be in China making the purse and at the same time avoiding the local eating establishments.
I should say the wrong asian cutlure that this racial slight is usually made towards.
It's funny, they can't even get their racism right.
Lying Dylan I'm going to ask a couple of questions to justify your stupidity. And as a personal disclaimer, this is a common tactic of OSers on this from. Lie through their teeth to try to make CT'ers look bad. I am not a racist.
1. How old are you? Why do I ask? That might explain it.
2. How educated are you? Why do I ask? That might explain it?
3.How traveled are you? Why do I ask? That might explain it?
4. How honest are you? Why do I ask? That might explain it. Which in this case I think it does.
See the Chinese culture do include dog in their diet. Better yet instead of depending on a more educated, well rounded, well grounded, more traveled, expert on the subject, lets take a look at another expert:
Now Dylan, I believe you can eat crow, and explain to the rest of the forum why you lie and why you are a complete moron.
Fact or Fiction?: The Chinese Eat Dogs
LONDON, January 26 /PRNewswire/ --
- New Book Highlights the Importance of Understanding the Chinese Culture
For hundreds of millions of Chinese around the world, Sunday will mark the beginning of the Year of the Dog, which is a fitting symbol for the cultural differences that have to be bridged between China and the rest of the world. Given China's historical attitudes toward dogs and the emerging Chinese interest in keeping pets, many Westerners have often pondered, "Do Chinese really eat dogs?"
According to Tom Doctoroff, author of Billions: Selling to the New Chinese Consumer, published this month by Palgrave Macmillan, the answer is, historically, a declarative "yes."
"True, there are some hot pot dog restaurants, particularly in the South, and one or two on the sparkling streets of Shanghai, but most educated folks wouldn't admit to having a dog sandwich for lunch," explains Doctoroff. "But globalization is everywhere, and with international standards of behavior and consumerism impacting China too, dog chowing is less and less popular."
Dylan-shut the fuck up.
Man I love proving OS'ers wrong.
I love to make them eat their words.
And I love to make them look completely stupid in front of their friends. It is just too easy! Shawn enjoy my above post as well considering you jumped on the -I'm with stupid- bandwagon.
Man I love proving OS'ers wrong.
Right...so....you planning on actualy DOING it...ever?
Alex with regards to proving you wrong, I will leave that to Manny. He did a pretty good job of that earlier. Have you had your begging request answered yet in regards to the General Egghead and the FAA post we were on? Seems you mentioned a level of stupidity and said I was wrong, but you failed to prove me wrong. Second, your 'stupidity' request is your subtle way of asking for help because Swingdanger is right and ...and...well I just can't accept that! I found it very funny way of addmitting to such.
Alex with regards to proving you wrong, I will leave that to Manny. He did a pretty good job of that earlier.
Great. That's why I respect Manny. He has a solid understanding of reality, is able to construct a logical argument, and he can present relevant information to back up his assertions. Manny certainly CAN prove me wrong, when I happen to be wrong. You on the other hand? Not only are you utterly clueless and wrong about most of the things you speak of, but you cannot even formulate a proper argument on the rare occasion when you happen to be RIGHT. You've never once shown ANYONE here to be wrong, with the possible exception of the argument about Chinese people eating dogs. Even there, your argument was so badly constructed that most people are likely to overlook it. So my point still stands. Don't you dare try to represent Manny's accomplishments as your own.
Seems you mentioned a level of stupidity and said I was wrong, but you failed to prove me wrong.
When an individual makes a statement of such abject stupidity, it is usually best not to bother answering them at all. Pointing and laughing is just as effective, and a lot less aggravating.
BG (from another thread):
As surprising as it may seem, I would appreciate your reasoned and honest feedback.
I will attempt to do so here.
My point in posting (Alex Constantine's) blog entry that included my name was:
1) create more general interest, especially from those of you who seem to have not spent much time looking into details of events which should receive more scrutiny.
OK, stop right there.
As I said earlier, the central point of the Constantine story is very easily disproven. A simple web search would have turned up plenty of evidence of the existence of a Bill Giltner from Salina, Kansas, and also corroborate other details of the story. It is also quite reasonable, and confirmable through US Census data, that there is more than one Bill Giltner in this country.
That Alex Constantine did not investigate this before he ran a news story on it is an indictment of his credibility. That you posted it here without checking into it is an indictment of your credibility. Not to mention that in the real journalistic world, you can't just accuse people of being involved in a crime without any evidence.
BG, why do you want to "create more interest" in stories that are provably false? And you have the nerve to say WE should be giving these things more scrutiny? I think YOU need to be applying more scrutiny to what you read before you go cross-linking it all over the place.
For example, I thought some of you would review the numerous other blog posts on Constantine's blog.
Why the hell should I, when he can't be bothered to do the simplest of research on his stories?
Is Constantine an "infiltrator"? Is he just a publicity hound?
He's a poor journalist. He jumps to the desired conclusion without investigating all possibilities, even though doing so would have taken approximately 30 seconds.
I realize that mainstream journalism is not exactly in a Golden Age, but there are some minimum standards of fact-checking that need to be met. Hell, if anything, the conspiracy blog crowd could gain mainstream credibility by reporting stories better than the mainstream media dies. But you manage to do an even worse job.
If you are commenting here, I think it fair to ask you to take some time to review the post I linked to.
And if you're going to demand that other people take your articles seriously, I think it's fair to ask you to meet basic minimum standards of journalism.
Alex See Alex, when confronted with your mistakes by your buddies, it's ok. When confronted by CT'e and the like, the name calling begins. Am I taking credit for Manny's work? Nope. Did he prove what I said to be true and prove your lie? Yes.
Have you even attempted to address my argument about the General's statment and the FAA? That was a well constructed arguement with good points supported by fact, but you didn't mention that when you tried to post a retort. You commented on my stupidity and then begged like a school girl for help.
The only reason you respect Manny is because he is an OSer. If it would have been a CT or myself point out your error, you would have either ignored it or started the flame. See Alex, your full of shit. When you think you have retort or a good point, you back it up with elementary examples that are simply ridiclulous, followed by a personal attack of some sort. Although at times you place the attack in front of the example, but the tactic remains the same.
He has a solid understanding of reality, is able to construct a logical argument, and he can present relevant information to back up his assertions.
Yes, he did that so well with the my critique of the NIST and the violation of their mission statements, as well as their failure to follow the DQA. NOT!
Did he prove what I said to be true and prove your lie? Yes.
No, actually. He proved that NIST reports cannot be used in civil suits where damages are awarded. Your claim was that they could not be used "in a court of law". There's a big difference. Furthermore, even though I was unaware that there were restrictions on the usage of NIST reports for legal matters, if they can in fact be used in criminal cases then I am in fact technically correct, whereas you are, for the most part, wrong. It's still up to you to prove your case, which you have failed to do. You could ofcourse simply modify your original statement, but that would, in effect, be an admission of defeat.
The only reason you respect Manny is because he is an OSer.
I respect Manny because he is a rational, intelligent human being. I despise you because you are a throwback, a defect, and a genetic blunder. Clear?
Triterope said...
Thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home