Sunday, December 17, 2006

Part II of Roberts & Wieck versus Bermas and Avery

Can be viewed here. Watching it now; what struck me in the first ten minutes is that Dylan seems to nod his head in agreement while Mark Roberts is speaking.

Some terrific bits in here, so watch it all, and be sure to watch the eventual Hardfire broadcasts as well, but my favorite bit is at about 27:55 when Ron Wieck asks Dylan and Jason what would "falsify" their beliefs. This is a buzz saw that the Loosers completely misread. They express confidently that nothing in the world could change their minds.

Of course, this is not the response a detective, or a documentarian, or a scientist would give. It is the response of one whose beliefs are based on faith, not on evidence.


At 17 December, 2006 22:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe a stupid question, but they keep talking about metal in that video. Isn't aluminum a metal?

At 17 December, 2006 22:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudo's to Mark!

Well done!
You were very strong with your arguements. And it was obvious the truthers were not very well informed.

At 17 December, 2006 23:47, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Good job Dylan and Jason!

At 18 December, 2006 00:11, Blogger Nyke said...

Damn, I wish I was on the Campus Wireless. We're out for the winter, and I'm on Half-dial-up.

At 18 December, 2006 04:08, Blogger pomeroo said...

Thanks, Pat (it's Ron, not Rod).

Their response astonished me more than it should have.

At 18 December, 2006 04:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh, they almost seemed.....human...;)

I think they were very honest, although Mark obvious had more knowladge about the subjects.

At 18 December, 2006 04:55, Blogger troy said...

Mark Roberts was awesome.

Was Douchebag Dylan even there? The anti-American barely spoke.

The other anti-American, Bermas, had the wigger look goin' on.

At 18 December, 2006 05:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone debate me on the Norman Mineta testimony? What is Mark Robert's explanation for the Norman Mineta testimony. It cannot be debunked!

Norman Mineta's testimony is proven accurate and cannot be debunked. This is the issue that none of you ever address.

At 18 December, 2006 05:48, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Bermas and Avery Sure they made errors and mistakes. Many of the errors were because information was uncovered or released. Case in point. The blue tarp. When they made the movie at the time, do you think they knew what it was? Of course not so they speculated they were hiding something, which is exactly what it looks like at first.

At 18 December, 2006 05:50, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Simon Another question for you.

What is your take on this eyewitnesses account to the London bombings? This guy has his bloody shirt to prove he was there.

7/7 Witness: Bus Was Diverted To Tavistock Sq. By Two Unmarked Cars
Soon to be published account will detail the plot and cover up of the number 30 bus bombing

A soon to be published narrative of the number 30 bus bombing on 7/7 in London claims that the Hackney bus was diverted to Tavistock Square by two unmarked cars which then left the scene at high speed after the drivers had conversed with police in the area.

The witness, named "Daniel", has a blog here and a website here . He states:
I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment. My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th Bomb (as yet unpublished)

The number 30 bus was diverted away from its usual route along Euston road on the morning of 7/7, reportedly because of road closures in the Kings Cross area (due to the earlier tube bombings). We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus usually travels down that road. This footage can be seen in Alex Jones' latest film Terrorstorm.

"Daniel" goes on to comment:

Standing by the doors I see a blue BMW 5 series and black Mercedes squeal to a halt in front of the bus, halting its progress along Euston Road. 4 minutes passed then a police motorcyclist arrived at the blockage. The BMW driver said something to the cyclist who soon sped off. 90 seconds later the BMW suddenly drives off. The Mercedes waits till the bus diverts east into Upper Woburn Place towards Tavistock Square before it speeds away.

After very slow progress the driver suddenly opens the buses central exit doors while keeping the front doors shut, right on the corner of Upper Woburn Place some 80 meters away from the only bus stop in Tavistock Square (seen here). Many passengers got off at this point because of the delay and it was heading in the wrong direction.

Were these cars unmarked police vehicles? If so what were they doing diverting traffic? Surely that would have been the job of the traffic police.

Daniel then states:
A deep boom resounded. Shattered glass flew everywhere. It was followed by an eery silence. I scrambled up off the bus floor and leapt out going along the pavement at full pelt. But over the following days and weeks the relief I felt turned to exasperation at the increasingly menacing tactics the operatives' trailing and observing me employed, confirming my worst suspicions, for some reason I was embroiled in the largest criminal investigation in UK history.

He suggests that he can be seen in video footage of the aftermath, which he has posted on his website, and also claims that in the immediate seconds after the blast, a man dressed all in black was filming him with a hand held camera.

Daniel also still has the shirt that he was wearing on the day, which was splattered with the blood of victims. He says the police have never requested it for forensics investigation, despite having questioned him.

He also states that there was never any Asian looking male on the lower deck after he bus left Euston terminal. Reports attributed to 61 year-old Richard Jones claimed there was. Investigators conveniently relocated his sighting to the upper deck in their official May 2006 report.

Daniel says "It was just me, the driver plus four females on the lower deck as it edged down Tavistock Square."

After attempting to report what he saw, Daniel was asked to call an emergency hotline, which he did. instead of asking him to go to the police station to make a statement he claims he was subjected to a program of surveillance and harassment by the police:

By September 2005 I had began receiving a string of strange phone calls which became increasingly sinister. Friends advised me to record them where possible as evidence in case I needed to bring an IPCC complaint.

After the blast I was alert enough to be out of there in seconds. Yet investigators chose to rely on 4 female witnesses, one who was out cold for 15 minutes and was extracted from the wreck onto a trolley by medics (taking care not to move her neck) another one upstairs who woke up in a daze and two others who told a nurse treating them at UCH they thought I had been the bomber!"
6 months and 3 weeks after July 7th I'm asked to attend a police station in North London to provide a statement.

Police questioned Daniel for 4 hours, a clip of the interview is on his website. they asked him to him mark points where he thought people were on a diagram of the bus layout that was totally wrong, which he believed would render his statement inadmissible.

He claims he was then followed around by the same three operatives from Enfield Town Police Station, North London, for the following six months, saying that the surveillance was more overt than covert, they were letting him know that he was being watched 24-7.

He also received calls from police apparently attempting to tie him to vehicles and a business in the Leeds area, the same place the alleged bomber originated from. One of these phone calls is posted on his site and can be heard by clicking here .

He goes on to comment:
I realised the magnitude of what I'd seen almost instantly. The operative's menacing tactics only made it undeniable. Over the months of surveillance and harassment they seemed intent on messing up my life, keeping me looking behind my back. I awaited the release of the 'official version' with some interest especially with regards to the 4th bomb in Tavistock Square. The report was generally vague, devoid of any facts consisting of speculation based upon what I knew to be blatant falsehoods. Of course the presence of unmarked cars and the claims that they stopped the bus cannot be verified because the vehicle's CCTV cameras were conveniently not working that day .

One week after the attack we put out a report, after receiving an email from an employee of Stagecoach , the company that owns the London Buses, stating that he believed the bus bombing to be very suspicious.

Our contact works a route roughly one mile from the site of the bus bombing, he stated:

CCTV gets maintained at least 2 or 3 times a week and can digitally store up to 2 whole weeks worth of footage. this is done by a private contractor....So when I heard that the CCTV wasn't working on a vehicle that's no more than 2 years old since last June.....I'm sorry that's rubbish, I work for the company I know different.

Last saturday a contractor came to inspect the CCTV on the buses at the depot, According to my supervisor the person spent more than 20 hours over that weekend, 20 hours to see if the CCTV is working? Also that person who came was not a regular contractor, for security reasons the same few people always come to the depot to carry out work, this time it was different.
Drivers in the depot already think the so called bombers had inside help because it was to organised. Some even think it had help from the company.

Exactly why the bus would be re-routed to Tavistock Square purposefully is up for debate. Some have suggested that the location is convenient given that the British Medical Association is located there, whilst others have attempted to connect the company Fortress GB , railway security management specialists who are often contracted for security projects for London Transport.

In the upcoming book, entitled The 4th Bomb, the witness Daniel also suggests that the follow up "failed bombings" may have been a cover operation to distract police and special investigators:
The logic for the ‘failed suicide attacks' and the authorities seemingly haphazard yet iron-fisted response didn't become apparent to me until late January 2006, some time after my interrogation with an Anti-Terrorist branch detective. It was something he alluded to in passing, that the attacks on 21:7 had thrown awry a carefully laid ‘operational response' to 7:7.

He led me to realise that although the attacks were devoid of explosions, they achieved their primary objective, which was to upset the Anti-Terror investigation, mess-up MI5 and put more pressure on the unsustainable 'symbolic' levels of policing in the period of 'vigilance' following 7:7.

.....the intelligence services were totally UN-aware of those responsible for the ‘failed suicide attacks'.

A term that would more accurately describe them is ‘successful dummy attacks', but a dummy attack on whom exactly… London's already terrified public?
No, this was an attack aimed squarely at Military Intelligence themselves. Executed by an ad-hoc bunch of sympathisers.

Daniel then suggests that his research and experience have led him to believe that the execution of Jean Charles De Menezes the day after the dummy attacks was carried out by KRATOS trained operatives in order to send a strong signal to would be copy cats.

At 18 December, 2006 05:59, Blogger Alex said...

Can anyone debate me on the Norman Mineta testimony?

There's nothing to debate. His testimony is utterly irrelevant to your assertions. If you have a quote of him saying "yes, I planted demolition charges in the WTC", then ok, I'd be interested to hear that. Otherwise, you're just repeating the same tired old irrelevant nonsense as the rest of your buddies.

At 18 December, 2006 06:03, Blogger Alex said...

When they made the movie at the time, do you think they knew what it was? Of course not so they speculated they were hiding something, which is exactly what it looks like at first.

Ah. So you subscribe to the "let's pull ideas out of our asses" theory of documentary-making. Well, sure, that's one approach. One could argue, however, that the proper way to make a documentary is to actually research the event(s) first. I know you're not big on professionalism and all that, but to the rest of us it's kinda important.

At 18 December, 2006 06:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex Of course Minetta is not important to the CD of WTC's. LOL!
In context that was the whole Chaney let 'em hit it point which can't be refuted based upon Minetta's testimony.

Anyway I do agree with you that they should have researched the event itself and the information they discuss. I fault them for calling their film a documentary in the first place.

At 18 December, 2006 06:26, Blogger Alex said...

And once again CT logic provides us with comic relief. Let's see. You're a trained government agent, about to blow up a Bus and then blame it on Muslims. Do you:

a) Blow up the fucking bus.
b) Divert the bus, chitchat with the driver, wait a while, and then blow up the bus.

In Little Swinger's LaLa land, the correct answer is, of course, "b". God forbid that any conspiracy ever go off using the LEAST complicated method possible.

At 18 December, 2006 06:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never said Mineta's testimony proved controlled demolition. Don't put words in my mouth and makes things up.

What Norman Mineta's testimony proves is that Cheney was in the PEOC prior to 9:20, prior to when the Pentagon was hit. The 9/11 commission says he entered the PEOC at 9:58. so mineta's testimony proves the 9/11 commission report is incorrect. it proves that Cheney knew about the plane approaching the Pentagon with enough time to intercept and shoot it down. You guys have an explanation for ever claim we make EXCEPT the norman mineta testimony. No one in the screw loose change forums or anyone has ever been able to debunk it.

At 18 December, 2006 06:43, Blogger Alex said...

Ok, let's say I accept your argument. So what? Am I supposed to get all excited now? OH MY GOD! CHANEY WAS IN THE PENTAGON! THAT PROVES THAT STAR WARS LASERS BLEW UP THE WTC!

Stop with the games. If you've got a point to make, make it. So far all you're doing is bringing up all sorts of irrelevant claims which, even if they're all true, don't add up to anything.

At 18 December, 2006 06:43, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex It isn't mine, it is a eyewitness who was a victim of the attacks, just like Simon! And this guy's conclusion is different than Simons.

I posted his information to counter Simon's declaration of 'truth'.

So again stop putting words into people's mouths.

At 18 December, 2006 06:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...


Yet another fallacy...joining to unrelated events to prove a point. Minetta and WTC yet again. Again stop putting words into people's mouths to try to debunk them.

Point 1-9/11 Commission is littered with errors and inconsistencies and it is suppose to be a definitive account.

At 18 December, 2006 06:52, Blogger Alex said...

Alex It isn't mine, it is a eyewitness who was a victim of the attacks, just like Simon! And this guy's conclusion is different than Simons.

Your witness also claims that he's being chased around by shadowy men in suits. Frankly, I think he took too many red pills. Considering that I've never heard of the guy, AND that he's the only one with this sort of story, I'm disinclined to believe him over all of the other witnesses.

Yet another fallacy...joining to unrelated events to prove a point. Minetta and WTC yet again. Again stop putting words into people's mouths to try to debunk them.

Well since you refuse to spit out any sort of coherent theory, I'm pretty much forced to put words into your mouths. You don't like it? No problem; tie all these little details into a theory and show me how they fit. Until then I'll keep linking unrelated events, since that's what you clowns keep insinuating all the time anyway.

At 18 December, 2006 07:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

Truth911 states that Norman Mineta's testimony can't be debunked. The reality is, it is very easy to debunk if you do a little homework. Obviously, to most of us, Mineta's timeline was off by more than twenty minutes. The events he describes match events described by others on the scene, except he has everything happening earlier. When he recounts the exchanges between Cheney and the military aide, he is talking about Flight 93, which nobody realized has already been brought down. The context makes it absolutely clear that the order in question was the shoot-down order communicated by Bush.

Admittedly, the 911 Commission could have made matters clearer by explicitly stating why Mineta's testimony was omitted from the official report. For my debate preparations, I managed to contact Chris Kojm, former senior staffer for the commission. He agrees that the book probably should have explained that Mineta's testimony was not helpful in piecing together an accurate timeline. Kojm feels that the timeline settled on by the commission members is highly accurate. Mineta understands that he could not have witnessed an evacuation at 9:26 when it didn't take place until twenty minutes later.

Typical fantasist logic: if twenty people agree and one person disagrees, the one must be right. The twoofers never grasp the idea that if nobody (apart from themselves) regards Mineta's testimony as important, perhaps it isn't.

At 18 December, 2006 07:32, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Has Dylan been hanging out with Elton John?

At 18 December, 2006 07:37, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Mineta's timeline was off by more than twenty minutes

See the testimony on CSPAN and that should take care of any questions.

At 18 December, 2006 07:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Frankly, I think he took too many red pills.
Of course, everyone you disagree with takes those. That is your typical response to everyone you disagree with. His testimony and experience are factual. Not much you can say to that.

At 18 December, 2006 08:00, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Lile hey man, I mean the next thing we have for sale is a DYLAN NODDY Doll!

It'll be on our website soon!

Gotta fix the protype - the head rattles now when you move it.

Hey the just arrived, where's my Boxcutter ha ha ha ha ha?!

At 18 December, 2006 08:03, Blogger pomeroo said...

I have watched Mineta's testimony several times. Your irrelevant suggestion is just another dodge. His timeline was clearly off. Get over it.

At 18 December, 2006 08:26, Blogger Alex said...

His testimony and experience are factual. Not much you can say to that.

Prove it. Show me why I should believe this one guy over the dozens of other witnesses. Try to understand for a second that I do not share your paranoid belief in an all-pervasive evil government, and try to gear your argument toward a RATIONAL person. This means providing actual evidence, instead of just expecting me to believe the testimony of one person who sounds like a lunatic over the testimony of 20 people who sound perfectly normal.

At 18 December, 2006 08:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...

About Bermas and Avery,

From strictly a logic and science viewpoint, the fact that they didn't have a clue about the "what evidence would change your mind question" is quite damning.

At 18 December, 2006 08:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I have watched Mineta's testimony several times. Not a dodge at all.
He states it very clearly what he was talking about, the time frame, and what plane. 'Nuff said.

At 18 December, 2006 08:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Prove it.

I will let the legal review speak for his book before it is published.

Feel free to prove Simon's point.

At 18 December, 2006 08:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh one other point, Alex, YOU WEREN'T THERE!

At 18 December, 2006 08:58, Anonymous Anonymous said... said...

I'm on your side, I'm pretty sure.

In supporting you, I have to point out that you argument is only as strong as the accuracy of Mineta's testimony.

I, personally don't have a reason to question Mineta intent or accuracy, but demanding that others make that leap is showing a lack of intellectual flexibility.

I think we can spend our time much more effectively if we argue how illogical it is for the 9/11 Commission and Congressional Oversight not to follow up on the issue to get to the bottom of it.

At 18 December, 2006 09:08, Blogger Alex said...

It's rather humbling to have the worlds two foremost dodge ball champions present on these forums. You guys don't do autographs, do you?

At 18 December, 2006 09:08, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

They express confidently that nothing in the world could change their minds.

That is the definition of a zealot - someone who sticks to their ridiculous beliefs no matter the facts showing them to be wrong.

I am always ready to change my mind on any subject if facts are shown to me, evidence (which is factual, and not made up) presented which can withstand challenges, etc.

When someone says "I will not change my mind no matter what," then that person is deranged, and should be ignored.

At 18 December, 2006 09:14, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

What is your take on this eyewitnesses account to the London bombings? This guy has his bloody shirt to prove he was there.

I didn't say I was there when the bomb(s) went off - I said I was on the bus 1/2 hour before they went off. When they did go off, I was sitting on the Heathrow Express, which runs out of Paddington Station in northwestern London, direct to all terminals at Heathrow.

After I sat in the main lounge at Heathrow, and my plane's gate was announced, I moved over there and they had a big screen tv in the area with SKY News and the BBC on, showing that the attacks had taken place. When they mentioned the bus number, and that it was blown up near Edgware Road (which is about 10 minutes from my flat), I realized that the attack happened right after I got off.

As to any "eyewitnesses," I do know that one man was sitting next to the Islamic thug who blew himself up, and that the Metropolitan police had to pick up his head, blown clear across the bus from his body.

Now, a question for you: can you shown me one iota of evidence that the 7/7 attacks were anything but Islamic terrorism?

At 18 December, 2006 09:19, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

The witness, named "Daniel", has a blog here and a website here.

Anyone who cannot give their full name is up to something.

Here is my name. I was there but missed the attack. Where is this "Daniel," and where was he when the Muslims blew up the bus and trains?

The incredible thing is that the day before, England got the 2012 Olympics. I was down the street from the King's Cross tube station, where one of the bombs went off. If the attack had occurred on July 6 rather than July 7, I would have been right in the middle of it.

At 18 December, 2006 09:20, Blogger Alex said...

Aw, don't ask questions like that. He's gonna start rambling about government agents and jews and the new world order again. It was funny the first 20 times, but now it's getting pathetic. If you're going to ask him a question, make it specific. Either that or ask him to come up with an actual scenario that fits all of his little factoids. That usually stumps him real good.

At 18 December, 2006 09:28, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Is SD off of his meds?

At 18 December, 2006 09:53, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Something I've noticed about the CT crowd. I've asked this question to some CTs on JREF: "Could you be wrong?"

The responses I get are telling. Getting the CTs to admit that they could be wrong is almost impossible.

Asked this question to Skeptic4Sure and Lyte Trip, for example. It was clear from their responses that nothing could make them question their beliefs. And so it goes with Avery and Bermas. Interesting, isn't it?

At 18 December, 2006 10:33, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Where is this "Daniel," and where was he when the Muslims blew up the bus and trains?

Daniel says "It was just me, the driver plus four females on the lower deck as it edged down Tavistock Square."

As you read more, he was on the bus when it was blown up.

Simon, I'm not that well versed about the event. I've been researching it however, which is why I asked your take.
Thanks for your honesty.

At 18 December, 2006 10:38, Blogger James B. said...

Why is Bermas so fixated on the towers tipping over? He won't get off the suject.

At 18 December, 2006 12:00, Blogger Democrat said...

Now, a question for you: can you shown me one iota of evidence that the 7/7 attacks were anything but Islamic terrorism?

I have some strange info. It's not hard evidence, but it is something strange.

The post is in Dutch language, but you must be able to pick the English lines and see what I mean.

It's about repo activity of the FED the days prior to the 7/7 bombings. Notice the remarks the hosts of that particular forum make. These guys even refer to 911 level of things!

Again, no evidence, but nice to know for people that want to put the puzzle pieces together.

At 18 December, 2006 13:27, Blogger FatOllie said...

"Why is Bermas so fixated on the towers tipping over? He won't get off the suject."

I don't think that Mark properly explained why the tops of the towers couldn't tip over -- I think he misplaced his fulcrum -- but anybody with a little engineering understanding would have to agree that it couldn't happen. As the tipping occurs, all the weight that was supported by a structure designed to bear a vertical load is redistributed. Long before the center of gravity of the tipping section could cross the outline of the building (which is the tipping point), the structure would fail.

Basically, the WTC towers' structure was a bunch of rectangular substructures. Rectangular structures can be pretty strong if the weight they bear is vertical or close to vertical. The compressive strength of the vertical members is high enough. But, when you start to tip a rectangular structure over, the weight is no longer carried by the compressive strength of the vertical columns -- the weight tends to collapse the rectangles. In other words, as the structure tips, it is no longer the compressive strength of the columns that prevents disintegration of the structure. It is the ability of the joints between the vertical and horizontal elements to resist relative rotation between the vertical and horizontal elements. In the case of the WTC towers, those joints were secured with rivets and a riveted joint is not designed to prevent rotation when a sizeable rotational force is exerted on it.

The towers were not designed to maintain their rectangular shape when the load was not almost entirely in the direction of the vertical columns. It was designed to bear the side-load exerted by high winds, perhaps earth quakes, and, as we saw on 911, the impact of a pretty big airplane. But all these forces are tiny compared to the force exerted by the mass of twenty or thirty floors of the structure.

We should be surprised that one of the building tops was able to hold together when tipped in excess of 20 degrees, not that the building tops didn't fall over like in a small paper model.

At 18 December, 2006 13:40, Blogger FatOllie said...

I watched both parts 1 and 2 as well as the prelim linked to at JREF. Of all the participants, I was most impressed by Wieck. He is very, very good. With a little bit of work to do away the the unmade bed aura, I think he could do well on any of the news networks -- maybe even as a commentator/interviewer on the traditional networks.

Brian Lamb at CSPAN is my favorite of all time, but Wieck is right up there. Does anybody know anything about Wieck's background?

At 18 December, 2006 13:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fatollie, good post, but Mark actually has the Fulcrum right if i'm not mistaken. He has it at the point that acts like a "door lever".

At 18 December, 2006 14:07, Blogger FatOllie said...

"Fatollie, good post, but Mark actually has the Fulcrum right if i'm not mistaken. He has it at the point that acts like a 'door lever'."

Jay, you are right. Roberts is looking at it with the corner on his left as the stationary pivot point and the corner at his right falling as a result of collapse of the floors below. That's what actually happened. I was thinking that the corner on his right was the pivot corner in his model. That's what would happen if you had a tremendous side-load from his left, but that's not what happened on 911. The tipping was a result of relative loss of vertical support on the side to which the structure tipped.

At 18 December, 2006 14:57, Blogger default.xbe said...

Many of the errors were because information was uncovered or released. Case in point. The blue tarp. When they made the movie at the time, do you think they knew what it was? Of course not so they speculated they were hiding something, which is exactly what it looks like at first.

nothing new was released to indicate it was a tent, the evidence was always there

sure you could argue that it was "uncovered" after the video was made, but isnt that what dylan and friends claimed to be doing? uncovering evidence?

how is it that they can spend 3 years making a movie and not notice the road behind the men in the picture? (indicating they were walking TOWARDS the pentagon) or that other shots of the cleanup (that they used in their own movie) show several of the blue tents on the lawn?

no, this isnt a case of evidence being released after the fact, its a case of shoddy research, plain and simple

At 18 December, 2006 16:10, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

"I have some strange info. It's not hard evidence, but it is something strange."

I do not deal with "something strange."

Holding on to the theory that the British government decided to blow up trains in the tube and a bus and kill 50+ British citizens is an asinine and insane as saying that the US government was behind 9/11.

I remember that day - our plane was the second to last allowed to leave Heathrow before they closed it to all inbound and outbound traffic. The trip over the Atlantic was not the usual multi-hour jaunt - it was not for several hours that we were told that 50 people were killed. The entire cabin went silent as people realized the enormity of what had happened behind us.

I find myself lucky to have missed being a victim. I was not supposed to return to the States on July 7, 2005, but got lucky earlier in the week with American.

I do not buy this "inside job" crap. No government would do that to its own people. Period.

At 18 December, 2006 19:29, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, fatollie, many thanks for the kind words!

I'm happy to tell you something about my background, but there isn't much to tell. I used to play tournament chess. I hold the title of U.S. Chess Federation Life Master, having fulfilled the requirements. I do a little writing, mostly for chess magazines. I contribute occasionally to The American Thinker, a conservative online magazine.

I met Gary Popkin, the producer of 'Hardfire,' on a libertarian blog. Last year, he asked me to host a show, apparently was pleased with the outcome, and he keeps bringing me back. It should be painfully obvious that I have no formal training in broadcasting.

Yes, I certainly have perfected the rumpled look. I may actually consider a haircut next time. But I'm pleased that you enjoyed our effort.


At 18 December, 2006 19:55, Blogger FatOllie said...

"Hey, fatollie, many thanks for the kind words!"

Now I'm embarrassed. I did not realize that you read and posted here. I suppose I should have. Now that I know, I can easily find clues -- even in this thread. I would have worded things a little differently had I known.

At 18 December, 2006 19:56, Blogger pomeroo said...

I asked Jason and Dylan about what it would take to falsify their beliefs to establish that conspiracy theories are a form of religious faith.

There are two components to a rational outlook: critical thinking skills and a base of reliable knowledge. The ability to think critically allows you to gather and process knowledge; it enables you to separate the wheat from the chaff. Without this capacity, it's impossible to distinguish real experts from uninformed charlatans.

When an internet loon writes nonsense about the NIST report, for example, it's important to be able to notice where he disregards the principles of evidentiary reasoning. Conclusions reached by teams of researchers patiently testing and assessing evidence cannot be summarily dismissed by an ignoramus who simply makes up whatever he needs.

Critical thinking skills, although not equivalent to knowledge, help you to reason your way to probable conclusions. We know, for instance, that Norman Mineta is a liberal Democrat who was appointed to his position by Bill Clinton. He doesn't like George Bush and has no possible motive for protecting him. Indeed, it is fair to assume that he'd like nothing better than to expose the vast conspiracy and become a hero to both his party and the nation as a whole.

When the 9/11 Commission determined that his timeline was off, Mineta didn't protest. Why not?

The conspiracists are always reduced to pretending that everybody--government officials, structural engineers, physicists, architects, demolition experts, avionics techs, flight controllers, firefighters, police, etc.--is cowed into silence by a shadowy Something. What is that coercive muscle? What could it possibly be? It can knock thousands of people into line and yet it remains as insubstantial as a ghost. It can intimidate generals, it can bully the CIA and the FBI into silence-- who the hell are these people? Who pays them? Who organized them?

The full extent of the conspiracist insanity is revealed by asking a few simple questions about the imaginary private army maintained by the Bush-Cheney crime family.

At 19 December, 2006 05:54, Blogger CHF said...

Mineta's testimony is easily debunked.

He's off by 20 minutes compared to everyone else's versino of events.

He claims the Capitol building was being evacuated at 9:20 or so when it was actually evacuated at 9:45.

At 19 December, 2006 06:44, Blogger Stevew said...

Excellent post Fatollie, the only thing I would add it that the outer as well as the core colums were bolted together. When the bolts broke at the fulcrum the towers had too much inertia to only fall straight down

At 19 December, 2006 07:41, Blogger pomeroo said...

Here are the links to the 'Hardfire' versions:


At 19 December, 2006 09:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew, you are right. A lot of thruthers still think the towers were completely welded together (not saying fatollie is a truther, but in general). So thats why they can't understand that the towers crumpled like they did. I had a conversation with someone a while ago about that on a dutch forum, and some guy kept persisting it was all welded, until i showed him some pictures from the boltslots on the outer columns. Those bolt connections at the fulcrum could take a heavy beating but in the end it couldn't cope with the forces anymore, so they snapped. Thats when the angular momentum stopped and gravity took over.

At 19 December, 2006 11:20, Blogger Stevew said...

There are many piks and a documentary showing the 4 bolts in the outer girders as well as in the wreckage, you could see bolt holes as well as bent bolts. Put a kink in a beer can and step straight down and you can see what happens

At 19 December, 2006 11:25, Blogger Manny said...

-is cowed into silence by a shadowy Something. What is that coercive muscle? What could it possibly be?

Shhhhhh! It's Pat. Don't tell the twoofers.

At 19 December, 2006 17:43, Blogger CHF said...

I loved when Mark Roberts points out the fact that NO demolition experts agree that the towers were brought down with bombs, to which Avery replies "it doesn't matter."

EXCUSE ME??? It doesn't matter that qualified people think he's full of crap?

Well I guess that's pretty much what they base this cult on, huh?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home