Saturday, February 24, 2007

Kudos to Jenny Sparks

For pointing out that somehow we picked up a Holocaust Denying Debunker. Paul Revere's comments are in the process of being removed from the blog. Thank you for pointing this out to us, Jenny.

79 Comments:

At 24 February, 2007 23:23, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Well, how very sweet. ;-)

I didn't know you had it in you. Contrary to what you might think, I believe most of you are human--with whom I just violently disagree about 911.

That said, there are those who go above and beyond the call of "debunker" duty. They know who they are, and I do not forget them or what they say.

So I'll savor this brief moment of truce--

Well, that was nice. So, now that you've removed the Holocaust denier, it would be reasonable for me to just let it go, right? Not go on and on about it, even though you've done the right thing, by your own standards. Very reasonable; except...

I think you need to review all your blogs connecting 911Truth with Holocaust denial, specificaly the ones leading up to the 911Conference and those after Williams was removed from any position of authority. Then you might have an idea of what is coming.

Still, thank you for doing the--according to you--right thing. And the kudos.

"Christmas Truce" is over--war's on again.

BTW, that's a WWI reference--look it up.

 
At 25 February, 2007 00:26, Blogger Richard said...

I though Jenny was Paul? The tone and wording of the posts made it seem like a truther in disguise.

 
At 25 February, 2007 01:32, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

If Jenny pulled this stunt over at JREF, she'd have been banned on BOTH accounts.

I see no reason why all of her posts as both Revere and Col. Sparks shouldn't be removed.

 
At 25 February, 2007 04:50, Blogger shawn said...

BTW, that's a WWI reference--look it up.

hahahah a Truther thinking she knows more than we do. Unbelievable.

 
At 25 February, 2007 05:41, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 05:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Obviously, the blog belongs to Pat and James, so they can do what they want although I think removing a Holocaust Denier's posts (rather than giving them the ridicule they deserve) serves the purpose of making 9/11 Denial more legit by comparison. It is true that the enormity of the Holocaust dwarfs 9/11 but I find both "movements" equally repulsive and dishonest and the overlap of players between the two is more than just coincidence. In the big scheme of things, anyone who claims the U.S. government perpetrated 9/11 is no different from Eric Williams in terms of credibility or motive.

 
At 25 February, 2007 07:38, Blogger Pat said...

Sword, if I had any evidence that it was Jenny, I'd purge her comments, but I don't.

We cut the 9-11 Deniers more slack here than Debunkers for obvious reasons.

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, Jenny, we're still waiting for you to make the case for your baseless fantasies over at JREF.

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:10, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sword of Truth said...

"Paul Revere" is a Jenny sock puppet.

A little too obvious, Jen. Try harder next time.

24 February, 2007 18:06
Alex said...

"Paul Revere" is a Jenny sock puppet.

No shit eh? Let's think about this:

At 24 February, 2007 10:54, James B. said...

Why is it only you guys need to worry about nutjobs in your ranks? You never see any of us having trouble like this.

Less than 2 hours later, at 12:29, "Paul Revere" makes her first post.

Coincidence? Maybe. But the fact that this blog went for 2 years without a single idiot like "Paul" commenting on it, and then 2 hours after James' post he shows up ... well, it doesn't seem very likely, now does it?

Especially since Paul's Blogger account seems to be brand new.
-----------

Any retractions coming from you 'expert' debunkers?

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Consdemo So in your world hypocracy is ok?

It is ok to have a Holocaust Denier/911 debunker, but not a Holocaust Denier/911 Truther?
ROLFMAO!

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:50, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 08:51, Blogger Richard said...

Consdemo So in your world hypocracy is ok?

It is ok to have a Holocaust Denier/911 debunker, but not a Holocaust Denier/911 Truther?
ROLFMAO!


Can you not read?

...rather than giving them the ridicule they deserve...

It is true that the enormity of the Holocaust dwarfs 9/11 but I find both "movements" equally repulsive and dishonest...

So out of that you think it's ok? Jesus, your reading comprehension sucks.

The reason why Pauls posts are being removed is because its pretty damn clear that his account was bs and set up by a truther to make the strawman argument that we have holocaust deniers in our ranks. An account like that is no different than spam IMO and I'm sure Pat and James agree.

 
At 25 February, 2007 09:03, Blogger ConsDemo said...

So in your world hypocracy is ok?

Presumably, you mean "hypocrisy". If Pat or James deem a poster to be fraudulent (as was apparently the case here) or a distraction from the main purpose of the blog, which is rebutting the ludicrous 9/11 conspiracy theories you and your ilk peddle, then there is a good case for deleting such posts. I wouldn’t favor deleting a post simply because the author spews Holocaust Denial but I don’t make the rules here.

As for Holocaust Denier-9/11 twoofers, they are no different from any other twoofers. I was never one of those who thought the Denier conference should have booted Eric Williams, because his presence or absence doesn’t change my view of the conference or its participants, they are equally odious either way.

 
At 25 February, 2007 09:25, Blogger CHF said...

Typical twoofer logic.

The twoof movement has a regular problem with Holocaust Deniers - prominent members of the movement no less.

Yet ONE clown shows on SLC and suddenly all things are equal?

 
At 25 February, 2007 09:29, Blogger Falco98 said...

Paul Revere's comments are in the process of being removed from the blog.

the idea of that makes me nervous...

 
At 25 February, 2007 10:20, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Sword of Truth--give it up. Before you make me spend HOURS of LOL, AGAIN.

>>>

Sorry, had to go away and laugh my arse off!

Ahem, and you all believe this without question why again? What kind of bleeding sceptics ARE you?

Excuse--must go laugh my arse off some more!!!!

snigger--Alex or TAM once said something about me comming here to make you look like "retards". Sorry, you need no help!

24 February, 2007 22:01
Alex said...

Believed what without question?

Have you been popping the happy pills again? <<<

So even Alex is smarter than you, love.

Wait, maybe you're right--then misterguy MUST be Pat's sock puppet at 911Blogger! It all makes sense now! LOL!

 
At 25 February, 2007 10:30, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Oh, Sword of Twitiness--I just finished checking the other comments and this quote of yours seems appropriate for your current "conspiracy theory":

Paranoid much?

 
At 25 February, 2007 11:45, Blogger pomeroo said...

Jenny, tell us what happened on 9/11/01. Tell us what actual evidence the Fantasy movement has found to support the myths it promotes.

 
At 25 February, 2007 11:46, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Pat - The evidence that jenny is paul revere is stronger and more consistent than anything she and her holocaust denier friends have come up with to show anyone other than islamic fascists were responsible for 9-11.

That being said, I agree with your other comment. We don't hold children to the same standards as adults.

 
At 25 February, 2007 12:36, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Okay, Sword of Truth, you win--I'm your worst nightmare! Booga booga! I'm also a sock puppect for Dylan Avery--every geek's wet dream girl--you had to see that coming!

And, and pomeroo is my sock-puppet too, because I needed a papa bear so bad--Colbert can't be the only one to have one!

And lets see--who else, Alex is one of my sock puppets too, so is TAM--and you THINK I'm not at JREF, but Lisa Simpson is my sock-pupppet too, just to get in touch with my inner moderator!

You know how you lot MOCK mercilessly Truthers who think you're all paid trolls? Well, Sword of Tetchiness, the mocking has only begun!

Now I have to go blog this--Cheery bye!

 
At 25 February, 2007 12:39, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

And Pat's one of my sock puppets too--didn't see that one coming, did you! ;-P

 
At 25 February, 2007 13:36, Blogger Alex said...

I do believe we've found the most clueless twoofer so far.

How certain are we that "Jenny" isn't really Meria Heller?

 
At 25 February, 2007 13:55, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Paul Revere's comments are in the process of being removed from the blog.

the idea of that makes me nervous...


Ok... I already have an idea of the kind of dumb answer I'm going to get to this question, but I'm going to ask anyway.

What is it about the thought of James and Pat managing their blog that makes you uncomfortable, Falco?

 
At 25 February, 2007 14:51, Blogger Richard said...

Like I said before, I'm guessing that the blog administrators are deleting the comments because they aren't really from a "real" person. Paul is just some truther posing as a debunker so that they can develop the strawman argument of holocaust deniers in the debunker's ranks.

 
At 25 February, 2007 15:04, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Screw Loose Change gets rid of Holocaust denying 911Debunker~
With LOTS of Jenny's help.

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

 
At 25 February, 2007 15:15, Blogger James B. said...

Jenny please, we haven't had a single "holocaust denying debunker" in 9 months of blogging, with nearly half a million visitors, and yet one magically shows up within an hour of me pointing this out to you, which you immediately post on multiple blogs.

What are the odds?

 
At 25 February, 2007 15:29, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

and yet one magically shows up within an hour of me pointing this out to you,

One shows up an hour AFTER you point out to me you have one here? What, there are two of them? Where?

 
At 25 February, 2007 15:37, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 15:58, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 16:09, Blogger Alex said...

What are the odds that you'll post something rational?

 
At 25 February, 2007 16:30, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

And what are the odds an innocent person would try to stop an investigation into mass murder by claiming it would take resources away from the War on Terror?

100% if the people demanding the investigation are a bunch of raving froot loops who really want a witch hunt with an outcome that's been predetermined to conform to thier biases.

And what are the odds NO fighter jets could find their targets on 911, inspite of the fact they train for this CONSTANTLY?

Did you know that an F-15 running on full afterburner will drain its internal fuel supply in 15 minutes? What are the odds of you picking the right four civillian airliners out of more than 5,000 in the air over the eastern US and intercepting them with a 50 million dollar brick?

And what are the odds that NO ONE in any position of authority was found to be culpable in any way for the missmanaging of response on 911? What are the odds NO ONE was demoted or fired?

Good question. If I were an evil mastermind overseeing this massive psy-op, I would grab a half-dozen guys at the various federal law enforceement and intelligence agencies and pin the whole thing on them, giving the public thier sacrificial lambs.

What are the odds a CIA asset in a cave surrounded by goats was able to bring the US military industrial complex to it's knees so thoroughly on 911?

The US and Canadian Armed Forces weren't brought to their knees on 9-11. They were never directly confronted. The jihadists sprang out from hiding and struck undefended targets with the mother of all sucker punches.

What are the odds James, that if the neo-cons are a bunch of bumbling fools, and Homeland Security is a joke, and the Muslim Menace is really out and ABLE to get us, that there hasn't been another equally spetacular attack--or hell,

Don't think they aren't trying, our guys have to win EVERY TIME they try. They only need to win once.

what are the odds that, if Al Qaida could do this, that they can't just drive the western forces out of Iraq?

Boxcutters are highly effective against the throats of defenseless stewardesses and for scaring small groups of civillians into submission, but they aren't of much use against M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks or AH-64D Longbow Apache gunships.

What are the odds you and your lot would buy this tot and be running a site vainly trying to support it?

0% "I'm still gullible, paranoid and ignorant therefore this website has failed" is hardly a scientific manner of measuring SLCs success. Just because you're as dumb now as when you came here doesn't mean SLC has done nothing.

 
At 25 February, 2007 16:44, Blogger ConsDemo said...

And what are the odds an innocent person would try to stop an investigation into mass murder by claiming it would take resources away from the War on Terror?

Kernel Sparks, there already was an investigation, the 9-11 commission. What are the odds idiots such as yourself could come up with a valid reason to justify a second investigation? I'd say about 0.

 
At 25 February, 2007 16:49, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 16:59, Blogger FX9 said...

sparkling jenny rocks!! :-D
that was an interesting read. and i couldnt agree more.

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:15, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Of course Bush didn’t want his Administration’s incompetence exposed. It is good to see you admit that 9-11 Commission investigation would have uncovered any evidence suggesting the Administration perpetrated 9/11 and no evidence was found. I guess all you twoofers can go back to worrying about UFOs and fluoride in the water.

Did you create also create fx9 so it would appear someone thinks you have a brain?

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:22, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:33, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Sorry, Kernel, your “what are the odds” questions aren’t proof of anything.

Al Qaeda’s success on 9/11 owed to the element of surprise. Islamic militants aren’t capable of carrying on a sustained campaign of terrorist attacks in western nations, at least at the present time. They are very good at carrying them out in Muslim countries and it is only a matter of time before Americans are driven out of Iraq and if we come to our senses, we will rethink our entire presence in the Middle East.

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:40, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:47, Blogger Alex said...

SoT:

The US and Canadian Armed Forces weren't brought to their knees on 9-11. They were never directly confronted. The jihadists sprang out from hiding and struck undefended targets with the mother of all sucker punches.

That just reminded me of something that happened 'bout 3 years ago while I was working on a base a few hours north of here. I was assisting with the training of a special operations unit (which was a lot of fun) after which we all hit the bars to have a few beers and unwind. Well, halfway into the night, one of the locals decided he had something against one of us. Now, this local was about 120lbs soaking wet, while the SOF Sgt he attacked was about 210 and built like a brick shithouse. Ofcourse, the great equalizers were that:

a) he jumped him from behind.
b) while the guy was seated.
and
c) he bludgeoned him with a metal bar stool.

Now, I'm sure Jenny would say something along the lines of "what are the odds that a skinny little guy was able to so throughly defeat one of the best trained soldiers in the world?". To those of us present at the time, it was quite a shock too...but the odds of it happening are pretty damn good when you've got the element of surprise on your side.

 
At 25 February, 2007 17:53, Blogger Alex said...

Sorry Cons, but you're just plain wrong. The death rate for American soldiers in Iraq is so low as to be insignificant. Clinton lost almost 1,000 soldiers per year without even using them, while bush has maintained an average of about 1,700 per year. This includes every type of death in the military, from disease, accidents, and crime, to combat fatalities. The idea that "Islamic militants" could do anything to force the US out of Iraq is just silly. The only thing that will force the US out of Iraq is the US people.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:06, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:09, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Kerne, the comments obviously went over your head, not that I'm surprised. Tell me, are all the attacks on American forces in Iraq really done by people who are U.S. government agents, just to keep us there?


Alex, you are right, destroying support for your enemy's presence in the particular battlefield is a common tactic. On the other hand, Americans have been spilling blood and treasure in Iraq going on four years and no sign of any the prewar aims being achieved. Do you suggest just more of the same in perpetuity?

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:10, Blogger Alex said...

That's the dumbest argument from you so far. If I punch you 4 times in 2 seconds, that's not 4 separate attacks.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:13, Blogger Alex said...

Cons, I hate to sound like a broken record, but look at how long every other successful "police action" or "peacekeeping" mission has taken. It's a long process. The idea that there's no progress being made is wrong, but you really need to talk to the people on the ground to realize this since the media is too focused on trying to bury Bush.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:18, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:22, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:22, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well Alex, at least you raise real issues. I might have bought your argument until about a year ago, but I just don't see how the U.S. can impose order on Iraq. They just aren't ready to accept democratic pluralism, at least not enough of them. They might do so at some point but not at the behest of a western power. Again, what is victory supposed to look like?

Btw, there was an interesting (if not inspiring) piece in today's Washington Post about Britain's attempt to do the same in Iraq nearly a century ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/
23/AR2007022301746.html

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:23, Blogger Alex said...

Alex, four planes hitting(or attempting to hit) four targets DO make FOUR separate attacks.

No, they don't. They make 4 targets and 4 weapons, but one attack. If a US ship launches 4 cruise missiles at targets in Iran, is that 4 separate attacks? If I squeeze the trigger on an machinegun and fire a 4 round burst, is THAT 4 separate attacks? Don't be a silly tit. 9/11 was one attack on 4 targets, 3 of which succeeded and one of which failed.

And I've talk to guardwomen and men you will beg to differ with your portrayal of casualties as "insignificant". Bout 1 in 10 we figure. >:(

What are you, retarded? That would mean 15,000 casualties for every single tour. You'd be up to a minimum of 60,000 casualties by now. I can see just how reliable your figures are.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:25, Blogger ConsDemo said...

that's an example of where this place lacks heart.

Right, it takes "heart" to accuse others of committing mass murder on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:27, Blogger shawn said...

The problem on 911 isn't that there was one surprise attack; the problem was there were FOUR.

It would only be four separate attacks if the planes were each piloted by a different group, and none were allied or aware of the others' plans.

For instance, a bombing run is a single attack even though dozens of bombers could take part.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:35, Blogger Alex said...

That thing where you call casualties "insignificant"
--mind, casualties include being wounded for ANY reason that takes you out of combat--not just death--that's an example of where this place lacks heart. Yeah, sure, you don't mind if people have their arms and legs blow off--for no fucking good reason.


Fuck you. The people being killed and maimed are my friends and brothers. That you would presume to lecture me on how I should feel about them is so conceited as to defy belief.

Cons:

They just aren't ready to accept democratic pluralism, at least not enough of them. They might do so at some point but not at the behest of a western power. Again, what is victory supposed to look like?

Success in Iraq will not be anything like our society. They will still have some tribalism, a lot of religious influence, and quite a bit of the kind of abuse and discrimination that we associate with regressive regimes. You cannot change the entire makeup of a society overnight. For Iraq to become a society like our own will doubtless take decades.

However, they CAN be a lot better than what they were before the war, and at the very least the US presence there is helping keep them from slipping further into chaos and barbarism. That in itself is a worthy goal. If you pull out now, Iraq will go through years of civil war that will make the current fighting seem like a mud-wrestling competition. Eventually, they will become nothing but another vassal of Iran. In effect, the entire war will not only have been a colossal waste in both resources and human lives, but you will actually have assisted Muslim extremists in coming even closer to the goal of re-creating the Caliphate. That is simply unacceptable.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:36, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 18:50, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Alex, don’t let the Kernel, get to you. I'm sure her military experience doesn't go beyond her girl scout troop. She is the first person to make Swing actually look substantive.

I suppose the best case scenario is in Iraq is some variation of what exists in Egypt or Jordan and besides lacking the religious cohesiveness of either of those two societies it would require the same type of police state tactics we criticize those societies for. Even that assumes a central force could successfully keep Iraq’s disparate rivalries in check, as Saddam did (in a brutal fashion) and that looks like a tall order to me. They have a hard enough time just keeping individual police station manned.

As for the possibility of the region-wide conflagration, you may be right but by going into Iraq we upset the balance of power in the region and thus made it more likely.

you will actually have assisted Muslim extremists in coming even closer to the goal of re-creating the Caliphate.

In a bizarre sort of way, this might be a plus in the long run. If everyday Arabs actually had to live in a radical Islamic state rather than just seeing radical islamists as their heroes against the infidel west, their enthusiasm would drop. Unfortunately, that would still mean a conflagration but the end result might not be a Taliban style caliphate.

 
At 25 February, 2007 19:13, Blogger S. King said...

Jenny,

Ever hear of copyright law? Did you know you are using a copyrighted picture?

Tsk...tsk...

 
At 25 February, 2007 19:27, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 19:37, Blogger Alex said...

You're butchering the anchor tags you dumb git.

 
At 25 February, 2007 19:51, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:02, Blogger S. King said...

Jenny wrote,

"So, you mean the image downloaded from here?"

Yup, that's the one. The same one you're using here. You're extremely observant.

You'd better dump it now, sweetheart.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:04, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:05, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:09, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:10, Blogger Alex said...

So you can't even figure out how to make an anchor tag work, but I'm supposed to believe that you researched 9/11 enough to be able to contradict the expert? Pft. Your world must be an interesting place.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:17, Blogger BG said...

Jenny,

I read your post.

Loose Change
Frankly we don't know why it was called that

I've always thought the title was along the lines of:

"Loose the Dogs of War" except

it's

"Loose" Change in our World by exposing the lies.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:17, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:19, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:21, Blogger BG said...

This quote, “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let loose the dogs of war” is so often removed from its context.

Antony, realizing that the conspiracy to kill Caesar was a terrible mistake, knew that that Rome and Italy (the world) would reap the whirlwind because of the action of a small group of powerful conspirators.

George W. Bush and his band of oily conspirators would do well to read the entire passage:

A curse shall light upon the limbs of men; Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy; Blood and destruction shall be so in use, And dreadful objects so familiar, That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quarter�d with the hands of war; All pity chok�d with custom of fell deeds: And C�sar�s spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch�s voice Cry �Havoc!� and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:34, Blogger BG said...

I didn't mean to overlook complimenting you on your great post discussing the hypocrisy here at SLC.

Not knowing Pat or James any better than I do, I wonder what kind of World they grew up in. Did High Schools start teaching Ann Counter 101 sometime in the last 10 years?

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:34, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 20:49, Blogger Alex said...

Bill:

Loose Change
Frankly we don't know why it was called that


It's simple: Loose Change doesn't add up to much.


Sparky the wonder bitch:

Read very slowly Alex--I've posted links succesfully here before so your conclusion doesn't make sense.

No, you haven't. Although I find your comment amusing. What's your theory? Let me guess, blogger.com intentionally changed the HTML handling in their comments section just to make you look dumb, right? It's all a Zionist conspiracy!

 
At 25 February, 2007 21:05, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2007 21:29, Blogger CHF said...

How did this thread get to be 70 posts?

This Jenny clown is obviously just some stupid kid on her mom's computer.

She sounds 15 years old - tops.

 
At 25 February, 2007 22:29, Blogger Alex said...

The point is, if you're incapable of typing "HTML anchor tag" into google, and doing literally 45 seconds of reading, you're probably not the most reliable person to be getting info about 9/11 from.

CHF is right, you sound like a child. You use laughter to try and mask incompetence, and your insults are...well, to tell you the truth, I had to google half of 'em, and I still don't find them particularly offencive. You've got a lot of growing up to do, Jenny, before any rational people will take you seriously.

 
At 25 February, 2007 22:32, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

The title "Loose Change" refers to their research and fact-checking budget.

 
At 26 February, 2007 00:27, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Okay, Sword of Truth, you win--I'm your worst nightmare! Booga booga! I'm also a sock puppect for Dylan Avery--every geek's wet dream girl--you had to see that coming!

And, and pomeroo is my sock-puppet too, because I needed a papa bear so bad--Colbert can't be the only one to have one!

And lets see--who else, Alex is one of my sock puppets too, so is TAM--and you THINK I'm not at JREF, but Lisa Simpson is my sock-pupppet too, just to get in touch with my inner moderator!

You know how you lot MOCK mercilessly Truthers who think you're all paid trolls? Well, Sword of Tetchiness, the mocking has only begun!

Now I have to go blog this--Cheery bye!


Hi Dr. Woods!!
I am glad you have finally joined SLC!!!
Beam me up baby!!

 
At 26 February, 2007 06:48, Blogger Stevew said...

I love the way they babble about the F15's and how they could have gotten there even though they were headed out to sea.
Performance : maximum speed (time limited) 1,650 mph (2655 km/h) or Mach 2.5 at altitude, or 936 mph (1506 km/h) or Mach 1.23 at sea level; action about 600 miles (966 km). With afterburner which can not be used except in short bursts, that is why the Raptor with super cruse is a far better plane, the F15 can't supercruse
They claim that because the F15 can go M2.5, they had time to get there but never explain that 2.5 is at altitude.
I wonder if these people know anything about military aircraft?

 
At 26 February, 2007 08:56, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Why is it only you guys need to worry about nutjobs in your ranks? You never see any of us having trouble like this."

Well nutjobs are not a problem with truthers,

Because, They are organizations base. it's almost a required trait.

 
At 26 February, 2007 09:17, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 February, 2007 09:57, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"And what are the odds NO fighter jets could find their targets on 911, inspite of the fact they train for this CONSTANTLY?"

RIGHT, as if our fighters train to shoot down civilian airliners, NO, they train to shoot down treats coming from OUTSIDE the US and can never shoot down a civilian jet without approval from the president first.

Fact is it's not unusual to lose transponder signal and only after radio and secondary radar signal is lost do the airlines think about asking the military for help. SOP for a hijacking prior to 911 was to do what the hijackers said and deal with it when the plane was on the ground wherever the hijackers wanted to go.

Get your facts straight first.

 
At 26 February, 2007 15:43, Blogger shawn said...

Antony, realizing that the conspiracy to kill Caesar was a terrible mistake, knew that that Rome and Italy (the world) would reap the whirlwind because of the action of a small group of powerful conspirators.

Marcus Antonius wasn't involved in the conspiracy.

I always thought Loose Change was a reference to all the gold "stolen" (y'know, the part they ripped off from Die Hard 3).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home