Thursday, March 01, 2007

Both Sides Now

Our buddy the Bird reports further on his weekend with the Deniers:

Santa Claus-bearded geezer Jim Marrs, who could pass for a cross between Wilford Brimley and Windfall Willie (the mascot of the AZ lottery), came to Williams' defense.

"Can I lay this to rest right now?" tweeted Marrs. "Eric Williams is right here. Did people get killed in World War II as a result of state policy?" he inquired of the Holocaust denier.

Williams replied in the affirmative. To the heavily mustachioed Marrs, that ended the matter.

But as the taloned one continued his queries, the crowd grew restless with demands that this bluebird be booted. That'd be The Bird they wanted tossed, not the adored Sir Eric, who wrote a vile volume asserting there were no mass executions via gas chambers at Auschwitz. How ironic, since The Bird was the only member of the working media present.

Eventually, the pep rally turned ugly for this feathered fiend, to the extent that a security guard forced The Bird to leave the hall. Therefore, for a few minutes, there was no press at the press conference. How, um, de-press-ing! Sanity prevailed in the form of Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg, the moderator for the event. Berg came outside and instructed that this journalistic jaybird be let back in. He then told the crowd that members of the working media (that would be moi) must be given deference, since (ahem!) it was a press conference, after all. The Bird was allowed to interrogate the panelists unmolested after that.

As you can see, Stephen really has a way with words; his column is definitely one to savor. Let me add too that Berg was quite sensible in allowing him to ask a little more than his share of questions, seeing as how he was the only real MSM representative at the confab. And he even kindly deferred to me on one question, which allowed me to have my little fracas with Uncle Fetzer (not that the Bird didn't have his own tussle with the McKnight prof, as you'll see if you read the entire article).

Devvy Kidd was also at the conference, but her quarrels were more along political lines:

On Saturday morning I attended a networking/political action workshop. After fifteen minutes I wanted to simply gag. Although I'm sure it will be denied, there was a whole lot of socialism being pushed at that conference. The instructor was a very nice lady, but her presentation, using an overhead projector, was all about social action, collectivism, working together for human rights around the world, workers rights; an endless laundry list. I'm sorry, but I have spent the past 17 years studying world history (not the bunk one gets in the public indoctrination centers called public schools or from the boob tube), but actual events. This includes understanding socialism, communism, fascism and delivery systems for these ideologies, i.e., specific dialect. I saw no reason for this type of activism to be a focus of networking to bring facts about 911 to other Americans. As Phil Berg pointed out in his flyer available to attendees: "Accountability = responsibility and that we must unite and move forward on points that we agree with and put aside our differences." That's why I was turned off with the inserting of social causes from "progressives" into this conference. It was distracting and will push people away who understand the game and how it's played.

She has somewhat of a different take on Stephen's performance at the Pep Rally--err, press conference:

Instead of reporters and media attendees asking a question and the panel returning with a response, virtually without exception, questions from the media "gallery" was endless proselytizing for their favorite cause or complaining that organizations like and Cindy Sheehan have refused to join with them in the effort to get accountability regarding the events of September 11, 2001. It was quite nauseating and some of the panel members fell for it instead of simply providing crisp, concise and clear answers to questions that only arrived after endless speeches. One local reporter in attendance disrupted the press conference for a full 30 minutes by repeatedly insisting one of the organizers was "anti-Semitic." Apparently, local media were comparing those attending this conference to holocaust deniers.

This is a dodge that I've seen over at 9-11 Blogger too. For the last time, we are not accusing all 9-11 Truthers of being Holocaust Deniers. That would be almost as stupid as some of the things you guys come up with. What we are saying is that if you hang out with Holocaust Deniers, we're going to point out your obvious lack of critical thinking skills. We're going to use that against you every single time, because it's a whole lot easier than arguing whether the hijackers are alive, and it moves large quantities of folks off the fence to our side very quickly.

One thing they both agree on is Phil Berg:

I also had the pleasure of meeting Phil Berg; see here for his latest. Media hacks who get paid to promote the government's fairy tale will call people like Mr. Berg a crack pot or lunatic. Funny, I didn't get that impression from this former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

I'm not a big fan of Berg myself, but he handled himself extremely well at the press conference. Speaking of which, Devvy reminds me of something particularly loony that one of the supposed "press" members suggested:

During the press conference one media rep gave his speech and then said that "they" (never did find out who "they" are) intend to shut down every major freeway in this country early next year.

You want to see Troofers getting their heads handed to them, just try this freeway shutdown.

Labels: , ,


At 01 March, 2007 17:07, Blogger BG said...

Back to Reality:

A Civil Engineer Speaks Out

At 01 March, 2007 17:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pat, your going to need a new theory to explain 9/11.

Failure to Imagine Excuse For 9/11 Has Now Been Debunked!

Hijackers fly into Pentagon? No chance, said top brass
'Unrealistic' war game pooh-poohed before 9/11

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday April 15, 2004
The Guardian

Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practise a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".

Details emerged yesterday in an email leaked to a public policy watchdog group. In the email, written a week after the attacks, a special operations officer discussed the exercise with his colleagues.

Details of the exercise, codenamed Positive Force, and the rejected hijacking scenario were confirmed by Norad, the North American aerospace defence command.

The disclosure of the proposal came in the thick of a season of finger-pointing in Washington over responsibility for the failure to prevent the attacks. A national commission is holding hearings on the issue this week.

In a press conference on Tuesday night, George Bush claimed that his administration could not have foreseen the use of aeroplanes as mis siles by terrorists. "We knew he [Osama bin Laden] had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, and I don't think [in] the prior government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale," he said.

That claim was questioned in a report published yesterday by the September 11 commission, which pointed to a string of intelligence reports in the 1990s suggesting that al-Qaida was contemplating such ideas, including, in 1998, "a possible plot to fly an explosives-laden aircraft into a US city".

The email leaked to the Project on Government Oversight (Pogo) was written by Terry Ropes, identified as a special operations officer who had been temporarily assigned to Norad in the spring of 2001.

According to Pogo's director, Peter Stockton, special operations officers had the job of testing Norad's air defences by thinking like terrorists and plotting unexpected attacks.

"In defence of my last unit, Norad," Mr Ropes began his email, dated September 18 2001, "the Norad exercise developers wanted an event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon. Pacom [Pacific command] didn't want it because it would take attention away from their exercise objectives, and joint staff action officers rejected it as too unrealistic."

In response to the leaked email, Norad said in a written statement yesterday: "Before September 11, Norad regularly exercised its response to possible hijacks,
Well there goes the old Norad and hijacking arguements

but never with the intent of lethal engagement, because planes were normally landed safely by their pilots and the hijackers would begin negotiations.

"Before September 11, Norad conducted four exercises a year, normally to include hijacks."

Wow, even more debunking of debunkers!

As for the April exercise and the Pentagon attack scenario mentioned in the email, Norad said: "The exercise was a continuity of operations exercise, with several fictitious scenarios posed during the planning process. This scenario was rejected, as were many others."

"Continuity of operations" refers to government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the US. American defence officials described the hijack scenario as "thinking outside the box", not a response to a specific threat.

The 1998 plot mentioned by the September 11 commission, involving an explosives-packed aircraft aimed at a city, was reported by an unnamed source "who walked into an American consulate in east Asia".

"Neither the source's reliability, nor the information, could be corroborated," the commission report said. The report also mentioned a 1994 attempt by an Algerian group to fly an airliner into the Eiffel tower, which failed because the group was unable to fly the plane. In early 1995, an accomplice of the convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef told interrogators in the Philippines that they had discussed flying a plane into the CIA headquarters in Virginia.

Failure to imagine, simply fails.

Despite such clues, the report said, the CIA's counter-terrorism centre did not analyse how a hijacked aircraft might be used as a weapon. It added: "Neither the intelligence community nor the NSC [national security council] policy process analysed systemic defences against suicide aircraft."

Notice, the last part, how to defense, so yes, this was a plausible scenario imagined by the government.

Pat, James, and others, can you come up with another excuse for 9/11??

At 01 March, 2007 17:21, Blogger Alex said...

WTF? Stop spamming you fucking mongoloid!

At 01 March, 2007 17:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Great find, BG!

At 01 March, 2007 17:52, Blogger CHF said...

When's your civil engineer gonna produce a report, BG?

At 01 March, 2007 17:54, Blogger BG said...

CHF said...

When's your civil engineer gonna produce a report, BG?

When is NIST going to produce a WTC 7 Report?

At 01 March, 2007 17:56, Blogger CHF said...

I believe they already have - a preliminary report.

I've set to see an engineer write a report outlining a demolition theory.

At 01 March, 2007 17:58, Blogger CHF said...

I see you and Swing have shaken off your WTC7/BBC performance and are yet again charging after whatever you think will be the "smoking gun."

Now it's this civil engineer.

Haven't seen twoofers so excited since Judy Wood started "speaking out."

At 01 March, 2007 18:03, Blogger CHF said...

By the way, there are alomst 130,000 registered civil engineers in the USA.

Let's say, 10% of the US population
believes in 9/11 twoof.

That should equal 13,000 civil engineers.

And you many?

At 01 March, 2007 18:38, Blogger texasjack said...

You can listen to your engineers from Vermont Technical College(who only offer Associate in Engineering degrees), I'm going to listen to the ones from MIT type colleges.

At 01 March, 2007 18:39, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No CHF, the point is, another Engineer questions the NIST report along with the call of the New Engineer publication to release their computer models.

Now when the NIST releases those computer models and data to the Engineering community, then we might be inclined to believe that the NIST actually cares about the safety of people in high rise buildings.

At 01 March, 2007 18:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Texasjack How many of those MIT guys have the data and the computer models to test for accuracy in the NIST report?

Is it ummm zero?

At 01 March, 2007 18:44, Blogger texasjack said...

Nice dodge Swing, so typical of you to try to convolute.

At 01 March, 2007 18:47, Blogger CHF said...

"Another engineer," Swing?

Who were the earlier ones?

A 10,000 page NIST report is released and you demand computer models.

And what would those models prove other the fact that you're easily impressed by moving pics?

At 01 March, 2007 18:59, Blogger CHF said...

The New Civil Engineer doesn't seem to be in the controlled demolition cult, Swing.

In fact BG cited an article from the publication last week titled: "Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed"

Check out the thread titled "Look it up" to see how that went.

At 01 March, 2007 19:12, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Texasjack How many of those MIT guys have the data and the computer models to test for accuracy in the NIST report?

Is it ummm zero?

Why don't you build your own @#$%ing supercomputer, and run your own bloody simulations and then tell us your results?

At 01 March, 2007 21:50, Blogger Richard said...

NIST has no problems sharing their data, that's the whole point. Their findings are used to help protect against similar circumstances in the future. Just because they don't share it with conspiracy freaks doesn't mean that the data is locked away, never to be seen again. Even if they did release a computer model, what good would it do? Would you even know what your looking at? If you can't understand the chaos of a plane impact then how in the hell are you going to understand a simulation involving thousands of variables. Your just moving the goal post because you have nothing.

At 02 March, 2007 05:13, Blogger BG said...

Richard said...

NIST has no problems sharing their data, that's the whole point.

Richard, you Nimrod,

You couldn't be more wrong.

At 02 March, 2007 06:10, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

And this By William Rice is WHO?

Exactly who does he work for and what are his qualifications?

As an engineer myself who has built buildings I can tell you he is a fake.

At 02 March, 2007 06:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The New Civil Engineer doesn't seem to be in the controlled demolition cult, Swing.

How can they if they don't have the computer models that they requested to test for the accuracy of the data?

How can they if they don't have the raw data and the information NIST manipulated to arrive at their conclusion?

Hey Sword, how about pressuring the NIST to releae that data so it can be checked for accuracy and errors as the NCE has requested...say maybe to save FUTURE LIVES??


Get a clue fellas.

When can that Civil Engineer produce a report?? Maybe when the NIST releases the data.
Can that CE have access to the little steel remains that are left??

Keep on the denial path, Gents.

At 02 March, 2007 06:32, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

911Truthiness is now an engineer?? ROFLMAO!

Add that to insurance specialists, airplane pilots, physics experts, etc.!! LOL

His credentials are listed at the bottom of the article if you happened to read it.

At 02 March, 2007 06:40, Blogger Stevew said...

In addition to the final data sd wants to see all the inputs, ECO's, ECR's, specs used and every nut and bolt the NIST used. If you go to the NIST home page and dig there is an encyclopedia of info about them but he thinks they should go and get scratch pads and everything else the NIST used. First he wanted the software, now all the input data which probably amounts to far more than the thousands of pages of released data. He is just a typ arrogant jerk that has to spout all this BS. Several people includeing myself have asked for his qualifications and all you will get is tapdance but this is typ of the whaks. I wonder if he will ever provide a list of experts that will back up his mindless babble and spin.

At 02 March, 2007 07:50, Blogger CHF said...


you guys are so desperate for any expert backing that you are reduced to misrepresenting what they say.

The UK engineers want the computer models to better understand the report.

The actual conclusion (ir jet impact and fires downed the towers) is NOT contested.



At 02 March, 2007 07:58, Blogger Alex said...

Pah. I assume Swing also wants the raw instrument data from the Apollo space program, otherwise he won't accept that we ever landed on the moon. Also, we better get him the receipts for the Zyklon-B from Auschwitz, or he'll never believe in the holocaust.

The guy's a moron, and that's all that needs to be said. No amount of data will ever be enough to convince him, so why bother?

At 02 March, 2007 08:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

If you were a cancer patient, and you came into my office, and as a physician I told you that Cancer doesnt really exist, and it is just a pretend desease made up by the govt, would you expect a little proof, some studies to show this as true, or would you just take my word as a doctor, and believe my story?

Apply the same to your messiah engineer.


At 02 March, 2007 12:02, Blogger CHF said...

No amount of data will ever be enough to convince him, so why bother?

Bingo. He doesn't trust NIST's report but he would if it were in video format???

Show him the computer models and he's demand to see the WTC wreckage. Show him that and he'd demand that you prove they aren't fake.

One could spend the rest of their lives trying to convince these people and it wouldn't change a thing.

As Dylan Avery himself said: NOTHING will falsify their beliefs.

At 02 March, 2007 13:47, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

911Truthiness is now an engineer?? ROFLMAO!

Well yeah, I helped a friend build a garage so that would put me in the engineer category as far as truthers go.

OH... You want REAL engineers.. who build real big buildings. Well don't look in the truther community, you won't find them there.

At 02 March, 2007 13:58, Blogger pomeroo said...

The new "engineer" happens to be someone who has never heard of the NIST Report, the Popular Mechanics book, Eagar's paper, Greening's papers, the Protec paper, or for that matter, ANYTHING published on or He pretends that the long-debunked free-fall controversy still rages.

He cannot be found by Googling. My call to the Vermont Guardian for more info about the guy produced no leads.

Fraud sensors are blinking red. This guy is another ignorant conspiracy liar pretending to be an engineer, or he bought his degree online.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home