Saturday, January 09, 2010

Confirmed: Cindy Sheehan is a 9-11 Truther


She's always kind of danced around the edges of the 9-11 Fruitcake brigade, but she can't deny that she's a Truther any more. In a podcast interview here, she says (starts around 21:48):

"I think a new investigation is something that many many people agree with, if people don't start saying, 'It's an inside job.' Because that turns a lot of people off, even though I think it [9-11] was an inside job, I just don't know how far inside it went. But as soon as you say it's an inside job, people start saying, oh, you're accusing Dick Cheney of planning the whole thing, blah blah blah. Well, of course, some people are (laughs) but then people say, we don't know, we need to find out. Was it CIA? Was it whoever? Whoever, um, it had to be an inside job. There's like no way they could have done that, just like the one on December 25th. There's no way that guy could have done it without some kind of help, and we know he got help. Who was (crosstalk) that nice-dressed man that got him through that these people witnessed, got him through security?"

So she believes it was an inside job, she just doesn't recommend it as a slogan.

Labels: ,

204 Comments:

At 09 January, 2010 11:08, Blogger Jaye said...

and the crowd goes... home

 
At 09 January, 2010 11:36, Blogger Winston said...

she is an idiot with severe mental problems.

 
At 09 January, 2010 11:50, Blogger Billman said...

Shocking... absolutely shocking. So what's up with Haloscan not working?

 
At 09 January, 2010 13:06, Blogger Pat said...

Looks like they want $10 to continue hosting our comments.

 
At 09 January, 2010 14:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

She's always been crazy.

 
At 09 January, 2010 14:49, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Hey Pat. I think you got your definition wrong for "9/11 Truther" or "9/11 Truth Activist." A "9/11 Truther" is "is someone who fights alongside the family members seeking truth and accountability for the 9/11 attacks." [...] "a "9/11 Truther" is someone who fights for the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders who need health care desperately." [...] "a "9/11 Truther" is someone who does not like how the day of 9/11 is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it. Stop it by using the truth. Something we have been denied by our Government regarding the 9/11 attacks." Based on how you bolded "I think it [9-11] was an inside job" it seems that you think a "9/11 Truther" is someone that thinks "9/11 was an inside job." Nope, sorry. You're wrong.

Since I'm the one that "invented" the phrase, I should know.

 
At 09 January, 2010 14:55, Blogger James B. said...

9/11 truth has as much to do with the truth as an electric chair has to do with patio furniture. It is a bastardization of the word.

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The woman belongs in a mental hospital. I'm sorry for her loss, but milking it for insane conspiracy theories is just pissing on her son's grave.

Hey Brian Good, have you ever considered stalking Cindy Sheehan? She's from your neck of the woods, and her husband left her too.

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:48, Blogger Billman said...

Jon Gold makes an intertesting point. But he should really be going after the ones that are bastardizing the word by calling themselves "9/11 Truthers," shouldn't he?

$10 a month? Is that... too much? I guess that means no more Anonymous commenters...

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:48, Blogger ConsDemo said...

A "9/11 Truther" is "is someone who fights alongside the family members seeking truth and accountability for the 9/11 attacks."

Bullshit. You fight along with the few family members who are so full of hate for this country they want to believe it attacked itself on 9/11. That is small fringe group.

"a "9/11 Truther" is someone who fights for the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders who need health care desperately."


A total crock. 9/11 CTers don't give one rat's ass about first responders, they are just a trojan horse to draw attention their dishonest allegations.

"a "9/11 Truther" is someone who does not like how the day of 9/11 is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it.

If you seriously wanted to affect US foreign policy, you'd drop this conspiracy theory nonsense. It’s a total waste of time and it involves slandering others with the claim they committed mass murder on no credible evidence whatsoever. If you want to question our slavish backing for Israel or our dependence on fossil fuels, I'd be happy to join you, but it doesn't start with bullshit conspiracy theories.

it seems that you think a "9/11 Truther" is someone that thinks "9/11 was an inside job

Given virtually everyone in your so-called movement claims it was (after they try to tell others they are "just asking questions"), it seems a pretty safe assumption.

If you want to help first responders and obtain a reduced US role in the world and non-intervention in conflicts between other countries, there are legitimate organizations that push those issues but they aren't affiliated with dishonest and stupid conspiracy theories propagated by the 9/11 twoof movement.

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly you guys need to start selling T-shirts and coffee mugs to raise money for Haloscan. Or are your regular readers not gullible enough to shell out money?

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:58, Anonymous Marc said...

Just so I understand this concept. Dick Cheney and teh evil Neocons pulled off the crime of the century on 9/11/2001. Yet when we invaded Iraq they forgot to smuggle WMDs into the country to be "Found" by our troops?

Okay....

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:59, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous, you got it. Unlike Dylan Avery's legion of morons, we don't need to shell out money to learn "the truth" about 9/11.

 
At 09 January, 2010 15:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cindy was certainly right about the Iraq War. Its shameful that the people who instigated and lied and attacked opponents have been held to no accountability, especially media figures. Lets see if they even learned anything.

Do you folks know anything about this German article?

Focus Magazine


The Kennedy assassination official version challenges came from Europe, particularly Sir Bertrand Russell, Bertrand Russell's 16 questions about Kennedy assassination


- Emory

 
At 09 January, 2010 16:15, Anonymous John E. Smoke said...

It's nice that Sheehan managed to substitute the worthless cause of trying to get an audience with President Bush with the worthless cause of 9/11 Truth. I was worried that she wouldn't have anything to waste her crazy little life on now that Bush is no longer president, and her family have disowned her. I'm just kidding; I wasn't really worried. In fact, I'd forgotten about the existence of this troubled individual till now.
I've heard a few Truthers spamming the internet (to the chagrin of, well, everybody) with this 'well-dressed-man-accompanying-the-poor-innocent-Mohammedan' craziness. And as a representative of the CIA/NWO/Reptilian/Jew alliance, all I've got to say is: You didn't see nothing, right? (Damn it, it was quite clear in the briefing that Agent Rabanowicz was to wear casual travelling clothes, not his new Armani suit for Operation Frame Some Innocent Muslim for Some Reason. Thank God it was only the Truthers whose suspicions were aroused. Nobody takes them seriously.)

 
At 09 January, 2010 16:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You "whitecollar" bastards cant afford 10 bucks?
I guess its the same reason the cheap fucks wont donate to JREF.
9/11 debunkers= penniless frauds

 
At 09 January, 2010 17:03, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Its shameful that the people who instigated and lied and attacked opponents have been held to no accountability, especially media figures.

Regardless of how stupid the decision to invade Iraq was, it isn't clear that anyone important "lied" about. As for accountability, the Republican Party took a serious hit and the Bush Presidency was irreparably tarnished. The people who made the war happen are all pretty much in ill repute.

Re: The Kennedy assasination. Its been investigated multiple times and the original conclusions have held up. Oswald's motivation remains somewhat of a mystery since he was killed so quickly after but much of the rest is clear. Most conspiracy theorists have conjured up this notion that Jack Kennedy was really a closest New Left type who was going to pull out of the Vietnam and the "military-industrial complex" bumped him off to prevent it. Much like they supposedly staged 9/11 to provoke the US to [insert objective]. It's bullshit, Kennedy was no closet pacifist and contrary to CT fiction, there isn't a secret cabal constantly trying to start wars by assasinating Presidents or faking terrorist attacks that kill large numbers of Americans. Don't bother bringing up Operation Northwoods, it was just a suggestion by a kook military leader and was turned down quickly, it doesn't prove anything else.

 
At 09 January, 2010 17:46, Blogger James B. said...

I listened to this woman interview both Sheehan and Steve Alten, who apparently has a new version of the horrid Shell Game out. It was bizarre how many times they insisted that they should not put forth any theories, because "we are not the experts" and it is divisive.

Hey genius, the reason it is divisive is because all of your theories make absolutely no sense. You don't see any normal social movements warning its members not to talk about how they feel out their respective issues, because it would make them look like idiots. That should be a clue as to the validity of your movement.

 
At 09 January, 2010 18:12, Blogger James B. said...

I can afford it, I just don't feel that Haloscan delivers $10 a month in added value.

 
At 09 January, 2010 19:23, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hi, Jon! As you know, I've always been deeply impressed by your commitment to rescue workers, police, and fire personnel. Remember a few years ago when I suggested that you and I visit a firehouse near Ground Zero? I urged you to explain to the men how their fallen brothers were complicit in your imaginary conspiracy. Your courageous willingness to defend your irrational opinions--oh, wait. I forgot--YOU RAN AWAY, as always, tail between your legs. Tell us, Jon, what the FDNY's role was in the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01.

What's that? You say you have to run?

Buh-bye, Jon.

BEEP-BEEP! Z-O-O-O-O-O-M!!!!!!

 
At 09 January, 2010 19:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ConsDemo,
Polls have said for many years that a majority of Americans don't believe the official version of the Kennedy assassination despite total mainstream media support for the official version. What do school books say about it? Anyone have kids in high school?

Eventually, the Congress had to do a second investigation back in the 70s that concluded there was a conspiracy.

- Emory

 
At 09 January, 2010 19:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you seen this report:

BBC report on flaws in Lockerbie evidence

Follow me on this, sort of follows from Cindy Sheehan. One of the people pushing for a new Lockerbie probe in the UN General Assembly is the father of a victim. He wants justice for his daughter and does not think the man convicted had anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing. The odd thing about the House Committee on Assassinations was that the Kennedy family doesn't seem to have cared to pursue it. Told that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy, they didn't push to find out more. For whatever reasons. That won't be the case with the thousands of family members of 9/11 victims if disbelief of the official version reaches some critical mass like the JFK disbelief.

- Emory

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:00, Blogger baobao said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:03, Anonymous Welshman said...

That won't be the case with the thousands of family members of 9/11 victims if disbelief of the official version reaches some critical mass like the JFK disbelief.

- Emory


And, you think that's really ever going to happen?

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:13, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"You don't see any normal social movements warning its members not to talk about how they feel out their respective issues, because it would make them look like idiots."

Yeah - it was funny to hear that. Nick Griffin of the BNP said that not too long ago, and it's thought that he got it from his buddy David Duke.

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:15, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Jon Gold, your stupid argument seems to be "A 911 Truther is not a 911 Truther."

You fail at everything, Jon.

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welshman,
Yeah, I think its almost inevitable. For one thing, there are children of 9/11 victims who are yet to be heard from. How was the government's financial settlement with families structured vis-a-vis the children? Obviously, the children didn't sign away anything to accept a settlement.
-Emory

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:37, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Emory. the 1979 House of Representatives investigation allowed that there might have been a second shooter but that assertion was subsequently disputed by the National Acedemy of Sciences. In any case, the House investigation did not do anything to support the twoofer type assertions of an "inside job." Get over it.

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:47, Blogger Billman said...

Emory does bring up an disturbing thought... Troofers can probably breed a new generation of "just asking questions," and "inventing" phrases to call themselves.

 
At 09 January, 2010 21:13, Blogger James B. said...

That conclusion was entirely based on erroneous conclusions from a sound analysis of the shooting. See Bugliosi's excellent book on the subject for an explanation.

 
At 09 January, 2010 23:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emory,
Polls can be manipulated to show whatever the pollster wants. Furthermore, the assassination of one man is theoretically easier to cover up that the destruction of several buildings filmed live by dozens of news agencies and individuals. There are polls showing that people think the government is withholding information about 9-11. That doesn't mean people think that someone used magic superthermite to bring down building 7.
If Truthers had any sense, they'd stick to the LIHOP story, but instead they find themselves defending absolutely batshit crazy claims because they don't have the sense to stick to the even the most plausible of conspiracy theories.

 
At 10 January, 2010 08:00, Blogger Dave said...

Popular ideas do not necessarily need to be true. There a lots of ideas people hold that are 100% bunk. Astrology is very popular, acupuncture is held to be true by many.

Time had a way of resolving these things, after 40 or so years the conspiracy theory is held by less and less people. And the people who shun the grassy knoll crap are the better informed people, WHy is that?. A Guy I know buys the JFK crap and has read all the conspiracy theorist books, as have I, but I have read the Posner and Bugliosi books, he won't touch them, too much a threat to this popular urban legend he has held for so long.

 
At 10 January, 2010 09:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The acoustics evidence in the Kennedy assassination is still being debated in this decade.

Did anyone view that BBC report this week on Lockerbie? Here is the link again:

Flaws in key Lockerbie evidence

Obama now thinks that anything less than jingoism is political suicide, apparently. Thats where we're headed. The rest of the world is more and more vocal about demanding provable facts. All of us here know its not going away. I keep hearing reporters say the government has a "mountain of evidence" against KSM, for example, but what is it? They don't ever get any "leaks" about just exactly what the evidence is? Is that credible? What is it that isn't from torture? If it ever goes to trial, is it all going to be redacted?

These other "Al Qaeda" attacks, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the plots instigated by FBI informants --- qualitatively so different from 9/11 that they cast doubt on the official version. Its not sustainable as an article of faith, a belief system. Its frightening that it could all collapse and all Americans are held accountable for our weasel leaders.


-Emory

 
At 10 January, 2010 09:40, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Obama now thinks that anything less than jingoism is political suicide, apparently.

Um, what?

The rest of the world is more and more vocal about demanding provable facts. All of us here know its not going away.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, pal.

I keep hearing reporters say the government has a "mountain of evidence" against KSM, for example, but what is it?

You know there's going to be a trial and this evidence will be presented, right?

They don't ever get any "leaks" about just exactly what the evidence is? Is that credible? What is it that isn't from torture? If it ever goes to trial, is it all going to be redacted?

With Brian Good no longer babbling regularly, I'm glad we have another dope who thinks himself a genius who deserves immediate answers to every inane question of his.

These other "Al Qaeda" attacks, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the plots instigated by FBI informants --- qualitatively so different from 9/11 that they cast doubt on the official version.

Ah yes, the undie bomber's attempted attack was "qualitatively different" than 9/11, so that means 9/11 was an inside job.

And the blitz of London was qualitatively different than Germany's invasion of Russia, so I have to cast doubt on the official version. It's obvious Churchill bombed London himself.

Its not sustainable as an article of faith, a belief system. Its frightening that it could all collapse and all Americans are held accountable for our weasel leaders.

I don't even know what this means. Please, go see a psychiatrist, and then go take a class on basic grammar.

 
At 10 January, 2010 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The rest of the world is more and more vocal about demanding provable facts."
Maybe with regards to some aspects of our foreign policy, but no one in any real positions of authority are "more and more" convinced of 9-11 "truth." I love this "more and more people around the world" phrase they constantly repeat. "OUR MOVEMENT IS GROWING!! SERIOUSLY GUYS!"

 
At 10 January, 2010 14:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous @ 12:51 - thats a bbc report with video that just aired this week questioning the evidence in the Lockerbie crash.
-Emory

 
At 10 January, 2010 15:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

anonymous @ 12:51 - thats a bbc report with video that just aired this week questioning the evidence in the Lockerbie crash.

That's nice. What does it have to do with 9/11?

 
At 10 January, 2010 15:30, Blogger Billman said...

New Yorker, it means that everything that ever happened anywhere is now a conspiracy by the Bush Administration, because now troofers are re-writing history by misunderstanding what the new Lockerbie thing is, so why not just say EVERYTHING is a conspiracy now?

The Dinosaurs? A Bush Conspiracy..

Mt. Vesuvius? A Bush Conspiracy..

The Titanic? A Bush Conspiracy...

And the only way stop EVERYTHING from remaining a conspiracy is to be "someone who does not like how the day of __blank__ is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it. Stop it by using the truth. Something we have been denied by our Government regarding __blank__."

After all Jon Gold is the one that "invented" the search for truth, so he should know...

 
At 10 January, 2010 15:33, Blogger Billman said...

Hell, that can be applied to anything!

"Someone who does not like how the day of The premier screening of Avatar is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it. Stop it by using the truth. Something we have been denied by our Government regarding The premier screening of Avatar."

Or

"Someone who does not like how the day of Ground Beef, 1.99 a LB at Albertson's is being used to inflict pain and suffering around the world, and is trying to stop it. Stop it by using the truth. Something we have been denied by our Government regarding Ground Beef, 1.99 a LB at Albertson's."

 
At 10 January, 2010 19:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My curiosity is simple. Why does the building burning for a half hour come down first and the building burning for an hour is still standing?
Why with three of the largest airports in the free world within fifteen minutes of the World trade centers was no foam brought in to extinguish the fires and save building seven? Foam was brought to the pentagon in minutes.
OK call me a truther if you like but the whole thing stinks. If questioning and seeking truth is wrong, well welcome to the flat world and if you do not believe the world is flat you could be prosecuted. Oh wait that was your ancestors. Bet you enjoy tribunals too. Must be great to know it all. I do not, I ask questions, listen and learn. Obviously your world is flat and you want to keep it that way. Being a coward is OK, I guess but I am not I am a patriot. I question and FIGHT for what is right. So call me names like in the school yard but I believe the world is round.

 
At 10 January, 2010 19:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guess you believe Kennedy was shot three times with one bullet too? Any idiot knows that is impossible. Warren commission tried to sell it any way. the guided bullet that zigged and zagged to make all that damage. WOW. no wonder the rest of the world started questioning the official report. But our government could not do such a thing. So we buried our heads in the sand and let the report stand. They got away with that one and will this one too. We the people got to start being we the people or the government we get we deserve. Which has just about eliminated the bill of rights. Taxes us worse than the British did and gives us less and less for it while they all get stinking rich. Why wouldn't they feel they are above the law. Shit Chaney shot a guy in cold blood and called it an accident and nobody said shit. What a country.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

Ho-hum. Nothing changes with the loons--nothing EVER changes.

Jon Gold, aka "The Running Man," has--surprise!--run away.

One loon asks (or pretends to ask), YEARS after the release of the NIST reports, why the building struck first by a hijacked commercial airliner remained standing a half-hour after the second building to be hit collapsed. Who wants to tell him where he can find the information he dishonestly professes to want? Rest assured that he will NEVER make the slightest effort to dispel his ignorance.

Another loon is still wedded to the "magic bullet," after this particular nonsense has been refuted time and again. No, there was nothing "magic" about the trajectory of this ordinary bullet. It's simply a matter of positioning Kennedy and Connally correctly, as has been done in many simulations. Does the tinfoil-hatter who clings his ancient myth care?

Now, THAT'S silly!

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:07, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:11, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:13, Blogger pomeroo said...

The same loon who peddles the ancient "magic bullet" crapola is now pretending that Cheney shot his friend "in cold blood" (somehow, "cold beer" seems far more accurate). Gee, it makes you wonder why Harry Whittington wasn't all that angry about the incident. Unlike Ted Kennedy, the Conscience of the Democratic Party, who left a woman to die slowly trapped inside a submerged car, Cheney actually secured medical attention for his friend. That he dared to do so before before informing the media is almost unthinkable. What a villain!

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After watching my engine room burn for eighteen hours on board the USS Ranger this 'loon' might have a littel more knowledge than you give him credit. Why do you ignore the lack of foam being used from any of the three largest airports in the world when they had it at the pentagon in minutes. If nothing to hide why not an independent investigation. If Clinton got a BJ we would have investigated longer. Sure loose change is flawed but so is the official explanation with the truth hidden somewhere in the middle. It took our engine room several hours to reach tempertures high enough to melt steel which it turned to cow pies on the floor huge sixteen inch valves gone into puddles. So use simple engineering if the steel weakened to point of colapse 80 floors off the ground when didn't the bulding tip over as it should but instead imploded for all hundred plus floors? Simple questions for simple minds, not the mindless 'pomeroo'!

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:02, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Why does the building burning for a half hour come down first and the building burning for an hour is still standing?

Because it was hit lower down, there was much more weight bearing down on the impact zone.

Why with three of the largest airports in the free world within fifteen minutes of the World trade centers was no foam brought in to extinguish the fires and save building seven? Foam was brought to the pentagon in minutes.

Reagan National airport is two minutes from the Pentagon and Manhattans mid-day traffic is insane when there aren't a million people fleeing a major disaster.

After watching my engine room burn for eighteen hours on board the USS Ranger this 'loon' might have a littel more knowledge than you give him credit.

No, actually, you wouldn't. Watching a fire doesn't qualify you for jack squat, anymore than watching a lot of porn would make you a legendary lover, dumbass.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:10, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Oh boy, this is a GOOD one....

Why does the building burning for a half hour come down first and the building burning for an hour is still standing?

I presume this is a serious question and not an attempt at parody. OK, pal, go look at the burning towers again. See how the one was hit lower on the structure, and off-center? What does that mean, class? Right! The tower failed earlier because of a much larger load above and the asymmetric stresses below said load.

Honestly, this is basic stuff. If WTC 1 had collapsed first, THAT would be suspicious.

Why with three of the largest airports in the free world within fifteen minutes of the World trade centers was no foam brought in to extinguish the fires and save building seven? Foam was brought to the pentagon in minutes.

What the bloody hell? What do airports have to do with it? You are aware that WTC 7 and the Pentagon are not the same structure and did not suffer the same kind of damage, right? Also, the part of the Pentagon that was hit ended up collapsing.

And now let's make a checklist of all the classic "truther" traits.

If questioning and seeking truth is wrong, well welcome to the flat world and if you do not believe the world is flat you could be prosecuted.

Whining about being persecuted for "asking questions"? Check.

Being a coward is OK, I guess but I am not I am a patriot. I question and FIGHT for what is right.

Claims of patriotism and courage from the convenience of an anonymous internet posting? Check.

Guess you believe Kennedy was shot three times with one bullet too?

Believes in other conspiracy theories? Check.

After watching my engine room burn for eighteen hours on board the USS Ranger this 'loon' might have a littel (sic) more knowledge than you give him credit.

Appeals to his own expertise? Check.

And then there's the mindless blather about "melted steel" and how the tower should have toppled over, and even more stuff about "foam" (that's a new one).

Congrats, anonymous, you're such the classic "truther" that I wonder if you're not a clever parody. If not, come claim your tin-foil dunce cap!

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:15, Anonymous New Yorker said...

No, actually, you wouldn't. Watching a fire doesn't qualify you for jack squat, anymore than watching a lot of porn would make you a legendary lover, dumbass.

This reminds me of Brian Good's claims of expertise in architecture and structural engineering because he once watched a skyscraper under construction.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So building weakened in the middle implodes rather than topple and you call me a dumbass. I didn't watch the fire I fought it. I also witnessed the after math first hand. Plus this was deisel fuel not jet fuel which burns much hotter but why bring reality to your fantasy. Run a little basic logic through your ranting. Heavy on top weak in the middle it falls over not implode. Foam or light water it's real name would have saved tower seven and have extinguished the fire days before it actually did. So why was it not used? Name calling and inuendos amke you so smart just like a bully on the payground. No idea what they speak but it makes them feel important. Yes I have witnessed many jet fuel fires and what they can do. I have fought those fires and witnessed there destruction. I also know they did not melt the flight deck or half inch steel plate. But hey that dosen't make me an expert like you. I am only an stupid engineer and general contractor who has built and torn down buildings incluuding (explosive) demolition but hey I am the dumbass and loon and whatever else you want to call me. So please feel free to voice your stupidity for all to hear, I will stay with the facts, science and reality. Such as the second building did not burn long enough to reach the melting point of steel except at the point of impact which would have cuased a topple not an implosion. But ignorance is bliss and do not expect to educate you. But I have to call a fool a fool when I see one.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, your question about the failure to use foam is a good one. I never thought of that.

But hey, I know! I know! See, they couldn't use foam because the bridges were closed. Capiche?

I know, it's not a very good answer, but it's as good as most of the debunkers' answers. So there you have it.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Paragraphs. They are your friend, anonymous. They will make deciphering your semi-literate ramblings less difficult for the rest of us.

My favorite of your many, MANY spelling and/or grammatical errors:

"incluuding"

I think he's the goalie for Finland's national hockey team.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:57, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Anon, your question about the failure to use foam is a good one. I never thought of that.

But hey, I know! I know! See, they couldn't use foam because the bridges were closed. Capiche?

I know, it's not a very good answer, but it's as good as most of the debunkers' answers. So there you have it.


And Petgoat latches onto the "foam" nonsense. Why not, it's no more insane than "smoldering carpets" or "pyroclastic flows".

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's nothing insane about the foam question. The same question applies to why didn't they use the fireboat that was in the WFC yacht harbor to pump river water two blocks to fight the fires?

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:17, Anonymous New Yorker said...

There's nothing insane about the foam question. The same question applies to why didn't they use the fireboat that was in the WFC yacht harbor to pump river water two blocks to fight the fires?

I'm sure the boat was designed to fight fires on, er, other boats, Petgoat. Not in buildings 1000' above the ground.

And SAMs are designed to shoot aircraft down, Petgoat. The fact that no aircraft are being shot down while on approach to National suggests that there are no SAMs at the Pentagon.

You'd understand this if you'd just go to a psychiatrist and take the medications they give you.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You fucking moron Emory - WTC wasn't a fuel fire so why the hell would use use AFFF (yea asshole - I bet I have more time in the shitter underway than you do in the Navy) on it???

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:23, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"I didn't watch the fire I fought it."

Why didn't you use foam on it?

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:29, Blogger pomeroo said...

Ah, yes, the "independent" investigation canard. That was always good for a few laughs. Let's see: if you use real structural engineers, physicists, metallurgists, fire safety experts, demolition professionals, seismologists, avionics techs, crash investigators, forensic specialists--why, you'll just replicate the results of the original massive, multi-agency investigation. Your evil, brain-dead cult rejects its evidence-based findings as inconvenient. So, you'd be reduced to relying on radio shock jocks, America-hating academics including dotty theologians and Marxist literary theorists, and all-purpose cranks. Your lynch mob would, of course, deliver your desired verdict, but you'd still be a laughingstock.

 
At 10 January, 2010 23:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, you persist in your ignorant, know-it-all arguments from incredulity. Fireboats are equipped with powerful pumps. If you think they lack the capability of linking their outputs to hoses, maybe you should provide evidence for this belief.

SAMS are designed to shoot aircraft, and 357 magnums are designed to shoot people. You might as well argue that cops can't possibly carry guns because they might shoot an innocent.

pomeroo, your belief that using the same kind of experts would recap NIST's results is absurd. It's like saying that since an orchestra played "The Rite of Spring" it can't play Beethoven too. The results depend on how the investigation is directed.

You guys are really lame.

 
At 10 January, 2010 23:46, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

So building weakened in the middle implodes rather than topple and you call me a dumbass.

Yes, it weakened where the plane hit and where the fires were.



Dumbass.

I didn't watch the fire I fought it.

You waved your hose around for 18 minutes... this is still no different from watching a lot of porn. In fact, it's exactly like watching porn.

You still aren't jack squat.

Run a little basic logic through your ranting. Heavy on top weak in the middle it falls over not implode.

No it doesn't. 30,000 tons of concrete and steel are moving 200 feet to one side unless there is a source of energy to provide that kind of force.

Were there any thousand-mile-an-hour hurricanes in New York that day?

No?

Then the WTC was going straight down.


Dumbass.

Yes I have witnessed many jet fuel fires and what they can do. I have fought those fires and witnessed there destruction.

In just 18 hours?

I also know they did not melt the flight deck or half inch steel plate.

No, it wouldn't have. But as Popular Mechanics pointed out in their debunking or 9/11 crackpottery, steel melts at 2900 degree but it loses 90% of its structural strength at only 1800.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel

This must be one of those things that it takes you a little more than 18 hours jerking off in the back of a boiler room to figure out.

 
At 11 January, 2010 05:41, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous, since you were in the Navy, you should be able to answer your own question about the WTC fires, given that you were trained to fight class A, B, C, and D fires and should know tons about them...

 
At 11 January, 2010 07:04, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, you persist in your ignorant, know-it-all arguments from incredulity.

Oh, the irony of this being typed by Petgoat....

If you think they lack the capability of linking their outputs to hoses, maybe you should provide evidence for this belief.

Still don't understand the concept of the burden of proof, do you Petgoat?

SAMS are designed to shoot aircraft, and 357 magnums are designed to shoot people. You might as well argue that cops can't possibly carry guns because they might shoot an innocent.

Still don't understand anything about air defense systems, do you Petgoat?

pomeroo, your belief that using the same kind of experts would recap NIST's results is absurd. It's like saying that since an orchestra played "The Rite of Spring" it can't play Beethoven too. The results depend on how the investigation is directed.

Yet another insane analogy. Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2010 07:18, Blogger pomeroo said...

So, our anonymous tinfoil-hatter has implicated the FDNY, which lost 343 men on 9/11, in his imaginary conspiracy. Congratulations: Jon Gold has never had the cajones to confront the inescapable implications of his fantasy. But, then, Jon famously lacks the courage of his convictions.

Sorry, anonymous, when real scientists reexamine the evidence, applying the methods of science, the results will be the same as when real scientists, applying the methods of science, first examined the evidence. Funny how that works, ain't it? Much of the original evidence is, of course, unavailable, but conspiracy liars don't care.

Your branding my demolition of your dishonest call for a new investigation as absurd is, well, absurd.

Please let us know the response when you inform the FDNY that its knowledge of firefighting techniques is inadequate. Be sure to explain why your expertise in this field trumps that of real firefighters.

There is a particularly deranged troll on the JREF who calls himself "Bill Smith." He picked up from somewhere (this imbecile has never had an original thought in his life) the lunatic notion of gathering lots and lots of fire extinguishers. Bill is a sub-moron, but he is a truly comical buffoon. The heroes of the FDNY will get a big kick out of Bill's insights. Be sure to give him credit.

 
At 11 January, 2010 09:51, Anonymous Triterope said...

A "9/11 Truther" is "is someone who fights alongside the family member

When has any believer in 9-11 Truth ever FOUGHT for anything?

All you clowns do is make YouTube videos, post on blogs, organize random street actions, solicit donations, and on a rare day where you get a big wave of momentum going, you might fill out some paperwork.

Since I'm the one that "invented" the phrase, I should know.

Get over yourself, Jon. You're not important, even in the tiny, insular, loser world you inhabit.

 
At 11 January, 2010 10:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No fire on top few floors yet they neatly fall on to the floor below.
Ever watch a building burn? There are many through history. Funny how the fall over verses neatly imploding one floor at a time.
So you believe the steel gave way evenly over a hundred floors. Steel reinforced concrete crumbled evenly throughout the entire structure one floor at a time?
And you call me stupid.
I am glad the world is flat for you. But I believe the world is round and could care less about small minded fools without the ability to think for themselves.
Since their opinion is but a repeat of what they heard and not an educated thoughtful deliberation. I was the fool thinking they could think for themselves. My bad.
Never was much of a typist. Sorry if my lack of concern over typos inflicted so much pain. Upset my English teachers too. However bad spelling is not the issue.

 
At 11 January, 2010 10:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sword of Truth - get your hands off your sword long enough to think before you speak. Quite the obsession you have there. Ever thought about seeking help?
Jim Jones - we did use AFFF/Light water/ foam and a funny thing happened the fire went out.
More time on the shitter than I had in the Navy. Possible not likely. Though I only served eight years many no-loads spent their whole career hiding out in the shitter. That you? Huh? Come on slimy wog do not talk to a crusty shell back like that. Ever make Chief? Or you still Seaman? Wow this mindless name calling is pretty easy. Sorry I lowered myself to your level but it feels good. :)

 
At 11 January, 2010 10:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY: Still don't understand the concept of the burden of proof

I understand it just fine. I asked a question: Why wasn't the fireboat used to pump water to WTC7? You purported to answer it - because it can't. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

pomeroo: our anonymous tinfoil-hatter has implicated the FDNY

My, what leaping to conclusions, declaring certain questions beyond the pale by associating them with taboo ideas. I didn't implicate anybody. I can answer the question of why the fireboat wasn't used without implicating FDNY in anything. Try examining the facts.

when real scientists reexamine the evidence, applying the methods of science, the results will be the same

Not when the investigation was warped by its framing and its directors. Assumptions were made. Empirical studies were thrown out when they failed to generate the desired results. Computer models got warped inputs.

I never said FDNY's knowledge of firefighting techniques was inadequate. It's easy for you to win the argument in your head when you get to write the other guy's positions, isn't it?

 
At 11 January, 2010 11:01, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"Come on slimy wog do not talk to a crusty shell back like that. Ever make Chief? Or you still Seaman"

No, never made Chief. Did make LCDR though.

So please tell me why someone who CLAIMS to have shipboard firefighting knowledge would say:

"Why with three of the largest airports in the free world within fifteen minutes of the World trade centers was no foam brought in to extinguish the fires and save building seven?"

Exactly what type of fire was WTC7?

P.S. Your Lockerbie "report" is a joke. Lots of speculation and very little proof.

 
At 11 January, 2010 11:07, Anonymous Boz said...

"Why wasn't the fireboat used to pump water to WTC7?"

Static Head

Emory - why don't you explain that to us?

 
At 11 January, 2010 11:26, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, anonymous conspiracy liar (and, gee, is there any other kind?), but you've been exposed. The NIST reports have been available for years and you are still clueless about their contents. Tell us more about the massive, multi-agency investigation that identified the hijackers (7,000 agents from the FBI alone were involved). Was everyone complicit in your imaginary conspiracy? That's a LOT of people, sport. And NOBODY has leaked ANYTHING in eight years? Wow--just, wow!

Let's shift to NIST. What empirical studies were thrown out. I think you got caught lying again, so you'd better invent something real fast. Tell us more about those "warped" computer inputs. You wouldn't want people to think you're another tinfoil-hatted ignoramus blowing smoke.

Moving on to the FDNY--no, YOU can't tell us anything about why fireboats weren't used because you don't know anything about firefighting. You can tell us why you have never bothered to bring your disingenuous questions to a real firefighter. But, then, we've already figured out that one.

 
At 11 January, 2010 12:27, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I understand it just fine. I asked a question: Why wasn't the fireboat used to pump water to WTC7? You purported to answer it - because it can't. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

Please learn what the burden of proof is, Petgoat.

I can answer the question of why the fireboat wasn't used without implicating FDNY in anything.

OK, so answer it. What do you need from us?

Not when the investigation was warped by its framing and its directors. Assumptions were made. Empirical studies were thrown out when they failed to generate the desired results. Computer models got warped inputs.

Nobody cares about your opinions of the investigation, Petgoat.

Now when are you going to contact the Canadian government about the US invasion? Willie Rodriguez told me you're too much of a coward to contact them. Everything he said about you so far has been correct, so I guess you're a total coward....

 
At 11 January, 2010 12:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Made LCDR and ask me what kind of fire was WTC7. Now that does remind me of the Navy. One LCDR (Pilot) wrote a work order for a defective piece of gear: Does not work in O-F-F position. Need I say more?

For all your time at sea you don't mention being a shell back. "Hmmmm'

One floor at a time, one on top of the other. Demolition teams understand just how hard that is to achieve. Every support, every load bearing wall must be demolished simultaneously one floor at a time or the building will topple, fold, slide or otherwise destroy the surrounding buildings. To have a perfect implosion one floor at a time is extremely difficult and not likely caused by a fire of any kind. It raises questions that have not been answered; unless name calling and innuendos count in scientific conclusions.

Forgive me for having questions. I know it is anti social to think for one’s self. To question authority, to doubt my teacher, to second guess my government. Or isn’t that what patriots do. Stand up for what is right even in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Please forgive my impertinence but when something stinks I say so. Like in grade school when they tried to tell me about a cherry tree and lying. I did not buy it, but I did find some interesting quotes in my pursuit of the truth they could have taught me instead. Such as: In a letter from George to Martha, “Being a slave owner it is with mixed emotions I enter into battle with armed men of color, but without their tenacity and fortitude we surely would not have won a single battle to date.”

Giving up the bill of rights is wrong, and without this incident would never have happened. So as a patriot I must question and fight to restore the constitution.

 
At 11 January, 2010 12:50, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Sword of Truth - get your hands off your sword long enough to think before you speak. Quite the obsession you have there. Ever thought about seeking help?

I link to an article in a recognized science and technology publication which states that steel loses 90% of its strength at 1100 degrees below its melting point and did you respond to that?

No.

I point out how in a universe ruled by the laws of physics that 30,000 tons of steel and concrete don't jump 200 feet to the side without being pushed by a massive force and did you respond to that?

No.

Instead you focussed on masturbation jokes and claimed that ~I~ have a problem.

Nice job shooting yourself in the foot, dumbass.

 
At 11 January, 2010 13:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Forgive me for having questions. I know it is anti social to think for one’s self. To question authority, to doubt my teacher, to second guess my government."
Do these assholes all read from the same script they download at infowars.com? LOOK AT ME I'M SO BRAVE FOR ASKING QUESTIONS!!
Get over yourselves and get over your narcissistic persecution complexes.

 
At 11 January, 2010 13:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sword of truth you started it. Can not take it don't dish it!

Sure steel loses its strength when heated. So let us look at a simple experiment. Put a playing card on three other playing cards on there side, you know a house of cards. How does the house fall when only one side is pulled out from under. Wow it falls to the side not straight down. I guess I did answer it.

So one more time for the sword. To get a building to fall straight down requires all support going simultaneously. Otherwise it falls on it's side.

 
At 11 January, 2010 13:38, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"Made LCDR and ask me what kind of fire was WTC7. Now that does remind me of the Navy. One LCDR (Pilot) wrote a work order for a defective piece of gear: Does not work in O-F-F position. Need I say more?"

Relax you little pit snipe - your little story makes no sense. A LCDR would not write a work order. He/She may sign off on one and not pay attention to it - but we both know who initially filled it out.

"For all your time at sea you don't mention being a shell back. "Hmmmm'"

Well when you can actually spell shellback correctly maybe I'll fill you on the details of my initiation

 
At 11 January, 2010 13:42, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Good God Jonesy,have you no shame? "Anonymous" just demolished your whole gang with a grade school analogy and still you spout off like a drunken sailor.What is so tough for you to figure out about the implosion of #7?

 
At 11 January, 2010 13:57, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Sure steel loses its strength when heated. So let us look at a simple experiment. Put a playing card on three other playing cards on there side, you know a house of cards. How does the house fall when only one side is pulled out from under. Wow it falls to the side not straight down. I guess I did answer it.

I just love how this is totally serious. This is up there with Judy Wood's "Keebler Elves" insanity.

Forgive me for having questions. I know it is anti social to think for one’s self. To question authority, to doubt my teacher, to second guess my government. Or isn’t that what patriots do. Stand up for what is right even in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Blah, blah, blah, I'm such a persecuted hero! How about going back to high school, taking a few classes that will teach you how to write, and coming back here when you're capable of making an ounce of sense?

 
At 11 January, 2010 14:04, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Sure steel loses its strength when heated.

Ah, so you agree with Popular Mechanics then, excellent.

Sure steel loses its strength when heated. So let us look at a simple experiment. Put a playing card on three other playing cards on there side...

I'll answer this moronic question when you can link me all the technical organizations that routinely use playing cards to model 1300 foot skyscrapers.

 
At 11 January, 2010 14:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry but pilots, not support personnel write gripes on aircraft. Wrong again.

You are not suggesting a class alpha brought down WTC 7

Sword you deserve no answer.

 
At 11 January, 2010 14:30, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

In other words, you couldn't find any technical organizations that use playing cards to model skyscrapers.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

 
At 11 January, 2010 15:00, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"write gripes on aircraft"

VS

"wrote a work order for a defective piece of gear"

An aircraft is now a piece of gear?

WTF???

Yellow sheets (gripe sheets) are NOT work orders - big difference pit snipe. See NAVAL AVIATION
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (NAMP)- Chapter 13 if I remember correctly

Did you figure out how to spell shellback yet? I would have thought you would have known since you're throwing it around like it gives you some level of crediability.

"You are not suggesting a class alpha brought down WTC 7"

No I'm telling you it and severe structural damage did.

Now tell us about Static Head

 
At 11 January, 2010 16:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, the empirical study NIST threw out was the one where they tried by burning them for two hours to get the floor trusses to sag and only got 2 to 4 inches of sag. They threw the study out and input 46 inches of sag in the computer models.

NY, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that the fireboats can't pump through hoses.

Anon: One floor at a time, one on top of the other. Demolition teams understand just how hard that is to achieve. Every support, every load bearing wall must be demolished simultaneously one floor at a time or the building will topple, fold, slide or otherwise destroy the surrounding buildings. To have a perfect implosion one floor at a time is extremely difficult and not likely caused by a fire of any kind. It raises questions that have not been answered..."

Exactemente! Stick to your guns. The only answers these guys have got is to play dumb. Hey guys, if you pull two legs off a table, does it fall straight down?

SwoT: 30,000 tons of steel and concrete don't jump 200 feet to the side without being pushed by a massive force

Which is what happened in tower two as it tipped 22 degrees. But then it stopped rotating, in violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum. In tower one it didn't jump to the side because the top of the tower came apart before the collapse even started at the impact zone.

Anon is not using playing cards to model skycrapers. He's using playing cards to illustrate physical principles that you can attempt to refute only by pretending you're too dumb to understand.

 
At 11 January, 2010 17:17, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"NY, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that the fireboats can't pump through hoses"

Fucking moron - I've given you the reason that whole idea is idiotic at best.

Show me the specs on the distance and height and the size pumps in those boats and that will prove how fucking retarded you idiots are.

STATIC HEAD!

 
At 11 January, 2010 17:45, Anonymous New Yorker said...

pomeroo, the empirical study NIST threw out was the one where they tried by burning them for two hours to get the floor trusses to sag and only got 2 to 4 inches of sag. They threw the study out and input 46 inches of sag in the computer models.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

NY, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that the fireboats can't pump through hoses.

False.

Hey guys, if you pull two legs off a table, does it fall straight down?

I'm confused. Was the WTC built out of playing cards, or was it a kitchen table? You guys need to get your idiotic analogies straight....

Which is what happened in tower two as it tipped 22 degrees. But then it stopped rotating, in violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Stop pretending that you understand anything about physics, Petgoat.

In tower one it didn't jump to the side because the top of the tower came apart before the collapse even started at the impact zone.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

Anon is not using playing cards to model skycrapers. He's using playing cards to illustrate physical principles that you can attempt to refute only by pretending you're too dumb to understand.

Anonymous needs to see a psychiatrist, as do you, Petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2010 18:05, Blogger Billman said...

No fire on top few floors yet they neatly fall on to the floor below.

Yes, there's this force called "Gravity" and this architectural term called "Weight Loads" etc...

Ever watch a building burn?

I live in Vegas. I see burning buildings all the time. The last "major" fire was the Monte Carlo in 2007, which I saw with my own eyes right outside the wharehouse I was working at. Other than that, all the other fires I've seen since then have been small buildings. Hell, I drive by the FIRE FIGHTER TRAINING CENTER daily.

There are many through history. Funny how the fall over verses neatly imploding one floor at a time.

Funny how THEY fall over? I assume that's what you meant. Typos are no big deal, so correct me if I'm wrong that that's what you mean.

I see buildings collapse when they catch on fire. At least, that's what they do here in Vegas. The Monte Carlo was basically the facade catching fire, as well as some limited cosmetic damage to some top floors. But it wasn't a jet fuel fire either. Just some welding accident.

So you believe the steel gave way evenly over a hundred floors.

Who said evenly? And why does it have to be evenly to give way and cause damage? ONLY things that give way EVENLY can collapse?

Steel reinforced concrete crumbled evenly throughout the entire structure one floor at a time?

Who said evenly? And why does it have to be evenly to give way and cause damage? ONLY things that give way EVENLY can collapse?

And you call me stupid.

Not yet.

I am glad the world is flat for you. But I believe the world is round and could care less about small minded fools without the ability to think for themselves.

Yes, someone disagrees with you so they must be small minded and unable to dress themselves.

Since their opinion is but a repeat of what they heard and not an educated thoughtful deliberation.

As opposed to your repeating of what you saw in a cut and paste video or read of infowars. Yep, that's really an "educated thoughtful deliberation."

I was the fool thinking they could think for themselves. My bad.

If you can't take disagreements, I bet you can't take criticism either.

Never was much of a typist. Sorry if my lack of concern over typos inflicted so much pain.

I always say, people who bitch about that on internet forums are just trying to rile people up intentionally.

Upset my English teachers too. However bad spelling is not the issue.

I agree. Who cares? The point still gets across rite? I mean, right?

 
At 11 January, 2010 18:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JJ, there were 3 fireboats at the WFC harbor: John J. Harvey (18k gpm), Firefighter (20 k gpm), and McKean (19k gpm).

http://www.fireboat.org/history/fleetlist.asp

In fact three lines were run. E-216, E-219, and E-228 were inserted in the lines to relay the pressure.

But the water was never used on WTC7.

You know-it-all asses are full of jack shit.

 
At 11 January, 2010 18:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://nyfd.com/marine/Marine_1_page2.html

 
At 11 January, 2010 18:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

JJ, there were 3 fireboats at the WFC harbor: John J. Harvey (18k gpm), Firefighter (20 k gpm), and McKean (19k gpm).

That's nice, Petgoat.

In fact three lines were run. E-216, E-219, and E-228 were inserted in the lines to relay the pressure.

That's nice, Petgoat.

But the water was never used on WTC7.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

You know-it-all asses are full of jack shit.

Don't be mean, Petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2010 19:10, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"You know-it-all asses are full of jack shit."

Great - now your next step is tell me what the maximum head is on a 18K, 19K, and 20K gpm pump. The diameter of the lines might be helpful too.

Emory - did you get through Chapter 13 of the NAMP yet?

 
At 11 January, 2010 19:26, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Which is what happened in tower two as it tipped 22 degrees. But then it stopped rotating, in violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Wrong.

It was never rotating. The lower portion of the section was pulled inward by the bowing columns but the upper portion remain situated almost directly over the base of the building. There was no rotation, therefore angular momentum wasn't even in effect

Anon is not using playing cards to model skycrapers.

Yes he is.

He pointed out something that happens to stacks of playing cards and stating that it also occurs to skyscrapers.

But you are a truther and that makes you stupid, so naturally you can't see it.

 
At 11 January, 2010 19:45, Blogger Billman said...

JJ, there were 3 fireboats at the WFC harbor: John J. Harvey (18k gpm), Firefighter (20 k gpm), and McKean (19k gpm).

Ok, so were all three of these boats opertaional at the time? Any of them undergoing maintenance or refitting? How long would it take them to get the orders to get underway, get thier engines lit off, crew staffed, underway, and travel time to a posistion to spray the WTC towers before they collapsed, in one case, less than an hour after the attacks began? (obviously there was a lot of time to reach WTC7, but can a fireboat really SPRAY THAT FAR?)

In fact three lines were run. E-216, E-219, and E-228 were inserted in the lines to relay the pressure.

Ok. Good. So how does this prove inside job?

But the water was never used on WTC7.

How far can a fireboat in the harbor shoot inland to reach a building?

You know-it-all asses are full of jack shit

The only one here who seems to think they "know-it-all" is you.

 
At 11 January, 2010 20:23, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Ok. Good. So how does this prove inside job?

Billman, isn't it obvious? The fireboats spraying water on the towers would have doused the smoldering carpets that caused the towers to collapse!

Or maybe the fireboats could have prevented the pyroclastic flows....

I dunno, Brian, you want to explain this to us?

 
At 11 January, 2010 21:03, Blogger Billman said...

Well, he could come back and say that the fireboats could have been used as pumps for the lines set up that COULD reach WTC7. I'm just being a "dumbass" and giving him an opening to say that...

 
At 11 January, 2010 21:10, Blogger Billman said...

I can't understand his thinking.. the fact that none of the boats were launched to fight WTC7 isn't an issue of maintenance or time constraints, or any a number of other damned issues... nope. It's proof of an INSIDE JOB! To think, the NWO missed the Fireboats! WHISTLE BLOW!

Give me a fucking break.. can any of you find any REAL proof that doesn't require an asston of wild speculation, assumptions, and just plain retardedness to even be plausible?

 
At 11 January, 2010 22:08, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

Petdick forgets to mention all three of those boats (only two were owned by NYC - the John J Harvey was decommissioned in 1995 and was privately owned on 9/11/01) were busy that day:

http://www.harborheroes.org/boats.html

http://www.fireboat.org/911.asp

Now where the hell did they put all that AFFF?

 
At 11 January, 2010 23:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JJ, I listed three Engine pumpers used to add pressure to the line.

SwoT: " The lower portion of the section was pulled inward by the bowing columns"

Bullshit. The entire top block of the building is tilting. The top is clearly outside of the footprint of the building. You make up your facts.

Anon was not talking about stacks of playing cards. You invent the arguments you believe you are refuting.

Billman, if you'd bother to look at my links you'd see they were all operational and that three hose lines were run to West Street.

"How far can a fireboat in the harbor shoot inland" You're missing the point. They didn't need to shoot. They ran hose lines to Engines 216, 219, and 228. They ran these as far as West Street, half a block from Building 7.

"he could come back and say that the fireboats could have been used as pumps for the lines set up that COULD reach WTC7."

That's exactly what I'm saying. And the lines went within half a block of WTC7, and had 3 engines augmenting their pressure. The fable that they couldn't fight the fires because there was no water is a fable.

JJ, as my links clearly show, the JJ Harvey ferried some people, then it went into action as a pumper.

 
At 12 January, 2010 00:47, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Anon was not talking about stacks of playing cards. You invent the arguments you believe you are refuting.

Here is what "Anonymous" said:

So let us look at a simple experiment. Put a playing card on three other playing cards on there side, you know a house of cards. How does the house fall when only one side is pulled out from under. Wow it falls to the side not straight down. I guess I did answer it.

Your fellow "anonymous" is using stacks of playing cards to model 1300 foot skyscrapers.

Lying is immoral. Lying when the proof that your lying is a flick of a mouse wheel away is immoral and stupid.

Good work shooting yourself in the foot again, dumbasshole.

 
At 12 January, 2010 05:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
Good God Jonesy,have you no shame? "Anonymous" just demolished your whole gang with a grade school analogy and still you spout off like a drunken sailor.What is so tough for you to figure out about the implosion of #7?

11 January, 2010 13:42"

Oh, Krazee the Balless Wonder Klown™ is still here.

More's the pity.


"Hey guys, if you pull two legs off a table, does it fall straight down?"

Anjd boron is still fucking moron.

 
At 12 January, 2010 06:35, Blogger Billman said...

That's exactly what I'm saying. And the lines went within half a block of WTC7, and had 3 engines augmenting their pressure. The fable that they couldn't fight the fires because there was no water is a fable.

I agree, that's a fable. I agree, there were lines set up to fight the fires...

Now... can we think of a reason why they DIDN'T fight the fires? Perhaps something to do with why they said all afternoon that the building was coming down hours before it did that doesn't involve a conspiracy about bombs?

Maybe it had something to do with...

http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%207%20fire/representativepress/WTC7Fire.jpg

or with...

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911_files/image001.jpg

and the fact that the entire building was beginning to collapse and was unsalvagable from the structural damage caused by the North Tower Collapsing on it? Maybe?

Nah, it's probably thermite column-cutting super bombs. I mean, even though no troofer can explain how fast a building SHOULD collapse when it'd been on fire, or hit by another building's debris, IT WAS STILL TOO FAST! LIKE OUT OF A MOVIE! THEREFORE INSIDE JOB!

Yeah, so how's your investigation going? I remember 84% of "everyone who ever lived ever," agreeing with you at one point. What's happening with that?

 
At 12 January, 2010 06:41, Blogger Billman said...

Bullshit. The entire top block of the building is tilting. The top is clearly outside of the footprint of the building. You make up your facts.

Wait a minute.. I thought troofers were always complaining that the building "Fell into it's own footprint! = INSIDE JOB!"

Yeah, this debris is surely "inside the buildings footprint":

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/collapse/sydney_engineeringaspects_files/wtc_collapse1.jpg

So.. now they're finally agreeing with us and saying the debris is falling outside the footprint.. and now THAT = INSIDE JOB?

I'm confused.

 
At 12 January, 2010 06:48, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The entire top block of the building is tilting. The top is clearly outside of the footprint of the building. You make up your facts.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

Anon was not talking about stacks of playing cards. You invent the arguments you believe you are refuting.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And the lines went within half a block of WTC7, and had 3 engines augmenting their pressure. The fable that they couldn't fight the fires because there was no water is a fable.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 12 January, 2010 10:25, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Yes Billman,you are confused.Take another look at the South Tower exploding.How is the pile driver effect going to happen when the top of the building is at a 22 degree angle?

 
At 12 January, 2010 11:08, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Take another look at the South Tower exploding.

It isn't exploding.

How is the pile driver effect going to happen when the top of the building is at a 22 degree angle?

It's still situated over the buildings footprint.

 
At 12 January, 2010 11:57, Blogger Triterope said...

I can't understand his thinking.. the fact that none of the boats were launched to fight WTC7 isn't an issue of maintenance or time constraints, or any a number of other issues... nope. It's proof of an INSIDE JOB!

And if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, any drop of water in lower Manhattan that wasn't directed towards extinguishing the WTC fires proves DURR INSIDE JOBBY JOB DURRRRRRR. What an idiot.

 
At 12 January, 2010 13:16, Anonymous Troofers Belong in North Korea said...

From my friends at The Jawa Report:

Cindy "I Need Attention" Sheehan Floats Back Up
The turd that can't be flushed has reared her stinky, rotten melon once again.

This time it is for a worthy cause, to bring attention to Irritable Bowel Synd.....what? Its to protest the one and only weapon we have against killing the most dangerous Islamic extremists whose goal is to spread their sick form of Islamic Law to the entire planet from their safe haven in Pakistan? Oh... I see.

Keep flushing people! Get the plunger!

I'm not linking the attention whore. If you want the full lowdown, Google it. The bottom line here is that she, and her fellow deuces, are protesting drone strikes at Langley this Saturday. After that, they will be walking to Cheney's house to "blowhorn" him. Also, hope he "blowhorns" back with something with a little tighter pattern than bird shot. Oh, and Cynthia McKinney will be there also. That should be good for a laugh.

 
At 12 January, 2010 14:30, Blogger Triterope said...

After that, they will be walking to Cheney's house to "blowhorn" him. Also, hope he "blowhorns" back with something with a little tighter pattern than bird shot.

No need. He can just call the police and have them charged with trespassing, violating noise ordinances, or whatever local laws exist. There is Supreme Court precedent for this; see Frisby v. Schultz.

 
At 12 January, 2010 20:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SwoT, you clearly don't know what a stack is.

Billman, those smokey pictures just show the smoke being sucked up in the vortex on the lee side of WTC7. The wind was from the NW. There's a picture showing the same thing on WTC1--it sucks up all the smoke and dust from WTC2 and it looks like it's belching smoke from every window.

If WTC7 was damaged so severely it was about to collapse, how did it survive losing all its interior floors and columns as NIST claims? You can't have it both ways.

The twin towers did not fall into their own footprint. WTC7 fell very nearly into its footprint, into a tidy pile.

TR, your invoking of the inside job is dumb. Why didn't you say "inside jobby job"? That's ever so much more clever.

 
At 12 January, 2010 20:31, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Billman, those smokey pictures just show the smoke being sucked up in the vortex on the lee side of WTC7. The wind was from the NW. There's a picture showing the same thing on WTC1--it sucks up all the smoke and dust from WTC2 and it looks like it's belching smoke from every window.

Vortex? I'm not really fluent in Petgoat's brand of crazyspeak, but is he saying that the smoke pouring from WTC 7 wasn't really pouring from WTC 7? Wasn't he just arguing how fireboats should have been used on WTC 7? Do you even read your own posts, Petgoat?

If WTC7 was damaged so severely it was about to collapse, how did it survive losing all its interior floors and columns as NIST claims?

It didn't survive. It collapsed. You're aware of this little fact, right Petgoat?

WTC7 fell very nearly into its footprint, into a tidy pile.

False.

TR, your invoking of the inside job is dumb.

So you're back to LIHOP this week, Petgoat? That's nice.

 
At 12 January, 2010 20:46, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

SwoT, you clearly don't know what a stack is.

What you really mean by that is "You win, Sword". You declared that the other anon wasn't talking about using playing cards to model skyscrapers and got your ass handed to you. And now you're trying to keep it from being a total loss by quibling over the word "stack".

I've taken ground, you've surrendered it. I win.

If WTC7 was damaged so severely it was about to collapse, how did it survive losing all its interior floors and columns as NIST claims? You can't have it both ways.

NIST says no such thing you lying piece of filth.


The twin towers did not fall into their own footprint.


That's not what 9/11 truthers say.

WTC7 fell very nearly into its footprint, into a tidy pile.

No it didn't. The Verizon building suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damage from impacts by WTC7 debris. Fitterman hall was so severely damaged by WTC7 that it couldn't be repaired and had to be demolished. All of Barclay Street was completely blocked off by WTC7.

WTC7 no more fell into its own footprint than me punching your bloody teeth in would be keeping to my own personal space.

Just how @#$%ing stupid are you?

 
At 12 January, 2010 22:12, Blogger Billman said...

Oh jesus... you troofers really are Bukkaked with stupid.

 
At 12 January, 2010 22:28, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

If WTC7 was damaged so severely it was about to collapse, how did it survive losing all its interior floors and columns as NIST claims?

It didn't survive. It collapsed. You're aware of this little fact, right Petgoat?


Yep... goathumper just told us that NIST said that WTC7 survived... in thier report on why it collapsed.

What a gawddamn idiot.

Sofa king wee todd did.

 
At 13 January, 2010 00:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor SwoT, reduced to the "what you really mean" gambit. Anon was not modeling skyscrapers with playing cards any more than Gage was modeling them with boxes. Sorry these things are too subtle for you, but hey, I'm not responsible for your DNA.

NIST says the entire interior of WTC7 collapsed--floors and columns, leaving an empty shell standing which then fell in 6.5 seconds. I'm not surprised you react angrily--even you can see that it's an incredibly stupid argument. That's what the WTC7 report says.

Richard Gage says the twin towers did not fall into their footprints. The Verizon bld did not suffer hundreds of millions in damage. Verizon used the minor damage as an excuse to undertake a massive renovation.

If WTC7 were severely damaged and in danger of collapse, the shell would have collapsed when the interior collapsed. It didn't. NIST says the alleged structural damage from WTC1 wreckage played no part in initiation of WTC7's collapse.

You are very poorly informed.

 
At 13 January, 2010 05:57, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Anon was not modeling skyscrapers with playing cards any more than Gage was modeling them with boxes. Sorry these things are too subtle for you, but hey, I'm not responsible for your DNA.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

NIST says the entire interior of WTC7 collapsed--floors and columns, leaving an empty shell standing which then fell in 6.5 seconds. I'm not surprised you react angrily--even you can see that it's an incredibly stupid argument. That's what the WTC7 report says.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

Richard Gage says the twin towers did not fall into their footprints. The Verizon bld did not suffer hundreds of millions in damage. Verizon used the minor damage as an excuse to undertake a massive renovation.

Richard Gage is a lying charlatan, so citing him means you've already lost the argument, and also, you have proof that the Verizon building wasn't damaged, right Petgoat?

If WTC7 were severely damaged and in danger of collapse, the shell would have collapsed when the interior collapsed. It didn't. NIST says the alleged structural damage from WTC1 wreckage played no part in initiation of WTC7's collapse.

You know this because......?

You are very poorly informed.

It's incredible how many comical lies you need to repeat in order to keep this gigantic delusion going in your mind. And you wonder why all of us tell you to see a psychiatrist....

 
At 13 January, 2010 06:17, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Anon was not modeling skyscrapers with playing cards any more than Gage was modeling them with boxes.

Yes he was, on both counts. You mental midget.

NIST says the entire interior of WTC7 collapsed

No they didn't, you inbred half-wit.

The Verizon bld did not suffer hundreds of millions in damage. Verizon used the minor damage as an excuse to undertake a massive renovation.

Prove it, bitch.

Until you do, us normals will assume that the Verizon building was hammered by WTC7.

NIST says the alleged structural damage from WTC1 wreckage played no part in initiation of WTC7's collapse.

The entire building was on fire, you syphilitic whore.

You've already admitted that Popular Mechanics was right about the fires, remember?

 
At 13 January, 2010 06:57, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The Verizon bld did not suffer hundreds of millions in damage. Verizon used the minor damage as an excuse to undertake a massive renovation.

It's stuff like this that makes Brian Good so entertaining. Yes, the Verizon company used the attack as an excuse to undertake a sinister....RENOVATION OF THEIR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS!!!!!

I can picture the scene of conspiring executives wondering how they'll ever be able to renovate a 75-year-old building without the FBI finding out, then, huzzah! WTC 7 collapses and causes minor superficial damage to the building, which they use as a cover to carry out their diabolical scheme.

And they would have gotten away with it, if not for a middle-aged unemployed janitor in California. Curses!

 
At 13 January, 2010 09:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys are woefully uninformed. You don't even know what the official report about WTC7 says (diesel fuel played no part, non-fire-related structural damage played no part in the collapse initiation, the entire interior of the building fell down leaving the shell standing), and when I tell you what it says you say nobody cares.

And then you try to twist a simple factual observation about the financial magnitude of the Verizon damage into some loony conspiracy.

You guys are the Kevin Barretts and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Rankes of the debunker movement. Pat and James B are actually pretty reasonable people. If I were them I would ban you, 'cause you make debunkers look like lying idiots.

 
At 13 January, 2010 10:25, Anonymous New Yorker said...

You guys are woefully uninformed. You don't even know what the official report about WTC7 says (diesel fuel played no part, non-fire-related structural damage played no part in the collapse initiation, the entire interior of the building fell down leaving the shell standing), and when I tell you what it says you say nobody cares.

Right! Nobody cares what you say, Brian, since you've proven yourself to be a liar, an ignoramus, and a lunatic who stalks women (and men).

And then you try to twist a simple factual observation about the financial magnitude of the Verizon damage into some loony conspiracy.

You're the one who claimed that the damage was slight. You're the one who needs to invent things about the collapse of WTC 7 in order to keep this tottering edifice of "inside job!" propped up in that diseased mind of yours.

You guys are the Kevin Barretts and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Rankes of the debunker movement.

There is no debunker "movement", Petgoat. Also, those guys are liars and/or lunatics, so they're far more like you than like any reasonable person here.

If I were them I would ban you, 'cause you make debunkers look like lying idiots.

Nobody cares about your opinions, Petgoat.

 
At 13 January, 2010 12:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The damage to the Verizon building was trivial. Look at the pictures.
You make stuff up and then call other people liars.

 
At 13 January, 2010 13:05, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 January, 2010 13:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

It's amazing that you conspiracy liars can sustain your energy for promoting tired, thoroughly debunked rubbish year after year. Seriously, it's over. It's been over for a long time. Your evil, mindless cult never produced a shred of evidence for its stupid myths. Try as you might, you haven't come close to presenting an coherent narrative that incorporates your imaginary conspiracy. Your fantasy is absurd. A movement built entirely on hatred of America, dishonesty, and all-encompassing ignorance deserves to go nowhere.

 
At 13 January, 2010 13:34, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Here's what the Bozo,"Sword of Truth" actually said: "It's still over the footprint of the building"!!??!! And then "pomeroo" actually said that there have been no leaks from the FBI! yea,dingbat,no leaks,only attempts to go public with books spelling out the highly suspect behavior of the brass at the Agency.Keeping track,Boyo,and those two will be getting a special place on the mantelpiece! My father always encouraged me to think before I spoke,and you now,I'm glad he did!

 
At 13 January, 2010 13:59, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The damage to the Verizon building was trivial.

False.

Look at the pictures.

I have.

You make stuff up and then call other people liars.

Well, I call you a liar because you are one, but I don't make stuff up.

I do find it hilarious that you don't object to me calling you mentally ill. I'm also happy to see that you're no longer denying being Petgoat.

 
At 13 January, 2010 14:01, Anonymous New Yorker said...

My father always encouraged me to think before I spoke

And he weeps silently over his failure as a parent, given the drooling ignoramus he raised.

 
At 13 January, 2010 15:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Verizon building on 9/11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verizon_building_damage.jpg

 
At 13 January, 2010 16:29, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, your invoking of the inside job is dumb. Why didn't you say "inside jobby job"? That's ever so much more clever.

If I were forced to take either comedy tips from Brian Good or a cactus in my ass... well, I'd take the comedy tips. But I'd have to think about it for a second.

 
At 13 January, 2010 20:25, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, Arhoolie, you lose--conspiracy liars always lose. There are no leaks from the FBI. The chatterbox Sibel Edmonds is not a twoofer and has never said anything remotely helpful to the fantasy movement.

 
At 14 January, 2010 09:24, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Hey Pom Pom Gitl,if I'm standing on your chest as you gasp for air,how does that qualify as a loss for me? Bozo,you have some boning up to do and,no,I don't mean more jacking off.Do the names Rowley and Samit ring a bell? Only the simpleton propaganda munchersof the Debunker Cult are satisfied with the decision to NOT allow the Minnesota office to examine Moussaoui's laptop.Turned out there was a motherlode of pertinent info on that thing.Good luck bloviating that one away!!

 
At 14 January, 2010 12:14, Blogger pomeroo said...

Arhoolie,
I wish I could congratulate you on a game try, but, sorry, you fail again. You are a conspiracy liar: you can do nothing BUT fail. Your silly fantasy is quite dead:

http://911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html

 
At 14 January, 2010 14:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, what amazing nonsense from pomeroo. Edmonds said nothing helpful to truthers? What about her info about the Iranian intel informant who warned four months before 9/11 of an upcoming attack from Osama involving airplanes?

The damage to the Verizon Building was trivial. There was never any danger that it would collapse.

 
At 14 January, 2010 14:24, Blogger pomeroo said...

An anonymous liar wonders about my "amazing nonsense." Uh, if Edmonds was hearning warnings about Osama and a jihadist attack using planes, what exactly does that have to do with the fantasy movement's cherished myths? Did you overlook something here? Real terrorists flying real planes into real buildings = reality. Your evil, deranged movement pretends that an imaginary conspiracy was responsible. Remember?

 
At 14 January, 2010 15:18, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

walt's problem is he hates the US so bad it clouds whatever little reasoning skills he had.

Troofers latch on to that little turkist cunt because her agenda includes shitting all over the US also.

Funny because that dinosaur she calls a husband was a huge Bush supporter when the government was pumping money into his company. They only got all spacebarguylike after that teet dried up.

 
At 14 January, 2010 15:32, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Pom Pom Girl,you have a lot to learn.Did you know before 9/11 that our FBI,DIA,CIA et al. were such total and complete fuck ups? When you used to get crushed at Missile Command did you jsut keep throwing quarters at the machine? Probably.

 
At 14 January, 2010 15:59, Anonymous Always wipe after taking a troofer said...

"When you used to get crushed at Missile Command did you jsut keep throwing quarters at the machine? Probably"

Great analogy snapperhead!

 
At 14 January, 2010 16:30, Anonymous New Yorker said...

What about her info about the Iranian intel informant who warned four months before 9/11 of an upcoming attack from Osama involving airplanes?

So you're LIHOP now, Brian? Good, can you cease babbling about supposed anomalies in the towers collapses? Thanks.

The damage to the Verizon Building was trivial. There was never any danger that it would collapse.

Trivial:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Trivial:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Verizon_building_damage.jpg

Yes, a trivial $1.4 billion was needed to repair it.

Brian, just because the building wasn't about to collapse doesn't make the damage trivial. You might want to learn the meaning of that word, along with the meaning of the term "QED".

 
At 14 January, 2010 16:32, Anonymous New Yorker said...

And it's worth noting that the damage in the first photo was specifically from parts of WTC 7.

Brian loses yet again, just as he did when he wanted to get in Carol Brouillet's pants.

 
At 14 January, 2010 21:15, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

You don't even know what the official report about WTC7 says (diesel fuel played no part,

We already knew about this.

non-fire-related structural damage played no part in the collapse

We know about this too.

the entire interior of the building fell down leaving the shell standing),

This is a lie and therefore irrelevant.

The thing about the impact damage and the diesel fuel is that we don't need them to explain the collapse.

WTC7 was the largest office building fire in galactic history. Massive fires roaring on every floor is more than enough to bring any steel framed building down.

 
At 14 January, 2010 23:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

Arhoolie,

Yes, there is always a lot to learn. But, agenda-driven ignoramuses have nothing to teach. Predictably, you ignored a devastating blow to your fantasies.

Any warning about real jihadists undermines your stupid conspiracy theory.

Repeat the above sentence out loud as often as necessary for it to sink in.

Yes, many of us were worried that the artificial walls separating agencies and the guidelines prohibiting effective intelligence gathering on the ground--both legacies of liberal Democrats in Congress--had created a dangerous situation. A national security disaster was inevitable.

 
At 15 January, 2010 09:10, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

What's it like being a Pom Pom Girl for scumbags like Kissinger and Perle and Bandar Bush? Have you looked into the Shaffer story? Your position that the intelligence agencies and the security state was disastrously weakened by liberals or Dems is ludicrous.Just in their black budgets alone they have many billions.Why the hell do you think we are locked in on Afghanistan? You really have to be a sap to be unaware of the heroin factor.The point,Goofy,is that the "jihadist operatives" invariably have obvious links to the FBI,The Company and their mateys,worldwide.You MUST know about Emad Salem's story,right? That's old news and even liberals like Olbermann have been bringing that out for years now.The crux of the issue is that the privatization of the security state has created a ticking time bomb aimed right at the heads of all of us.

 
At 15 January, 2010 09:29, Anonymous Jim Jones said...

"The crux of the issue is that the privatization of the security state has created a ticking time bomb aimed right at the heads of all of us."

And all you're doing is dining at the Oyster Bar and posting on here...?

Can't be a very big time bomb...

 
At 15 January, 2010 10:44, Blogger pomeroo said...

Arhoolie,
You waste everybody's time. Your mathematically-impossible conspiracy doesn't exist. Now, you want to resurrect ancient lefty canards about the CIA. Make up your tiny mind. My position that intelligence agencies were severely weakened by congressional Democrats is beyond dispute. We are stuck in Afghanistan because the Anointed One painted himself into a corner and foolishly called it the important war (it isn't, by the way), to avoid giving Bush credit for transforming the Middle East by removing Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Ladin has absolutely no links to the CIA or FBI, as you know. As it is impossible for you to get a real life, at least find some new material.

 
At 15 January, 2010 18:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, what seems to escape you is that ignored warnings about upcoming attacks and official lies about it in the investigation is part of what truthers want investigated.

Also you're wrong about no connections between Osama and the CIA. He met with CIA man Larry Mitchell two months before 9/11 in the American Hospital in Dubai.



SwoT, you're wrong. The WTC7 report says the entire interior of the building fell down, leaving the shell standing, which then fell down itself. Hard to believe that NIST could claim something so stupid, I know, but that's their unbelievable story.

There were not massive fires on every floor. That's your fantasy. Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in an area before they've burned all the fuel. Says NIST.

 
At 15 January, 2010 22:08, Anonymous New Yorker said...

pomeroo, what seems to escape you is that ignored warnings about upcoming attacks and official lies about it in the investigation is part of what truthers want investigated.

So the "truth" movement is all LIHOP now? Someone needs to tell David Ray Griffin....

Also you're wrong about no connections between Osama and the CIA. He met with CIA man Larry Mitchell two months before 9/11 in the American Hospital in Dubai.

So Osama bin Laden is responsible for the attacks? That's good to know, Petgoat.

SwoT, you're wrong. The WTC7 report says the entire interior of the building fell down, leaving the shell standing, which then fell down itself. Hard to believe that NIST could claim something so stupid, I know, but that's their unbelievable story.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

There were not massive fires on every floor. That's your fantasy. Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in an area before they've burned all the fuel. Says NIST.

False.

 
At 16 January, 2010 06:17, Blogger pomeroo said...

Our anonymous liar is shoveling the cow patties furiously in a desperate but doomed attempt to silence the laughter.

Let's dispose of today's steaming pile:

No, warnings weren't ignored. The wall erected by congressional Democrats--remember?--prevented intelligence-gathering agencies from making efficient use of information. Apparently, there wasn't sufficient specificity in the warnings to prevent the attacks.

No, conspiracy liars don't want to investigate anything. They are quite content to recycle endlessly their bogus science and distorted quotes.

No, Osama did not meet in Dubai with anyone from the CIA. There is nothing to suggest that Osama was in Dubai before the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01.

NIST is telling an "unbelievable" story? Can you explain why agenda-driven ignoramuses like yourself don't believe it, although the worldwide community of structural engineers does?

 
At 16 January, 2010 08:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would still be nice to know why the FBI, an agency not especially known for its love of the Fourth Amendment, was so allergic to looking at Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested in August 2001.

The so-called "wall" seems a bit exaggerated in the case of 9/11, especially given the fact "the system was blinking red" (as even the 9/11 Commission Report sort of admits, although without any lists of the warnings that came in from US allies - Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline is more useful for that information).

from the RAND corporation:

www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/MR1251.Chap4.pdf

Anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that federal prevention programs are reasonably effective. For example, the GAO has recently noted that federal agencies have successfully participated in many counterterrorist activities:

In actual operations and special events, agencies generally coordinated their activities. For example, we examined several overseas counterterrorist operations and found that agencies generally fol- lowed the draft interagency International Guidelines. DoD, the FBI, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) performed their respec- tive roles in military planning, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering under the oversight of the State Department (e.g., the ambassador). Minor interagency tensions or conflicts during these operations were resolved and did not appear to have posed risk to the missions.29

 
At 16 January, 2010 12:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were a JREF scholar. You lie just like NY. Warnings were ignored. Condi was briefed by the CIA May 30 and July 10 and August 6. These were urgent warnings. Richard Blee said "There wil be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!" Tenet and Cofer Black later said they felt that this warning could have stopped 9/11 if Rice had acted on it.

You have no evidence that any structural engineer in the world believes NIST's WTC7 report. I would characterize the reaction as "stunned silence".

Further to the "firewall" myth, James Bamford's PBS program "The Spy Factory" and the associated blog reports Bamford's opinion that the law not only permitted the CIA to share info about the alleged hijackers with the FBI, it obligated then to, and the blocking of communications by the CIA was illegal.

 
At 16 January, 2010 13:23, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Warnings were ignored. Condi was briefed by the CIA May 30 and July 10 and August 6. These were urgent warnings. Richard Blee said "There wil be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!" Tenet and Cofer Black later said they felt that this warning could have stopped 9/11 if Rice had acted on it.

So you think bin Laden did it?

You have no evidence that any structural engineer in the world believes NIST's WTC7 report. I would characterize the reaction as "stunned silence".

Wait, nevermind, bin Laden didn't do it.


Further to the "firewall" myth, James Bamford's PBS program "The Spy Factory" and the associated blog reports Bamford's opinion that the law not only permitted the CIA to share info about the alleged hijackers with the FBI, it obligated then to, and the blocking of communications by the CIA was illegal.

Wait, now we're back to bin Laden did it?

Brian, are there multiple voices in your head telling you to type these things? Did they also tell you to that Carol Brouillet loves you? Are they telling you that you will become rich and famous for exposing the 9/11 conspiracy?

I really think you need professional help.

 
At 16 January, 2010 13:30, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Pom Pom Girl gets his/her talking points straight from the desk of the reprehensible and sick mind of Rush Limbaugh.Once more with feeling Bozo:why didn't Moussaoui's laptop get opened while the system was blinking red? Move on over to Harry Samit when you are comfortable.For extra credit and a free copy of the Troy Sexton file secreted out of the West Virginia Secret Police Records Division,address the Col.Shaffer issue.Hint:you really don't need to go much farther than George Tenet's modified,limited hangout on all this.

 
At 16 January, 2010 13:34, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

I'm Arhoolie,he's "anonymous",OK Sackchappie? And boy,are we kicking your weak butts all up and down Broadway,or what? It's time for working class hero RonaldWeak to step up to the rescue with some more Paleo-Conservative precision.

 
At 16 January, 2010 18:35, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 January, 2010 18:37, Blogger pomeroo said...

We check the timeline:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline


Hmmm, lots of confusion, many contradictory statements. Could the attacks have been prevented? Not clear. Did anybody have actionable knowledge about the timing and nature of the attacks? No.

So, the resident conspiracy liars have at last agreed that their imaginary conspiracy is as nonsensical as the rationalists have claimed all along. Real jihadists flew real planes into real buildings. The madness finally is over. That's a relief.

The agenda-driven dunce Arhoolie pretends that he and his anonymous simpleton sidekick are kicking the butts of their intellectual and moral superiors. They are doing it, apparently, by being proved wrong at every turn.

No, I never listen to Rush Limbaugh. Sorry, morons, but it's no big deal. You clowns are used to being wrong.

There are tens of thousands of structural engineers in the USA alone, and many thousands more in the rest of the world. When will we see a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal pointing out errors in the NIST reports? Why are these "errors" detectable only by ignoramuses with no technical backgrounds? There was no "stunned silence," and nobody sane thinks there was. You have been caught lying again.

You always lose, sucker.

16 January, 2010 18:35

 
At 17 January, 2010 11:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Pom Pom Girl,I understood everything except the explanation! Something about "moral superiority"? "No actionable specifics"? "No structural engineers questioning the NIST Reports"? You really are quite a card,my man!! Anything on Shaffer,yet?

 
At 17 January, 2010 11:26, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Pom Pom Girl truly is a poor man's Philip Zelikow.Throw the Debunker Cult an easy lob and watch as they ricochet like pinballs all over the lot!! We all notice with alarm that his gang of the usual idiots steers very clear of touching the Moussaoui laptop scandal.Ain't going there hey Fellas?!?

 
At 17 January, 2010 12:41, Blogger pomeroo said...

No, Arhoolie, you didn't understand anything. You are a conspiracy liar, remember?

No structural engineers anywhere in the world have published peer-reviewed papers pointing out errors of science in the NIST reports. Why the "errors" should be discernible only to ignorant, agenda-driven fools remains a mystery.

There were no actionable specifics in the hundreds of warnings received by intelligence-gathering agencies before 9/11.

What can the "Moussaoui laptop scandal" possibly signify to ineducable morons who pretend that Bush and Cheney orchestrated the attacks? Moussaoui, after all, is a real jihadist. Are you prepared to state that you have abandoned your MIHOP fantasies for a diluted version of LIHOP?

Kean and Hamilton dismiss Able Danger in their book. I note that Col. Shaffer is not a twoofer.

You're not doing very well here.

 
At 18 January, 2010 12:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, Tenet and Blee said that if Condi had acted on their 7/10 warnings, 9/11 could have been prevented.

Framing the issue as "pointing out errors of science in the NIST reports" is dishonest. NIST is wrong not because of what is in the report, but what they left out of it.

Nobody's going to write a peer-reviewed criticism unless they've read the 10,000 pages, and nobody's going to read the 10,000 pages.

 
At 18 January, 2010 13:20, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 January, 2010 13:22, Blogger pomeroo said...

Anonymous,
You keep bleating about real-world controversies. You're a conspiracy liar--you don't care about reality. I notice that no one will ever address a specific question, no matter how often I ask it. Let's try again: Have you abandoned your MIHOP fantasies? Are you now accepting the fact that real jihadists hijacked real planes? Your thoughts, please.

No, George Tenet doesn't blame Condi. Incidentally, we never find out exactly why the evil Bushies wanted to orchestrate a trillion-dollar hit on the U.S. economy and midwife a recession for which they got blamed. There must be a punchline to this unfunny shaggy dog story. No Iraqi oil was stolen, nobody is building a gas pipeline in Afghanistan, and no American armies are marching across the Middle East. Bush and Cheney are retired. So, what was the point?

Your bluff about the NIST report was called and you had nothing. It's time to stop these silly games. Yes, there are people who have read, or at least scanned, all 10,000 pages. What was "left out"? You haven't the slightest idea. You're just blowing smoke again.

It's over. Get a life.

 
At 18 January, 2010 15:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree the demolition story is BS and the so-called jihadists really hijacked the planes.

But there were also many warnings that were highly specific about who, what, where, when the attacks would happen. Obviously, all of the information is not public (and never will be) but there's enough in the public domain that the incompetence excuse is just as BS as the nanothermite science fiction story.

As for the motive, the US did send new armies into the Middle East, did change the Iraqi government, has more forces in the vicinity of the oil (in preparation for the decline of the oil, when it will be much more valuable and strategic), did occupy the Afghan poppy fields, among other accomplishments. Bush and Cheney were not 100% successful in their war plan, however, so their distant cousin (literally) Obama is now the new face of the empire. It is interesting that both the neo-cons and VP Biden support redrawing the borders of Iraq via ethnic conflict to better control the oil. That goal requires lots of violence to implement, and the War on Iraq could never have happened without the "shock and awe" of 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission Report discussion of Moussaoui's laptop reads like a slapstick comedy, but it's a little less than believable. No mention of Dave Frasca ...

And the Commission Report didn't talk about the warnings that came in to the Bush White House that are detailed in the Complete 9/11 Timeline. Also, no mention of "Able Danger" tracking some of the perpetrators for years (or even a dismissal of the claim), nor any mention of the CIA's "plane into building" exercise during 9/11 at the National Reconnaissance Office near Dulles Airport.

It's certainly more fun to track the nonsense peddled by the 9/11 truth movement about demolition and faked plane crashes, but I'm more interested in why the warnings from US allies and FBI agents were suppressed.

 
At 18 January, 2010 15:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

t
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
-- Condoleeza Rice May 16 2002 Press Conference:

"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."
-- CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July 2001


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
"This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination"
Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6, 2003, The Guardian

excerpt:

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."



"They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." - Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."
- Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11


"There were lots of warnings."
-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]."
-- Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11

 
At 18 January, 2010 16:00, Blogger pomeroo said...

Well, anonymous, it's good to know that you are capable of rejecting the most idiotic conspiracy theory ever invented. If you want to rehash all the ancient lefty talking points, however, I must beg off. There was a tremendous amount of "chatter" suggesting that an attack was in the works. There was nothing specific. Should the known terrorists operating inside the U.S. have been monitored better? I certainly think that someone dropped the ball. But, it's senseless to keep following a spoor that leads nowhere. We didn't remove Saddam to "steal" Iraqi oil.

 
At 18 January, 2010 23:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, it is simple-minded to think that the mere presence of a few real jihadist patsies does away with the MIHOP case.

Why hit the US economy? Because it was going to happen anyway when the ENRON news and the Tyco news and the Artie Anderson news and the Worldcom news came out. Besides, when you know the hit is coming, you can hedge.

What was left out of NIST? Oh, just everything important: how a partial asymmetrical collapse propagated across the robust structural core to become symmetrical, total, and "essentially in free fall". They left out the molten steel and the pulverization of the concrete and the energetics of the collapse.

Maybe we didn't go to Iraq to steal the oil but to take it off the market, keeping the price high.

 
At 19 January, 2010 00:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

multiple "anonymouses"

Some of the warnings sent to the Bush White House were very specific about what, when, where, who. Some of them were not.

I defy any defender of the official story to explain the issue of the FBI suddenly becoming supportive of not looking at people's laptop computers, even if they're arrested on terrorist suspicions and allied intel services tell them that the suspect (Moussaoui) had received terror training in Afghanistan. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants, but it does not prohibit searches. That strongly suggests that higher ups wanted the attacks to happen, it doesn't neatly fit the incompetence theories, nor does the plane into building exercise timed for the exact moment that 9/11 unfurled.

As for WTC 7, I'm persuaded by the firefighters who said they watched the building leaning all afternoon and agree the demolition claims are junk science. It's sad the truth movement got diverted onto that, but it's a great distraction from looking at suppressed warnings.

 
At 19 January, 2010 01:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frasca rewrote the FISA warrant request in such a way as to make it not get granted. Which was very rare. Almost all the FISA requests were granted.

There's video of one alleged firefighter claiming the building was leaning. He's very clean, and he seems furtive. Every time somebody walks by behind him he stops talking and looks around.

 
At 19 January, 2010 07:02, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Ah yes, Brian Good still babbling away in dead threads.

pomeroo, it is simple-minded to think that the mere presence of a few real jihadist patsies does away with the MIHOP case.

False.

Why hit the US economy? Because it was going to happen anyway when the ENRON news and the Tyco news and the Artie Anderson news and the Worldcom news came out. Besides, when you know the hit is coming, you can hedge.

What on earth are you babbling about?

What was left out of NIST? Oh, just everything important: how a partial asymmetrical collapse propagated across the robust structural core to become symmetrical, total, and "essentially in free fall". They left out the molten steel and the pulverization of the concrete and the energetics of the collapse.

YES!!!! Cue the music, Brian Good has returned to his greatest hits of abject insanity. Babbling about asymmetrical collapses, pulverization of concrete and molten steel. Now all you need to do is babble about widows and Willie Rodriguez, call us girls, and deny being Petgoat. C'mon Brian, you can do this!

Anyway, Brian, the fact remains that the NIST report explains everything and you're still a deeply disturbed person who stalks married women.

 
At 19 January, 2010 08:21, Blogger pomeroo said...

No, anonymous, your effort here is very poor. Recycling ancient talking points that never made much sense just won't cut it.

Yes, real jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. They carried out a plan that exploited gaping holes in America's security system, making the most spectacular of a long series of attacks a stunning victory for their medieval ideology. In what coherent sense were they "patsies"? You imagine that by blithely tossing about terms you don't understand you are making substantive points.

Your hopelessly misguided attempt to tie Clinton-era scandals to the Bush administration was exposed long ago. Crooks like Ken Lay and Terry McAuliffe (who amassed fabulous wealth through the Global Crossing fiasco and was rewarded by being named DNC chairman) ran wild under Clinton. The Enron crowd was brought to justice under Bush--remember? The fantasy that these scandals somehow justified orchestrating an event that nearly bankrupted several airlines, crushed the tourism industry, and destroyed the economy of the nation's largest city is utter madness. The collapse of the dot-com bubble produced a recession that Bush inherited. Recovery was underway when 9/11 derailed it. Why anyone would dream that Bush desired a massive blow to an already fragile economy is a mystery to rationalists who lack insight into the paranoid mind.

Your ridiculous babble in the paragraph about the NIST reports illustrates the futility of engaging twoofers. You know nothing about the contents of these reports, and refuse to attempt to read them. NIST "left out" the molten steel and the pulverization of the concrete because there was no molten steel and most of the concrete was not pulverized (yes, the gypsum wallboard was pulverized, creating clouds of dust). These facts are terribly inconvenient to your fantasy, but you must learn to live with them. Those of us who live in NYC and frequently walked by Ground Zero noticed the large pieces of concrete; nobody noticed any molten steel. Neither the towers nor WTC 7 came down in free-fall (the videos provide a hint by showing debris falling faster than the buildings, but twoofers aren't smart enough to reason out the significance).

The questions you conspicuously ignore give away the game. WHY HAVE NO ENGINEERS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD FOUND ERRORS OF SCIENCE IN THE NIST REPORTS? Until you deal with the lack of dissent in the engineering community, your uninformed fabrications will never rise above the level of agenda-driven ranting.

 
At 19 January, 2010 08:44, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Why anyone would dream that Bush desired a massive blow to an already fragile economy is a mystery to rationalists who lack insight into the paranoid mind.

Not to mention that the approval rating of a sitting president is strongly correlated with the performance of the economy (or more specifically, the unemployment rate).

Reagan's popularity took off when the economy started booming. Clinton's popularity took of when the economy started booming. By contrast, both were unpopular in the early days of their first term when unemployment was high. And wouldn't you know it, Obama's popularity has dropped as unemployment continues to be a major problem.

But these things are too difficult for someone with Brian Good's limited intelligence to understand.

 
At 19 January, 2010 18:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, you make up your facts. The terrorists "exploited gaping holes"? How did they know that one gaping hole would be inability of NORAD to muster an air defense in 100 minutes? The plan was nuts from the start. The only way it was going to work was if all the planes were hijacked simultaneously and hit their targets within fifteen minutes. The notion that they could go bumbling around the skies is absurd.

They were patsies because they created an excuse for the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq? Do you need to be told that?

You're lying in alleging that I don't know the reports. They left out molten steel reported by a dozen witnesses, including engineers and demolitions contractors. The concrete was pulverized. For four years I have been asking for pictures of broken floor slabs. There aren't any.
NIST says the towers came down "essentially in free fall." If you know better than NIST, write your own peer-reviewed paper.

1000 architects and engineers have found errors of science in the NIST reports. You live in a fantasy world.

NY, Bush had no fear of low approvals. He knew that all he had to do was fake a narrowly-averted attack.

 
At 20 January, 2010 07:26, Anonymous New Yorker said...

pomeroo, you make up your facts.

False.

The terrorists "exploited gaping holes"?

Yes.

How did they know that one gaping hole would be inability of NORAD to muster an air defense in 100 minutes?

Because that's the way NORAD procedures went at the time, see Stewart, Payne.

The plan was nuts from the start. The only way it was going to work was if all the planes were hijacked simultaneously and hit their targets within fifteen minutes. The notion that they could go bumbling around the skies is absurd.

Please try making more sense next time, Petgoat.

They were patsies because they created an excuse for the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq?

Learn what the word "patsy" means, Petgoat.

You're lying in alleging that I don't know the reports.

Stop lying, Petgoat. You don't know the reports.

They left out molten steel reported by a dozen witnesses, including engineers and demolitions contractors.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

The concrete was pulverized.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

NIST says the towers came down "essentially in free fall."

Stop lying, Petgoat.

If you know better than NIST, write your own peer-reviewed paper.

We don't know better than the NIST, we're just mocking your appalling ignorance and insanity.

1000 architects and engineers have found errors of science in the NIST reports.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

You live in a fantasy world.

False.

NY, Bush had no fear of low approvals. He knew that all he had to do was fake a narrowly-averted attack.

False.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

 
At 20 January, 2010 07:47, Blogger pomeroo said...

Anonymous,

As your lies get exposed, you grow increasingly desperate. Don't worry: the same thing happens to all conspiracy liars. You started out with a mad, hopelessly wrong premise that was crushed by reality. Your lack of intelligence and integrity prevents you from backing off.

The holes in airport security that were exploited by the jihadists still have not been fixed completely. No protocols were in place to permit NORAD to shoot down commercial airliners on domestic flights. And, of course, if Bush had for some reason authorized the destruction of AA11 and U175, his rabid detractors would have screamed for his impeachment. Let's try to remember that NOBODY knew that the planes would be flown into buildings. The reasons why AA77 and U93 were not intercepted have been explained over and over. What possible purpose would be served by my directing you to 911myths.com when you resolutely refuse to read anything not written by other crackpots?

No, NIST does not say that the towers came in free fall. How can your uninformed falsehoods persuade people who know much more than you do? I say that you are an agenda-driven ignoramus who hasn't read a word of the NIST reports. Prove me wrong by showing us where NIST swallows your "free fall" snake oil.

We notice that you ignored my devastating observation about the debris that fell faster than the rest of the buildings. What about it, genius? Were there tiny rockets attached to each individual piece? You can run, but you can't hide.

No molten steel was observed. Your fellow liars have pretended that Marx Loizeaux saw molten "steel." Loizeaux explained to me that he couldn't distinguish steel from any other molten metal. He never claimed that what he saw was molten steel. Incidentally, why was no evidence for your imaginary phenomenon ever found? What would molten steel have to do with explosives? Oh, that's right: NO DEMOLITION HAS EVER PRODUCED MOLTEN STEEL.

Please stop raving about "pulverized" concrete. You have been caught lying.

The cowardly fraud Gage refuses to face real engineers. Mark Roberts and Ron Craig, a demolitions expert, humiliated him when he tried peddling his idiotic lies in debates with them. Tony Szamboti, got utterly destroyed by Ryan Mackey. I wonder why all the dupes and fools who have signed Gage's petition beg off when I ask them to discuss their beliefs on 'Hardfire.' They keep saying that they have to study the issue a bit more. What the hell, it's only eight years since the attacks. Tell us about the "errors" these morons have found. I know that Charles Pegelow claims to have found evidence of nukes and Anders Bjorkman believes that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does no real damage. Does anybody sane belong to Gage's gaggle of nitwits?

Um, your comment about a "narrowly-averted" attack seems bizarre even for a conspiracy liar. Some of us noticed that the jihadist attacks of 9/11 were not averted.

Neither you nor any other America-hating liar has ever explained why we wanted to invade Afghanistan. No natural gas pipeline is being built. If such a project were in the works, it would fall far short of explaining why American forces were sent to a godforsaken part of the world. Some if us have noticed that your imaginary conspiracy "forgot" to include any Afghanis or Iraqis among the hijacker patsies.

You are amazingly dumb.

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:08, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, Bush had no fear of low approvals. He knew that all he had to do was fake a narrowly-averted attack.

I'll also add that if this was true, we would have seen narrowly-averted attacks after his approval ratings went in the toilet, but yet we never did. The Lehman bankruptcy and subsequent financial panic occurred weeks before a presidential election. Don't you think if he was going stage a narrowly-averted attack to help McCain get in the White House, he would have?

The only narrowly-averted attack was the shoe bomber, and Bush had sky-high approval ratings at the time.

You're really not good at this whole "thinking" thing, are you Petgoat?

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The continued and false accusations of lying on this board show a pitiable degree of cynicism. Is your time worth so little?

Pomeroo, reframing the issue in terms of "shoot down" instead of "interception" is dishonest. As soon as they learned flight 11 was headed for Manhattan, security experts knew Project Bojinka was in play and should have known it was headed for the WTC. After it hit the building, shooting down any airliner that failed to respond to an order to land was justified. You live in a fantasy world.

NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". What about your debris? Tell it to NIST. Write a peer-reviewed paper. Call for new investigations.

Molten steel was observed. Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw "melting of girders". Molten steel has to do with thermite, Einstein.

Gage's presentations are open to all comers. He gives them on college campuses, and he sends individual email invitations to professors of engineering and physics. He's not hiding from anybody. The professors refuse to face him.

It's obvious why we wanted to invade Afghanistan. For the pipeline and to restore the opium trade. The pipeline is being started next year. Condi's outfit Chevron owns Unocal now.

You are amazingly ignorant, even on the subject of your own ignorance.

NY, there was no reason to rescue Bush's approvals after the 2004 election. The Repubs wanted Obama to win. That way they can blame him for everything, take back Congress in 2010, and take back the WH in 2012. You really haven't thought about this much, have you?

 
At 20 January, 2010 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Substituting invective for facts may fool the gullible, the self-deceiving, and the ignorant, but it's a self-defeating tactic ultimately because those who check your assertions will discover you're lying. Thus you gather the slow-learners around you and repel the intelligent and informed.

 
At 20 January, 2010 13:21, Blogger pomeroo said...

Yes, anonymous, you liars are forced to substitute invective for facts because, as the rest of the world has noticed, YOU HAVE NO FACTS. After eight years, you have your bogus science, distorted quotes, and blizzard of outright falsehoods, but ZERO facts.

You have been caught lying about the NIST reports. The closest anything comes to your stupid free fall fantasy is a sentence in the report on WTC 7 stating that there was a 2.5 second period where the facade was essentially in free fall. You are too stupid and ignorant to play this game.

A conspiracy liar accusing a rationalist of living in a fantasy world? I guess lack of intelligence doesn't preclude having a sense of humor.

No, "Bojinka" was not in play. No "security analysts" were in any position to order shoot-downs of commercial airliners. While AA77 was crashing into the Pentagon, interceptors were searching the NY-Maryland corridor for a phantom Flight 11. Bush's authorization was received too late to do any good.

Dr. Astaneh really dislikes you liars and frauds. I know because I've spoken with him. We are trying to work out arrangements for him to appear on 'Hardfire.' He saw no melted "steel." In any case, he wasn't on the scene until a week after the jihadist attacks. It doesn't help your evil cult to invoke the name of a man who regards you as fools.

Gage runs from debate. He doesn't permit engineers to speak during his sermons.

No pipeline is scheduled to be built in Afghanistan next year, or any other year, you silly liar.

I love it when drooling morons pretend to analyze. Yeah, the Republicans wanted to lose in '08 so they could win four years later. Say, what??? You're not even trying, dunce.

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo, section 6.14.4 of the NIST report says the towers fell "essentially in free fall".

For you to lie about such easily checked facts is dumb.

The attacks on 9/11 were those contemplated in phase II of Project Bojinka, which we knew about in 1995. Nobody said security analysts were authorized to order shootdowns. That's your straw man. Actually the F-16s scrambled (allegedly to go after phantom flight 11) flew out to sea instead of to Baltimore.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. Maybe you think those girders were lead. Gage doesn't permit interuptions. He has a question and answer period. Anyone can ask questions.

No pipeline? You make up your facts. The agreement was that construction would start in 2010. Obama's surge would seem to indicate that he intends to keep it on schedule.

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

link about pipeline agreement:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14300

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The continued and false accusations of lying on this board show a pitiable degree of cynicism. Is your time worth so little?

I need a daily laugh, so I check out failblog, deadspin, and the latest insane gibberish from you, Petgoat. I spend a lot more time doing other things than just this, you know.

Pomeroo, reframing the issue in terms of "shoot down" instead of "interception" is dishonest. As soon as they learned flight 11 was headed for Manhattan, security experts knew Project Bojinka was in play and should have known it was headed for the WTC. After it hit the building, shooting down any airliner that failed to respond to an order to land was justified. You live in a fantasy world.

You're really not that good with this whole "evidence" thing, are you Petgoat?

NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

False.

What about your debris? Tell it to NIST. Write a peer-reviewed paper. Call for new investigations.

New investigations aren't needed. You really need to get used to the fact that there won't be a new investigation, Petgoat.

Molten steel was observed. Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw "melting of girders".

False.

Molten steel has to do with thermite, Einstein.

Except for the problem of there being no molten steel and no thermite.

He's not hiding from anybody. The professors refuse to face him.

He's an irrelevant lunatic. No professor is going to waste his or her time with the guy any more than a biologist is going to waste his or her time with someone claiming that the dinosaurs died because they didn't make it onto Noah's Ark.

It's obvious why we wanted to invade Afghanistan. For the pipeline and to restore the opium trade. The pipeline is being started next year. Condi's outfit Chevron owns Unocal now.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

You are amazingly ignorant, even on the subject of your own ignorance.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

NY, there was no reason to rescue Bush's approvals after the 2004 election.

Well, except for the 2006 midterm election and the 2008 presidential election. You really don't know much about politics, do you Petgoat?

The Repubs wanted Obama to win.

OK, is there anyone else reading this blog who lives in the Palo Alto area and can have Brian Good committed?

That way they can blame him for everything, take back Congress in 2010, and take back the WH in 2012.

Or they could've kept Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2010....

You really haven't thought about this much, have you?

You're really just so funny when you're in a pissy mood, Petgoat!

Substituting invective for facts may fool the gullible, the self-deceiving, and the ignorant, but it's a self-defeating tactic ultimately because those who check your assertions will discover you're lying. Thus you gather the slow-learners around you and repel the intelligent and informed.

False.

 
At 20 January, 2010 16:59, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Also, Brian, I've noticed you're no longer denying being Petgoat. That's good. You're ever so closer to living in the real world.

Also, why aren't you babbling about the widows' questions anymore? Did you finally realize they have no questions, or did you get pepper sprayed by Mindy Kleinberg?

 
At 20 January, 2010 17:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, the Repubs didn't care about the 2006 midterms or the 2008 elections. They knew a lot of bad shit was coming and they wanted to blame everything that came to light after 2006 on the Dems (and they have done so).

You really haven't thought this through.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:12, Blogger pomeroo said...

Anonymous,

You have been caught lying. NIST does NOT say that the towers fell "essentially in free fall." Your citation is bogus. Please cite a specific report and show us the quote. You won't because you can't. I agree that it is extremely stupid of you to lie about such easily-checked facts, especially when you are trying con people who are much smarter than you.

Please stop distorting Dr. Astaneh's words. He saw metal IN THE RUBBLE PILE. Get it? He despises conspiracy liars. He knows there were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. He is not on your side.

No American company is building a pipeline in Afghanistan. Give it up. You lose again.

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:17, Blogger pomeroo said...

Anonymous,

Either you are the world's worst liar or you're almost as delusional as Ace Baker. No Western companies are involved.

Here are the first three sentence's from our tinfoil-hatter's link:

"By Aftab Maken"

"ISLAMABAD: The 10th steering committee of oil ministers from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India on Thursday agreed to start construction work on the much-delayed TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline project in 2010."

"This was stated at a joint press conference by Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Khwaja Muhammad Asif, Turkmen Minister for Oil and Gas Industry Dr Baymurad Hojamuhamedov, Afghan Minister of Mines Mohammad Ibrahim Adel and Indian Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Shri Murli Deora here after the conclusion of the steering committee meeting."

"The second meeting of the technical working group (TWG) of the four countries was also held the same day. The gas pipeline project, to be completed at the cost of $7.6 billion, will start supplying 3.2 billion cubic feet gas per day through 56-inch diameter pipeline."

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:24, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, the Repubs didn't care about the 2006 midterms or the 2008 elections. They knew a lot of bad shit was coming and they wanted to blame everything that came to light after 2006 on the Dems (and they have done so).

So they wanted to lose in 2006 so that a bunch of stuff that hadn't yet happened couldn't be blamed on them. What a brilliant idea!

And yes, it was a stroke of genius to lose even more seats in both houses of Congress while losing the Presidency. That's how you win!

You really haven't thought this through.

Seriously, you're so insane that nobody trying to act insane could come up with the stuff you do. That's why it's so much fun to post here.

Now, onto another topic, have you contacted the government of Canada yet to tell them about the US invasion?

 
At 20 January, 2010 18:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pomeroo, for you to lie about easily checked facts is dumb. When truthers do that I suspect they're really serving the other side.

Section 6.14.4 of the NIST report says the towers fell "essentially in free fall." The FAQs say the same thing. Learn to google.

Dr. Astaneh saw melting of girders. So what if it was in the rubble pile? It was melted steel. People saw melted steel.

The pipeline is being built. You said it wasn't. Who cares who's building it? The Americans will be there forever defending it with drones.

NY, it was well known by 2006 that the shit was going to hit the fan economically eventually. If you don't know how to win by losing, you don't know shit about strategy.
Ever hear of jiu jitsu, Rambo?

 
At 20 January, 2010 19:22, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Pomeroo, for you to lie about easily checked facts is dumb.

He's not lying, Petgoat.

When truthers do that I suspect they're really serving the other side.

So you're a government plant? That would explain your over-the-top act.

Section 6.14.4 of the NIST report says the towers fell "essentially in free fall." The FAQs say the same thing. Learn to google.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

Dr. Astaneh saw melting of girders. So what if it was in the rubble pile? It was melted steel. People saw melted steel.

False.

The pipeline is being built. You said it wasn't. Who cares who's building it? The Americans will be there forever defending it with drones.

Nobody cares about the pipeline, Petgoat.

NY, it was well known by 2006 that the shit was going to hit the fan economically eventually.

Yes, by that noted neocon "buschcist" Paul Krugman. Most GOP-aligned commentators were dismissing as nonsense any warnings about a housing bubble. You haven't really thought this through.

If you don't know how to win by losing, you don't know shit about strategy.

Seek professional help, Petgoat.

 
At 20 January, 2010 20:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, section 6.14.4 is easily checked. Pomeroo is lying about free fall. He also cared enough to lie about the pipeline, so somebody cares.

It was well known by insiders before 2006 that the shit was going to hit the fan. What commentators say is a contrary indicator.

 
At 20 January, 2010 21:06, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, section 6.14.4 is easily checked. Pomeroo is lying about free fall.

The report does not say the towers came down "essentially in free-fall". You make up your facts.

He also cared enough to lie about the pipeline, so somebody cares.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

It was well known by insiders before 2006 that the shit was going to hit the fan. What commentators say is a contrary indicator.

Yes, insiders like Paul Krugman. Learn to google.

 
At 20 January, 2010 21:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Paul Krugman is not an insider. He's a college professor. You're an idiot.

 
At 20 January, 2010 21:42, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

False.


Paul Krugman is not an insider. He's a college professor.You're an idiot.

Seek professional help, Petgoat.

 
At 20 January, 2010 23:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're a liar, NY.

Doing so degrades the quality of discourse because then you just accuse me of lying, and then it's a juvenile "did so"/"did not" shouting match.

You are very cynical, NY, with no respect for truth.

 
At 20 January, 2010 23:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh I get it, NY, with your infuriating lies you're trying to get me to say something in anger that can later be taken out of context and used against me.

Now I understand. It must really suck being you, doing such shit work.

 
At 21 January, 2010 06:52, Anonymous New Yorker said...

You're a liar, NY.

I've never lied, Petgoat.

Doing so degrades the quality of discourse because then you just accuse me of lying, and then it's a juvenile "did so"/"did not" shouting match.

Yes, so maybe you should stop repeating your obvious lies about "essentially in free-fall"?

You are very cynical, NY, with no respect for truth.

False.

Oh I get it, NY, with your infuriating lies you're trying to get me to say something in anger that can later be taken out of context and used against me.

Believe me, nothing needs to be taken out of context with you. Everything you post is of the highest entertainment value without removing the context. Now, can we discuss important issues like the CIA's heroin business or the invasion of Canada?

Now I understand. It must really suck being you, doing such shit work.

I don't do any "work" on 9/11 related stuff. I come here to laugh at lunatics like you and nothing more.

 
At 21 January, 2010 09:50, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 January, 2010 10:00, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 January, 2010 10:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

The three qualities that characterize twoofers are insanity, dishonesty, and stupidity. Note that while all three are essential, no single one is sufficient. Our anonymous conspiracy liar provides an illustrative example.
Let's examine his hopeless attempt to resurrect the long-dead "free fall" myth.

NIST, of course, rejects the easily-disprovable notion that the towers fell in free fall. In NCSTAR 1, 6-14-4, page 146, we read:

"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure to absorb that through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, THE BUILDING SECTION ABOVE CAME DOWN ESSENTIALLY IN FREE FALL, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the falling mass...
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition..."

We see that the towers, taken in their entirety, did not collapse in free fall. Rather, the section above and including the impact floors encountered very little resistance and therefore approximated free fall. The "minimal resistance" offered by the lower portion of the building accounts for the difference between the times of the actual collapses and theoretical free fall times.

A thorough discussion is available on debunking911.com:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Again, the three qualities on display are: insanity, for clinging to the dumbest, most baseless fantasy ever invented by agenda-driven cranks; dishonesty, for trying to peddle ancient, thoroughly debunked rubbish to people who know better; stupidity, for total lack of reading comprehension skills.

 
At 21 January, 2010 10:04, Blogger pomeroo said...

Anonymous,

You have displayed your three essential twoofer qualities again.
For rational people, four countries located in distant regions of the world deciding to build a natural gas pipeline almost ten years after the jihadist attacks does not "link" the Bush administration to the project. On the contrary, IT TOTALLY DESTROYS YOUR ABSURD FANTASY. Unocal's Clinton-era project never got off the ground. No U.S. companies are building any pipelines in Afghanistan. Your insane statement that it doesn't matter who builds the pipeline suggests mental illness. It matters that no conceivable connection between reality and your deranged fantasy exists.

NOBODY in 2006 foresaw the collapse of the housing bubble. Barney Frank was assuring us two years later that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were sound. You have been caught lying again.

Wow, you're dumb!

 
At 21 January, 2010 10:15, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NOBODY in 2006 foresaw the collapse of the housing bubble.

That's not entirely true. As I told Brian, Paul Krugman was talking about it, but he's hardly a cheerleader for the Bush administration. I think Robert Shiller was talking about it too, but I don't have his writings on hand.

 
At 21 January, 2010 11:26, Blogger pomeroo said...

New Yorker,

You're right; I expressed myself badly. Actually, Thomas Sowell was issuing warnings, as was Krugman. While Sowell is an objective economist, Krugman allowed his hatred for Bush to carry him into Keith Olbermann territory. At terrible cost to his reputation, Krugman screeched daily about imminent recessions. Eventually, such predictions come true.

The notion that Republicans preferred getting destroyed at the polls in two consecutive elections to voicing their concerns is beyond insane. Our anonymous liar has outdone himself.

 
At 21 January, 2010 11:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pomeroo, your FOX-style dudgeon may impress those in your circle, but it's not convincing to objective readers.

Thank you for quoting the section in NIST. The context of the structure's lack of resistance makes quite clear that they are talking about the fall of the "building section above" through the building structure "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder's statement that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds corroborates this interpretation.

The TAPI pipeline is the same one that was proposed by Unocal. Your belief that the puppet Karzai government can partipate in this scheme independent of the USA when it depends on the USA for its very existence is naive.

Insiders foresaw the collapse of the derivatives bubble. Barney Frank and Paul Krugman are not insiders. The derivatives represented $450 TRILLION dollars of funny money at a time when the GDP of the world was less than $50 trillion.

 
At 21 January, 2010 12:34, Anonymous New Yorker said...

While Sowell is an objective economist, Krugman allowed his hatred for Bush to carry him into Keith Olbermann territory.

Well, Sowell's obviously a conservative, and I don't know that there's such a thing as an "objective" economist as politics clearly plays a role in all their viewpoints. Either way, it was the rare commentator, liberal or conservative, who was warning about the housing bubble.

I also imagine you and I have differing viewpoints on politics as well, but that's neither here nor there. Both of us are on the sane side of the 9/11 "question", and that's what matters here.

Now, onto someone clearly not on the sane side:

Pomeroo, your FOX-style dudgeon may impress those in your circle, but it's not convincing to objective readers.

Please take your meds and try re-writing this in English, Brian.

Thank you for quoting the section in NIST. The context of the structure's lack of resistance makes quite clear that they are talking about the fall of the "building section above" through the building structure "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder's statement that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds corroborates this interpretation.

False.

The TAPI pipeline is the same one that was proposed by Unocal. Your belief that the puppet Karzai government can partipate in this scheme independent of the USA when it depends on the USA for its very existence is naive.

Nobody cares, Brian.

Insiders foresaw the collapse of the derivatives bubble.

Name them, Brian.

Barney Frank and Paul Krugman are not insiders.

No, of course not. One is a highly influential economist and has a regular op-ed in the New York Times, the other is a fucking member of Congress on the finance committee. Neither of them are "insiders" because, well, they didn't swear a blood oath to Moloch, or something.

The derivatives represented $450 TRILLION dollars of funny money at a time when the GDP of the world was less than $50 trillion.

That's nice.

I love how the back-and-forth with Brian represents a sort of Brownian motion in which Brian, lunatic that he is, will NEVER concede error on the tiniest of points, so we end up with him babbling about the derivatives market in order to (I think) make his point about 9/11 being an inside job.

That's why I love you, Brian. Your stubbornness, your insanity, and your delusions of genius is what makes you so much more entertaining that the other "truthers" who post here.

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, your continuing references to commentators are irrelevant. I said insiders knew the pop was coming. Commentators, politicians, and professors are not insiders.

The reason I'm "babbling" about the derivatives market is because some idiot who names himself after a magazine claimed that nobody knew in 2006 that economic trouble was coming, idiot.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home