Saturday, January 09, 2010

No Such Thing as a Sane Truther

Paul Craig Roberts, who once was a respected economist and pundit, is now a full fledged nutter. Not much more to add on him, but one thing that always amuses me on this whole "missiles at the Pentagon" thing is how precise they are. They can't just say something vague like, "it is probable that there are some sort of air defenses", which would be the logical thing to say, since their presence is not backed by any evidence of any sort, but a very precise statement (emphasis added):

If we are to believe the U.S. government,Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged al-Qaida "mastermind" behind 9/11, outwitted the CIA, the NSA, indeed all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies as well as those of all U.S. allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times on one morning, and Dick Cheney, and with untrained and inexperienced pilots pulled off skilled piloting feats of crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, where a battery of state of the art air defenses somehow failed to function.

85 Comments:

At 09 January, 2010 20:11, Blogger Billman said...

What "State of the art defenses" are they assuming exist right next to an airport that civlians use on a daily basis?

 
At 09 January, 2010 20:48, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Quick Russia Today - put him on TV!

 
At 09 January, 2010 21:12, Blogger James B. said...

Well obviously they are state of the art, otherwise they would accidentally shoot down all the planes. Duh!

 
At 09 January, 2010 21:22, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Just ask Brian Good about the state of the art air defenses which don't shoot down any plane that gets within a kilometer of the Pentagon while landing at National. Of course, those that do don't get shot down either....

Speaking of Petgoat, it does kinda suck that all the comments in the archives are gone, as I occasionally went back to look at his "greatest hits" to get a laugh....

 
At 09 January, 2010 21:57, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Of the few twoofers who had respectable reputations at one time, PCR has probably fallen the farthest. In his case, his illness was degenerative. He went from being supply-side guru to nativist to da twoof. He's probably made enough money over the years that he won't end up living under a bridge, but at this point his mental state is little different from someone who does.

 
At 09 January, 2010 22:06, Blogger ComradeAgopian said...

Or Press TV from Iran , Patrick .

 
At 10 January, 2010 01:44, Blogger angrysoba said...

I can never understand why, after the fact, Truthers are so adamant that civilian planes should have been shot down.

If they had been, which Truther that you have ever heard of would accept the story and how many of them would be screaming, "Murderers!"

Aside from the fact that Truthers have never provided evidence for anti-aircraft missiles it doesn't seem to bother them that a plane did crash on the White House lawn where, if I remember rightly, there ARE missiles (could anyone confirm if those missiles exist).

 
At 10 January, 2010 10:40, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Aside from the fact that Truthers have never provided evidence for anti-aircraft missiles it doesn't seem to bother them that a plane did crash on the White House lawn where, if I remember rightly, there ARE missiles (could anyone confirm if those missiles exist).'

There are unconfirmed reports that the US Secret Service has Stingers (or a similar MANPAD). But given their range and size I doubt they'd have been much use against an airliner.

 
At 10 January, 2010 16:27, Blogger Dave said...

Are you telling me NORAD can track Santa but could not track those airplanes? They can track 8 tiny reindeer and one fat guy but not 19 full grown angry Arabs?

I think my questions deserve a new investigation!!!!!

 
At 10 January, 2010 16:28, Anonymous paul w said...

OMG, truthers making unsubstantiated comments?!

Please tell me it 'aint so!

 
At 10 January, 2010 16:36, Anonymous paul w said...

OT, but The Big Picture has released photos of the moon landing sites.

I've sent the link that includes the moon hoax nutbars.

Still waiting for a reply...

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/

 
At 10 January, 2010 16:37, Anonymous paul w said...

"I've sent the link to a site that includes moon hoax nutbars"

 
At 10 January, 2010 17:01, Anonymous Marc said...

Yes, a small plane DID crash into the White House while Clinton was President (he was not there)on September 12th, 1994 (September again? Conspiracy?). The Secret Service has Stingers, but didn't see the plane until it was too late. According to the NY Times the Secret Service protocals involved getting the President out of thr WH before an attacking plane got there. The Clintons were all at Blair House that day. The plane had been stolen by Frank Eugene Corder, 38, a truck driver from Maryland.

You should read this NY Times article because there is a discussion about how Washington was vulnerable to terror attacks from the skies AND why firing anti-aircraft missiles in DC was problematic.

 
At 10 January, 2010 17:33, Blogger angrysoba said...

"You should read this NY Times article because there is a discussion about how Washington was vulnerable to terror attacks from the skies AND why firing anti-aircraft missiles in DC was problematic."

Yes, I have linked to a NY Times article before.

Maybe you mean this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/us/crash-white-house-defenses-pilot-s-exploit-rattles-white-house-officials.html

The plane actually was stolen on 11th of September, I believe.

And yes, here's an interesting quote:

"Today's experience suggests that if a man with limited flying skill could blunder into a near-hit on the President's bedroom with no resistance, then a determined, skilled and knowledgeable assassin could inflict far greater damage."

Brent Scowcroft:

"It's very hard to defend against, very hard," he said. "Even if you have them on radar and you're worried about them, are you really going to shoot them down?"

And:

"He said it would be particularly difficult to detect the plane if the pilot had turned off the transponder, the instrument that sends a signal that can be detected by radar. Mr. Meyer said he did not know whether the Cessna had a transponder or whether it was off."

 
At 10 January, 2010 17:36, Anonymous paul w said...

Yup, and here is how a truther would read it...:

blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, ...Secret Service has Stingers...
blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah...blah, blah..

Hey! The Secret Service has Stingers!!!

Why did they not fire at the planes on 9/11???

They let it happen!!!

 
At 10 January, 2010 18:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

From the Times article:

A missile fired from the roof of the White House, moreover, could hit other buildings and people in downtown Washington.

Yeah, not to mention that even if it did hit its target, the wreckage of the fucking plane hitting a dorm building at George Washington U. would be a bit problematic, huh?

In the fever dreams of the "truthers" of course, there's no problem with shooting down a 757 over a densely populated area. Yeah, the flaming wreck probably won't slam into the highrise condos in Crystal City after being shot down by the SAM site at the Pentagon.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

angrysob, the issue with NORAD is not that they didn't shoot the planes down; it's that they didn't intercept the planes. Intercepting problem planes was a routine procedure. It was done 1500 times in 1990-94.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

It's not surprising that truthers can't provide evidence for SAMs at the Pentagon before 9/11. Military defenses would not be expected to be public information.

NY's remarks about the impossibility of installing SAMs because of the risk of collateral damage would appear to be given the lie by that fact SAMs were installed AFTER 9/11.

 
At 10 January, 2010 20:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

It's not surprising that truthers can't provide evidence for SAMs at the Pentagon before 9/11. Military defenses would not be expected to be public information.

...is immediately followed by...

NY's remarks about the impossibility of installing SAMs because of the risk of collateral damage would appear to be given the lie by that fact SAMs were installed AFTER 9/11.

So, military defenses would not be public information, yet Brian knows that there are SAMs at...someplace (the Pentagon?). How do you know this, Brian? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you it?

Also, have you written Stephen Harper yet to warn him that the US plans on invading Canada?

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:24, Anonymous paul w said...

"Anonymous said...
angrysob, the issue with NORAD is not that they didn't shoot the planes down; it's that they didn't intercept the planes."

And if you had bothered to read the reports, you'd know that planes WERE sent for interception, but it's more than just screaming 'get over to New York, now!'.

You truthers want everything to be sooooooooooooo simple:

'Hey, there's a plane missing. Sent a jet out.'

"Righto, done.'

Thank fuck you are only in charge of your own lives.

And, if you are a typical example, it would appear you even suck at that.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:27, Blogger angrysoba said...

Hey Anonymous,

You're funny...

New Yorker's already pointed out your silliness in contradicting yourself.

I suppose it's top secret as to whether these post-9/11 missiles can fly back in time.

Btw, that link you provided makes you look a laughing stock. It's dated 1994 and says:

"The continental air defense evolved during the Cold War to detect and
intercept Soviet bombers attacking North America via the North Pole.
GAO concludes that such an air defense is no longer needed and could be
disbanded at an annual savings of as much as $370 million. "

And it reapeats over an over again its recommendations that the number of fighters on standby be reduced.

And those figures you gave were for fighters that were scrambledand fighters were scrambled on 9/11 completely removing any point that you may have been trying to make by linking to that article.

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert
fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)
1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these
incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total
activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually
inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

Oh, and the link doesn't explain how long it would take to intercept a plane, particularly not one that had no transponder squawking but I guess that's a minor factor in the Trooferverse.

Paul W characterised the way that Truthers read documents and you've gone and given a textbook example.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, maybe you should consider the possibility that the environment was different before 9/11 than it was after 9/11. Before 9/11, the Pentagon defenses were nobody's business. After 9/11, the Pentagon obviously wanted it known that they had SAMS there. They parked Humvee rigs around the building that had SAMs mounted on them. Here's a recent version of the rig:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/SAM-HMMWV.jpg

Of course if you can mount SAMS on a Humvee you can mount them on a building or on the grounds nearby in innocuous-looking equipment sheds, but everybody knows it's just ludicrous to think that a military HQ would think to defend itself, right?

As to Billman's claim that the proximity of civilan aircraft would make self defense impossible, that's pretty simple minded too. Tracking systems know the difference between something coming at the building and something going past the building.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paulw, you seem to make a habit of dishonest framing. First you try to pretend that there was no option short of shoot-down (when there was a graded range of possible responses) and then you try to pretend that the claim is that no fighters were scrambled (when the issue is that no airliners were intercepted).

Yes it really is as simple as "Hey there's a jet off course. There could be a collision. Get a fighter up there and order him to land."

angrysob, you guys are good at generating arguments that might fool a ten-year-old, but they're pretty silly in grown-up-land.

The issue of how many fighters there were is irrelevant. One C-130H, you may remember, was able to intercept flight 77 and get within 14 miles of flight 93. There were plenty of fighters.

The issue is that intercepting unidentified aircraft was a routine, once-a-day action ten years before 9/11. It's not like NORAD forgot how it was done in six years. It seems you missed the fact that an unidentified aircraft is by definition an aircraft without a transponder.

You guys do a real good job of making debunkers look dumb.

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:45, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, maybe you should consider the possibility that the environment was different before 9/11 than it was after 9/11.

Sure. So what?

Before 9/11, the Pentagon defenses were nobody's business. After 9/11, the Pentagon obviously wanted it known that they had SAMS there.

Ah yes, after 9/11, the military wanted everyone to know all things that were previously classified.

I've explained to you many times, Petgoat, that your bald assertions do not come anywhere close to what sane people call "evidence".

Of course if you can mount SAMS on a Humvee you can mount them on a building or on the grounds nearby in innocuous-looking equipment sheds, but everybody knows it's just ludicrous to think that a military HQ would think to defend itself, right?

Again, we're just missing that small detail known as "evidence".

Tracking systems know the difference between something coming at the building and something going past the building.

Yes. And you are aware of the fact that National Airport is spitting distance from the Pentagon and thus aircraft approach the Pentagon as they land? Somehow, the Potomac isn't littered with the wreck of thousands of civilian jetliners shot down by the SAMs that supposedly exist at the Pentagon....

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:49, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Yes it really is as simple as "Hey there's a jet off course. There could be a collision. Get a fighter up there and order him to land."

False.

angrysob, you guys are good at generating arguments that might fool a ten-year-old, but they're pretty silly in grown-up-land.

You mean "ten-year-old girls", don't you, Petgoat?

The issue of how many fighters there were is irrelevant. One C-130H, you may remember, was able to intercept flight 77 and get within 14 miles of flight 93. There were plenty of fighters.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

The issue is that intercepting unidentified aircraft was a routine, once-a-day action ten years before 9/11. It's not like NORAD forgot how it was done in six years. It seems you missed the fact that an unidentified aircraft is by definition an aircraft without a transponder.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

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

And finally, when are you going to write to Stephen Harper to warn him about the US invasion of Canada?

 
At 10 January, 2010 21:57, Anonymous paul w said...

Hang on a minute, I've seen this style before...

"NY, maybe you should consider..."

followed by,

"As to Billman's claim that..."

followed by,

"Paulw, you seem to..."


followed by,

"angrysob, you guys are..."


Oh dear.

Brian, Brian, Brain.

You poor, sad, bastard.

Seek professional help, please.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the military wanted everyone to know all things that were previously classified.

Oh hail, vanquisher of straw mice! The military wanted people to believe that there were no SAMs at the Pentagon. Thus they very publicly "installed" them.

National Airport is spitting distance from the Pentagon and thus aircraft approach the Pentagon as they land

You're in CIT-land. It's not spitting distance, it's 1000 yards away. The airliners fly down the Potomac--past the Pentagon. They don't fly toward it at close range.

You guys are seriously out of touch with reality, so all you can wield is lies, straw men, and attitude.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:12, Blogger angrysoba said...

" First you try to pretend that there was no option short of shoot-down (when there was a graded range of possible responses)"

Yes, there were attempted interceptions but they didn't arrive on time.

And the planes' transponders were switched off.

"then you try to pretend that the claim is that no fighters were scrambled (when the issue is that no airliners were intercepted)."

No sir! You said:

"Intercepting problem planes was a routine procedure. It was done 1500 times in 1990-94."

Your source said:

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert
fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)
1,518 times"

Yet they didn't intercept Eugene Corder's plane and unidentified planes may well refer to drugsmuggling aircraft fyling over the border not civilian airliners flying about in crowded airspace.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:14, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The military wanted people to believe that there were no SAMs at the Pentagon. Thus they very publicly "installed" them.

You're going to eventually present evidence for SAMs at the Pentagon, right Petgoat?

The airliners fly down the Potomac--past the Pentagon. They don't fly toward it at close range.

Another classic Insane Assertion (TM) by Brian Good!

Do you know anything about air defense, Petgoat? Are you aware that any system more powerful than a MANPAD would down every single plane attempting to land at National? Hell, depending on how powerful these SAMs of your glue-bender hallucinations are, they might be downing aircraft at Dulles and Andrews AFB as well.

You guys are seriously out of touch with reality, so all you can wield is lies, straw men, and attitude.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:16, Blogger James B. said...

You're in CIT-land. It's not spitting distance, it's 1000 yards away. The airliners fly down the Potomac--past the Pentagon. They don't fly toward it at close range.


And exactly how long does it take a plane flying several hundred miles per hour to travel 1000 yards, versus how long it would take whatever or whoever is controlling your mythological system to make a decision regarding whether the plane is a threat, prepare the secret hidden missiles for launching, and engage the target early enough to prevent it from slamming into the Pentagon anyway.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:18, Anonymous paul w said...

"Oh hail, vanquisher of straw mice!"

lol!!!

"You guys are seriously out of touch with reality, so all you can wield is lies, straw men, and attitude."

Double lol!!!!

No-one could keep up a piss-take for so long, it's humanly impossible.

Unless Brian is one of the lizard people.

Hmm, you aren't, are you, Brian?


Disclosure:
I support the ethical decision not to make fun of the mentally ill, and confess I feel I may be overstepping the mark here.

 
At 10 January, 2010 22:50, Anonymous Whiskey Tango Foxtrot said...

"You guys do a real good job of making debunkers look dumb."

You, sir, have been watching too many action movies.

D.T. Landis O-4, USAF
AFSC 13B3

 
At 10 January, 2010 23:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paulw, according to the official story there were no attempted interceptions in that all of the scrambled planes took offshore positions and no target coordinates were supplied.

Unidentified aircraft does not refer to drug aircraft (according to your quote) in 93% of the cases.

NY, no I'm not going to present evidence of SAMs at the Pentagon. Why would there be evidence of secret military defense systems?

Your fantasies about downing airliners are feeble, NY.

JamesB, having done a fair amount of debunking myself, I can attest that the hazard is that you put your mind to trying to prove something is impossible rather than trying to discover the truth.

So, let's imagine it's our job to protect the Pentagon from aircraft. Your scenario of an aircraft suddenly turning at 1000 yards against the Pentagon is not very realistic except in the case of a plane taking off from runway 15. That's a short runway, those are regional jets, not international, and the likelihood of an American pilot doing such a thing is not very great. We could guard against it by having weapons already targeted on the narrow set of attack paths. Or it might be better simply to let such an attack go forward. Such decisions are above my pay grade.

A plane coming down the Potomac on the runway 19 flight path would have to turn of the path at least a mile up the river.

There is no reason not to defend against aircraft, such as flight 77, that approach from some flight path other than the DCA paths.

Paulw, you're all attitude, no point. If you write your own material, you'd better quit. If you don't, you need a new writer.

 
At 10 January, 2010 23:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, sir, Major Landis. I know I'm a mere civilian and not just completely unreasonable but even out of line to expect that when the nation is known to be under attack by hijacked airliners, and one of them is reported to be over Baltimore and headed for DC, that fighter jets should scramble to defend DC instead of flying out to defend Cape May. How dare I think such a thing?

How dare I expect that when Abdul Hakim Murad had revealed the Project Bojinka plan to fly a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon in 1995, that the Pentagon ought to have some contingency plans for dealing with such an occurrance. And when a whole crew of Pentagon brass cancelled their flight plans on 9/11 because of security concerns, it's certainly unrealistic of me to expect that the Pentagon might be prepared for an attack. After all, with a measley $500 billion a year budget, we can't expect perfection, can we?

 
At 10 January, 2010 23:59, Blogger angrysoba said...

Anonymous, what are you saying?

a) The system in place to prevent hijacked planes being flown into buildings should have been better.

Or

b) The fact the system didn't perform better is suspicious.

These are two quite separate concerns but one of those options is the Truther position and the other option is a Truther redoubt where he (or occasionally she) hides out to evade answers before switching back to their previous position.

 
At 11 January, 2010 05:38, Blogger Billman said...

As to Billman's claim that the proximity of civilan aircraft would make self defense impossible, that's pretty simple minded too. Tracking systems know the difference between something coming at the building and something going past the building.

Yeah, ok. So what happens if someone decides to turn and is now no longer "going past the building" and is now "coming at the building?"

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

Paulw, according to the official story there were no attempted interceptions in that all of the scrambled planes took offshore positions and no target coordinates were supplied.

Yes. We've been over this many times. What point are you trying to make, Petgoat?

NY, no I'm not going to present evidence of SAMs at the Pentagon. Why would there be evidence of secret military defense systems?

Of course not. There were no SAMs at the Pentagon. At least you've finally admitted as much, Petgoat. Have you finally been taking the medication the nice men in the white coats prescribed for you?

So, let's imagine it's our job to protect the Pentagon from aircraft. Your scenario of an aircraft suddenly turning at 1000 yards against the Pentagon is not very realistic except in the case of a plane taking off from runway 15. That's a short runway, those are regional jets, not international, and the likelihood of an American pilot doing such a thing is not very great. We could guard against it by having weapons already targeted on the narrow set of attack paths. Or it might be better simply to let such an attack go forward. Such decisions are above my pay grade.

A plane coming down the Potomac on the runway 19 flight path would have to turn of the path at least a mile up the river.

There is no reason not to defend against aircraft, such as flight 77, that approach from some flight path other than the DCA paths.


Never mind, you've clearly not been taking any medications, considering the raving gibberish above.

How dare I expect that when Abdul Hakim Murad had revealed the Project Bojinka plan to fly a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon in 1995, that the Pentagon ought to have some contingency plans for dealing with such an occurrance.

Stop lying about Operation Bojinka, Petgoat.

Also, you still haven't told me if you've contacted the Canadian government to warn them of the US invasion? Why not, did Willie Rodriguez tell you not to contact them?

 
At 11 January, 2010 16:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Angrysob, you've made a false dichotomy.

Billman, such decisions are above my pay grade.

NY, Project Bojinka provided for flying hijacked airliners into the Pentagon, WTC, Sears Tower, TransAmerica Pyramid, and the CIA.

 
At 11 January, 2010 17:10, Blogger angrysoba said...

Angrysob, you've made a false dichotomy.


Yeah I forgot

c) 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!1!

- angrysoba

 
At 11 January, 2010 17:40, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, Project Bojinka provided for flying hijacked airliners into the Pentagon, WTC, Sears Tower, TransAmerica Pyramid, and the CIA.

False.

Now, please tell me, have you contacted the Canadian government about the planned invasion? Why not? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you not to do it?

 
At 11 January, 2010 17:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, you lie. According to Peter Lance, Project Bojinka anticipated flying hijacked airliners into

CIA headquarters.
The Pentagon.
An unidentified nuclear power plant.
The Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.
The Sears Tower in Chicago.
The World Trade Center.
John Hancock Tower in Boston.
US Congress.
The White House

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

Billman, such decisions are above my pay grade.

Heh, that's actually kind of funny.

But anyway, the point is, couldn't a turn happen rather quickly? Without warning or foresight? Then what good is your "tracking system" now?

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

NY, you lie. According to Peter Lance, Project Bojinka anticipated flying hijacked airliners into

CIA headquarters.
The Pentagon.
An unidentified nuclear power plant.
The Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.
The Sears Tower in Chicago.
The World Trade Center.
John Hancock Tower in Boston.
US Congress.
The White House


Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 11 January, 2010 18:52, Anonymous Marc said...

If the Pentagon had a secret defense system how do you know about it. If you know about it then you should be able to site a source. That is how "Truth" works.

A C-130 pulling within 14 miles of flight 77 can hardly be called an intercept. Those intercepts you site that occurred during the Cold War involved our planes drawing within feet of the Soviet BEARs, close enough to photograph the faces of the pilots. Remember when that Chinese Mig flew into the proppeller of one of our P-3s? THAT is an intercept.

From the end of the Cold War to the morning of 9/11/2001, the military had been cut in half. The Air National Guard was under-funded, so they rarely trained to their Cold War standards. Also, most of the jets in the initial scramble on 9/11 weren't even armed with anything more than wax bullets. There was a quote by one of the pilots in Time (?) where one of the F-16 pilots sent to cover Washington was calculating the best way to ram a commercial jetliner and still be able to eject.

Finally,I alway come back to the maintenance guy who was working on one of the antenas on the roof of the Naval Annex. AA77 missed him by less than 12 feet as it snapped off the antena he was working on. The "It was a missle" morons need to talk to that guy.

 
At 11 January, 2010 20:59, Blogger angrysoba said...

CIA headquarters.
The Pentagon.
An unidentified nuclear power plant.
The Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.
The Sears Tower in Chicago.
The World Trade Center.
John Hancock Tower in Boston.
US Congress.
The White House


All lined with SAMs as we speak.

 
At 11 January, 2010 23:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman, I believe a 757 has a turning radius of about a mile. They can't turn like a crop-duster.

NY, yes, I know nobody cares that you lie. They've all come to expect it. In any honest forum, posters would object when someone in their midst lies, but not here. Why is that?

Marc, I didn't say the Pentagon had a secret defense system. I argued that the claim that there was none is unreasonable.

The only reason the C-130 did not intercept flight 93 is because it crashed. The point remains, a C-130 was capable of intercepting two of the 9/11 flights, and 1500 mph F-16s and 1800 mph F-15s did not.

The fact that there were fewer fighters than in the cold war is irrelevant. There were enough to intercept all four planes. The fact that some of the planes may not have been armed is also irrelevant. The point remains that the jetliners were not intercepted.

 
At 12 January, 2010 00:57, Blogger angrysoba said...

The only reason the C-130 did not intercept flight 93 is because it crashed.

I take it you mean United 93 crashed rather than the C-130.

Now all you have to do is apply that same reasoning to the other three planes and then you'll get the answer why they weren't intercepted.

Not too hard, is it?

 
At 12 January, 2010 05:38, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Billman, I believe a 757 has a turning radius of about a mile. They can't turn like a crop-duster."

Even if true (doubtful, considering the source), that has what to do with what?

 
At 12 January, 2010 06:27, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, I believe a 757 has a turning radius of about a mile. They can't turn like a crop-duster.

Noone should expect them too, I agree. But it doesn't take very long at all for a plane to turn around, regardless of it's turning radius. I've ridden in all manner of jetliners from 727 to 747, and they don't take long to turn 180 degrees...

 
At 12 January, 2010 06:52, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, yes, I know nobody cares that you lie. They've all come to expect it. In any honest forum, posters would object when someone in their midst lies, but not here. Why is that?

I meant that nobody cares that you're a proven liar, Petgoat.

Marc, I didn't say the Pentagon had a secret defense system. I argued that the claim that there was none is unreasonable.

We're just waiting on that little thing called "evidence"....

The only reason the C-130 did not intercept flight 93 is because it crashed. The point remains, a C-130 was capable of intercepting two of the 9/11 flights, and 1500 mph F-16s and 1800 mph F-15s did not.

Please see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.

I'm glad to see that at least you're not denying being Petgoat anymore, Brian. You're making progress towards being an ever-so-slightly less obvious liar.

 
At 12 January, 2010 09:09, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

If you want to see the cockroaches scramble,bring up Bojinka.If anything illustrates the sheer bankruptcy of the Debunker Cult it's this subject.I mean how obvious do the lies have to be before the Cult folds it's hand and moves onto more fertile territory?

 
At 12 January, 2010 10:15, Anonymous New Yorker said...

If you want to see the cockroaches scramble,bring up Bojinka.If anything illustrates the sheer bankruptcy of the Debunker Cult it's this subject.I mean how obvious do the lies have to be before the Cult folds it's hand and moves onto more fertile territory?

I suppose if it's "obvious", then you'll be bringing this evidence into court soon, huh?

Funny how you never answer the question as to why you haven't done so.....

 
At 12 January, 2010 10:21, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

More dumb and utter claptrap from NY'er.So what about Bojinka? You guys act like it was never revealed publicly and voluminously.Are you saying that no strategy was devised to deal with this threat?

 
At 12 January, 2010 10:50, Anonymous New Yorker said...

More dumb and utter claptrap from NY'er.So what about Bojinka? You guys act like it was never revealed publicly and voluminously.Are you saying that no strategy was devised to deal with this threat?

Yes, so what about Bojinka? What on earth do you think it tells us?

You can't be babbling about Bojinka supposedly being a smoking gun, and be MIHOP. I've tried to explain this to Brian Good too.

 
At 12 January, 2010 10:58, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Brian Good is merely a punching bag for goofs like you.Your comment is characterized by the usual skedaddle AWAY from the point.And the key question,which was:what was the strategy to deal with the threat of airliners exploding and being aimed at landmark structures on the East Coast? Are you seriously saying that they stood around and did nothing? Jesus,Big Guy,you gotta do better than this!!

 
At 12 January, 2010 11:37, Anonymous New Yorker said...

And the key question,which was:what was the strategy to deal with the threat of airliners exploding and being aimed at landmark structures on the East Coast?

I dunno. Why don't you ask those who were in charge that day? I wasn't, and I don't think Pat or James were either.

Anyway, given that you've latched onto this whole Bojinka thing, does this mean that you no longer believe MIHOP and thus will stop your illiterate babblings about Barry Jennings and dust?

 
At 12 January, 2010 13:29, Anonymous Troofers Belong in North Korea said...

"Anyway, given that you've latched onto this whole Bojinka thing, does this mean that you no longer believe MIHOP and thus will stop your illiterate babblings about Barry Jennings and dust?"

No - it just means it found something else to rip on the government about. You see, this poor creature had something happen in its past that has caused it to hate this country. It hates it enough to whine and bitch on the internet but not enough to do anything real about it.

If it wasn't this it would be something else like too few parking spots at its corner bar or its drive through orders always getting fucked up.

Based on its past posting this creature is retired - probably from some barely above minimum wage job it worked at for decades. Its living on social security and eating cat food and blames its pathetic life on the evil government (and most likely the Joos).

Nope, this turd will always have something to whine about either here or some other message board. If it weren't for the interent at his local public library (ironic - isn't it!?) this jackass would be the crazy dirtbag yelling a bunch of insane drivel at NY intersection.

Sad, but just a little funny.

 
At 12 January, 2010 13:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the Debunker Cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Over and over and over and over and over and........

 
At 12 January, 2010 15:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When it came to crunch time they always triple teamed Wilt Chamberlain too!! Thanks Boyos!

 
At 12 January, 2010 15:31, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

When it came to crunch time they always triple teamed Wilt Chamberlain too!! Thanks Boyos!

 
At 12 January, 2010 16:05, Anonymous Meow Mix said...

"When it came to crunch time they always triple teamed Wilt Chamberlain too!! Thanks Boyos!"

That's called leaving you open boyo.

 
At 12 January, 2010 18:06, Blogger angrysoba said...

"More dumb and utter claptrap from NY'er.So what about Bojinka? You guys act like it was never revealed publicly and voluminously.Are you saying that no strategy was devised to deal with this threat?"

Why on Earth do Truthers think that a plan by jihadists to hijack planes and fly them into buildings proves it was an inside job?

I mean, I know we're supposed to think about the victims and all that, but I wanna say a few words for the hijackers.

Can't Truthers give these poor boys a bit of credit?

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that a group of guys hijacked planes and flew them into buildings?

Most of you Truthers were probably cheering them on when you saw it happen so why all of a sudden do you pretend you're just asking questions patriots?

Next you'll be saying that it hurts the "official story" that every intelligence agency in the World was telling Condi Rice that al Qaeda was planning an attack and Condi Rice said she hadn't been informed. Or some such crap.

 
At 12 January, 2010 18:46, Anonymous Marc said...

The Bojinka Plot?

How does Bin Laden's Philippines Al Qaeda operation support the Troofer theories? It just means that Al Qaeda and bin Laden had a history of trying to blow up jets while they were in the air.

Different region and different tactic. Just more evidence that Al Qaeda was getting familiar with commercial jetlines.

Even though there were enough fighters to intercept the four aircraft on 9/11/2001, they were late in getting up (in the case of New York) and were looking for over-the-horizon threats. They had no vector for a target. They had all switched off their IFF signals,and the military couldn't track them because they were late to the game. My brother flew in AWACs, he said that tracking a target is easy once it is identified, but if you cannot isolate the target from the 100s of other aircraft in the area you're screwed. On the opening night of Desert Storm his plane was targeted by one of our own F-15s because it had been vectored in by a sloppy AWACs crew. They were able to contact the pilot and wave him off.

Fighter intercept is not as easy as troofers seem to think that it is.

 
At 12 January, 2010 19:45, Anonymous paul w said...

Proof of delusion:

Angrysob, blah, blah, blah...
Billman, blah, blah, blah...
NY, blah, blah, blah...
Billman, blah, blah, blah...
NY, blah, blah, blah...
Marc, blah, blah, blah...
James, blah, blah, blah...
Pat, blah, blah, blah...

Proof of reality:

Angrysob, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
Angrysob, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
Billman, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
NY, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
Billman, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
NY, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
Marc, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
James, Brian, see a psychiatrist…
Pat, Brian, see a psychiatrist…

 
At 12 January, 2010 19:47, Anonymous paul w said...

Oh, I forgot:

ConsDemo, Brian, see a psychiatrist..

 
At 12 January, 2010 20:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman: "it doesn't take very long at all for a plane to turn around"

30 sec is a long time for a SAM.

Arhoolie" "If you want to see the cockroaches scramble,bring up Bojinka"

Oh I don't know, NY just comes up with one of his one-word dissertations. "False." He has more PhDs than Haydn has symphonies.

Angrysoba, your "how does this prove inside job?" is just dumb.
Bojinka shows they should have been prepared to intercept hijacked airliners.

It does hurt the official story that 13 foreign countries warned about upcoming attacks, and at least six of them warned of attacks using aircraft. The official story is that we didn't know.

Marc, it's not true that the jets had no vector for a target. If you read the Bronfman article in Vanity Fair, you'll see the jets were told that flight 11 was 30 miles north of JFK.

Fighter intercept was done 1500 times from 1990 through 93, says the GAO.

 
At 12 January, 2010 20:35, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY just comes up with one of his one-word dissertations. "False."

I'll stop saying "false" when you start stating the truth, OK Brian?

Bojinka shows they should have been prepared to intercept hijacked airliners.

Who says they weren't?

It does hurt the official story that 13 foreign countries warned about upcoming attacks, and at least six of them warned of attacks using aircraft. The official story is that we didn't know.

So you're LIHOP now? Cool. No more babbling about rake-on-rake or meatball on a fork?

If you read the Bronfman article in Vanity Fair, you'll see the jets were told that flight 11 was 30 miles north of JFK.

That's nice.

Fighter intercept was done 1500 times from 1990 through 93, says the GAO.

That's nice.

 
At 12 January, 2010 22:17, Blogger Billman said...

30 sec is a long time for a SAM.

But I thought the Pentagon had a state of the art super mostest advanced defense ever built.... you're telling me your imaginary system can't shoot a plane down in 30 seconds? Then what the fuck is it good for?

CIWS can do it instantly, and that's old technology we have on our NAVY ships... and it'll take down a jetliner.

 
At 13 January, 2010 00:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said 30 seconds was a long time, meaning SAMs operate on short timeframes.

Should have said, 30 seconds was plenty of time.

 
At 13 January, 2010 05:59, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I said 30 seconds was a long time, meaning SAMs operate on short timeframes.

Should have said, 30 seconds was plenty of time.


There are no SAMs at the Pentagon, Petgoat. You know this.

 
At 13 January, 2010 09:31, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

When desperate and getting whupped,lob the "Jew hater" brick into the mix.The Debunker Cult:spineless,yet cowardly!

 
At 13 January, 2010 09:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Arhoolie, invertebrates like Barrett are always willing to manufacture such bricks for the benefit of the desperate cultists. The truth movement as a whole needs to disavow him.

 
At 13 January, 2010 10:02, Anonymous Troofers R Us said...

"When desperate and getting whupped,lob the "Jew hater" brick into the mix.The Debunker Cult:spineless,yet cowardly"

YES! Especially when the rest of the message was more than adequate.

My only question:

Friskies vs. Tender Vittles???

And here - don't say I never gave you nothing:

http://www.catfood-coupons.com/purina-cat-chow-food-coupons.html

 
At 13 January, 2010 10:06, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

You know where I'm having lunch today? The Oyster Bar!!! While a guy like Shyte is eating his meals at Taco Bell and Troy is working on a rabbit,I'll be feasting at the World's Greatest restaurant!!!!!!

 
At 13 January, 2010 11:52, Anonymous Arhoolie into the Catnip said...

So it's the seafood flavored kibble you're craving - you may need to splurge and pick up some Friskies Selects boyo.

 
At 13 January, 2010 13:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, you don't know what you claim I do know.

You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. But "nobody cares" including you.

 
At 13 January, 2010 14:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, you don't know what you claim I do know.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

You couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag. But "nobody cares" including you.

True! Nobody cares about the opinions of a hopeless lunatic who posts here because it feeds his mental illnesses. You're completely irrelevant, Brian. I'm only here to laugh at you, but my conscience tells me to suggest that you seek professional help for your mental illnesses.

 
At 13 January, 2010 14:47, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The Debunker Cult"

Lther.

Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 13 January, 2010 16:02, Blogger Billman said...

I said 30 seconds was a long time, meaning SAMs operate on short timeframes.

Should have said, 30 seconds was plenty of time.


That's ok, we all have lysdexia at some point.

 
At 14 January, 2010 14:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY you're so logically challenged that you can't see that your belief that I am mentally ill is circular reasoning.

 
At 14 January, 2010 15:58, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'I know I'm a mere civilian and not just completely unreasonable but even out of line to expect that when the nation is known to be under attack by hijacked airliners, and one of them is reported to be over Baltimore and headed for DC, that fighter jets should scramble to defend DC instead of flying out to defend Cape May.'

Three basic facts, Mongchild:

(1) Due to the budget cuts in NORAD from the end of the Cold War to 2001, only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by to cover the Eastern seaboard of the USA.

(2) The 'exercises' run by NORAD NEADS on 11th September 2001 were all CPEXes, so no real planes were in flight until the first hijackings were recorded.

(3) NORAD (and this is something you truther cunts keep forgetting) is a bi-national command. So were the Canucks in on this 'inside job' or what?

 
At 14 January, 2010 16:25, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY you're so logically challenged that you can't see that your belief that I am mentally ill is circular reasoning.

No, my belief that you are mentally ill stems from the fact that you demonstrate mental illness. This isn't hard, Petgoat.

 
At 14 January, 2010 20:15, Blogger Triterope said...

Arhoolie said...

You know where I'm having lunch today? The Oyster Bar!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptx74lGDkNs

 
At 15 January, 2010 09:13, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Good God Tritedope,you really are a fucking rube,ain't you?

 
At 21 January, 2010 15:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well gee, Arhoolie, you sure know how to kill a conversation.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home