The Russian Nuke Theory
I love how he proves he was a nuclear intel official; with a military uniform. At any rate, he's a thorough nut, apparently peddling his book on Lula for $51.00.
Note that in this segment, the interviewer gets AA11 and AA77 mixed up, and Dimitri does not correct him:
He's a no-planer and a nukes under the towers guy.
posted by Pat @ 11:23 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Inside Jobby Job!
Though, where's the radiation? While most high yield nukes eat up most of their own radiation in the heat blast, smaller nukes will deposit more. No radiation, no nukes. Oh and nukes cause tremendous amounts of heat. You can't claim the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, but claim there were nukes.
Do any of the troofers even believe this crap?
Do any of the troofers even believe this crap?
yes
"...Fade to black"?!?!?!?!?
Bullshit!
Here's the truth:
Source: YouTube: 9/11 TV FAKERY FADE TO BLACK ILLUMINATED.
So much for that BS.
Actually the last poll said that controlled demolition was believed by 15% of the American people, while TV fakery passed the smell test for 6%. No plane at the Pentagon is nearly as credible as CD; it checks in at 13%.
There is an article in Mother Jones on a couple of active duty losers who are members of "Oath Keepers", which is a variant of the militia movement. Not surprisingly the first soldier cited is a twoofer
Now Pray is both a Birther and a Truther. He believes he is following an illegitimate, foreign-born president in a war on terror launched by a government plot—9/11. He admires soldiers like Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who volunteered for a deployment last May and then sued to avoid it—claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus unfit for command.
Alex Jones is popular with the Oath Keepers and Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs have spoken favorably of them. I always find it ironic that the likes of Dobbs and Buchanan speak highly of those opposed to a mythical "tyrannical government" when both them are uberstatists who basically favor central planning on trade and a police state to get rid of illegal immigrants. Compared to them, Obama is a libertarian.
On the whole the article is good but the writer apparently never served in the military herself and can't this the guy for who he really is, a loser.
Pray himself had been eager to go to Iraq when his own unit deployed last June, but he smashed both knees falling from a crane rig and the injuries kept him stateside. In September, he was demoted from specialist to private first class—he'd been written up for bullshit infractions, he claims, after seeking help for a drinking problem. His job on base involves operating and maintaining heavy machinery; the day before we met, he and his fellow "undeployables" had attached a snowplow to a Humvee, their biggest assignment in a while. He spends idle hours at the now-quiet base researching the New World Order and conspiracies about swine flu quarantine camps—and doing his best to "wake up" other soldiers.
When I was in the Army, my unit always had a couple of fuck up types who were in the process of getting kicked out, and often had lost rank and were non-deployable, I hope this idiot gets the same fate.
"Oath Keepers", which is a variant of the militia movement.
Yeah, CNN has a big opinion piece on these people, whom they're cleverly calling "Hatriots."
The money quote:
There is an understandable impulse to dismiss the danger of the lone wingnut whose posts dot Hatriot Web sites. But in the last year, we have seen a half-dozen murders committed by unhinged individuals who drank deeply from Hatriot and anti-government conspiracy theory sites, including those implicated in the deaths of three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, police officers and two Florida sheriff's deputies.
It's why the 9-11 Truth movement, however infinitesimal it becomes, will always be dangerous. It's just another cause for some deranged person to latch onto and use as justification for an atrocity.
The sad thing is, from my what I saw in the video, this guy really does appear to be a Russian officer. The background information he gave is fairly believeable, even if his theories about 9/11 are pretty nutty.
Still, he could be a Russian version of Lauro Chavez. If James never saw this video he could probably pick out the flaws in his curriclum vitae better than I can.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh my God, the Chinese are here.
The Jews blew up Kennedy with a mini-nuke.
He's a no-planer and a nukes under the towers guy.
I like it when Truthers just go the whole hog. The truth is that pretty much all the conspiracy theories are idiotic but some of them decide to really push the envelope.
I'm sure he's putting on that Russian accent (or at least hamming it up) but I like the way he's found himself sat in an interview and said, "Oh damn, I left all my documents at home. Maybe I can find a few pictures of me under this coffee cup."
I stopped watching after that.
"Do any of the troofers even believe this crap?"
No, of course not. Nobody at 911blogger talks about or believes this, or if they are, they're a teeny tiny band of outkasts that risk banning as soon as they post a blog about it.
But it's Pat job to blow such fringe elements way out of proportion, make it look like these theories are widely supported in the truth movement, and subsequently blow these pathetic con artists out of the water as if this constitutes a victory over the 9/11 truth movement.
I guess Pat needed some easy targets. Are you tired, Pat? We could have done this for you ourselves. Why don't you debate Jon Gold again? Or how about one of the more vocal 9/11 family members?
Pat, your blog really sucks these days. Time to call it a day and go back to your old day job as third-rate catamite.
Heh, if this blog "sucks" these days, its only because troofers aren't up to their usual retardness anymore.
Also, I only heard the first minute of the Jon Gold / Pat Curley debate, and already Jon of course had to start with "don't you care about the families?" What a douche and an instantly recognizble tactic. I couldn't listen to that blow hard any longer.
At least Dylan Avery manages to be completely retarded in a humorous way.
Anonymous whines, "...Pat, your blog really sucks these days. Time to call it a day and go back to your old day job as third-rate catamite."
That's interesting, Anonymous. Projecting again, pervboy? After all, I was unaware that your "colleagues" in the pederast community maintained a rating system for their victims.
So tell us, Anonymous: When did you become a charter member of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association)?
Just askin'...
But it's Pat job to blow such fringe elements way out of proportion, make it look like these theories are widely supported in the truth movement, and subsequently blow these pathetic con artists out of the water as if this constitutes a victory over the 9/11 truth movement.
I guess Pat needed some easy targets.
Let's be fair. There's nothing but easy targets in the Truth Movement these days.
And I salute your policy of deleting anyone JAQing off the wrong way on your site!
""Do any of the troofers even believe this crap?"
No, of course not. they're a teeny tiny band of outkasts "
Well, which is it, yes or no? Note: unlike the TM, you cannot have "yes AND no" simultaneously.
"Pat, your blog really sucks these days. Time to call it a day and go back to your old day job as third-rate catamite."
But you still made time to come here and post, you fucktard. What does that say about you?
Jeez. I haven't posted here in an age - yet it's like I've never been away ...
this guy really does appear to be a Russian officer. The background information he gave is fairly believeable
Maybe he really is a Russian officer. But how does being a Russian officer make him an expert on this topic? It's just another Truther trying to make an appeal-to-authority argument with someone in a random profession.
There he goes again! Dumbo Fat Paddy is still trying to spin the fact that the poll showed that millions of Americans doubt the official propaganda.Is that a quarter or an eighth,Goober?
Arsehoolie the cyber-moron wrote, "...There he goes again! Dumbo Fat Paddy is still trying to spin the fact that the poll showed that millions of Americans doubt the official propaganda.Is that a quarter or an eighth,Goober?"
So what does that prove?
After all, over 50% of the American people believe that the Theory of Evolution is a hoax.
So what was your point again, arsehoolie?
That's millions of Americans,Goober.Your lunatic point that they are all wacked out right wing Christians is absurd.The real issue,GuitFiddler,is that 100% of the Debunker Cult is convinced by lame propaganda and the jabbering of morons like Rush Limbaugh,Glenn beck and Bill O'Reilly.You wacky reactionaries attempt to minimize and spin the fact that the proven lies told by the government regarding 9/11 are numerous.Talk about useful idiots.And then there's the insane and witless PornBoy,wacking off with his Ronald Reagan Pomade!!
"the Debunker Cult"
Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Talk to the imaginary friend in you head.
Arsehoolie prevaricates, "...That's millions of Americans,Goober.Your lunatic point that they are all wacked out right wing Christians is absurd.The real issue,GuitFiddler,is that 100% of the Debunker Cult is convinced by lame propaganda and the jabbering of morons like Rush Limbaugh,Glenn beck and Bill O'Reilly.You wacky reactionaries attempt to minimize and spin the fact that the proven lies told by the government regarding 9/11 are numerous."
I never said that they're "wacked out right wing Christians". Can you read arsehoolie? Or are straw man arguments all you have, douchebag?
And for your information, I don't listen to Beck, Limbaugh or O'Reilly, and I have never endorsed their propaganda. In fact, it may come as shock for you to discover that I'm a centrist Democrat, not a reactionary or a Republican.
Moreover, if the government lied about 9/11, you've never presented one iota of evidence in support of that assertion.
So when will you take your "evidence" to a court of law?
"Moreover, if the government lied about 9/11, you've never presented one iota of evidence in support of that assertion."
Carol Anne, come into to the light.
"Anonymous said...
"Moreover, if the government lied about 9/11, you've never presented one iota of evidence in support of that assertion."
Carol Anne, come into to the light."
And the fucktard replies with THE IRREFUTABLE YOUTUBE VIDEO OF DA TWOOOOOOF™!!!!!!221!11!!eleventy!!!!
[facepalm]
Anonymous the conspiratard prevaricates, "...Carol Anne, come into to the light."
The BBC narrator says, "...The evidence points to conspiracy after 9/11."
In other words, a "conspiracy" to cover the Bush administrations incompetence and dereliction of duty when they ignored the warnings from the Clinton administration of an impending Al Qeada attack.
So, how does that prove "INSIDE JOBBY JOB"?
Moron.
Well, you wanted "one iota of evidence" "in support of the assertion" that "the government lied about 9/11".
Did I fail to provide that iota? I think I just satisfied your EXACT request. In fact, I think I just gave you the alpha and omega. Don't let the facts stand in the way of your sophistry though, OCT clown.
Anonymous lies, "...Did I fail to provide that iota? I think I just satisfied your EXACT request. In fact, I think I just gave you the alpha and omega. Don't let the facts stand in the way of your sophistry though, OCT clown."
No jackass, the video you source directly contradicts your assertion, and all I need to do is reference the words of the narrator:
"...The evidence points to conspiracy after 9/11."
So, what part of the word after don't you understand, conspiratard?
Let me quote back to you your exact sentence. You cannot take it back.
"Moreover, if the government lied about 9/11, you've never presented one iota of evidence in support of that assertion."
Well, I've presented "one iota" of evidence that the government lied about 9/11. In fact, that there was a conspiracy to lie about 9/11.
Therefore, I've satisfied your request that evidence be presented supporting the claim that the government "lied about 9/11". There are no additional conditions in your request, therefore, it has been satisfied. Capiche? Can you read for comprehension? Could you point out to me where in your request the literal, verbatim condition is that isn't satisfied? Nothing in your request was not satisfied. Your literally request evidence that the government "lied about 9/11". Pure and simple.
If you can't even be gracious enough to come to terms with the fact that your request was met and this "iota of evidence" was indeed provided, by a truther no less, then you have once and for all confirmed that reason and logic are alien concepts to you, and you are merely stubbornly lying because you can't handle defeat. Your request was satisfied, reading your words literally, there can be no doubt, and that's that.
"Well, I've presented "one iota" of evidence that the government lied about 9/11. In fact, that there was a conspiracy to lie about 9/11."
No.
No you haven't.
The answer is simple, Anonymous.
Would the Bush administration lie (or stonewall) in order to cover up the administration's bungling and incompetence on 9/11? Would the Bush administration redact 35 pages from the 9/11 Report in order to save face? You can bet your life that they would lie and obfuscate to save face.
After all, show me one instance where George W. Bush ever admitted a mistake?
But does that character flaw make George W. Bush a mass murderer, or an accessory to mass murder?
Make no mistake, Anonymous, there's a big difference between arrogance and mass murder.
Bill the Git,no evidence that the government is lying about 9/11? Surely you jest,my lame man.I guess Norman Minetta is part of the wacky conspiracy theory you nuts are propagating.
Arsehoolie the insance scribbles, "...Bill the Git,no evidence that the government is lying about 9/11? Surely you jest,my lame man.I guess Norman Minetta is part of the wacky conspiracy theory you nuts are propagating."
Oh stuff that Norman Mineta trash--you quote mining sack-of-excrement.
I debunked that lie years ago.
Now, shall I stuff your filthy, lying foot down your throat, oatmeal-for-brains?
If you can.Get trying DogBoy
Arsehollie the cyber cretin whimpers, "...If you can.Get trying DogBoy."
Prepare to eat crow, scumbag.
Now pay attention, cretin.
First, Mineta's time line is off by at least twenty minutes to a maximum of an hour.
"...Norman Mineta: Ground all the planes. We already had a ground hold on planes going into New York. Any plane that was going to leave from Atlanta heading to New York, those planes were left on the ground in Atlanta. That happened maybe about 8:30 or 8:40 in the morning. Now this is about 9:27."
Source: achievement.org: Norman Mineta Interview (page: 8 / 9).
Obviously, Mineta's time line is off by a minimum of 30 minutes. In fact, 20 eyewitnesses contradicted his testimony, and demonstrated beyond a doubt, that Mineta's time line was in error. Moreover, his description of the day's events coincide with others who were on the scene, but his time line makes it appear that the events he describes happened earlier in the day. Clearly, his account of the conversation between vice president Cheney and his aid concerns Flight 93, which had already crashed. When taken in context, it's clear that the order Mineta speaks of was the shoot down order issued by president Bush, not vice president Cheney.
Clearly, Mineta's testimony was not helpful in piecing together an accurate time line; thus, Mineta's testimony was rightly omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. Mineta himself admits that he could not have been witness to an evacuation at 9:26AM when the evacuation did not begin until at least twenty minutes later.
Thus, Mineta was confused, which should surprise no one who recalls the events of that fateful day.
Got logic, cyber cretin?
Enjoy your crow, conspiratard.
Continued...
Norm Mineta claims that air traffic control issued a "ground hold on planes going into New York" that occurred, according to Mineta, at approximately "8:30 or 8:40 in the morning". Nevertheless, this was before the North Tower was stuck; thus, the actual decision was made MUCH later.
For example,
"...Regional air traffic managers on Monday offered a detailed chronology of Sept. 11, when two planes were hijacked from Boston, but refused to say more about what actually happened on the planes...Mike McCormick, air traffic control manager at the New York Center--the main control center for the area--made the unprecedented decision at 9:04 a.m. to declare 'ATC Zero,' meaning that no aircraft could fly into, out of or through the airspace over New York and the western Atlantic."
Source: Boston.com: FAA controllers detail Sept. 11 events .
Furthermore,
"...9:03-9:07 — New York and Boston regions' air traffic control officials stop takeoffs and landings. The New York Port Authority closes Newark International Airport...9:08-9:11 — Departures are stopped nationwide for aircraft heading to or through New York and Boston regions' airspace."
Source: USAToday: Part I: Terror attacks brought drastic decision: Clear the skies.
Starting to get the picture, Einstein? Clearly, Mineta's time for the "ground hold" order is OFF BY 30 MINUTES. The "ground hold" order was given 30 minutes after the time given by Mr. Mineta.
Got it, conspiratard?
So, how's that bowl of crow going down, cyber cretin?
Continued...
Here's this information should help you "get it".
Source: thinkquest.org: September 11 Timeline.
Enjoy your crow, cretin.
Arsehoolie--you pussy. Why no response?
After all, you ran up and down the threads today berating me, but you carefully avoided making a comment to this thread.
What's the matter, nutter? Cat got your tongue?
Or will you ignore my commentary, and like typical "9/11 truther" scum, return next week and tell the same lie as though it was never debunked?
Asshole.
Coward.
Loser.
Felcher.
First, you base your entire diatribe on a time which Mineta prefixes with "maybe" in the first place. Then, you ignore where Mineta says, a few words to the right, "Now this is about 9:27.", referring to the nationwide ground order, which no more than ~ 2 minutes off the mark.
Which means, Mineta made one mistake, about a time which he prefixed with "maybe", and that's what you base your entire case on, yet his comment a few words later proves there was nothing wrong with his timeline, and you knowingly omit that.
When you see Mineta's testimony, there is no doubt he's referring to AA 77. UA 93 was never "10 miles" out from DC. He talks about the "shoot down order", saying: "Well, I don't know that specifically" and "subsequently I found that out".
But Mineta was being fooled by the cover up just like the rest of us, because there never was a shootdown order issued until after the 9/11 attacks had already ended.
Hey Arhoolie, you're letting me do all the work here!
Glenn Maxey scribbles, "...'Now this is about 9:27.'"
Sorry rimjob, but the premise of your argument is flawed.
It wasn't "9:27", as I just proved.
Can you read, Glenn?
Try again, "truther" swine.
What on earth are you on about? If you're this confused, I don't see how I can unconfuse you, GB.
Fact is,I posted responses twice to the insane GuitarShrill that weren't posted for some reason.There seems to be a problem with the system occasionally.Kicking his whiny ass on this one is child's play.He already crashed his '79 Chevy Chevette on the divider a while ago.What a twit this guy turns out to be.In Latin they call it inreductio obnoxio est absurdum und derangio.
Post a Comment
<< Home