Saturday, May 29, 2010

Pat Buchanan, 9-11 Truther?

Update: According to this, the articles posted on that website are not approved or screened by Buchanan himself. A former Buchanan staffer named Linda Muller runs the website and is apparently responsible for the kookery.

Question:

* Who owns this website?

Answer:

* Since 1995, Buchanan.org is owned and operated by Linda Muller. While Pat Buchanan is our inspiration, he is not editor, publisher, or manager, and does not decide any of the content.


I'm a bit surprised that he allows her to create the impression that it's his website when it's not. Still, Buchanan's off the hook for now.

Hat Tip to Bill Giltner.

Well, well, well, Pat Buchanan finally signs onto 9-11 Troofy Troof. He posts uncritically an entire article by Alex Jones' flunky Paul Watson on controlled demolition at the WTC.

Now, given that it's Pat Buchanan, can you possibly guess what might have attracted him to the cause of Truthiness? I'll give you a hint; it starts with "J" and ends with "ews".

By way of background, Alan Hart, a former news reader on the BBC, who's got a bee in his bonnet about those evil Zionists, appeared on Holocaust Denier Kevin Barrett's radio program. Hart presented his rather novel views on Israel's history, including (inevitably) the USS Liberty incident. Barrett segues into the "Jews did 9-11" tangent and Hart reveals that he's a thorough crackpot. Adam Holland transcribed the segment:

Hart: So basically, I've stayed away from it because it give them the focus to take the attention away from your main message. But, since you've mentioned it, I'll tell you what I honestly believe. I think it probably started out as an all Muslim operation, okay? But I think it would be very quickly penetrated by Mossad agents. I detail it in my book. From almost the moment Israel was born, it had its agents penetrating every Arab government, every Arab military organization, and every Arab terrorist group, whatever. So they certainly would have penetrated this. And at some point they said to the bad guys in the CIA, "this is running, what should we do with it?" And the neo-cons said "let's use it".

The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes. Now I'm going to tell you in passing that one of my friends is a consultant for one of the world's leading engineering firms. I'm not going to name him. They've studied the films and they've found that there's no doubt whatsoever that the planes were brought down... sorry, that the towers were brought down by controlled ground explosion. And then we have the film of the -- what is sometimes called the five dancing Israelis. Are you aware of that Kevin?


Yep, he goes into the dancing Jews were Mossad bit, then we get the eight hijackers are still alive crap. But that part above about how consultants for one of the world's leading engineering firms are convinced that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition is his real addition to the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Well, that and this:

Hart: That's right. It's established fact. It suggests that they knew that it was going to happen. It was possible, and this is Alan Hart speaking, that the planes were fitted with transponders, and these guys were calling in the planes to the targets. It's not impossible.


Yeah, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. It's not impossible. At any rate, you can see what attracted Buchanan to the story; he's long supported any conspiracy theories involving Jews, including Justin Raimondo's natterings about the Israeli Art Students.

It will be interesting to see if the Troofers follow up on this information. Surely Hart will not be allowed to remain silent about the identity of his consultant friend. Over at Flogger, this topic comes up.

Come ON, Alan. If you are going to make a claim as potentially earthshaking as this, please let us all know the identity of this civil engineering firm, the people to whom you spoke, the people who conducted the study, and evidence of the text of the study!


I don't agree with the "Truthers" often, but in this case I'll make an exception. Alan Hart needs to come clean about his source.

BTW, check out Buchanan.org's sidebar links. American Free Press, Paul Craig Roberts, AE9-11 Truth, Global Research, Max Keiser... it's a cornucopia of craze.

Labels: , , ,

90 Comments:

At 29 May, 2010 15:01, Blogger Billman said...

This is why 9/11 troof fails, everyone is always "keeping quiet about their eath shattering sources."

All it takes for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing. And that's all the troofers ever do, is claim one thing, refuse to divulge their source, and do nothing with it for 9 years. At this point, if they truly have any information that proves 9/11 was an inside job, they are now accessories to it for having kept this information from the public for so long. That's TREASONOUS!

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:08, Blogger Triterope said...

YEAH! It's time we put those 9-11 Truther criminals ON TRIAL! For SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH about 9-11!

We'll form a political group and use the popular initiative to petition New York to give us a $50 million budget, unlimited subpoena power over all branches of government, and the power to appoint ourselves as commissioners.

Only with A TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, operated only by us, can we find the truth about 9-11.

Donate now!

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:13, Blogger Billman said...

I smell inside job! The 9/11 truthers did 9/11! How else could they claim to know so much information, and refuse to release it! Who would do that? Why? I'm just asking questions!

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:15, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

Getting lazy in your old age, aren't?

Checking the FAQ's at the website you are referencing, idiot:

Since 1995, Buchanan.org is owned and operated by Linda Muller. While Pat Buchanan is our inspiration, he is not editor, publisher, or manager, and does not decide any of the content.

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its hard to believe theres so many kooks out there that have held public office, taught at MIT, Generals, etc etc.
How and the hell have we survived so long?

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:22, Blogger Billman said...

BG, you're *deluded* if you cannot accept the *possibility* that Pat Buchanan would not add content to a website named after him. That's *absurd.*

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:32, Blogger Triterope said...

Since 1995, Buchanan.org is owned and operated by Linda Muller. While Pat Buchanan is our inspiration, he is not editor, publisher, or manager, and does not decide any of the content.

Which is ridiculous. As a media celebrity, Pat Buchanan's name and image IS his product. There is no way he's letting someone make editorial decisions under his name with no oversight whatsoever.

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:35, Blogger BG said...

You are really sucking it too, Triterope.

Check it out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/muller1.html

 
At 29 May, 2010 16:08, Blogger Pat said...

Okay, you convinced me, BG. I've added a correction to the top of the post.

 
At 29 May, 2010 16:10, Blogger avicenne said...

My God, they actually believe it.

Eg, "Barrett:...These are many possibilities, but the possibility of remotely-guided planes is a good one." Of course it is, if you live in some bizarre internet constructed reality that jettisons the basic rules and procedures that allow us to maintain some vague fucking notion of a coherent society.

The suckers eat this up. Somebody at 9/11 blogger calling himself "9/11 Truth For World Peace and Justice" (aiming a bit high maybe) comments, " this shoe is fitting better and better all the time...This is the best 'people's movement' in world history..."

'Better' than the Suffragettes, than Civil Rights, the resistance movements in WWII, the French revolution? What about the peace process in Northern Ireland? It wasn't really a 'people's movement' per se, - no Freedom /Justice /Love /Truth, but at least it stopped people getting blown up in the streets.

 
At 29 May, 2010 16:11, Blogger BG said...

Good call, Pat.

 
At 29 May, 2010 17:22, Blogger Triterope said...

Fine, BG, but if Pat Buchanan is letting this go on he's an even bigger loony than if he actually read Prison Planet.

That site goes to great lengths to create the impression that it is Pat Buchanan's web site. If he doesn't care that this junk is being posted under his name and photograph, then he deserves the repercussions. Most websites aren't as scrupulous as this one about correcting such things.

 
At 29 May, 2010 17:27, Blogger BG said...

Your thoughts about buchanan.org make a lot of sense in general, Triterope.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Pat or Bay Buchanan in any general way.

 
At 29 May, 2010 17:54, Blogger Triterope said...

Well, thanks for not rubbing it in. We all make mistakes. Mine was overestimating Mr. Buchanan. Sheesh, I can't believe he lets this site exist...

 
At 29 May, 2010 17:54, Blogger Billman said...

Well, its also not unheard of for people to pretend to be someone else on the internet. For example, Bob Lazar has several facebook pages, even though he himself doesn't actually have one.

However, this site makes it a point that it has nothing to do with Pat Buchanan. Did he actually ever have anything to do with it at all?

 
At 29 May, 2010 18:11, Blogger BG said...

I imagine the following statements on my part will meet with the normal derision which I get from the "company men" who support this blog. (I realize many of you aren't even aware you are company men.

So here comes the "woo".

The most important thing to know about Pat Buchanan is that he is a member of the Knight of Malta.

(ref. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Knights_of_Malta )

I don't think everything is controlled by SCOM. However, the nexus of the power elite with SCOM is huge. I don't consider myself an expert in this area, nor do I have any inside knowledge.

However, I will assert that any member of SCOM would be a 9/11 Truther only as a renegade or as an sabotage operationun.

 
At 29 May, 2010 18:51, Blogger BG said...

So I've had too much to drink on this Sat. night.. but I have to ask you, dear reader,

Based on this video at this link:

http://blip.tv/file/2197600

Which is it?

A. Fake Video

or

B. not UA 175

Those are the choices, and understanding the the correct answer is B. is the beginning to understanding 9/11/2001.

 
At 29 May, 2010 19:36, Blogger BG said...

more woo

Pat Buchanan lends a hand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQEYL8MDNU

also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95F_kq1T7UQ&feature=related

 
At 29 May, 2010 20:42, Blogger BG said...

Exposing Alex Jones:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ajjf65p93mc5_378fkp8s8cq

 
At 30 May, 2010 03:15, Anonymous aRealVeteran said...

I wont be here Monday so you all can your props to me now, since i`m the only man here that has ever served his country.

 
At 30 May, 2010 04:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buchanan is in a weird position here -- he is a public figure so he's really very limited in the legal action he could take against the site for misrepresenting his views. He would basically need to prove that the site were deliberately posting false information in an effort to smear him, and that's probably not the case. If he were just a movie star then he could assert rights-of-publicity, but he's more a political figure and they don't get that privilege. He could probably assert a claim for the domain name but then'd he'd have to submit to arbitration through WIPO, a foreign entity. And that doesn't sound like something Pat Buchanan would do.

 
At 30 May, 2010 07:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh the irony....

The dancing Israelis WERE part of a Mossad team.

"Our purpose was to document the event." And of course they did not deny being part of a Mossad team.
The case was turned over to the FBI's Foreign Counterintelligence Section because the FBI believed Urban Moving Systems was a “cover for an Israeli intelligence operation,” ABC reported.

While the FBI searched the company’s Weehawken, N.J., offices, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives, the owner of the company, Dominic Suter, was allowed to flee the country. When FBI agents tried to interview Suter a second time they discovered that he had cleared out of his New Jersey home and fled to Israel.

When ABC reporters visited Urban Moving Systems, “it looked as if it had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse.”

Pat, why do you continually promote Antisemitism by ALWAYS associating a world wide ethnic group, Jews, with the critical examination of a political state and its intelligence apparatus?

By doing so, you only draw more anger and hatred towards an ethnic group that doesn't deserve your hatred, instead of the intelligent examination of a nation state and its foreign and domestic policies.

Please STOP promoting antisemitism. It only hurts the plight of Jews worldwide.

 
At 30 May, 2010 07:15, Blogger BG said...

Anonymous,

A huge number of the posts here at SLC Blog show that Pat and James could give a whit about intellectual honesty, and will resort to any slimming strategy readily available, of which the anti-semitic card is so very useful.

 
At 30 May, 2010 07:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dancing Israelis WERE part of a Mossad team.

There is no evidence that any of the five were part of a "Mossad team" (whatever the hell that means). The idea that any of them were agents originated from an unnamed source quoted in a Jewish newspaper, and then the story was that they were supposedly spying on radical Islamic elements.

As you are probably not aware, the ABC story you're citing also reports the FBI's conclusion that the men had no pre-knowledge of the attack. You are a sloppy thinker and easily duped, a trait common to virtually all 9/11 Truthers.

 
At 30 May, 2010 08:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"aRealVeteran said..."

Liar.

 
At 30 May, 2010 08:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Oh the irony....

The dancing Israelis WERE part of a Mossad team."

No they weren't.

Tere was no "Mossad team", you retarded marmoset.

 
At 30 May, 2010 08:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

BG said...
"Anonymous,

A huge number of the posts here at SLC Blog show that Pat and James could give a whit about intellectual honesty,"

Um, no, you fucking retard, it's the twooooofers™ who are the intellectual equivelent of stepping in dog shit.

" and will resort to any slimming strategy readily available,"

Telling the truth is not "slimming"(sic).

" of which the anti-semitic card is so very useful."

If the brown shirt fits, wear it.

Again, the truth hurts, don't it, fucktard?

 
At 30 May, 2010 08:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If the brown shirt fits, wear it."

LOL!

 
At 30 May, 2010 08:58, Blogger Triterope said...

A huge number of the posts here at SLC Blog show that Pat and James could give a whit about intellectual honesty.

You snotty little ingrate. Pat and James correct a post based on information YOU provided, and you turn around all call them intellectually dishonest ON THE SAME THREAD?

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:01, Blogger BG said...

Pat corrected the post because he didn't want provide evidence that he is such a fraud that he will let a huge mistake stand.

I give him credit for that.

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Buchanan is in a weird position here -- he is a public figure so he's really very limited in the legal action he could take against the site for misrepresenting his views.

I disagree. If the website were merely commentary about Pat Buchanan, you'd be right. But the website is pretending to represent Pat Buchanan, which is a different kettle of fish.

If I was a lawyer -- and I'm not -- I'd go the intellectual property route. This website purports to represent the opinions of Pat Buchanan. As a syndicated columnist, his opinions and the expression thereof constitute his intellectual property.

Put it this way: if you bought jackson.com, and put Michael Jackson's picture and full name on it, and uploaded songs that weren't written or performed by Michael Jackson, would you get sued? I think you would.

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Pat corrected the post because he didn't want provide evidence that he is such a fraud that he will let a huge mistake stand.

So if they don't correct it, they're intellectually dishonest, and if they do correct it, they're trying to hide the evidence that they're intellectually dishonest.

Typical conspiracythink. All possible outcomes prove what you want to believe.

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:13, Blogger BG said...

To those attacking me with "brown shirt":

You may well disagree / make light of anything I say.

However, if you would take a moment to look at the video I linked to above you would see the following:

a) I believe the key evidence about 9/11 has to do with the fact that no commercial airliners crashed at the WTC or the Pentagon, or Shanksville. Unless you can explain to me how the Mossad / Israel / Jews did that, my argument has nothing to do with "Jews".

b) My other links are mostly about Catholics / Vatican / Jesuits and the charge that particular forces within those ranks are behind corruption and machinations. Yeah, that's hard core anti-semitism!

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:17, Blogger BG said...

Triterope,

My point is that even those who are all about propaganda (read James / Pat), will admit it when their crap won't fly.

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:22, Blogger Triterope said...

My point is that even those who are all about propaganda (read James / Pat), will admit it when their crap won't fly.

Typical conspiracythink. All possible outcomes prove what you want to believe.

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:32, Blogger avicenne said...

" I believe the key evidence about 9/11 has to do with the fact that no commercial airliners crashed at the WTC or the Pentagon, or Shanksville."

That's your idea of a "fact"? What were those big things with wings that ploughed into the Twin Towers?

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:47, Blogger BG said...

Avicene,

You question is quite right.

What is this? (WTC 1, first hit):

http://blip.tv/file/746521

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:24, Blogger avicenne said...

BG, I believe it is a grainy rendition of the Naudet footage of a hijacked commercial airliner smashing into the WTC.

Enhance something that much, analyse it to pieces, and it can be whatever you want it to be. The classic example is the so-called Badgeman some see in blown up photographs of the JFK assassination, which image may actually be a Coke bottle.

The 9/11 oral histories are full of testimony confirming this was a commercial aircraft. One guy was working on a rooftop and the plane got so close he could see the faces of the Godforsaken people inside.

Unless he's lying, which by definition you have to believe, I presume.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:03, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"If the brown shirt fits, wear it."

Indeed, and you have a whole closet full of hem, complete with swastikas, don't you Lazarus. If you're not wearing your white robe with the pointy hat, that is.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:08, Blogger BG said...

Please provide a link to your oral history claim. (I don't dispute it at all),

I'm not calling anyone a liar related to 9/11, although certainly there were actors / placements (such as the "Harley Guy".

I am hugely aware of the variety of eye witness reports. The number of people who said it was a small plane which hit the tower is huge. Futhermore, the small plane report was what was first reported on CNN.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:17, Blogger BG said...

Just want to make sure everyone knows, I'm not a "no-planer", I'm a no-commercial jetliner....

Study this, WTC 1, highest resolution of first hit available. I'm not trying to play fast and loose with poor / fake video.

The first hit video does not depict anything like AA 11, and there are plenty of witnesses who substantiate that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrHvSE_4JJQ

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:33, Blogger avicenne said...

BG, that was just something I recalled from an oral history I was reading a couple of weeks ago, - I don't have the book at hand.

As for 'Harley Guy', I'm afraid we're poles apart on this one. To me the notion that the creative unit behind the attacks recruited some guy and told him to say - "and then I witnessed both towers collapse mainly due to structural damage because the fires were too intense" - is beyond facile.

It's similar to the 'voice morphing unit' which, after a staggeringly audacious plot that was years in the making, after no doubt hour after hour of rehearsal, somehow came up with the jaw droppingly ludicrous "this is your son Mark Bingham" line.

These hypothetical conspirators aren't fucking idiots.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:36, Blogger BG said...

avicenne,

I appreciate that you express your opinion without ad hom.

Thanks.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:43, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

BG says: "The first hit video does not depict anything like AA 11, and there are plenty of witnesses who substantiate that."

You're an idiot.

avicenne says: "These hypothetical conspirators aren't fucking idiots."

I thought you motherfuckers always claimed the US government was too incompetent to pull something like this off, and now, for your convenience, the "hypothetical conspirators aren't fucking idiots".

So which is it? Something in between? Or are you just trying to have it both ways?

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I appreciate that you express your opinion without ad hom."

You wouldn't condescend to anyone, now would you, BG?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:03, Blogger Triterope said...

For those who can't see BG's video, here's a screen capture.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"To those attacking me with "brown shirt":"

Telling the truth is not an "attack".

"You may well disagree / make light of anything I say."

I know it's bad, but pointing and laughing at the insane twoooofers™ who show up here is just so entertaining.

"However, if you would take a moment to look at the video I linked to above you would see the following:"

Without looking at it I would find a edited/incomplete compedium of unrelated shots, complete with insane/inane commentary and creepy/ really bad disco/ really bad porn background music.

Right?

"a) I believe the key evidence about 9/11 has to do with the fact that no commercial airliners crashed at the WTC or the Pentagon, or Shanksville."

KOO-KOO KOO-KOO!!!!

"Unless you can explain to me how the Mossad / Israel / Jews did that, my argument has nothing to do with "Jews"."

Um, retard, I don't believe the Jews did. How can I explain then how they DID do it?

"b) My other links are mostly about Catholics / Vatican / Jesuits and the charge that particular forces within those ranks are behind corruption and machinations."

Wow, old fashioned proggy prejudice against Catholics. How original! How daring! How fucking stupid are you anyway?

"Yeah, that's hard core anti-semitism!"

Hard-core, unthinking hatred is repugnant, no matter who it's aimed at, you fucking retarded marmoset.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Indeed, and you have a whole closet full of hem, complete with swastikas, don't you Lazarus"

No, I don't. you reactionary fascist fuck.

Now go wsah the tiny little shit mustache off your lip.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:12, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"If you're not wearing your white robe with the pointy hat, that is."

No, I'm not a Democrat, you ignorant shithead.

Now go wash the tiny little shit mustache off your lip. And put out the burning cross.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:14, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The number of people who said it was a small plane which hit the tower is huge."

No it's not.

"Futhermore, the small plane report was what was first reported on CNN."

AS opposed to the hundreds of films and videos showing the airliners hitting the towers.

Riiiiiight.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:40, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

No, I don't. you reactionary fascist fuck.

"reactionary fascist" = tautology.

Now go wsah [sic] the tiny little shit mustache off your lip.

That's just your wife's menstrual blood, you racist Nazi cocksucker.

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:42, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'aRealVeteran said...
I wont be here Monday so you all can your props to me now, since i`m the only man here that has ever served his country.'

Yeah. On a 36 month combat tour with the special forces, which was so covert you can't even talk about it ... except on this forum.

Fuck off you Walt.

I also can't belief that Supermong (AKA 'Anonymous') is still harping on about the '5 Dancing Israelis'. But then Jew-hatred seems to be rife amongst the retarded.

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG, Very interesting. What I also note is the lack of a couple of jet engines screaming into their final decent. Interesting that at air shows when passenger jets are that low, their engines are MUCH louder.

I wonder why the 'Brothers' manipulated the video?

 
At 30 May, 2010 19:02, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Anonymous, you're a fucking idiot.

Did I mention you were a fucking idiot?

 
At 30 May, 2010 19:02, Blogger Billman said...

The thing with the loud jet engine sounds in any video is tricky... I lived right under the landing pattern for McCarran Airport until recently, and you wouldn't hear the jets until they were right on top of you.

Buuuutt.... the Jet crashing into the WTC weren't throttling back in a controlled stall to land, they were going full out into the buildings. Hmmm... can anyone honestly say they've ever heard a plane flying nearly full speed right over them? Even taking off they're not always full blast... however, now that I live nearer to the airforce base, I hear jets taking off all the time. And flying over me.

I don't know. Depends on the situation, I guess.

 
At 30 May, 2010 19:19, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Although the planes were flying near mach 1, so that the sound waves had no way of advancing much ahead of them, there was still a loud ear-splitting noise as the planes approached. This is evident from the various witnesses and video close to the towers. And even if this wasn't the case (but it is the case) then it would make fuck all difference because fucking 767 airplanes hit the fucking towers.

This is no planer bullshit and a complete non-issue. Is the rumor true that Pat is friends with Nico Haupt?

 
At 30 May, 2010 20:03, Blogger Billman said...

I have no idea about Pat's friends. But, while the planes were traveling about 200 mph short of mach 1, I'm sure what you said still applies.

I don't understand the no-plane argument. Especially, was it Killtown?, the hologram shit.

 
At 30 May, 2010 20:12, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I have no idea where it came from but it almost annoys me more than debunkers. I think Nico Haupt and/or Ace Baker started it.

 
At 30 May, 2010 20:18, Blogger Billman said...

Well, I'm not sure what point would be if Pat is friends with Nico. One of my friends still in the Navy is a troofer, and he's all about Ron Paul, and that V for Vendetta kind of stuff. So, I mean, its possible.

Dogs and Cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

 
At 30 May, 2010 23:29, Blogger www.makemoney.usersboard.com said...

bdjokes4u.blogspot::finance4u.yolasite::makemoney.usersboard-a trusted sites link

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*This site may help you*-*-*-*-*-*-*

http://finance4u.yolasite.com/online-make-money.php ----

http://bdjokes4u.blogspot.com/ ----
Online Make Money Forum::..

http://makemoney.usersboard.com/
---
http://google-technews.blogspot.com






*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Some reader link*-*-*-*-*-*

http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalpointForum --

http://feeds.feedburner.com/BanglaJokesPortalAndTimePassZone ---

http://feeds.feedburner.com/financ4u ---

http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/AcLFD

 
At 31 May, 2010 09:04, Blogger Triterope said...

I doubt Pat and Nico are personally acquainted, since they live in completely different parts of the country.

 
At 31 May, 2010 14:52, Anonymous Marc said...

"What I also note is the lack of a couple of jet engines screaming into their final decent. Interesting that at air shows when passenger jets are that low, their engines are MUCH louder.

I wonder why the 'Brothers' manipulated the video?
"
Let me clue you in. It's called a MICROPHONE. Basic technology. The microphone on his camera is a basic condensor mic that equalizes volume. That way the stuff that is closer to the camera is louder than the stuff far away. This is why in YouTube videos of rock concerts taken by people's cell phone the person standing next to the camera often drowns out the band.

A second factor is that the video was taken from street level surrounded by tall buildings which creates a canyon effect. The jet engine sounds were bouncing all over the place.

The volume of the jet is obvious in their video as you can see EVERYONE stopping to look up.

happy to explain the obvious...

 
At 31 May, 2010 15:15, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"happy to explain the obvious..."

Interesting, as an audio guy, I know you're right, so I guess that also rules out MSM mics picking up the explosions at WTC 7, right? Except this line of reasoning isn't convenient when pandering the ridiculous "big boom, big sound" argument.

Cue the kooky pseudoskeptic back pedaling in 3..2..1..

 
At 31 May, 2010 16:59, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I guess that also rules out MSM mics picking up the explosions at WTC 7, right?

For the umpteenth time, numbnuts, "explosions" or things that sound like explosions don't prove "explosives."

 
At 31 May, 2010 17:24, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

For the umpteenth time, numbnuts, "explosions" or things that sound like explosions don't prove "explosives."

Nah, Dick Cheney himself dressed as Wile E. Coyote, throwing TNT sticks, that proves it.

 
At 31 May, 2010 17:25, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

(But I'm happy to see you and yours still have absolutely nothing to bring to the table but more side-stepping, dodging and laughable subterfuge. ;-)

 
At 31 May, 2010 19:05, Anonymous Marc said...

"Interesting, as an audio guy, I know you're right, so I guess that also rules out MSM mics picking up the explosions at WTC 7, right? Except this line of reasoning isn't convenient when pandering the ridiculous "big boom, big sound" argument."

I'm sure that the high school is proud of your AV work, but I doubt that you know jack shit about mics. I say this only because in every video of WTC-7 dropping there are no explosions to be heard. When compared with the thousands of videos of controlled demolitions; in which the explosions are clearly heard even from as far as a mile away, yet all we heard - ON LIVE TV - was the rumble and crash of the building coming down. Even the MSNBC crew's mics didn't detect any explosions even though there were in clear line-of-sight from #7.

You are looking for something that just didn't happen.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:07, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"You are looking for something that just didn't happen."

Interesting. Surely, you can cite me an audio source that reveals the earsplitting roar of WTC 7 crashing to the ground.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:13, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

(And please cite me an audio source that starts before the collapse, and ends after the collapse)

Cheers! =)

 
At 01 June, 2010 05:48, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Nah, Dick Cheney himself dressed as Wile E. Coyote, throwing TNT sticks, that proves it.'

That's more plausible than many of the 'theories' troofers have offered over the past 8 1/2 years.

 
At 01 June, 2010 09:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"sackcloth and ashes said...
'Nah, Dick Cheney himself dressed as Wile E. Coyote, throwing TNT sticks, that proves it.'

That's more plausible than many of the 'theories' troofers have offered over the past 8 1/2 years."

MORE sensible.

 
At 01 June, 2010 19:28, Blogger BG said...

What did the first plane that hit WTC 1 sound like?

Photojournalist describes being at WTC on 9/11/2001

 
At 02 June, 2010 06:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" BG said...
What did the first plane that hit WTC 1 sound like?"

It sounded just like a big airplane going really really fast crashing into a building.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8


You're welcome.

 
At 02 June, 2010 06:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"BG said...
What did the first plane that hit WTC 1 sound like?"

And that proves......what?

The guy was pretty sensible, actually.

 
At 02 June, 2010 06:56, Blogger BG said...

LL,

What are you ignoring the video of interview I posted?

 
At 02 June, 2010 06:58, Blogger BG said...

It sounded like a bomber in a war zone.....

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:06, Blogger BG said...

Unfortunately, along side my clear-eyed analysis of the non-passenger commercial jets which "bombed" the WTC, there are disinfo agents who want to push the no-planes argument.

Here's a perfect example of the lie. I repudiate this kind of lie.

Link:
Government inserted CGI Plane into 911-Eyewitness' Home Video

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:13, Blogger BG said...

LL says:

The guy was pretty sensible, actually.

Duh, I have studied many many witnesses words on 9/11. I use lots of "sensible" words to find a narrative which is logical, scientific, and provides an explanation for the evidence.

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:33, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" BG said...
It sounded like a bomber in a war zone....."

And that proves......what?

Other than he was in his house when the passenger jet flew over, and he flashed back on his experience.

THE MAN DID NOT SEE ANYTHING!

It's totally meaningless, sense free, as proof of ANYTHING.

Are you related to Joe Biden, by any chance?

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I repudiate this kind of lie."

Yet you lie by implication by posting a youtube video of someone who saw nothing, an "ear witness" who misidentifies what he heard.

Do you need an iron lung to help you breathe?

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I use lots of "sensible" words to find a narrative which is logical, scientific, and provides an explanation for the evidence."

You're insane, dude, and the "narrative" you push is a paranoid, conspiratorial load of bullshit.

Oh. and you wouldn't know "science" if it snuck up on you and bit you on your scrotum.

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:38, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

LEt's try again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8

If you can stand a bit of reality, BG.

 
At 02 June, 2010 07:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

You know, it is kinda fun posting youtube videos, especially the ones that expose twoooofers™ as the moronic idiots they are.

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

We don't have any theories,you Sack of Moldy Biscuits.That's the Debunker Cult's territory.All we have is an obvious cover up and the demonstrably false 9/11 Commission Report.Plus iron rich microspheres and molten metal under all three buildings,among other things.Anything on that,Captain Schnook?

 
At 02 June, 2010 20:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

I had an iron rich breakfast cereal one time that had more actual metal than your so-called "molten pools of steel".

Dude, it's a shame, you're getting worse.

Better see if your doc can up your meds again.

 
At 03 June, 2010 04:16, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

AHAHAHAHA that's so funny AHAHAHAHAHA cereal with iron in it HAHAHAHA

More metal..... HAHAH than in those pools of molten steel..!! HAHAHAH

Awesome. Except... it's all a bunch of bullshit, you are full of shit, and your words are pointless, sourceless drivel.

Don't you have any actual factual rebuttals up your sleeve? That way there's actually something to respond to other than bare assertions and the imbecilic ravings of a dumb, stupid flagsucking moonshine guzzling yokel with an "opinion".

I mean, you're really one of those stereotypical dumbfucks lacking the wherewithal to engage in any *real*, *meaningful* discussion, so you just post these interjecting yawners all the time.

If we wanted to stare at the armpit scratching, pouting, grooming behavior of a peanut-eating lowbrow, we'll visit a fucking zoo.

Now, are you capable of presenting any sort or form of factual, sourced rebuttal or are you just an impotent, incompetent, mentally challenged, out-of-his-league yet foolishly taunting & swashbuckling supermoron? One has to ask...

 
At 03 June, 2010 06:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Awesome. Except... it's all a bunch of bullshit"

Sure thing, flatworm.

Whatever you say.

And "COO-COO COO-COO" does not constitute an argument.

 
At 03 June, 2010 07:06, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Sure thing, flatworm.

No problem, woodlouse.

And "COO-COO COO-COO" does not constitute an argument.

Correct. So put up or shut up, you docile, dumb, undereducated, racist, extremist, militaristic clump of meat. How about some activity inside that gray mass of yours for a change. Something beyond the cognitive level of figuring out how to wipe your ass with both hands.

I never seen any cogent argument from you. You're a fucking imbecile dude. I think you really can't do any better. We both know you're stupid, you're dumb, you're basically a bracelet sporting, helmet wearing, elbow licking, knuckle dragging, tongue swallowing, short bus riding retard.

You've got the debating skills of a fucking toddler, and the historical insight of a block of wood. Let me know when you've made progress, because right now man, you're just fucking awful.

*Sigh*. There used to be people here who were at least moderately well-read, though not any less annoying.

 
At 05 June, 2010 14:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I never seen any cogent argument from you."

One doesn't "argue" with the insane.

It encourgaes their delusions, and gives validation to their fantasies.

One sees and insane twoooofer™, and one points and laughs.

 
At 28 June, 2010 05:45, Anonymous ejaz14357 said...

if they truly have any information that proves 9/11 was an inside job, they are now accessories to it for having kept this information from the public for so long.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home