Sunday, October 17, 2010

Could Wikileaks Have Prevented 9-11?

Coleen Rowley's take.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.


My guess is no. The problem that would have been faced is the "Where's Waldo?" problem I pointed out years ago:

Here's an analogy that illustrates the problem that the "warnings" wing of the Truthers all have. Remember the "Where's Waldo?" books of the 1990s? Imagine one kid has had the books for years, and he opens one of his favorite pages up and asks a friend to locate Waldo. And sits there fussing because his friend can't see what's so obvious to him, because he knows what to ignore.

The CIA and the FBI and the rest of the government is like that poor friend, but even worse, because in their case they don't even know if there's a Waldo on that page. They receive a blizzard of information, and most of the warnings never amount to anything. It is obvious after the fact which ones mattered, just as it is obvious to that kid where Waldo's hiding.

143 Comments:

At 17 October, 2010 09:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Yeah, so according to the dummies, the President, the FBI and the CIA were negligent because they weren't prescient?

And they wonder why sane people consider them a collection of crazy wack-a-doos.

 
At 17 October, 2010 10:00, Blogger Triterope said...

Rowley is confusing information and intelligence. The problem wasn't a lack of information, it was a lack of human beings with the ability to correlate that information.

Opening this information up to the untrained masses, as WikiLeaks does, would do nothing but generate a million false leads and faulty conclusions. Not only would WikiLeaks not help, it would actually hurt.

 
At 17 October, 2010 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, you're ignoring the effect of the public aspect of the leaks.

If it had been made public that al Qaeda was planning an attack, several FBI agents expected one in lower Manhattan and there was this al Qaeda guy with a palindromic name that seemed to be behind it, perhaps the perps would have aborted the mission.

 
At 17 October, 2010 11:23, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug said...

If it had been made public that al Qaeda was planning an attack, several FBI agents expected one in lower Manhattan and there was this al Qaeda guy with a palindromic name that seemed to be behind it, perhaps the perps would have aborted the mission.


Why would that have led them to "abort the mission" the time and money had already been invested they were planning on dying, they had nothing to loose.

Also who in AQ had "a palindromic name"?

Which "FBI agents expected [an attack] in lower Manhattan"?

Any posible holes in Rowleey's logic aside she pretty clearly isn't a truther, not even a LIHOPer, even if she did hang out with them for awhile.

 
At 17 October, 2010 11:58, Blogger Billman said...

I guess the point is, the US should have claravoiyance of anything that's ever going to happen ever, and if an attack still occurs, it's because the US either let it happen or made it happen, as the US is super-duper inpenetrable and can't ever be attacked by anyone else ever unless it wants to be.

Which would make the USS Cole an iside job as well.

 
At 17 October, 2010 12:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else.

FBI agents approached David Schippers and asked him to convey their warnings of upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan--warnings that were being ignored by their supervisors.

Rowley is a truther. You guys live in a fantasy world. See Huffpost 7-15-09, "Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation".

Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.

 
At 17 October, 2010 14:34, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug said...
"Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else."


It would have depended how specific the info was. Neither Rowley nor Dzakovic had info that specific. And since carrying “Pocket utility knives (less than 4” blade)”, “Restraining devices”, “Scissors” and even “Baseball bats” was permitted before 9/11 and even after word getting planes with forbidden items didn’t net jail time they would have had no reason not to proceed.

http://www.planesafe.org/planesafe_archive/pdfs/handcarried_items.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3739-2004Jun24.html

"FBI agents approached David Schippers and asked him to convey their warnings of upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan--warnings that were being ignored by their supervisors."

So he claims with no corroboration, he never explained why they would have approached him of all people nor named the agents nor explained how agents from Chicago would have gotten such info (there is no evidence agents from that city discovered anything). Not even Rowley who was from Minneapolis said they had info indicating Manhattan was the target, not even that they knew AQ was targeting the US, they only suspected this.

"Rowley is a truther. You guys live in a fantasy world. See Huffpost 7-15-09, "Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation"."

I’ve only seen it but unlike you I’ve read it. She never indicted that she even believed in LIHOP.

Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.

Dumb and debunked and irrelevant to the topic.

 
At 17 October, 2010 14:38, Blogger Triterope said...

Pat, you're ignoring the effect of the public aspect of the leaks.


And Brian, you're ignoring... well, everything. As usual.

 
At 17 October, 2010 14:41, Blogger Triterope said...

Any possible holes in Rowley's logic aside she pretty clearly isn't a truther, not even a LIHOPer, even if she did hang out with them for awhile.

If you go to Truther events, and support Truther ballot initiatives, you're a truther. Your credibility drops to zero, for life, with no possibility of rehabilitation. Just ask Van Jones.

 
At 17 October, 2010 15:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else.

Wow Brian, you know so much about al Qaeda! Why aren't you working for the CIA instead of stalking Willie Rodriguez from your parents' basement?

Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.

What's your point?

 
At 17 October, 2010 16:20, Blogger Track said...

Alec Station knew about two ID'ed al Qaeda operatives for 20 months. When they finally told the FBI, FBI intel side agents withheld the information from criminal side agents.

John Farmer still doesn't know why Alec Station withheld the information:

So the question has always been quite simple: Why wasn’t the Mihdhar information shared with the F.B.I.? “That is one of the big mysteries. Why was the information not passed on?” Mr. Farmer told The Observer. Mr. Farmer is also the author of a recent book about the attacks, Ground Truth. “And the explanations aren’t good,” he added.

The Gay Terrorist by Aram Roston

 
At 17 October, 2010 16:49, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug said...


“Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else.”


It would have depended how specific the info was. Neither Rowley nor Dzakovic had info that specific. And since carrying “Pocket utility knives (less than 4” blade)”, “Restraining devices”, “Scissors” and even “Baseball bats” was permitted before 9/11 and even after word getting planes with forbidden items didn’t net jail time they would have had no reason not to proceed.

http://www.planesafe.org/planesafe_archive/pdfs/handcarried_items.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3739-2004Jun24.html

“FBI agents approached David Schippers and asked him to convey their warnings of upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan--warnings that were being ignored by their supervisors.”

So he claims with no corroboration, he never explained why they would have approached him of all people nor named the agents nor explained how agents from Chicago would have gotten such info (there is no evidence agents from that city discovered anything). Not even Rowley who was from Minneapolis said they had info indicating Manhattan was the target, not even that they knew AQ was targeting the US, they only suspected this.

“Rowley is a truther. You guys live in a fantasy world. See Huffpost 7-15-09, "Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation".”

I’ve only seen it but unlike you I’ve read it. She never indicted that she even believed in LIHOP.

“Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.”


Dumb and debunked and irrelevant to the topic.

 
At 17 October, 2010 16:55, Blogger Len said...

Triterope said...
"If you go to Truther events, and support Truther ballot initiatives, you're a truther. Your credibility drops to zero, for life, with no possibility of rehabilitation. Just ask Van Jones."


I think you're being overly harsh on her. She is probably racked by guilt that if only she'd (or her bosses)had done something different 9/11 might have been prevented. Thus the intel failures which the 9/11 Com. avoided are a particularly important issue for her. At worst she's guilty of making poor choices in terms of allies.

 
At 17 October, 2010 16:57, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug said...


“Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else.”

It would have depended how specific the info was. Neither Rowley nor Dzakovic had info that specific. And since carrying “Pocket utility knives (less than 4” blade)”, “Restraining devices”, “Scissors” and even “Baseball bats” was permitted before 9/11 and even after word getting planes with forbidden items didn’t net jail time they would have had no reason not to proceed.

“FBI agents approached David Schippers and asked him to convey their warnings of upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan--warnings that were being ignored by their supervisors.”

So he claims with no corroboration, he never explained why they would have approached him of all people nor named the agents nor explained how agents from Chicago would have gotten such info (there is no evidence agents from that city discovered anything). Not even Rowley who was from Minneapolis said they had info indicating Manhattan was the target, not even that they knew AQ was targeting the US, they only suspected this.

“Rowley is a truther. You guys live in a fantasy world. See Huffpost 7-15-09, "Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation".”

I’ve only seen it but unlike you I’ve read it. She never indicted that she even believed in LIHOP.

“Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.”


Dumb and debunked and irrelevant to the topic.

 
At 17 October, 2010 16:59, Blogger Len said...

References for the above

http://www.planesafe.org/planesafe_archive/pdfs/handcarried_items.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3739-2004Jun24.html

 
At 17 October, 2010 17:58, Blogger Billman said...

Bill, I guess that quite aside from the missed warnings issue you're missing the point that NORAD had no effective air defense for 100 minutes, even though they had drilled on airliner-into-WTC wargames before.

So... therefore the US should have claravoiyance of anything that's ever going to happen ever, and if an attack still occurs, it's because the US either let it happen or made it happen, as the US is super-duper inpenetrable and can't ever be attacked by anyone else ever unless it wants to be?

Is that what you're saying, Brian?

 
At 17 October, 2010 18:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

If Wikilinks had been around they would have revealed that we thought that Al Qaeda was going to hijack passenger jets flying out of Medditarranean airports. That was the best information that we had as on July 2001.

There is a new book out by Lt.Col. Anthony Shaffer, who worked on Able Danger. He states that he had used the U.S. Army's Land Information Warfare Activity(LIWA) unit to spearhead Able Danger's information grab and organization and for six months in 1999 they were able to put together a global picture of Al Qaeda. In January 2000, they then assembled all of that information into huge charts, each chart having hundreds of photos, and many being grouped into affiliations. Schaffer says that one group he calls "The Brooklyn Cell" because of its association with Omar Abdul Rahman, who was part of the 1993 WTC bombing. He claims that one of the faces staring back at him was labled by the name of "Atta".
Schaffer then describes the break-downs and bungling that followed. It is most definately a conspiracy...of stupidity and bureaucratic ass-kissing/ass-covering.

Had Wikilinks been around to expose Able Danger what would have happened next would be that because Able Danger used US Army assets to aquire open-sourced info from domestic internet, even though they never actually spied within the US, some people would have been sent to prison (or at the very least had their careers ruined). None of those sent to prison would have been Al Qaeda operatives.

A new wrinkle that SLC should bone up on is a statement by Gen. Hugh Shelton, former JCS under Clinton and Bush (briefly) in his new book "Without Hesitation" http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Without-Hesitation/Hugh-Shelton/e/9780312599058

Shelton says that in one NSC meeting that Rumsfeld proposed allowing a recon aircraft to be shot down over Iraq, and using the resulting execution of the American pilot as justification for invasion. This came AFTER 9/11, so why knock down the WTC if they were going to kill one of our own pilots instead?

Both books should be on everybody's reading list because they will probably pop-up in the Troofer lexicon after being twisted into "New Pearl Harbor" bullshit.

 
At 17 October, 2010 18:55, Blogger Triterope said...

At worst she's guilty of making poor choices in terms of allies.

Well, when you're going to accuse the entire United States intelligence community of incompetence and duplicity, who you have on your side is rather important.

When it's this package of mixed nuts, and you're endorsing a petition that would make them a modern-day deputized gang, it's a fatal blow to your campaign.

 
At 17 October, 2010 20:45, Blogger angrysoba said...

If it had been made public that al Qaeda was planning an attack, several FBI agents expected one in lower Manhattan and there was this al Qaeda guy with a palindromic name that seemed to be behind it, perhaps the perps would have aborted the mission.



It's completely unreasonable to expect the intelligence services to be completely transparent which is what Wikileaks' raison d'etre is. If al-Qaeda or anyone else could see the internal workings of the intelligence services then it wouldn't take too long to see what kind of information they feed in fools people. They would be able to work out what kind of disinformation triggers what kind of response etc... and before long most people would simply ignore warnings of terrorist threats as they would no longer be followed with any kind of attack but only an increase in security measures.

 
At 18 October, 2010 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Track wrote: John Farmer still doesn't know why Alec Station withheld the information.

James Bamford doesn't know either. He says that not only was the CIA permitted to share the information with the FBI, but in fact they were obligated by law to do so.

Len wrote: since carrying “Pocket utility knives .... was permitted before 9/11

And you're still missing the point. They would have been busted as al Qaeda members, not just guys carrying contraband. The Mossad gave a list of names.

Len wrote: [Schippers] never explained why they would have approached him of all people

You make up your facts. They approached him because he was well known as a defense attorney for cowboy FBI guys who ran afoul of the law.

Len wrote: nor explained how agents from Chicago would have gotten such info (there is no evidence agents from that city discovered anything).

They weren't from Chicago, they were from New York. And I guess you never heard of Robert Wright and John Vincent . You make up your facts.

Len wrote: [Rowley] never indicted that she even believed in LIHOP.

If she wants new investigations, she's a truther.


Billman wrote: the US should have claravoiyance of anything that's ever going to happen

No, but 1800 mph F015s ought to be able to intercept 757s. They used to intercept lost and unidentified (no transponders) aircraft almost every day, says an old GAO report.

 
At 18 October, 2010 04:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
Len, publicity would have led them to abort the mission because by doing so they could avoid arrest and try something else."

So the threat of arrest would be deterrent enough to a collection of islamonazis hell bent on commiting suicide/mass murder.

You ARE totally, completely, irredeamably insane.

 
At 18 October, 2010 05:03, Blogger Triterope said...

There's a shred of truth to what Brian is saying here. In a large, timed operation involving many trained operatives, having some of them detained could derail the whole plot. So yes, there is an incentive to avoid arrest.

 
At 18 October, 2010 05:27, Blogger Billman said...

That's mostly been debunked, though, Brian. If they really did interceptions as often as the truthers claim, then commercial aircraft would've been shot down all the time. They go off course, and lose transponder signal quite often even today. Plus, military (any pretty much any other aircraft) are not permitted to break mach 1 over the U.S.

I think the thing is, yeah, the military has the equipment and the ability to do things the way you'd like, but the fact is they never did do them that way, and that's where truthers get confused. But, link me the report you ctied. I'll check that out so I'm not talking out my ass.

 
At 18 October, 2010 07:04, Blogger angrysoba said...

No, but 1800 mph F015s ought to be able to intercept 757s. They used to intercept lost and unidentified (no transponders) aircraft almost every day, says an old GAO report.



If this is the one you or someone else has posted here before then wasn't it the one that suggested air defences be scaled down from its Cold War footing to a much smaller number of fighters?

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

 
At 18 October, 2010 08:06, Blogger Pat said...

M. Gregory, it turns out the "let them shoot a plane down" suggestion came during the Clinton Administration, so it's clearly not Rumsfeld's idea.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/hugh-shelton-book-clinton-iraq-war-albright_n_764403.html

 
At 18 October, 2010 12:22, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Which "FBI agents expected [an attack] in lower Manhattan"?

John O'Neil for one. He and Richard Clarke were guys almost obsessed with AQ. But O'Neil was not the type to play by FBI rules and Clarke was doing his best to get Bush to up the attention to AQ. But hinesight is 20/20.

FYI. O'Neil died in the towers when he quite the FBI to become security chief for the WTC.

 
At 18 October, 2010 12:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"They go off course, and lose transponder signal quite often even today"

NORAD doesn’t even have radar that covers most of the U.S. NORAD radar is on the coast looking outward and it doesn’t track transponder signals because enemy aircraft are not going to use them. Unless the FAA tell NORAD there is an issue with a passenger jet, they do not know. NORAD had 8 minutes warning on 9/11.

There is a BIG difference between chasing away an errant small aircraft who flies into military airspace, or monitoring a suspected drug plane flying in from South America and flying in to chase a passenger jet with transponder problems. The latter just didn't happen before 9/11.

Truther get there info from movies where an deviation from a planed flight path causes a big red light to go of at NORAD, horns sound and jet scramble. Pure fantasy, not real world.

 
At 18 October, 2010 12:48, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"He says that not only was the CIA permitted to share the information with the FBI,"

The fact is the CIA rarely shared info with the FBI. There was a classic lack for trust between the two.

Also if the FBI arrest someone, our legal system requires the accused to know the accusations and to know how it was gotten. The CIA loves to protect their sources, so why risk an inside mole just to get the little guy?

 
At 18 October, 2010 13:43, Blogger Len said...

Brian wrote:

"They used to intercept lost and unidentified (no transponders) aircraft almost every day, says an old GAO report."


BS! citation?

"You make up your facts. They approached him because he was well known as a defense attorney for cowboy FBI guys who ran afoul of the law."

BS! citation?

"They weren't from Chicago, they were from New York. And I guess you never heard of Robert Wright and John Vincent . You make up your facts."

AJ: Now later you got it from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota that there was going to an attack on lower Manhattan.

DS: Yea - and that's what started me calling...


Brian "YOU make up your facts"

What evidence do you have Schipers was referring to Wright and Vincent and/or spoke to them before 9/11?

" They would have been busted as al Qaeda members, not just guys carrying contraband."

1) If they wanted to bust the AQ operatives in the US they wouldn't have to wait for them to board planes.

2) If their identities were blown they would have been unable to "try something else"

"The Mossad gave a list of names."

BS! citation?

"If she [Rowley] wants new investigations, she's a truther."

If you believe:
- the attacks were carried out by AQ and
- that the US/Israelis did not "make" or "let" "it happen on purpose"

AND show no signs of believing in CD/no planes/flight 93 was shotdown(or landed in CLE) etc

You are not a truther

 
At 18 October, 2010 16:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, but 1800 mph F015s ought to be able to intercept 757s. They used to intercept lost and unidentified (no transponders) aircraft almost every day, says an old GAO report.

"ought to be able". This is our Brian in a nutshell. F-15s should have intercepted AA 11 and UA 175. SAMs should have been at the Pentagon to shoot down AA 77. Thermite could have been tested to ensure that radio detonators be used so that it could have brought the WTC down.

Could have should have would have. Brian is only dealing in what he thinks the world should be like, not what it is.

Of course, in his world, he's going to marry Carol Brouillet and his scribbles of two rakes are going to make it into a journal of engineering, so take what Brian thinks with a grain of salt.

 
At 19 October, 2010 03:52, Blogger ConsDemo said...

A twoofer moron is on the ballot in West Virginia:

Becker's sole standout moment, other than his rambling opening statement about repealing the direct election of Senators, came when he was asked about his position on the war in Afghanistan.

Becker's long and off-topic answer had little to do with Afghanistan itself -- but was a long discussion of 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories, involving the alleged organized demolitions of the Twin Towers and the 7 World Trade Center building, the foreknowledge of this by the BBC, and the buildings' owners taking out special insurance policies for the contrived terrorist attack. "The only way for the official story to make sense is if the laws of physics had changed that day," said Becker.. "And I'm an engineer, I can tell you they did not."

 
At 19 October, 2010 05:39, Blogger Billman said...

I've been reading some websites where Dylan Avery has posted responses answering criticisms about his debate with Pat on the Rob Breakenridge show... wow, Brian Good is a decent human being compared to Dylan Avery. Seriously. I hope someday, someone takes that smug punk Dylan down a peg or two, and I get to see it.

 
At 19 October, 2010 05:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Pure fantasy, not real world."

Hmmmm....

Trutherism in a nutshell.

 
At 19 October, 2010 06:47, Blogger Len said...

Jeff Becker, truther moron said: "The only way for the official story to make sense is if the laws of physics had changed that day, and I'm an engineer, I can tell you they did not."

His appeal to authority is hilarious, he as a "welding engineer" who only superficially, at best, studied the collapses and whose areas of expertise are USAF aircraft maintenance and the "automotive and machine tool industry" presumes to know better then highly qualified structural engineers who closely studied what happened.

 
At 19 October, 2010 06:49, Blogger Len said...

Billman

Can you provide the links to "where Dylan Avery has posted responses answering criticisms about his debate with Pat on the Rob Breakenridge show"? That must be hilarious.

 
At 19 October, 2010 07:05, Blogger Billman said...

Len, I can't cut and paste links on my phone, but how I found it was by doing a google search for "Bernard Brown Dylan Avery" which lead me to a forum titled "Dylan vs "brainster" from JREF tonight" or something like that.

The link on my phone says it's

Http://s1.zetaboards.com/loosechangeforums/topic/2260723/l

But I typed that by hand, so... probably better off using Google like I did.

 
At 19 October, 2010 07:09, Blogger Billman said...

The thing about all of his "responses" is that they're just calling all debunkers "the most mean-spirited people ever" and dodging direct questions about some of his deplorable statements. He never actually answers ANYTHING! He just attacks the person asking the question.

And then he cowards out with a statement from one his "favorite movies: This Conversation. Is over."

Well, to qoute my favorite film series: "He's an asshole!" - Marty McFly.

 
At 19 October, 2010 10:11, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I love the twoofer attempts at victimhood.

calling all debunkers "the most mean-spirited people ever"

Right, presumably "nice" people accuse others of committing mass murder on no evidence whatsoever.

 
At 19 October, 2010 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Billman wrote: That's mostly been debunked

Billman, an interception is not a shootdown. Of the 1500-odd interceptions done over four years as reported by the GAO, I'm not aware that any of them were shootdowns.

Billman wrote: the fact is they never did do them that way

The GAO says they did it almost every day, and an unidentified aircraft is by definition one without a transponder signal.

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

Dave Kyte wrote: NORAD doesn’t even have radar that covers most of the U.S.

That's what Popular Mechanics wrote, but that's not what Nasypany told Bronner. He said they had so many domestic blips they could not find the needles in the haystack.

Len wrote: What evidence do you have Schipers was referring to Wright and Vincent and/or spoke to them before 9/11?

I never said he was, but Schippers represented Wright in 1999. He had other sources as well. Google .... Schippers 9/11.... and you might learn something.

For the Mossad warnings google .... Mossad schrom terrorists zeit ....

Len wrote: His appeal to authority is hilarious

Only freshman physics is necessary to raise questions about the official accounts in anyone who honestly looks at the evidence. Few, however, are willing to do so. They prefer to accept baby talk from Popular Mechanics.

 
At 19 October, 2010 11:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Billman, an interception is not a shootdown. Of the 1500-odd interceptions done over four years as reported by the GAO, I'm not aware that any of them were shootdowns.

The GAO says they did it almost every day, and an unidentified aircraft is by definition one without a transponder signal.

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

That's what Popular Mechanics wrote, but that's not what Nasypany told Bronner. He said they had so many domestic blips they could not find the needles in the haystack.


Do you have a point to make, Brian?

Only freshman physics is necessary to raise questions about the official accounts in anyone who honestly looks at the evidence. Few, however, are willing to do so. They prefer to accept baby talk from Popular Mechanics.

I must've overslept the day my freshman physics class covered the "meatball on a fork" or the "birds nest on a pole" or the "rake on rake" model of building collapse. But you obviously know what you're talking about, Brian.

 
At 19 October, 2010 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry that the physics of a bird nest on a fence post or a meatball on a fork or a rake on a rake are too challenging for you, Ian. Probably that's your daddy's fault. Certainly it's not mine.

 
At 19 October, 2010 14:50, Blogger Billman said...

I don't know if this is all stuff any of us have gone over before, but I was perusing through things and came across this history commons link and some of it is kind of disturbing.

Especially the part where an FBI agent, although it is only speculation, says around August 20 something 2001 that he thinks a guy connected to Al Qaeda is trying to crash something into the WTC. Again, he's just making that up as part of speculation.. but eeiry.

 
At 19 October, 2010 15:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm sorry that the physics of a bird nest on a fence post or a meatball on a fork or a rake on a rake are too challenging for you, Ian. Probably that's your daddy's fault. Certainly it's not mine.

It's apparently too challenging for any engineers, physicists, or architects too. I guess it takes the kind of genius available only to unemployed middle-aged janitors who stalk people online from their parents' basement.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 19 October, 2010 15:51, Blogger Len said...

So Brian where in the report did it say anything about intercepting way6ward or unidentified flights originating in the US?

 
At 19 October, 2010 15:58, Blogger Triterope said...

It's apparently too challenging for any engineers, physicists, or architects too.

And mental health professionals. Brian would make Sigmund Freud go "WTF?"

 
At 19 October, 2010 16:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, an interception is an interception.

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

The report says that in addition to the Continental Defense mission, NORAD was also charged with maintaining Air Sovereignty by providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

tracking hijacked aircraft;

assisting aircraft in distress;

escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and

peacetime military intercepts.

 
At 19 October, 2010 16:20, Blogger Billman said...

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

OUTSIDE the U.S...

tracking hijacked aircraft;

OUTSIDE the U.S...

assisting aircraft in distress;

OUTSIDE the U.S...

escorting Communist civil aircraft;

OUTSIDE the U.S...

and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations

OUTSIDE the U.S...

and peacetime military intercepts.

OUTSIDE the U.S...

Or does it specifically say otherwise?

 
At 19 October, 2010 17:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess you missed the "surveillance and control of the territorial airspace" specification.

 
At 19 October, 2010 17:44, Blogger Billman said...

I guess you missed the "surveillance and control of the territorial airspace" specification.

Aye, I did (cause I haven't had the team to read the whole thing yet). But how is THAT defined according to the report?

 
At 19 October, 2010 17:44, Blogger Billman said...

Uh, TIME not team.

 
At 19 October, 2010 21:52, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Aw Christ, are we back to the NORAD bullshit angle again?

Forget the fact that once the jets had turned off their transonders they vanished into the backround of the thousands of radar blips (like traking 4 bees in a swarm - good luck). Forget that NORAD wasn't called until after the jets had been hijacked so that they had no idea where to start looking. Forget the fact that NORAD and StratCOM hadn't intercepted anything on the east coast since the end of the Cold War tenyears before. Forget the fact that those Cold War intercepts flew out of Maine and Iceland intercepting BEARs as they approached Greenland.

Forget all that.

The two F-15s arrived on station over Manhattan AFTER the second tower had been hit. The first F-16s that flew out of their base near Washington D.C. were armed only with WAX practice round for shooting at targets. The pilots of those planes headed east out over the ocean, and they were calculation the most effective way to RAM a commercial jet in suck a way that they could safely eject.

Bwian, your ignorance about USAF capabilities are on par with your general baffoonery. I mean shit, Bwian, why not go all the way? Why not claim to have spoken to the pilots, who also happen to be unicorns? Why not say that those F-16/Unicorn pilots were told by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Snape they they were forbidden to use their magic fairy powder to form a protective raindow around the Pentagon?

If you insist on being delusional, go whole-hog. You could end up getting a movie deal out of it/

 
At 19 October, 2010 22:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ferris wrote: NORAD wasn't called until after the jets had been hijacked so that they had no idea where to start looking.

If you'd bother to read the Bronner article, you'd see they were informed that flight 11 was 30 miles north of JFK airport.

The question of whether the fighters were armed or not is irrelevant to the question of the failure of NORAD to intercept any of the errant airliners--intimidation was certainly a viable strategy and, since you mention it, ramming or tipping.

Why not claim unicorns? Because I'm a truth-seeker. Unicorns are your job.

 
At 19 October, 2010 23:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

If you'd bother to read the Bronner article, you'd see they were informed that flight 11 was 30 miles north of JFK airport.

That's nice.

The question of whether the fighters were armed or not is irrelevant to the question of the failure of NORAD to intercept any of the errant airliners--intimidation was certainly a viable strategy and, since you mention it, ramming or tipping.

Ah yes, intimidating a bunch of guys on a suicide mission. What a plan!

Because I'm a truth-seeker.

Brian, do you write this stuff just to get everyone here to laugh?

 
At 20 October, 2010 00:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, intimidating people on a suicide mission. If they could be convinced that their mission could not succeed, they might decide that killing a bunch of innocents for nothing would not be a warrior's way.

 
At 20 October, 2010 04:33, Blogger Triterope said...

since you mention it, ramming or tipping.

RAMMING a commercial jetliner? Brian, are you honestly this fucking stupid?

 
At 20 October, 2010 04:59, Blogger Billman said...

Brian, I have to chime on on your last comment. The whole POINT of their suicide mission was to kill civilians. "Warrior's way" or not, all that mattered was taking innocent civilians with them when they died.

Proof? Flight 93... not crashed by the passengers, but by the hijackers, who would still accomplish their suicide terror mission of crashing the plane wether they reached the US Capitol building or not.

Do you even BOTHER learning about 9/11 stuff? Or just make it up? "Warriors way.." my god.

 
At 20 October, 2010 05:06, Blogger Billman said...

These weren't Klingons trying to get into Sto'vo'kor, Brian... these were pissed off Arabs with a religious vendetta against the US trying to make the US listen to their message by killing it's civilians.

 
At 20 October, 2010 05:10, Blogger Billman said...

And if I recall, wether they killed one person or one hundred thousand people (WTC at capacity), they would have completed their mission. Seeing as they had hostages on the planes, crashing the planes would take care of at least one "enemy civilian" while still sending a terror message, which was their goal.

Are you gonna ask "why would they want to attack the US?" now?

 
At 20 October, 2010 07:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, intimidating people on a suicide mission. If they could be convinced that their mission could not succeed, they might decide that killing a bunch of innocents for nothing would not be a warrior's way.

Yes, and if you could be convinced to start visiting a psychiatrist on a regular basis, take the medication he prescribes for you, and maybe pick up a constructive hobby, then maybe you could lead a productive, meaningful life instead of babbling about thermite and stalking Willie Rodriguez 18 hours a day, 365 days a year.

See, I can come up with far-fetched hypothetical scenarios too!

 
At 20 October, 2010 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, pray tell--what is stupid about ramming or tipping an airliner?

Billman, how do you know what the point was? Had the purpose been to kill civilians, far more effective plans could have been created that would have given the opportunity for the attackers to get away and attack again and again and again. The Ground Zero plotters could have killed many more if they had waited until later in the day when the buildings were fully populated. Also they made no effort to block the emergency stairways when that could easily have been done.

How do you know flight 93 was crashed by the hijackers? The evidence in the audio tape is that the passengers had entered the cockpit. The debris to the east suggests that the plane had turned around and was flying west when it came apart in the air. Perhaps there was a struggle for control and the pilots were trying to shake the plane around to destabilize their attackers--and the plane came apart.

Ian, run along and play. The grownups are talking.

 
At 20 October, 2010 12:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

TR, pray tell--what is stupid about ramming or tipping an airliner?

Oh, nothing besides the fact that you'd cause a crash of both it and the interceptor, killing most if not all aboard, and who knows how many people on the ground....

Billman, how do you know what the point was?

We've been told ad nauseum what the point was by al Qaeda themselves, Brian. Maybe you should try finding out about what goes on in the world around you before babbling about it?

How do you know flight 93 was crashed by the hijackers? The evidence in the audio tape is that the passengers had entered the cockpit.

Uh, no Brian. To those of us who inhabit planet earth, the evidence is that the hijackers crashed it when they feared the passengers would overtake the cockpit and then, perhaps save the flight. Instead, they decided to, um, kill as many people as possible (everyone on the plane).

Perhaps there was a struggle for control and the pilots were trying to shake the plane around to destabilize their attackers--and the plane came apart.

Perhaps it collided with a martian spacecraft which caused it come apart.

Ian, run along and play. The grownups are talking.

Coming from a 57-year-old man with no job who lives with his parents and stalks people online all day.

You're truly an amazing one, Brian. When your parents pass away (how young can they be?), it's going to suck not having you babbling away here. I don't know if the guys at the homeless shelter are going to be as receptive to your brand of amusing insanity.

 
At 20 October, 2010 12:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Why didn't the hijackers hit the buildings later in the day?

Seriously?

They rode transcontinental flights for months to learn what the flight crew patterns were AND which flights would have the fewest passengers.

Fewer Passengers are easier to manage than a full plane load.

Your truth=seaking abilities are painfully lacking.

So what if Norad was notified while the first plane was 30 miles out, it's not a fucking balloon or blimp. That plane was going 400mph.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what's stupid about causing the crashes? You're not making any sense. Ferris was making the idiotic argument that the allegedly unarmed condition of the F-16s had something to do with their failure to intercept the airliners.

Then TR made the idiotic argument that the notion of ramming an airliner was stupid.

Then you make the idiotic argument that it's stupid because it will kill the passengers. If the point is to stop a doomed airliner from fulfilling its mission, then what's stupid about killing the passengers?

When did al Qaeda say that their intention was to inflict maximum civilian casualties? And if it was, why didn't they take some simple steps to maximize, rather than minimize, the deaths from the WTC attacks?

As to flight 93, there is the evidence that the plane had turned around and was flying west. The transponder turned back on at 10:00. There is the cockpit voice recorder, which catches passenger voices saying, “Give it to me!,” “I’m injured,” and “Roll it up” or “Lift it up” just before the recording ends. There is also the question of how complete the tape is. There is much doubt about what happened, including the discrepancy between the official time of the crash and the seismographic evidence.

For you to compare the perfectly reasonable hypothesis that the plane came apart because of overstressing flight maneuvers (one witness claimed it was flying upside down) with martian hypotheses is typical dishonesty from you.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ferris, do you have any actual information that later flights have higher occupancy rates, or is it just circular reasoning on your part?

Why are fewer passengers easier to manage? I would think just the oppposite. With more people, everyone would just hide in the crowd and wait for someone else to do something, and cowboys would be inhibited by fear of endangering all those others.

At 400 mph that's still five minutes away. An F-15 can fly 100 miles in that time. And yet NORAD didn't even try to intercept.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Then TR made the idiotic argument that the notion of ramming an airliner was stupid.

Brian, learn what words mean. His argument wasn't "idiotic" at all.

Then you make the idiotic argument that it's stupid because it will kill the passengers. If the point is to stop a doomed airliner from fulfilling its mission, then what's stupid about killing the passengers?

The problem, Brian, is that no one knew these were doomed airliners until UA 93, which crashed without being intercepted. One of the brilliant elements of the attacks is how they took everything we thought we knew about hijacking and turned it on its head. Instead of the usual landing the plane in Cuba and demanding ransom or some prisoners to be released, we got kamikaze attacks.

The hindsight of ignorant lunatics like you doesn't change that.

When did al Qaeda say that their intention was to inflict maximum civilian casualties?

In many, many videos and transcripts. KSM made it clear he wanted to kill as many Jews as possible and thought hitting the WTC would accomplish that.

And if it was, why didn't they take some simple steps to maximize, rather than minimize, the deaths from the WTC attacks?

Again, Brian, here on planet earth, there is no evidence they took any action to do anything but inflict maximum casualties.

As to flight 93, there is the evidence that the plane had turned around and was flying west.

Where?

There is much doubt about what happened, including the discrepancy between the official time of the crash and the seismographic evidence.

Evidence for this assertion, please?

For you to compare the perfectly reasonable hypothesis that the plane came apart because of overstressing flight maneuvers (one witness claimed it was flying upside down) with martian hypotheses is typical dishonesty from you.

False. You know, it's quite possible the witness saw the plane in its death spiral.

Show some evidence for what you claim, Brian. If you haven't noticed, people here don't consider the words of an ignorant lunatic to be evidence.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ferris, do you have any actual information that later flights have higher occupancy rates, or is it just circular reasoning on your part?

What was Dave Kyte saying about "argument ad ignorantum" in the other thread....

Why are fewer passengers easier to manage? I would think just the oppposite.

Yes, and you also think that "meatball on a fork" describes what should have happened at the WTC. You're a delusional liar, Brian. Nobody cares about what you think.

With more people, everyone would just hide in the crowd and wait for someone else to do something, and cowboys would be inhibited by fear of endangering all those others.

Mindless speculation by a delusional liar...

At 400 mph that's still five minutes away. An F-15 can fly 100 miles in that time. And yet NORAD didn't even try to intercept.

False. Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a waste of time. So in Ian'sworld, flights 11, 175, and 77 were not doomed?


The use of suicide hijacked airliners had been known since 1994, Air France FLIGHT 8969.
Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot had been known since 1995.

Hey genius, if KSM wanted to kill Jews he would have hit synagogues and yeshivas, not the WTC. Or what about--Duuuuh! Attacking Israel?

There is evidence that they took action other than to inflict maximum casualties. How about if they gassed the fire exit stairways at the WTC? They could have killed five thousand more.

NORAD didn't even try to intercept, and you guys make up rationalizations for it that aren't even half smart.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you're a waste of time. So in Ian'sworld, flights 11, 175, and 77 were not doomed?

I'm a waste of time, but you'll continue to respond. OK. Anyway, I never said 11, 175, and 77 were not doomed, I said that nobody knew they were doomed.

The use of suicide hijacked airliners had been known since 1994, Air France FLIGHT 8969.
Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot had been known since 1995.


So what?

Hey genius, if KSM wanted to kill Jews he would have hit synagogues and yeshivas, not the WTC. Or what about--Duuuuh! Attacking Israel?

Brian, it's hard for me to believe you're this much of an ignorant lunatic. This is all an act and you're pulling a prank on us, right? I'd expect this kind of retort from a 5-year-old.

There is evidence that they took action other than to inflict maximum casualties. How about if they gassed the fire exit stairways at the WTC? They could have killed five thousand more.

They could have killed 8 million more if they had incinerated New York City with a death ray beam from space.

NORAD didn't even try to intercept, and you guys make up rationalizations for it that aren't even half smart.

False. Stop being an ignorant liar, Brian.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:27, Blogger Billman said...

Well, I can see others have responded with what I was going to.

So yeah, Brian. Apparently you believe you know a lot about everything so steadfastedly, that I'm wondering why you haven't applied for a national security posistion since you apparently have every answer needed to save the world.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the common sense and factual answers aren't enough for you, so I don't know what else to say.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would I want a national security position? Why would I want to hang out with a bunch of boring spooks?

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why would I want a national security position? Why would I want to hang out with a bunch of boring spooks?

Well, you might make enough money to afford the sex change operation so you can marry the love of your life, Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well Ian I already have enough money for a sex-change operation, so I guess if that's what I wanted I would have done it already. Now I suppose I could buy Willie a sex-change operation, but since he's just not that bright we'd be a poor match. Besides, given his past association with Randi--well Willie just wouldn't really be my type even if he was smart and even if he was a girl, and even if he wasn't a skid-marked scumbag.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

Well Ian I already have enough money for a sex-change operation, so I guess if that's what I wanted I would have done it already.

That's quite an allowance you get from your parents, Brian. You might have to report it as income to the IRS.

Now I suppose I could buy Willie a sex-change operation, but since he's just not that bright we'd be a poor match. Besides, given his past association with Randi--well Willie just wouldn't really be my type even if he was smart and even if he was a girl, and even if he wasn't a skid-marked scumbag.

Nobody cares about Willie Rodriguez but you, Brian. If you're going to babble pointlessly about the love of your life, I'm going to leave.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:52, Blogger Triterope said...

pray tell--what is stupid about ramming or tipping an airliner?

Ferris was making the idiotic argument that the allegedly unarmed condition of the F-16s had something to do with their failure to intercept the airliners.

If the point is to stop a doomed airliner from fulfilling its mission, then what's stupid about killing the passengers?


You can't make this stuff up, folks. John Cleese couldn't have invented this guy.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah, the attitude bluff from TR--the only gambit available to one whose illogic has been totally exposed.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ah, the attitude bluff from TR--the only gambit available to one whose illogic has been totally exposed.

Brian, you wouldn't know logic if it gave you a list of 273 unanswered questions.

 
At 20 October, 2010 17:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Ah, the attitude bluff from TR--the only gambit available to one whose illogic has been totally exposed.

I'm done here.

 
At 20 October, 2010 18:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yup. Face facts. Stick a fork in yourself.

 
At 20 October, 2010 18:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yup. Face facts. Stick a fork in yourself.

Fact: the WTC was brought down by impact and subsequent fires from two 767 jetliners piloted by members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network acting according to a plan devised by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Fact: "snug.bug" is one of many internet names of one Brian Good, an unemployed 57-year-old janitor from Palo Alto, CA who lives with his parents and spends a significant portion of his time stalking Willie Rodriguez. Other internet names for Mr. Good include "petgoat" "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", and "Watson".

Face facts, Brian.

 
At 20 October, 2010 21:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie Rodriguez thinks there's only one guy in the world who knows he's a liar, and your information comes straight from him. Of course you, like the most gullible of truthers, find Rodriguez credible. Of course Willie has no more evidence for these notions than he has for his claims of 15 rescued and hundreds saved, but that doesn't bother you.

And yes, TR was toast. He said it was stupid to ram a plane, and he can't say why.

 
At 20 October, 2010 22:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Fact: Brian Good is lying again by denying he's any of his many internet aliases.

Brian, let me explain a few things to you:

1, Nobody else on the planet gives a fuck about Rodriguez. You're the only person obsessed with him, probably because you want to have his babies and he rejected you.

2, When you spend every waking hour stalking people on the internet and babbling about the same pointless topics, you leave a massive trail behind you that others can find rather easily.

3, Nobody here believes any of your denials.

4, You, Brian Good, took credit for being petgoat at this very blog. You, as "snug.bug", took credit for being Brian Good at Kevin Barrett's blog.

5, Given your abysmal intellect and your obsessive tendencies, it's quite easy to figure out your various other internet identities because you babble mindlessly about the same garbage with the same language style. It doesn't take the CIA to figure this out.

I'm once again going to suggest seeing a psychiatrist. You're in serious need of professional help to deal with your mental illnesses.

 
At 20 October, 2010 22:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Project much, hmmmmm?

So let's see, you're stalking various phantoms you imagine to be Brian Good all over the internet to accuse him of stalking people and of being homosexually infatuated with a fat, dumpy, and none-too-bright unemployed janitor with a rather sordid history.

I never took credit for being petgoat. If I so much as offer to explain what I think the significance of his birdnest on a fencepost model is, and I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain (but not you), then you think I'm claiming I invented it.

Give it up, Ian. You're not equipped for this.

 
At 21 October, 2010 04:28, Blogger Triterope said...

He said it was stupid to ram a plane, and he can't say why.

You want me to sit here and explain to you how a plane works? I mean, you want to learn more, read the papers, go on the Internet, I don't know.

 
At 21 October, 2010 06:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Project much, hmmmmm?

My, such desperate squealing! What are you afraid of, petgoat?

So let's see, you're stalking various phantoms you imagine to be Brian Good all over the internet to accuse him of stalking people and of being homosexually infatuated with a fat, dumpy, and none-too-bright unemployed janitor with a rather sordid history.

I'm only pointing out the obvious. It certainly seems like you're sexually infatuated with Rodriguez. You can't stop babbling about the man.

I never took credit for being petgoat.

Stop lying, petgoat. You were so excited to tell us that you were petgoat! You LOVED being petgoat!

If I so much as offer to explain what I think the significance of his birdnest on a fencepost model is, and I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain (but not you), then you think I'm claiming I invented it.

It's obvious only to you because a) you are petgoat and b) you're a deranged lunatic.

Give it up, Ian. You're not equipped for this.

petgoat, you're squealing like a little girl who had her heart broken by Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 21 October, 2010 06:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

So let's see, you're stalking various phantoms you imagine to be Brian Good all over the internet

"All over the internet"? I'm here maybe 15 minutes a day.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR wrote: You want me to sit here and explain to you how a plane works?

No, and thanks for once again acknowledging your toasthood by trying to change the subject instead of explaining what you were thinking when you said the notion of ramming or tipping the 757 as a means of foiling its mission was stupid.

Ian, the relevance of the birdnest on a fencepost model to the twin towers' core structures and the disorganized mass of light debris that would presumably be ineffectually impacting it is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person. I must suppose you did poorly on the analogies section of the SAT and that rather than motivate you to woek to remedy your intellectual deficits this has caused you to become hostile to analogies.

Your inability to imagine a motivation other than sexual jealousy for someone to put time into squelching a strutting, bragging, lying, glory-stealing 9/11 braggart who probably cost the truth movement a nice relationship with C-Span is quite telling. Project much?

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, and thanks for once again acknowledging your toasthood by trying to change the subject instead of explaining what you were thinking when you said the notion of ramming or tipping the 757 as a means of foiling its mission was stupid.

Brian, are you aware of how an airplane works?

Ian, the relevance of the birdnest on a fencepost model to the twin towers' core structures and the disorganized mass of light debris that would presumably be ineffectually impacting it is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person.

No, it's "obvious" to you and to you only because a) you're a total ignoramus when it comes to matters of physics and engineering and b) you're a deranged lunatic.

I must suppose you did poorly on the analogies section of the SAT and that rather than motivate you to woek to remedy your intellectual deficits this has caused you to become hostile to analogies.

Babbling about the SATs now? You really haven't seen any mental development since about age 15, have you Brian?

Your inability to imagine a motivation other than sexual jealousy for someone to put time into squelching a strutting, bragging, lying, glory-stealing 9/11 braggart who probably cost the truth movement a nice relationship with C-Span is quite telling. Project much?

Why else would you waste so much time on someone so irrelevant? It's obvious you don't get laid much, Brian, and you're also obsessive. You love Willie and he rejected you (I can't imagine why) so you're trying to have your revenge on him.

All of this could be fixed if you'd visit a psychiatrist. It's not too late.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, I love the adjectives used to describe Rodriguez: "strutting", "bragging". Brian, you forgot "fabulous".

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, Brian, the "truth" movement's inability to come up with any remotely plausible theories for what happened on 9/11 is what cost you guys the cozy relationship with C-Span. Endless babbling about death ray beams and magic thermite elves and disappearing airplanes all under the control of "zionists" is what cost you, not Rodriguez.

 
At 21 October, 2010 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the truth movement has no need of theories when the dishonesty, incomplete nature, and implausibility of the official theories makes the need for new investigations obvious.

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the truth movement has no need of theories when the dishonesty, incomplete nature, and implausibility of the official theories makes the need for new investigations obvious.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

It works fine with those who are actually willing to look at the facts.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

It works fine with those who are actually willing to look at the facts.

Can you list some of these facts that you've looked at? Maybe I can help you devise a hypothesis from them since you don't have one, even after 9 years.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have plenty of hypotheses. I just don't choose to share them, because they're not needed. No, I'm not going to discuss facts with you. You're not worth my time.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I have plenty of hypotheses. I just don't choose to share them, because they're not needed. No, I'm not going to discuss facts with you. You're not worth my time.

Game. Set. Match. Brian Good, aka petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, snug.bug, contrivance, Watson, etc. loses once again.

But he can always continue to fantasize about the wonderful family he'll have with Willie Rodriguez.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah yes, declare victory and leave. Disinfo strategy #25.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ah yes, declare victory and leave. Disinfo strategy #25.

I'm still here Brian. You're the one who refuses to give me a theory of what happened on 9/11 and the facts that said theory is based on, remember?

 
At 21 October, 2010 15:48, Blogger Triterope said...

No, and thanks for once again acknowledging your toasthood by trying to change the subject instead of explaining what you were thinking when you said the notion of ramming or tipping the 757 as a means of foiling its mission was stupid.

You wanna maybe just go?

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you want to maybe explain why the idea of ramming or tipping the airliner is stupid, or acknowledge that it's not?

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:45, Blogger Triterope said...

Do I want to explain why what is stupid?

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Do you want to maybe explain why the idea of ramming or tipping the airliner is stupid, or acknowledge that it's not?

This is why Brian is so entertaining. His particular brand of insanity is such that he can never EVER concede a nanometer of ground in an argument, so that he doesn't just loose sight of the forest for the trees, he loses sight of the trees for the pine needles.

Brian, we're not going to tell you why it's a bad idea to ram a jetliner with an F-15. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'll just have to suppose that your smug beliefs in this matter are, like your other beliefs, based on erroneous assumptions.

 
At 21 October, 2010 17:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"No, I'm not going to discuss facts with you. You're not worth my time.
"

Why start now?

Your knowledge about the USAF and the CIA come only from movies and TV shows. This is why you fail.

There are no super-duper radars that the Air Force only uses on special occations. The NSA and FBI do have data-mining computers that pump out NYC-phonebook-sized reports every day but that information can take weeks to digest. The CIA doesn't spy inside the US. The FBI prior to 9/11/2001 wasmore worried about racial profiling ( as was the US Customs Agency), so nobody wanted to risk their careers by getting caught looking too closely at Arabs.

That's the real world, Bwian, and I understand that it is lost on you. My hope is to save some other person who might be reading this from becoming a delusional, paranoid loon like you are.

 
At 21 October, 2010 18:08, Blogger Triterope said...

This is why Brian is so entertaining. His particular brand of insanity is such that he can never EVER concede a nanometer of ground in an argument

He is, in the literal sense of the word, a farce. He starts off with one lie, and then has to tell a more outrageous lie to support the original lie, and so on and so forth in that fashion. Really, ramming jetliners? You couldn't come up with that.

 
At 21 October, 2010 18:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll just have to suppose that your smug beliefs in this matter are, like your other beliefs, based on erroneous assumptions.

Nobody cares. When you wake up tomorrow, there will be no new investigation, Willie Rodriguez will be happily married, and you'll be an unemployed lunatic living with your parents.

 
At 22 October, 2010 09:15, Blogger Triterope said...

When you wake up tomorrow, there will be no new investigation, Willie Rodriguez will be happily married, and you'll be an unemployed lunatic living with your parents.

Hey, you're right!

 
At 22 October, 2010 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ferris wrote: There are no super-duper radars that the Air Force only uses on special occations.

Nobody said there were. What Major Nasypany told Michael Bronner was that their radar could see thousands of green blips.

Ferris wrote: The FBI prior to 9/11/2001 wasmore worried about racial profiling

Yes, as Greg Palast pointed out, one of the first thing Bush did in office was order the FBI to go easy on the Saudis, in particular two bin Laden guys who were suspected of being terrorist financiers.

Ferris wrote: That's the real world

Right. A real world where NORAD can't find hijcaked airliners in 100 minutes, and then tells so many conflicting stories about the day that the 9/11 Commissioners half to completely rewrite their testimony and consider referring the matter to the DoJ for a criminal investigation. And you think pointing out that fact is paranoid.

TR wrote: He starts off with one lie, and then has to tell a more outrageous lie to support the original lie

Please specify what I said that was a lie, TR. And what's this about ramming airliners? Why are you afraid to say what puts that beyond the pale? Because it makes you look foolish?

Ian wrote: Nobody cares.

Right. None of you care that your smug opinions are based on erroneous assumptions.

 
At 22 October, 2010 11:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody said there were. What Major Nasypany told Michael Bronner was that their radar could see thousands of green blips.

That's nice.

Yes, as Greg Palast pointed out, one of the first thing Bush did in office was order the FBI to go easy on the Saudis, in particular two bin Laden guys who were suspected of being terrorist financiers.

Which confirms what Ferris said. You know, Brian, it's possible to be outraged at Bush from the left (as I am) without being into loony conspiracy theories.

Right. A real world where NORAD can't find hijcaked airliners in 100 minutes, and then tells so many conflicting stories about the day that the 9/11 Commissioners half to completely rewrite their testimony and consider referring the matter to the DoJ for a criminal investigation. And you think pointing out that fact is paranoid.

No, jumping from that to fantasies about magic thermite elves is paranoid.

Please specify what I said that was a lie, TR

You continue denying being Brian Good, petgoat, etc. That's an obvious lie.

And what's this about ramming airliners? Why are you afraid to say what puts that beyond the pale? Because it makes you look foolish?

We'd rather you continue to babble about it because it makes us laugh, just as was the case with your babbling about pyroclastic flows at the WTC, smoldering carpets, SAMs at the Pentagon, the imminent invasion of Canada, and a whole host of other insane things.

Right. None of you care that your smug opinions are based on erroneous assumptions.

Not quite. Nobody cares that an ignorant lunatic sex stalker like you think our opinions are based on erroneous assumptions.

 
At 22 October, 2010 13:26, Blogger Triterope said...

Please specify what I said that was a lie, TR.

It's the only thing we've been talking about this entire fucking thread.

And what's this about ramming airliners? Why are you afraid to say what puts that beyond the pale? Because it makes you look foolish?

Well, what does the audience think? Should I explain to Brian what I'm up to, or should I let him twist a little more?

 
At 23 October, 2010 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Looks like the audience doesn't give a flying fuck, TR. The only reason they should is that it will expose you for an idiot.

 
At 23 October, 2010 12:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Looks like the audience doesn't give a flying fuck, TR. The only reason they should is that it will expose you for an idiot.

Right, the audience would much prefer you babbling about how ramming a plane with another plane is SOP with off-course airliners on Planet Petgoat. It's much more entertaining that way.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

So your argument is that if ramming is not SOP then it must be stupid?

You guys build your castles on false dichotomies.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

So your argument is that if ramming is not SOP then it must be stupid?

My argument is that, regardless of SOP, ramming one plane with another is recklessly insane, not stupid.

You guys build your castles on false dichotomies.

What?

Speak of building things, has any journal of engineering published something like your "meatball on a fork" or "rake on rake" scribbles? You told us that someday we'd see something like that. You said "just you wait, gentlemen". That was over 2 years ago. I'm getting tired of waiting.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what exactly is insane about ramming a doomed airliner to prevent it from fulfilling its suicide mission?

 
At 23 October, 2010 14:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

So what exactly is insane about ramming a doomed airliner to prevent it from fulfilling its suicide mission?

I'm not going to tell you. It's a secret that only the cool kids here get to know.

 
At 23 October, 2010 16:58, Blogger Triterope said...

I'm not going to tell you. It's a secret that only the cool kids here get to know.

Yeah, we're not gonna tell you.

 
At 25 October, 2010 08:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're not going to tell me because doing so will make you look foolish.

 
At 25 October, 2010 12:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

You're not going to tell me because doing so will make you look foolish

No, I'm not going to tell you because you're a big enough boy to figure it out yourself.

 
At 25 October, 2010 15:52, Blogger Triterope said...

You're not going to tell me because doing so will make you look foolish.

OK, I'll just tell you.

I'm not answering the question because I'm trying to see how many times I can get you to say "please explain to me why airplanes can't collide with each other." So far we're up to about six.

That's the joke, Brian. That you're so goddamn stupid that you actually need this explained to you. Why a hijacked passenger plane cannot rammed into submission by a fighter jet is self-evident to anyone over the age of five who isn't mentally retarded.

I'm not your fucking special ed teacher, Brian. If you really want to know, read a book. Or just add it to your precious list of "unanswered questions about 9-11" if you want, I don't care. I'm just here to laugh at you.

 
At 25 October, 2010 16:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

So that's your long-winded and tautological answer? It's stupid to think a fighter can ram a 757 because it's stupid to think a fighter can ram a passenger jet into submission?

Why can't a jet fighter ram a passenger jet into submission? It seems to me that US Airways flight 1549 was rammed into submission by geese.

 
At 25 October, 2010 19:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Please stop.

 
At 26 October, 2010 07:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why can't a jet fighter ram a passenger jet into submission? It seems to me that US Airways flight 1549 was rammed into submission by geese.

Yes, and if not for luck and the skill of the pilot, we would have had a whole lot of people die because of that.

So can you be a big boy and figure out why NORAD might not want to ram a civilian jetliner with an F-15?

 
At 26 October, 2010 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, Ian, I can not invent facts like you do and so I can't figure that out.

 
At 26 October, 2010 09:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, Ian, I can not invent facts like you do and so I can't figure that out.

Facts? We're talking about hypotheticals, and I want you to use that big-boy brain of yours and figure out why it might be a bad idea to ram a civilian jetliner with an F-15.

C'mon, Brian, you're the master of hypotheticals. For example, you hypothesized that the WTC was built with explosives already in place so it could be brought down if a hurricane approached. And of course there's "smoldering carpets", another hypothetical of yours.

 
At 26 October, 2010 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never hypothesized that the WTC was built with explosives in place.

The only reason I can imagine that it would be a bad idea to ram an airliner with an F-15 is that it would very likely kill everybody involved, and possibly others on the ground. In the context of a doomed airliner on a suicide mission it seems to me that frustrating the mission more than justifies the collateral damage.

 
At 26 October, 2010 16:28, Blogger Triterope said...

The only reason I can imagine that it would be a bad idea to ram an airliner with an F-15 is that it would very likely kill everybody involved, and possibly others on the ground. In the context of a doomed airliner on a suicide mission it seems to me that frustrating the mission more than justifies the collateral damage.

And to think there are people who believe 9-11 was a conspiracy because NORAD didn't follow proper procedure.

 
At 26 October, 2010 16:47, Blogger Triterope said...

Why can't a jet fighter ram a passenger jet into submission? It seems to me that US Airways flight 1549 was rammed into submission by geese.

I'll tell you what, Brian. Go to the zoo, run as fast as you can, and crash into a Canadian goose, which weighs at most 20 pounds. Then go to an airstrip and run full speed into an F-15, which weighs 31,000 pounds. Then come back and tell us which one hurts more.

 
At 26 October, 2010 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

NORAD didn't follow standard procedure, which was to intercept off-course airliners.

Instead of posing physics riddles, why not just answer the question? What exactly is dumb about ramming an airliner?

 
At 26 October, 2010 17:44, Blogger Triterope said...

NORAD didn't follow standard procedure, which was to intercept off-course airliners.

My point, Brian, is that you can't accuse NORAD of not following procedure, then turn around and ask why they didn't invent a jet-ramming scheme on the spot.

I will now await your explanation as to why this is perfectly logical.

 
At 26 October, 2010 18:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I got it. In the TR playbook, ramming is stupid because it's not SOP.

Thanks for clarifying.

 
At 26 October, 2010 18:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never hypothesized that the WTC was built with explosives in place.

Stop lying, Brian. It's right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94447&mesg_id=130644

"All right, smart guy, what do YOU do with a 1300 foot tower that's been kinked by a thousand-year hurricane and threatens to topple? Call in the Air Force? Do you think such contingency planning was not part of putting the structure up?"

Written in your inimitable passive aggressive style, of course.

The only reason I can imagine that it would be a bad idea to ram an airliner with an F-15 is that it would very likely kill everybody involved, and possibly others on the ground.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Very good, petgoat. You've managed to figure it out.

In the context of a doomed airliner on a suicide mission it seems to me that frustrating the mission more than justifies the collateral damage.

Once again, nobody knew these were suicide hijackings until UA 93, which crashed on its own. If General petgoat were in charge, we'd have shot down that Northwest Airlines flight that overshot Minneapolis last year because the pilots were arguing.

NORAD didn't follow standard procedure, which was to intercept off-course airliners.

Since when is normal NORAD intercept policy to ram the fucking plane that's off-course?

Instead of posing physics riddles, why not just answer the question? What exactly is dumb about ramming an airliner?

Too late, petgoat. You already answered your own question. Please come up with some other hair-splitting inanity to babble about endlessly.

 
At 26 October, 2010 19:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

More staggering ignorance from Ian. Nobody knew they were suicide flights? They thought the hijackers flew into WTC1 by accident?

 
At 26 October, 2010 19:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

More staggering ignorance from Ian. Nobody knew they were suicide flights? They thought the hijackers flew into WTC1 by accident?

Can you explain to me how one is supposed to intercept something that has already crashed?

By them time it was established that these were suicide flights it was too late.

Maybe on Planet Petgoat (you know, the place where building collapses cause volcanic eruptions and Brian will have a beautiful family with Willie Rodriguez) one can intercept suicide flights before one is aware of their existence, but not here on earth.

 
At 26 October, 2010 19:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, Brian, since time doesn't follow its normal progression on your planet, would you mind informing NORAD about the 9/11 plot? I hope it's not too late. While you're at it, let General Short and Admiral Kimmel know about the Japanese plans for attacking Pearl Harbor.

Thanks.

 
At 27 October, 2010 04:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh I got it. In the TR playbook, ramming is stupid because it's not SOP.

Thanks for clarifying.


Wrong. Wanna try again?

 
At 27 October, 2010 08:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your incompetent sophistry is obvious to everyone except maybe yourselves.

 
At 27 October, 2010 10:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your incompetent sophistry is obvious to everyone except maybe yourselves.

Such desperate squealing....

 
At 27 October, 2010 18:48, Blogger Triterope said...

Your incompetent sophistry is obvious to everyone except maybe yourselves.

I guess Brian's out of gas.

 
At 28 October, 2010 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not out of gas--just unwilling to spend very much of it driving the twisting road up trash mountain yet once again.

 
At 28 October, 2010 14:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Not out of gas--just unwilling to spend very much of it driving the twisting road up trash mountain yet once again.

What? That's all you've been doing for years. You'll NEVER stop posting here Brian, because your psychological problems feed off of the attention you get here. It's also why you'll never, ever concede a point, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. Hence, your inability to see anything wrong with ramming a civilian jetliner with an F-15.

 
At 28 October, 2010 15:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said there was nothing wrong with ramming an airliner with an F-16. I disputed the ignorant and erroneous claim that unarmed F-16s could not stop the 9/11 attack planes.

Unfortunately, Ian, your mendacity, illogic, poor reading comprehension, and minimal intelligence make discussion with you rather tiresome.

 
At 28 October, 2010 21:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never said there was nothing wrong with ramming an airliner with an F-16.

False. You babbled endlessly about how you saw no problem with one doing so. Jesus, Brian, we can read your posts above. You really need to work on becoming a better liar.

I disputed the ignorant and erroneous claim that unarmed F-16s could not stop the 9/11 attack planes.

Except for the small problem that there were no F-16s, armed or unarmed, in any position to stop the attacks....

Unfortunately, Ian, your mendacity, illogic, poor reading comprehension, and minimal intelligence make discussion with you rather tiresome.

That's why I love you, Petgoat. You'll write something like this every so often, and yet you'll continue to babble about nothing in response to everything I write, especially if I bring up the love of your life, Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 29 October, 2010 09:34, Blogger Triterope said...

It's like talking to a child, isn't it?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home