Monday, December 20, 2010

Reactions to Jesse's Pentagon Circus

Finally got the chance to watch it myself. My thoughts:

1. The standdown witness is an LA building inspector? Of course, it makes complete sense to me! And it's no surprise that he tunes in to "the high-level police radio frequency" and learns that a missile hit the Pentagon. Let's put some timeframes on this. Jesse clearly states that Lewis learned this after he learned about the standdown. But what time was the Pentagon hit? Around 9:38 in the morning, right? What time is that in LA? So now we're supposed to believe that an LA building inspector was at work at LAX before 6:30 in the morning?

2. Matt Sullivan, who gets interviewed in the second segment is a "reporter" for the kook newspaper, the Rock Creek Free Press.

3. Dwain Deets, the former NASA engineer, embarrasses himself with his assumption that the "official story" says the nose of the plane must have made the hole in the C ring. Of course, as we have discussed previously, it was the landing gear which made that hole; the nose is (as Deets says) much too fragile to do that. Deets is making a classic strawman argument here.

4. Deets endorses the flyover conspiracy theory! LOL, so much for Deets, he joins the CIT nutbars in Troofer hell.

5. Note that they interview Rob Balsamo at Freeway Airport. Why not interview Marcel Bernard, as Dylan did, or one of the pilots who actually flew with Hani Hanjour the day he was refused rental of a Cessna? Could it be that Bernard's assessment of Hanjour as an average to below average pilot wouldn't support the conspiracy theory?

6. Jesse's gofer proves unable to hit the Pentagon in the flight simulator (with a Troofer as his co-pilot). But why not have a real professional pilot who's not a nutbar try it? The gofer says he's flown "a few times" in small planes; Hanjour had a professional air pilot's license and hundreds of hours in a simulator. It's pretty clear that Jesse's bending over backwards to support the conspiracy theory.

7. Love the dolt who compares the Pentagon crash to the Potomac crash. Let's see should there be any difference in the condition afterwards between a plane that hits a river, and a plane that hits a massive concrete building?

8. Voice-morphed crap, with Dewdney. Note that there is no discussion as to whether the voice-morphing shown today (2010) was that good in 2001. My guess is no, that it wasn't. Also, we aren't shown this being done in real-time, as it would be in a phone conversation where there has to be some back and forth between the participants.

9. The usual nuttery about the missing $2.3 trillion, and how this was all a plot to make sure everybody forgot about that press conference where Rumsfeld announced it. As usual, nobody notes that, gee, maybe if Rumsfeld wanted everybody to forget about it, maybe he could have, oh, I don't know, NOT ANNOUNCED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

As James indicated, it does seem like a flashback to 2005, and it's causing some indigestion among the Troofers. At Flogger:

The Pentagon no planers have been straightened out six ways from Sunday for years now. This is an exercise in repetition. You are aware of these challenges as most are. This episode is a circus of ridiculous misinformation. It's incoherent, rambling conspiracy porn of the worst kind, and does extreme injustice to 9/11 Truth. The IDEA that a missile was involved, is something not even CIT accepts as credible. It's utter delusional crackpottery. Dwain Deets?? He got it handed to him in debate on this site. He knows next to nothing about the Pentagon. Rob "Tends towards planes at the WTC" Balsamo??


The guys at the misnamed 9-11 Debunkers site were more enthusiastic:

I was skeptical about this episode, and almost didn't bother watching it. But I'm glad I did, it was so much better than I thought it would be.

They exposed how Norman Mineta's testimony that suggests a standdown was covered up. They interviewed Charles Lewis about what he heard at LAX. They demonstrated the ludicrous difficulty of the official flight path using a flight simulator. They demonstrated the power of voice morphing technology, which was mindblowing even for me. And the exposing of the 9/11 commission at the end was excellent.

And best of all, no CIT!

Yes, no CIT, but the program did manage to endorse CIT's flyover theory, the most controversial part of CIT's entire position.

Troof Action? Crickets over there, but we'll presume given their usual stance on the Pentagon crap that they were not amused.

My take? It's an embarrassing episode, which does no credit to anybody involved. I'd like to support the supposed skeptic on the show, but he was mostly a paper tiger, there to put up minimal resistance to Jesse's kookery. The black British gal (June) was every bit as credulous as she was in last year's episode.

Labels: , ,

120 Comments:

At 20 December, 2010 11:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

The Pentagon no planers have been straightened out six ways from Sunday for years now. This is an exercise in repetition.

One could say this about every freakin' truth talking point. To demonstrate, Brian Good will be here shortly to babbling about the "baffling" aspects of the towers collapse, like symmetry, totality, molten iron, superheated dust, and squibs, right Brian?

 
At 20 December, 2010 18:27, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Good NY Times article on conspiratoid thinking. It has a passing reference to 9/11 CTs.

 
At 20 December, 2010 20:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Let's set aside for the momment that I have a friend who worked at the Navy Annex, and heard first hand from the maintenance man who was damned near killed by AA77 is it clipped the antenae he was working on that morning.

There is no missile in the US military arenal that has a signature explosion like the one at the Pentagon. The cruise missile is the only one that comes close because it does have 150 gallons of fuel (at launch) and a big warhead. The problem is that the explosion signature would look different: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sa7ZX58Kk4

All of our other missiles are target-specific (ships & tanks) and have smaller shaped warheads.

The Air Force uses bombs to hit buildings (as do the Navy and Marines) because they are cheaper and more accurate. The obvious problem here is that AA77 didn't impact vertically, so the likely culprit if there was a conspiracy is automatically ruled out.

So in order for the missile theory to work there has to be a super-secret missile that nobody has ever seen (even the guys who tested it ten to fifteen years ago). Then this missile had to be constructed in secret (which we can actually do)but has never once been used in the two wars the US has been involved in since 2001. Maybe they house these missiles in the same warehouse with the nanothermite that nobody has ever seen nor used (you'd think "Military Grade" nanothermite would have popped up in actual military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan).

No doubt this warehouse is guarded by a battallion of specially trained attack baboons.

 
At 21 December, 2010 04:15, Blogger Garry said...

'This episode is a circus of ridiculous misinformation. It's incoherent, rambling conspiracy porn of the worst kind, and does extreme injustice to 9/11 Truth'.

I see a self-awareness failure in this statement here.

PS: Good comment by M Gregory Ferris. But then what do any of these arseholes actually know about missiles, whether it's the one that 'hit the Pentagon', or the non-existent GBAD systems Brian used to rant about?

 
At 21 December, 2010 07:24, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

There is no missile in the US military arenal that has a signature explosion like the one at the Pentagon.
LOL! That is funny. I have a friend who is a specialist in explosive ordinance in the Army and has received nuclear disarmnament training, and he would look at you with a straight face and tell you that you are a fucking joke. Nevermind the fact he told me that those within his unit believe it was an ATG that hit the Pentagon based upon their analysis. I think I take his word over yours. Why? It is his career choice and MOS and your a self-proclaimed infantry historian.

BTW, Patty, you realize your 'debunk' point about voice morph technology is wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
"By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape."When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

 
At 21 December, 2010 07:53, Blogger Philip said...

ConsDemo - thanks for the link.

Powerful quote:

"What we are dealing with here is the paltry harvest of captive minds. Such minds resort to conspiracy theory because it is the ultimate refuge of the powerless. If you cannot change your own life, it must be that some greater force controls the world."

 
At 21 December, 2010 08:38, Blogger Garry said...

'I have a friend who is a specialist in explosive ordinance in the Army and has received nuclear disarmnament (sic) training, and he would look at you with a straight face and tell you that you are a fucking joke. Nevermind the fact he told me that those within his unit believe it was an ATG that hit the Pentagon based upon their analysis'.

An air-to-surface missile? What type, mask-boy? And can your 'friend' explain why no missile fragments were found at the Pentagon scene, but a shitload of aircraft wreckage was?

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Incidentally, you've just outed yourself as a no-planer. Which even by troofer standards makes you truly deranged.

 
At 21 December, 2010 08:46, Blogger Garry said...

'By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.'

Right. Now tell me that voice-morphing technology can also respond to a two-way, unscripted conversation (of the type that took place between UA93 passengers and their relatives), so that relatives of the deceased can be fooled into believing that they're really talking to to their loved ones.

http://www.911myths.com/html/calls_faked.html

Tell me how the 'real conspirators' who faked the calls predicted that Jeremy Glick would catch UA93 on the morning of 11th September 2001, rather than the plane he was due to fly on the previous day.

Tell me how the same conspirators predicted that Lauren Grandcolas (due to fly later to LA on 9/11) was able to get her times changed to an earlier flight - UA93.

Above all, tell me how they faked Linda Gronlund's conversation to her sister, Elsa Strong, in which she said the following:

'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you. Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them. Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination'.

How did they know the combo for her safe, dribbler?

 
At 21 December, 2010 09:32, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I could fill this page with hundreds of eye witness testimony from people there that morning. All of then saw a big passenger airliner hit the Pentagon, some saw it so clear they could tell you the model of the aircraft and that it was an American Airlines jet.

You can not find ONE person who saw a missile.... NOT ONE. Only the ramblings of some teen in moms basement who watched some YouTube videos and bought the conspiracy theorist con job.

 
At 21 December, 2010 09:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

I have a friend who is a specialist in explosive ordinance in the Army and has received nuclear disarmnament training, and he would look at you with a straight face and tell you that you are a fucking joke. Nevermind the fact he told me that those within his unit believe it was an ATG that hit the Pentagon based upon their analysis. I think I take his word over yours.

Nobody cares, mask boy. Why is it that "truthers" always have a friend or "know someone" who believe this or that "truth" talking point, but said friend never comes out to say it himself?

Anyway, it's good to see you out yourself as a no-planer, which means you're even more of a fucking retard that I had initially thought. And there's still the V for Vendetta mask...

 
At 21 December, 2010 09:46, Blogger James B. said...

I am just amazed by all these troofer friends. I just retired from 22 years in, with 2 overseas deployments, and have never met a single troofer in the military. Not a single one. Yet somehow troofers, most of whom have no connection to the military, seem to know them by the dozens.

 
At 21 December, 2010 11:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I have a friend who is a specialist in explosive ordinance in the Army and has received nuclear disarmnament training, and he would look at you with a straight face and tell you that you are a fucking joke."

So V has a secret undercover government agent that lurks in the shadows to give V some "evidence" that a "missile" hit the Pentagon because he's an alleged "specialist" in explosive ordinance?

I knew V was part of the NWO. Time to process V & Brian into those lovely FEMA Camps. I do have FEMA certificates BTW.

 
At 21 December, 2010 11:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, I'm sure that you'll be surprised to know that Veterans for Peace passed the following resolution at the 2009 national meeting:

9/11/2001 Attacks inside the United States, Support a Valid Investigation into the National Security Failures of the

Whereas the pretext for two illegal wars of occupation, torture and war crimes was justified by the catastrophic events of 9/11/2001, and

Whereas Congress was blocked by the White House from their intended investigation in connection with the massive national security failures of 9/11/2001- (1), and

Whereas not one person has since been held accountable for the national security failures that allowed the 9/11/2001 attacks to succeed, and

Whereas Lee Hamilton, Co-chair of the 9/11 Commission confessed that his Commission was, in his words, "Set up to fail" - (2), and

Whereas significant un-answered questions remain that challenge the official story of the events of 9/11/2001 - (3a,b-4), and

Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace supports a legitimate and non-partisan investigation into the catastrophic national security failures of 9/11/2001.

Approved at the 2009 VFP national convention

 
At 21 December, 2010 11:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Um, Brian? Wouldn't the endless references to "catastrophic national security failures" suggest that these guys, loopy as they might be (they quote mine for "set up to fail" as you do), don't actually believe in magic thermite elves and death ray beams from space and missiles at the Pentagon?

 
At 21 December, 2010 11:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Whereas Brain is monologuing again about nothing.

"9/11/2001 Attacks inside the United States, Support a Valid Investigation into the National Security Failures of the"

No new investigation required!

"Whereas the pretext for two illegal wars of occupation, torture and war crimes was justified by the catastrophic events of 9/11/2001, and"

Those wars weren't "illegal". Unless you're a terrorist sympathizer.

"Whereas Congress was blocked by the White House from their intended investigation in connection with the massive national security failures of 9/11/2001- (1), and"

Congress wasn't blocked, they held the 9/11 Commission for an investigation.

"Whereas not one person has since been held accountable for the national security failures that allowed the 9/11/2001 attacks to succeed, and"

People aren't psychic!


"Whereas Lee Hamilton, Co-chair of the 9/11 Commission confessed that his Commission was, in his words, "Set up to fail" - (2), and"

The 9/11 Commission wasn't "setup up to fail", just more quote mining from your delusional mind.

"Whereas significant un-answered questions remain that challenge the official story of the events of 9/11/2001 - (3a,b-4), and"

Challenge the Official Story without evidence & you're setup to fail.

"Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace supports a legitimate and non-partisan investigation into the catastrophic national security failures of 9/11/2001."

Again, no new investigation is required, since the evidence will point that the 9/11 Commission & the Official Story was right all along.

 
At 21 December, 2010 12:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Um, Brian? Wouldn't the endless references to "catastrophic national security failures" suggest that these guys, loopy as they might be (they quote mine for "set up to fail" as you do), don't actually believe in magic thermite elves and death ray beams from space and missiles at the Pentagon?"

Come On! Give that poor boy a break, he can't help it is he is... well, you know, S.L.O.W. He is still trying to figure out my question regarding letting Bin Laden go. Don't want to overload the simpleton with too much.

 
At 21 December, 2010 12:17, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

By the way, Happy Solstice Everyone!

It is the reason for the season.

 
At 21 December, 2010 12:19, Blogger James B. said...

Veterans for Peace is hardly representative of the current US military. Most of them from what I can tell served in the Air Force of Navy 30 years ago.

 
At 21 December, 2010 12:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"By the way, Happy Solstice Everyone!"

Brian thinks that the solstice happened because the Death Star was in range.

We'll all be dead for the next solstice in the 2090's.

 
At 21 December, 2010 12:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Set up" to fail

The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

They thought that they were "set up to fail", but in reality they never were set up to fail.

This totally contridicts Brian's claim that the Official Story was "set up to fail", because it wasn't a set up to begin with.

 
At 21 December, 2010 13:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

They were set up to fail. Documents were with-held, Condi lied under oath, NORAD lied so egregiously that the Commission considered sending the matter to the DoJ for a criminal investigation, direct access to KSM and al Zubaydah was forbidden, the commission had to rewrite the NORAD timeline to have any coherent story at all, the staffers thought Cheney was lying to them, Phil Zelikow was so conflicted that he appeared as a witness, and he was so concerned about protecting Condi from criticism that he practically served as her defense attorney, they were under-funded and they were rushed. Also, Zelikow wrote a complete outline, complete with chapter sub-headings, before the investigation even started.

The commission was set up to fail.

 
At 21 December, 2010 13:30, Blogger James B. said...

I am constantly amused how troofers will quote members of the commission, out of context, but completely ignore the fact that not a single member disagrees with their actual conclusion.

 
At 21 December, 2010 14:08, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Guess Brian can't think of a logical reason the US needed to let Bin Laden live. Or dead for that matter, many a truther say he is dead and we are hiding that for some unknown reason. These goofs can't make up their minds.

 
At 21 December, 2010 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

The actual conclusion was written up by Dr. Zelikow's outline before the investigation even started. The Commission simply went around looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusion.

The circular reasoning of discarding the evidence of the put options because there was no connection to al Qaeda is one demonstration of this. Another is the dismissing of evidence of the alleged hijackers' support networks leading back to the Pakistani and Saudi governments as "of little practical significance".
Yet another is Chris Cojm's statement that Able Danger was left out of the report because "It did not fit with the story we wanted to tell". Another is Anthony Shaffer's testimony 2/15/06 to the HASC that
"the 9-11 staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation" of Able Danger when "it was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a “preconceived” conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell."

The 9/11 Commission report is sloppy, incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable. Are you claiming a dishonest investigation is acceptable as long as its conclusions are correct? How do you know they're correct unless you have an honest investigation?

 
At 21 December, 2010 14:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

In side conversations with the men I have interviewed I have been told all kinds of fun stuff:

If your Army explosives expert says that it was a missile then he also needs to tell you what kind of missile it was, because all of the other Army, Navy, and Marine explosives tech have no clue. If we know which missile type then we know what kind of launch platform (truck, helicopter, aircraft, submarine, surface ship, silo), and we have a place to start digging for serial numbers.

Yes, serial numbers because every fucking missile has one because no contractor gets paid with out a serial number, no missile leaves or enters storage without a serial number, and no missile gets deployed without a serial number. Anyone who has spent ten minutes researching the military knows that they have a hardon for paperwork. Even the black-ops units all have paperwork. The CIA, NSA, NRO, and other intel agencies all have paper-work that needs to be signed by somebody before they can do their thing. Missiles are easy because the one that would have had to hit the Pentagon would have been the size of a station wagon, so someone would have notice it was missing. If you know the type you can work backwards to track down the inventory for that missile until you find one that "vanished".

Then you have a smoking gun. Anybody who has "friends" in the military could have told the troofers this and the smoking gun would be in hand.

True story:

In the mid-90s there was an incident where the IDF nailed a Red Crecent ambulance with a Hellfire missile. A reporter with the Guardian UK retrieved a missile fragment with a serial number. He then used a FOIA request to track down when the missile was sold to Israel. As it turned out (unlike the dipshit troofers) he stumbled on a minor scandle because that particular missile had never been officially sold to Israel. It had come from a USMC storage out of Souther California, and the jouralist had uncovered a backdoor supply route to Israel from the US.

This is an example of a real investigative reporter (non-nutcase) using his contacts in the US military to uncover a real conspiracy by actually following the chain of evidence. As opposed to making shit up or flying red herrings as your flag of truth.

 
At 21 December, 2010 14:45, Blogger James B. said...

The circular reasoning of discarding the evidence of the put options because there was no connection to al Qaeda is one demonstration of this.

There was also no connection to any possible conspiracy either, unless you are too believe that the conspirators just started calling up investment newsletters and i-banks to tip them off so that they could make a few million.

 
At 21 December, 2010 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing you of the evils of a report working backwards from a foregone conclusion when you insist on working backwards from a foregone conclusion to justify the sloppy process of working backward from a foregone conclusion.

OK, you're a pragmatist, with little interest in process as long as the results are pleasing. Some of us like our science scientific and our truths proved.

 
At 21 December, 2010 15:12, Blogger James B. said...

But nobody worked backwards to a conclusion, it was just that all the evidence pointed to one direction, Al Qaeda, there was no evidence that pointed elsewhere. It was one of the most investigated events ever, involving over half the FBI at one point.

We have already covered this put option thing dozens of times. I am surprised even troofers are stupid enough to keep bringing it up. Why don't you read the original investigative memorandums produced from the FBI and SEC investigations and get back to me if you have any questions.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-on-911-put-options.html

 
At 21 December, 2010 15:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

The 9/11 Commission report is sloppy, incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable. Are you claiming a dishonest investigation is acceptable as long as its conclusions are correct? How do you know they're correct unless you have an honest investigation?

No, we're claiming that you're a paranoid glue-sniffing lunatic and that your opinion on anything related to 9/11 is meaningless.

I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing you of the evils of a report working backwards from a foregone conclusion when you insist on working backwards from a foregone conclusion to justify the sloppy process of working backward from a foregone conclusion.

False. You're just going to have a hard time convincing us that any of your paranoid delusions have any basis in reality.

OK, you're a pragmatist, with little interest in process as long as the results are pleasing. Some of us like our science scientific and our truths proved.

Brian, you're not interested in science. You're interested in someone confirming your fanatical non-falsifiable beliefs. This is why any new investigations would be a waste of time and money. Nobody wants new investigations except for a handful of nutcases who will immediately cry foul the moment the investigations dismiss the "magic thermite elves" theory.

 
At 21 December, 2010 15:35, Blogger Billman said...

Off topic, but here's for any of the Holocaust deniers we occasionally deal with:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/2970519-418/names-jews-million-holocaust-database.html

Remember that whole "Name just one jew that died in the holocaust. Go on. You can't!" thing? Well, now they can name about 4 million.

 
At 21 December, 2010 15:59, Blogger Triterope said...

George Papcun

illegal wars

"Set up to fail"

Philip Zelikow

Able Danger

Anthony Shaffer's testimony

put options


Yakov Smirinov called. He said "get some new material."

 
At 21 December, 2010 17:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I think I'm going to have a hard time convincing you of the evils of a report working backwards from a foregone conclusion when you insist on working backwards from a foregone conclusion to justify the sloppy process of working backward from a foregone conclusion.

OK, you're a pragmatist, with little interest in process as long as the results are pleasing. Some of us like our science scientific and our truths proved."

Man,just when I think I have seen the ultimate in stupid you take it to a whole new level of stupid.

Any investigation be it criminal or scientific works backwards from some point or event.

The stupidity of your failed reasoning implies that you can investigate BEFORE an incident occurs.

It is called a chain of evidence for a reason. If it were a missile then that missile can be tracked both from the factory floor to the last place it was stored.

The evidence leads where the evidence leads, in the case of the 9/11 Pentagon strike the evidence was pretty damned, 100% solid that AA77 crashed into the building. The pilot had the training and the skill, there are the phone calls from the plane, and then there are the bodies of the passengers and hijackers that were recovered from the Pentagon.

Pretty much a no brainer.

As for scientific "truths" there are no such things. There are scientific facts, theories, and laws which are all open ended as they are all open to challenge at any time. Newton's laws of gravity have stood the test of time as has Darwin's theory of evolution. The "Big Bang" theory is currently under serious challenge as the Hadron Collider is put through its paces. So if you're a "Big Banger" you're whole world view is in question, and that is how real science (not the troofer version) works. The Big Bang guys will double check their work as they look at the challenger's data and how it all shakes out in the end is far from a fore gone conclusion.

 
At 21 December, 2010 21:29, Blogger Pat said...

Voice-morphing by Papcun handled here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89861

Sorry, it cannot do what Troofers claim.

 
At 21 December, 2010 21:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

James 15:12 No, it's not true that all evidence pointed to al Qaeda. NORAD's total failure to respond to events that they had repeatedly drilled for did not point to al Qaeda. The Pentagon's alleged inability to defend itself from an attack by a slow, unarmed, commercial airliner did not point to al Qaeda. WTC7's inexplicable collapse into a tidy pile after a few hours of wimpy fires did not point to al Qaeda.

I didn't say anyone worked backwards to a conclusion. I said they worked from a conclusion backwards, assembling the evidence to support it, ignoring the evidence that did not.

Whether the put options conspiracy theory is a valid claim or not is not the point. The point is the framing >>>>>>No connection to al Qaeda, therefore of no interest<<<< is circular reasoning.

TR, I'm sorry that the same old, same old, unanswered questions do not stimulate you, but they are
classics that will continue to stimulate until they are answered. 1000 years from now people will look at the WTC videos and wonder how people like you could have been so gullible.

MGreg, you are confusing the map with the territory. An investigation of a murder event works back to its motives and process, yes. An investigation that assumes a certain conclusion (How did Scott Peterson Kill His Wife?) works backward illogically to establish the premise. Even if the premise is true, that does not justify faulty methodology.

I did not say there were scientific truths. I understand fully that current theories are only theories, and that is expected that they will be supplanted by better theories in the future. There are, however, certain scientific laws--like the laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of angular momentum, and the law (not the theory) of gravity.

 
At 22 December, 2010 01:26, Blogger The Geologizer said...

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here, and just a tad off-topic. :)

Anyone know of any links to a good point-by-point debunking of this stupid article?

http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

I'm debating someone on another site's message boards, and I'd rather save myself the work of writing one if someone else has already done it better.

 
At 22 December, 2010 01:28, Blogger The Geologizer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 December, 2010 02:22, Blogger paul w said...

"Anyone know of any links to a good point-by-point debunking of this stupid article?"
The Geologizer

911myths is top class:

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_pentagon_links.html

The new site is:

http://911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

More links:

http://www.911myths.com/html/911__debunking_links.html

Mark Roberts has another excellent site:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

Also:

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/pentagon

A word of warning; be prepared for a breathtaking display of their refusal/inability to accept your arguments, changing the subject, moving the goalposts, and making shit up.

Sung.bug is a classic example.

Good luck...

 
At 22 December, 2010 04:39, Blogger Triterope said...

1000 years from now people will look at the WTC videos and wonder how people like you could have been so gullible.

Only if this happens.

 
At 22 December, 2010 07:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

NORAD's total failure to respond to events that they had repeatedly drilled for did not point to al Qaeda.

Um, what did they fail to respond to, petgoat? Aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda? You don't say!

The Pentagon's alleged inability to defend itself from an attack by a slow, unarmed, commercial airliner did not point to al Qaeda.

A slow unarmed commercial airliner that had, um, been hijacked by al Qaeda.

WTC7's inexplicable collapse into a tidy pile after a few hours of wimpy fires did not point to al Qaeda.

Sure, if not for the tremendous damage and huge fires started by the collapse of the towers across the street, which had been destroyed by, um, al Qaeda.

But I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I mean, who knows better about these things than a failed janitor who spends every waking hour stalking people online?

 
At 22 December, 2010 07:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Whether the put options conspiracy theory is a valid claim or not is not the point. The point is the framing >>>>>>No connection to al Qaeda, therefore of no interest<<<< is circular reasoning.

False. Learn what "circular reasoning" means, petgoat. You use all these big words and yet you only make yourself look like a babbling idiot when you use them incorrectly.

TR, I'm sorry that the same old, same old, unanswered questions do not stimulate you, but they are
classics that will continue to stimulate until they are answered.


Whatever you say, petgoat.

1000 years from now people will look at the WTC videos and wonder how people like you could have been so gullible.

More religious fanaticism. This is akin to the "Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead" belief among Christians. Someday it will happen and I will be redeemed! JUST YOU WAIT GENTLEMEN!

MGreg, you are confusing the map with the territory. An investigation of a murder event works back to its motives and process, yes. An investigation that assumes a certain conclusion (How did Scott Peterson Kill His Wife?) works backward illogically to establish the premise. Even if the premise is true, that does not justify faulty methodology.

I've often thought of Brian as the opposite of a renaissance man: someone who is an utter imbecile on all topics. He does not disappoint here when babbling about forensics.

Anyway, maybe you should seek professional help, Brian?

 
At 22 December, 2010 07:54, Blogger Garry said...

'NORAD's total failure to respond to events that they had repeatedly drilled for did not point to al Qaeda'.

NORAD had not drilled to deal with the consequences of internal hijackings, let alone ones which would end with planes being crashed into city centres.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 22 December, 2010 08:01, Blogger Garry said...

On NORAD exercises pre-9/11:

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf.

Maj Gen Craig McKinley (USAF) noted that ‘if exercises did take place that can be compared to the 9/11 hijack attacks then there were no intelligence warnings that drove these exercises. He noted that “the exercise kids probably put on their creative hats” and developed interesting scenarios to test the operations capabilities of their sectors but there was no indication that the scenarios paralleled a credible threat’. McKinley states that ‘to his knowledge before he left the Pentagon there were no 9/11-type scenarios built into their exercises. The hijack scenarios that were exercised involved a successful escort to landing and negotiations with the hijackers’ (p.21, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf).

Lt Col Dawne Deskins (USAF) notes that ‘[she] does not recall ever personally designing an exercise in which a decision was made to shoot down [a] hijacked aircraft. A typical design would include course deviation in which the hijacker forces the pilot to fly to a designated landing point’ (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf).

William A. Scott (USAF-Retired) was part of a USAF team set up to address NORAD’s roles in 1998, and in discussion potential threats the only scenarios officials could come up with was an external ‘asymmetric’ attack – such as a cruise missile launch from offshore (pp.26-28, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf).

Evidence is a bitch, isn't it, Brian?

 
At 22 December, 2010 08:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

What, praytell, is an "ATG", Masked Moron?

 
At 22 December, 2010 08:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Anyway, on another note, I finally watched "United 93" for the first time last night. Jesus, what a movie. I was trembling at the end of it.

Wasn't the truthers crapping all over that movie what inspired James and Pat to start this blog in the first place? I seem to recall something like that, and the blog appeared around the same time the movie made it into theaters.

 
At 22 December, 2010 08:12, Blogger James B. said...

But the put options didn't show anything suspicious related to anyone else either. Given then that all the evidence pointed towards al Qaeda, what conclusions then should the commission have drawn? Should they have just pulled some random hedge fund manager out and started waterboarding him until he admitted that Dick Cheney did it?

You didn't even read the memos, did you? Why do you idiots keep on demanding a new investigation when you haven't even looked into the old one?

 
At 22 December, 2010 09:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The commission was set up to fail."

You do realize, do you not, that you are completely insane?

 
At 22 December, 2010 09:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"...it's not true that all evidence pointed to al Qaeda."

You do realize, do you not, that you are completely insane?

 
At 22 December, 2010 10:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Given the fact NORAD does NOT monitor air traffic inside the US and depends on FAA controllers to tell them of any hijacking situation. So they only had 8 minutes warning and had to find an aircraft with its transponder turned off in a sea of hundreds of aircraft.

Now we all now Brain has the mind of a child, so he bases his opinion on what he sees in movies, and what his limited mental capacity can learn.

 
At 22 December, 2010 10:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Mossad Sharks are killing Arabs in Egypt

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:00, Blogger Michiel said...

Ah, and the Pentagon has no camera's? Or does the government just don't want us to SEE what happened?

And the Pentagon has no air defense?

And the USA has no air defense?

Sorry, but trashing Jesse is not going to make that go away.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:11, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Hanjour had...hundreds of hours in a simulator"
-Pat Cuntly

Source?

What's the actual number, liar? I'm sure you call this 'research', huh Pat?

What would your dead father say about your lies? Would he be proud?

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ah, and the Pentagon has no camera's?

It's "cameras". No apostrophe. Stop eating paste and start paying attention in school and come back here when you've learned how to write.

Also, the incredulity of an ignoramus is not evidence. Sorry.

Also, I'd like to congratulate "Pat Cowardly" on posting something that isn't an unhinged rant about dust. Maybe he's finally learning.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:48, Blogger Garry said...

'And the Pentagon has no air defense?'

No it doesn't, you fucking moron, because otherwise its radars would be tracking down jets landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The commission was set up to fail."

Maybe only in your delusional & drugged out mind, Brian. But in the real world, evidence speaks volumes.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

No it doesn't, you fucking moron, because otherwise its radars would be tracking down jets landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport.

Ah yes, I remember Brian Good babbling about this, and how, if his idea that there were SAMs at the Pentagon were true, they'd be shooting down every aircraft taking off and landing at Reagan National, Dulles, BWI, Andrews AFB, and they might even be able to take out the occasional plane in Philadelphia (depending on the take-off and landing patterns).

But our failed janitor and his buddy above obviously know what they're talking about.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:54, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The 9/11 Commission report is sloppy, incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable."

Kind of reminds Brian of his reports.

 
At 22 December, 2010 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"What would your dead father say about your lies? Would he be proud?"

Cowardly,

You're on thin ice pal. Never ever talk about someones dead relative. This is why people think that Truthers are heartless pathetic people.

Leave his pop outta this debate.

 
At 22 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger Garry said...

'Source?

What's the actual number, liar? I'm sure you call this 'research', huh Pat?'

Here you go, shitstain:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300752.html

'What would your dead father say about your lies? Would he be proud?'

Would your father - if you could identify him from all the johns who fucked your crack-whore of a mother - be proud of you? May you die of motor neurone disease, you shitty excuse for a human being.

 
At 22 December, 2010 12:51, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OT... Very important update on Janette MacKinlay:

She's still dead.

 
At 22 December, 2010 13:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ah, and the Pentagon has no camera's?

Yes. And one of those cameras took photos of the airplane.

(In het "beschaaft" engels zetten we bijna nooit een 's op meervoudig woordvormen; je krijgt er hoog waarschijnlijk meerdere rotopmerkingen over.)

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:10, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"You're on thin ice pal."
-WAQ'ed out on idiocy.

Hey WAQy,

Instead of saying stupid shit, why don't you help Pat by providing a source for the 'hundreds of hours' claim? Or are you a similarly inept liar? Would the late Hugh Curley be proud of you, too? Did he think the spheres came from torches, like Pat does, or would he be ashamed at the obvious lies and lack of research? Enlighten us, Chewy. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:11, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGreg, you are confusing the map with the territory. An investigation of a murder event works back to its motives and process, yes. An investigation that assumes a certain conclusion (How did Scott Peterson Kill His Wife?) works backward illogically to establish the premise. Even if the premise is true, that does not justify faulty methodology."

First off, this is why troofers fail. I have handed a golden key to solve your little Scooby Doo mystery and you have decided to shove it up you butt (which is typical).

All murder investigations work backwards based on a premise. As suspects are developed they are either tied to the crime or eliminated by working backward from the dead body and the evidence collected as the investigation moves along.

In this case it is a missile. It had to be made somewhere. It has to be paid for. It had to be transported to a storgae depot. It had to be taken out of the depot and transported to the launch platform. Someone had to fire it. So you work backwards from the Pentagon...oops, nobody found any missile fragments. That's okay there is only one missile that could come close to replicating the damage to the building, a TLAM. Cool, all you need to do is find out which B-52, B-1B, B-2, Naval missile cruiser, or attack submarine was within 200 miles of DC that morning and do a FOIA request on their logs, and missile inventories. The one that landed/returned to port with one missile less is the one that fired it.

Losing a cruise missile is kind of a big deal.

[I know the missile has a range of 400 miles but 200 miles would leave enough fuel for a little buring. Yes, I know that a 757 has way more fuel and that accounts for the giant fire ball we see in the video. I'm just playing the game]

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Good one, Cosmos! I'm sure Janette would be proud of you. I know it must hurt, knowing you'll never get your funny beard in between her cheesy thighs again. But she'd want you to soldier on.

Keep up the fight. Your numbers are growing. People are waking up. You're going to win.

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh good, Pat Cowardly is babbling about torches and spheres again. For a moment, I thought he might have gotten treatment for his mental illness.

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"why don't you help Pat by providing a source for the 'hundreds of hours' claim?"

Cowardly, He's got his own sources which you can't counter.

"Or are you a similarly inept liar?"

And you think that Pat is me? LOL!

"Enlighten us, Chewy. Otherwise, shut the fuck up."

I don't need to shut up, you need to stop harassing people on here or they're gonna do something which you might regret.

 
At 22 December, 2010 14:52, Blogger paul w said...

The Geologizer

"Anyone know of any links to a good point-by-point debunking of this stupid article?"

911myths is top class:

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

Also, try this:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

 
At 22 December, 2010 15:54, Blogger Pat said...

Hundreds of hours of flight time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/national/19ARIZ.html?pagewanted=all&position=top

"Mr. Hanjour spent substantial periods of time in the state for the next five years, attending at least four flight schools and logging hundreds of hours in the air before earning his license."

Flight simulators:
"By the spring of 1999, seeking a commercial license, he was training on simulators at another school and "doing pretty well," the former instructor said. On April 15, 1999, he earned a "satisfactory" rating by an examiner from the Federal Aviation Administration and was awarded a commercial license with a multiengine rating."

 
At 22 December, 2010 16:42, Blogger Triterope said...

Anyone know of any links to a good point-by-point debunking of this stupid article?

http://www.physics911.net/missingwings


It cites Killtown.

Seriously.

It cites Killtown.

 
At 22 December, 2010 17:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"....they might even be able to take out the occasional plane in Philadelphia (depending on the take-off and landing patterns)."

Hey, watch that shit, I'm right under the flight path of most of the small commuter props and jets that come into Philly.

And if the wind is right, then the heavies fly overhead, too.

 
At 22 December, 2010 19:32, Blogger Triterope said...

1000 years from now people will look at the WTC videos and wonder how people like you could have been so gullible.

1000 years from now, nobody's going to look at any videos of anything. Whatever archival technology there will be in a thousand years will make the Internet look like the Domesday Book.

Not to mention that a thousand more years of history will have passed. Nobody is going to care about an ancient local terror attack, Brian.

What a dull, unimaginative mind you must have, to think that the world is going to change so little over so much time.

And how egocentric of you to think that not only is the world still going to care about YOUR time and YOUR nation and YOUR pet cause, but that they're going to go to the trouble of exonerating you when you apparently can't do it yourself. A thousand-year project to prove that Brian Good was right on the Internet? We'll get right on that, Cheops.

 
At 22 December, 2010 20:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Triterope,

C'mon, you've never heard of the "Goode Chronicles"? It was written by a village drunkard in East Sussex circa 1070. In it, he details how Harold Godwinson gave the stand-down order to allow William the Conqueror to land in England, and how Harold's army had their steel swords and spears destroyed by thermite. It also contains a lot of repetitive stuff about a Norman peasant woman named Carol, and a Spanish soldier in the Norman army named Willie.

He says it's obvious that the Norman victory at Hastings was an inside job, and how 1000 years from now, everyone would know this.

 
At 22 December, 2010 21:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian Good--a bore and an egomaniac. Nah, that would never happen.

%^)

 
At 23 December, 2010 01:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, your Maj. Gen Craig McKinley is extremely ignorant. The threat of attacks from the air was so well known that security planning for all National Security Events (such as the Olympics and political conventions) involved closing the airspace. There were drills involving airplanes flying into the WTC.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm


Bush slept on an aircraft carrier in Genoa in 7/01 at the G-8 because of reports of planned airplane attacks.

Who cares if Deskins did not personally design a shootdown exercise? Does that mean there were no shootdown exercises?

James B. I have not investigated the put options. I was citing the rationale given >>>>no connection to al Qaeda, therefore of no interest<<<< as one example (among many) of circular reasoning.

Garry, the Reagan National jets fly on quite specific flight paths and do not vector toward the Pentagon.

M Greg, where do you get your expertise in murder investigations? From "Criminal Minds"? Why would you assume that all investigations start from a premise? What's wrong with just collecting the data and seeing where it leads? Starting from a premise is unscientific.

TR, people will still be talking about 9/11 1000 years from now. Don't project your ignorance about history on humanity of the future.

 
At 23 December, 2010 04:02, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, you don't actually read your sources, do you?

The NORAD exercises you refer to (only two of which took place) involved hijackings of jet aircraft on international flights, NOT domestic ones. As we have pointed out to you time and time again.

Regarding the Genoa warning, note also the fact that it apparently involved 'a small civilian aircraft with the range to fly from dozens of European airports, not a passenger jet'. Even in this case, the veracity of the intelligence forwarded was disputed at the time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/27/globalisation.afghanistan

'Garry, the Reagan National jets fly on quite specific flight paths and do not vector toward the Pentagon'.

And you know that how, Brian? Does air-traffic control procedure come as part of a janitor's training along with 'How to mop up piss from a restroom floor'?

'TR, people will still be talking about 9/11 1000 years from now'.

Hmmm, Brian isn't the first lunatic I've heard of who has claimed that his movement would last a thousand years.

 
At 23 December, 2010 04:40, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, people will still be talking about 9/11 1000 years from now.

Brian, people aren't talking about 9/11 now. And when they do, it's not to question the basic facts of the event. Read a newspaper sometime.

 
At 23 December, 2010 07:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

James B. I have not investigated the put options.

Please do, Brian. I can then ask the dean of my business school if he wants to review your work. And when he says "no", you can claim that it's because he's afraid to, like you do with all the engineers who won't rebut you or Richard Gage.

Garry, the Reagan National jets fly on quite specific flight paths and do not vector toward the Pentagon.

What relevance does this point have to anything else being discussed here?

M Greg, where do you get your expertise in murder investigations? From "Criminal Minds"? Why would you assume that all investigations start from a premise? What's wrong with just collecting the data and seeing where it leads? Starting from a premise is unscientific.

Oh Jesus. Brian, please stop babbling about things you don't understand in the least. It just makes you look like even more of a delusional ignorant lunatic.

TR, people will still be talking about 9/11 1000 years from now.

Depends of what you mean by "people". I'm sure historians will debate its importance in the history of the US and world, much as they still do the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Tours. I doubt the average person in 3000 AD will care one bit about some ancient attack on New York (if New York still exists as a major city).

One thing I promise they won't be talking about is all your nonsense about thermite or free-fall speed or the like.

 
At 23 December, 2010 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, of what possible consequence is it whether the drills involve international flights or domestic? The fact is, your expert Craig McKinley's claim that "there were no intelligence warnings that drove these exercises" is ignorant. As I pointed out, closing airspace had become routine for National Security Events. The planes-as-missile tactic had been known since the capture of Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995, and the hijacking of Air France 8969 in 1994.

What difference does it make that the veracity of the Genoa warnings was disputed? They were intelligence warnings.

I know about the Reagan Nat'l flight paths because unlike you I have actually investigated them, Garry.

Ian, until the speed of the collapse of the WTC is explained, people will be talking about it. Computer technology being much more advanced now than it was in 2005 (that's why NIST had to rush that report, so they could stand on the excuse that their computers were too stupid to answer the questions) it is only a matter of time before modeling the WTC collapse becomes a subject for PhD dissertations, then Masters theses, and in time a high school exercise.

 
At 23 December, 2010 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

And when it's a high school exercise high schoolers around the world will wonder how people like you could ever have been dumb enough to believe the NIST report.

 
At 23 December, 2010 11:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know about the Reagan Nat'l flight paths because unlike you I have actually investigated them, Garry.

Nobody cares what you've investigated, petgoat. You're a delusional liar and ignoramus.

Ian, until the speed of the collapse of the WTC is explained, people will be talking about it.

It's been explained, petgoat. There were jetliners that crashed into the towers. Learn to google.

Computer technology being much more advanced now than it was in 2005 (that's why NIST had to rush that report, so they could stand on the excuse that their computers were too stupid to answer the questions) it is only a matter of time before modeling the WTC collapse becomes a subject for PhD dissertations, then Masters theses, and in time a high school exercise.

Perhaps. And when none of these theses mention magic thermite elves, you'll call them dishonest, unbelievable, sloppy. etc. because you, a failed janitor and sex stalker and delusional liar who has been kicked out of the truth movement, are the ultimate arbiter of what's correct in the world of science, right?

And when it's a high school exercise high schoolers around the world will wonder how people like you could ever have been dumb enough to believe the NIST report.

Ah, nothing amuses more than the desperate squealing of an abject failure who is desperate for something, anything to redeem his worthless life. I'm sorry you chose something as stupid as 9/11 truth to cling to, Brian, but that's not my problem.

Unfortunately, your delusions about 9/11 will never be accepted by sane people. Time to face reality, Brian.

 
At 23 December, 2010 11:12, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

So either Pat lied, or his research was shitty, so that he had to correct himself. Not a good showing for the Fat One. Not good at all.

Now provide a source for this silly bullshit, Pat, and make sure it actually says what you say:

"The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation." -Pat Cuntley Debunkley, capable researcher.

 
At 23 December, 2010 11:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

Anyway, Brian, since nobody is talking about 9/11 anymore, and your endless babbling about it is boring, let's talk about something else.

What do you think of the Brewers getting Zack Greinke? Are they now the team to beat in the NL Central, or are Cincinnati and St. Louis still better?

 
At 23 December, 2010 11:29, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, of what possible consequence is it whether the drills involve international flights or domestic?'

Er, I can think of two reasons:

(1) NORAD's mission, which focussed on external threats to US airspace prior to 9/11, and

(2) Posse Comitatus. You know, Brian, that's the law of your own country.

'The planes-as-missile tactic had been known since the capture of Abdul Hakim Murad in 1995, and the hijacking of Air France 8969 in 1994'.

And your point is what exactly, Brian? That Islamist fanatics were prepared to take over passenger jets and crash them into city centres? I thought you said that AQ weren't responsible.

'What difference does it make that the veracity of the Genoa warnings was disputed?'.

Er, do you want to run that statement past yourself one more time to see how retarded it is?

'I know about the Reagan Nat'l flight paths because unlike you I have actually investigated them, Garry'.

Really? So now a janitor is an expert in flight control patterns, air traffic procedures, and also the technical specifications of air defence radars. That stretches credibility to say the least.

Oh, and a quick point for the piece of shit who calls himself 'Pat Cowardly'. My 1200 post yesterday covers the amount of time which Hani Hanjour spent on flight simulators, which (as Pat says) involved 'hundreds of hours' of training.

What's the matter? Have you been cornholed so often by your mum's clients that you're unable to read what's in front of your eyes?

 
At 23 December, 2010 11:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So either Pat lied, or his research was shitty, so that he had to correct himself. Not a good showing for the Fat One. Not good at all.

And you stalking him under an anonymous name is rather interesting to say the least. Are you sure you're not Brian's twin? Only a real coward, much like yourself, would hide behind a computer screen & say shit to someone that you've never met. I wouldn't doubt that Pat knows who you are & where you live. IP Addresses, dude!

The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation.

Actually the RJ Lee Report is spot on about that issue. Rambling about it like an idiot only proves how fucked up your mind is Cowardly.

 
At 23 December, 2010 12:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Actually the RJ Lee Report is spot on about that issue."
-WAQed out on ignorance.

So where does it corroborate Pat's bullshit, WAQy? Bonus points for giving the exact quote.

You won't do it, though, because you're a fool, like Pat, for not only posting lies without any sources, but then pointing to studies which actually contradict those lies.

You're way out of your league here, boy, so stop being an idiot, like Pat, and learn to read the RJ Lee report for comprehension.

 
At 23 December, 2010 12:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hey Pat Cowardly? Listen man, you're just not as entertaining as Brian Good. If you're coming here to get us to laugh at you, it's not working. You need to learn to rant and rave about other topics than just iron microspheres, OK?

 
At 23 December, 2010 12:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So where does it corroborate Pat's bullshit, WAQy?

Why don't you e-mail a steelworker who was there cutting the steel up? Or are you just as lazy as the rest of the Truthers??

You won't do it, though, because you're a fool, like Pat, for not only posting lies without any sources, but then pointing to studies which actually contradict those lies.

You actually believe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories to be the "truth" when in reality they're just a bunch of made up bullshit from paranoid freaks, kinda like you? Man, you're life is fucked up!

You're way out of your league here, boy, so stop being an idiot, like Pat, and learn to read the RJ Lee report for comprehension.

Actually you're out of your league. Why not drop by my blog? Click on my name & look for my homepage called "9/11 Truthers Exposed". It'll tell you why you're a fucked up moron to begin with.

 
At 23 December, 2010 12:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian,

You're right, he's not as enthusiastic as Brian Good is. He's just some lonely schmunck living off his SSI checks & wasting time about those microspheres like it meant something.

Wow, they found microspheres of iron at Ground Zero. Well no shit Sherlock, they'd find iron oxide every where in Manhatten. Manahtten lies next to the salty air of the North Atlantic Ocean. Not tomention that the steel workers were cutting up the steel made alot of iron deposits everywhere.

Cowardly, Are you too stupid to realise your mistake?

 
At 23 December, 2010 12:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I find it extremely funny that Cowardly would think that "9/11 Chewy Defense" from JREF is Pat Curley.

But in reality, that JREF name is mine & mine alone. I'm not Pat by any means. Cowardly thinks otherwise, well the laughs on him for being a dumbass to begin with.

So Cowardly went on to call Pat "Chewy Defense"? LMAO, what a moron!

 
At 23 December, 2010 13:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Cosmos (aka "Pat Cowardly", Andrew Bernstein)! Did you manage to shave that unsightly cat from your chin?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 23 December, 2010 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Cosmos" lying about his alleged "Uncle Mickey." Notice that, so far, he's been unable to shake the unsightly cat that has taken residence on his chin.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Meow!

 
At 23 December, 2010 13:50, Blogger Triterope said...

I'm sure historians will debate its importance in the history of the US and world, much as they still do the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Tours.

I believe 9-11's place in world history will be as part of a larger struggle that has yet to be defined.

And that struggle is between religious tradition and modern society. Because the two aren't compatible.

 
At 23 December, 2010 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's the struggle between obedience to authority and rationality. You clowns are proving that.

 
At 23 December, 2010 14:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Rationality"?

You wouldn't know "rationality" if it jumped up and bit you, Pinocchio.

 
At 23 December, 2010 14:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The threat of attacks from the air was so well known that security planning for all National Security Events (such as the Olympics and political conventions) involved closing the airspace. There were drills involving airplanes flying into the WTC.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm


Bush slept on an aircraft carrier in Genoa in 7/01 at the G-8 because of reports of planned airplane attacks.

Who cares if Deskins did not personally design a shootdown exercise? Does that mean there were no shootdown exercises? "

You were on a roll until you got to here:

"James B. I have not investigated the put options. I was citing the rationale given >>>>no connection to al Qaeda, therefore of no interest<<<< as one example (among many) of circular reasoning."

You talked yourself into a hole yet again. It is actually a well known fact that aircraft and hijacks airliners were indeed a scenario that had been accounted for. Where you fail because you are either an idiot or a liar is that in all of those later scenarios AL QAEDA was the organization flying though planes. Al Qaeda was the only group trying to destroy passenger jets in the 1990s.

When a small plane crashed into the Clinton White House guess who they first thought was behind it? Al Qaeda. As a result of the small plane crashing into the White House attack from aircraft moved up everybody's list.

Bush slept on the carrier because of a theater wide travel warning that said that AL QAEDA was planning to hijack commercial jets. The warning extended through the end of August. They thought that the planes would be hijacked in the Middle East or the Med. It turned out that they were wrong, they hijacked the planes out of the astern US in September.

Al Qaeda was always thought to be behind these aircraft threats, so why do you cite them whithout acknowledging this?

 
At 23 December, 2010 15:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

It's the struggle between obedience to authority and rationality. You clowns are proving that.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Also, Brian, you're supposed to call us "girls", not "clowns". Get it right next time.

 
At 23 December, 2010 16:31, Blogger Triterope said...

It's the struggle between obedience to authority and rationality.

No, that's not what I said at all.

Brian, you know all those time you ask us why we think you have an IQ of 80? Comments like this are why.

 
At 23 December, 2010 16:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

I did not cite the al Qaeda connection to the air attack intelligence because it was not germane to the issue we were discussing, which was Garry's quotes implying that there was no such intelligence.

Unlike most of youse I try to stick to the pertinent.

I'm not sure any of the games specified Muslim hijackers, though some put Koreans in the role.

 
At 23 December, 2010 18:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

I did not cite the al Qaeda connection to the air attack intelligence because it was not germane to the issue we were discussing, which was Garry's quotes implying that there was no such intelligence.

OK, so now we're back to Osama did it? Lemme see, when it's convenient for Brian to suggest something more sinister at work in the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11, then al Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. Of course, as soon as we discuss the actual attacks themselves, al Qaeda is not repsonsible, because Dick Cheney's magic thermite elves are responsible (except when it's explosives that brought the towers down). Yes, you're making perfect sense, Brian. Please continue.

Unlike most of youse I try to stick to the pertinent.

No doubt. I mean, just look at all the shit you've thrown at the wall to try to make something stick.

I'm not sure any of the games specified Muslim hijackers, though some put Koreans in the role.

Nobody cares.

 
At 23 December, 2010 18:52, Blogger James B. said...

A bunch of people who believe in faked phone calls, star wars death ray beams, vast international conspiracies conured up by Dick Cheney and supermagiconanothermite lecturing us on rationality.

How ironic.

 
At 23 December, 2010 21:15, Blogger Pat said...

Wait a minute, aren't we on flight simulator hours? Stick to the current topic!

 
At 24 December, 2010 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Flight simulators rock! Too bad Brian & Cowardly don't play computer games.

 
At 24 December, 2010 10:11, Blogger Triterope said...

Unlike most of youse I try to stick to the pertinent.

"Youse"? Two threads ago you were calling us "Y'all."

Hmmmmm.

 
At 24 December, 2010 10:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I did not cite the al Qaeda connection to the air attack intelligence because it was not germane to the issue we were discussing

Actually, it's a discussion that you deny, Brian.

 
At 24 December, 2010 16:54, Blogger MarkyX said...

"BTW, Patty, you realize your 'debunk' point about voice morph technology is wrong."

Let's get a benefit the doubt here. Say the technology was pretty damn good back then. So what? You'll need to prove that it was used on 9/11.

This type of logical is very similar to no-planers.

"Incredible CGI effects exists, therefore the planes on TV were fake."

"Incredible voice morphing technology exist, therefore the telephone calls were fake."

 
At 26 December, 2010 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

MarkyX, demanding proof before you will admit to the need of further inquiries is not logical. That said, I think there is stronger indication of the need for new investigations than the 2001-era capabilities of voice-morphing.

 
At 26 December, 2010 15:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

MarkyX, demanding proof before you will admit to the need of further inquiries is not logical.

So you agree with the need to investigate whether modified attack baboons armed with micro-nukes blew up the towers?

That said, I think there is stronger indication of the need for new investigations than the 2001-era capabilities of voice-morphing.

False. There is no need for new investigations, petgoat.

 
At 26 December, 2010 15:34, Blogger Triterope said...

Before we go any further on this voice morphing bit, could I just point out that GEORGE PAPCUN HIMSELF said that voice morphing could not have been used in this fashion?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89861

 
At 27 December, 2010 08:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, micro-nukes would leave radiation signatures that were not present at Ground Zero, so that theory is all wet.

Attack Baboons would be difficult to smuggle in and out of the WTC, so that's a dumb theory too.

There is a need for new investigations because of the corruption within the 9/11 Commission and the failure of NIST to address the most baffling mysteries of the twin towers' collapses--symmetry, speed, totality, puilverization of the concrete and molten metal.

 
At 27 December, 2010 08:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, micro-nukes would leave radiation signatures that were not present at Ground Zero, so that theory is all wet.

Brian, do you have evidence that there was no spike in radiation at the WTC site on 9/11? Many of the first responders are suffering health effects such as cancer, which is what one would expect from a situation where a micro-nuke was detonated.

Attack Baboons would be difficult to smuggle in and out of the WTC, so that's a dumb theory too.

Actually, they'd be much easier to smuggle in than demolition technicians.

There is a need for new investigations because of the corruption within the 9/11 Commission and the failure of NIST to address the most baffling mysteries of the twin towers' collapses--symmetry, speed, totality, puilverization of the concrete and molten metal.

False.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, for you to advance a mini-nuke theory you have to provide evidence. I don't have to prove anything. If you think it was mini-nukes, you should bring it up with NIST and call for a new investigation.

Your belief that baboons could be more easily smuggled into the WTC than technicians is loopy. Technicians blend into the 50,000 office workers who inhabited the WTC every day. Baboons do not. You're just being silly--and not at all clever.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, for you to advance a mini-nuke theory you have to provide evidence.

I have provided evidence: the collapsed buildings, the large mushroom clouds that appeared as the buildings came down, and the health effects suffered by first responders.

I don't have to prove anything.

So you don't have any evidence against the micro-nukes hypothesis?

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your belief that baboons could be more easily smuggled into the WTC than technicians is loopy. Technicians blend into the 50,000 office workers who inhabited the WTC every day. Baboons do not. You're just being silly--and not at all clever.

I'm just going to highlight this paragraph for the enjoyment of others here. This is what's left of the "truth" movement: unemployed janitors babbling about baboons. You can't make this shit up.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the lack of evidence of radiation is evidence that there were no micro nukes.

I wasn't babbling about anything. I was succinctly pointing out the holes in the theory. You may think your sophomoric attemts at sophism are clever, but they're not.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian babbles 'bout baboons. That's what's left of the truth movement. Hilarious.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I wasn't babbling about anything. I was modeling for you mature debunking behavior that you lack the capacity to undertake.

 
At 27 December, 2010 12:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 27 December, 2010 12:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

That was a staple line of 8-year-old girls when I was a child.

 
At 27 December, 2010 12:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

That was a staple line of 8-year-old girls when I was a child.

Maybe you should have listened to them and you wouldn't be a failed janitor living with your parents, babbling nonsense online all day. Maybe you'd have made something of your life.

 
At 27 December, 2010 17:15, Blogger Triterope said...

That was a staple line of 8-year-old girls when I was a child.

In the early 1960s?

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:00, Blogger 911TNLZ said...

Don't just sit there...DO SOMETHING. JOIN THE LLOYDE ENGLAND FLAGGING PARTY! DON'T LET US TWOOFERS OUT FLAG YOU LOL! Happy New Year DoofusDebunkahs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeR_KoXOXZ8

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home