Friday, January 07, 2011

Ask And You Will Be Answered



My answers to the questions:

1. No
2. No
3. Accountability for what?

85 Comments:

At 07 January, 2011 11:30, Blogger avicenne said...

George Bush will be quaking in his cowboy boots when he sees this.

 
At 07 January, 2011 11:56, Blogger Triterope said...

This message is tailored to an audience that doesn't exist.

Do they really think regular people are still making up their minds about whether 9-11 was an inside job or not? And if so, do you think they're going around the Internet asking "debunkers"? (Quotation fingers theirs.)

Though I must admit, this is a pretty good approach for them: downplay what their side really believes, and challenge people to base their opinions on our side's ability to explain things away.

A lot of the answers to what happened on 9-11 are boring, technical, and unsatisfying. They're still the answers, but some people can't accept that. For them, the 9/11 Truth Movement has an ample supply of magical explosives, untermensch provocateurs, dishonest scientists and right-wing bogeymen to fit any fantasy.

 
At 07 January, 2011 12:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Accountability for what?

Pat Curley on NORAD:

"I think it’s unconscionable the way that they lied to the commissioners...something that they should have considered referring for criminal indictments..."

"Take the perjury charges up with the 911 Commission"

Make up your alleged mind, lying fat sack of shit.

 
At 07 January, 2011 12:31, Blogger Isaac said...

@PatCoward
When a checker asks you if you want paper or plastic do you respond by saying "Plastic you dumb motherfucker"?

I think Pat actually did want to know what they specifically wanted accountability for. Maybe if they were specific then he could address the question properly.

If someone thinks NORAD should be held accountable for being dishonest that does not mean that person thinks they willingly obstructed anti-terrorism measures.

dummy

 
At 07 January, 2011 12:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, two of you find it necessary to recast the issues to justify your opinions.

TR ignores the question (cover-up) to frame it in completely different terms of "inside job".

Isaac tries to spin away NORAD's demonstrated dishonesty (commented upon by Sen. Mark Dayton, Pat Curley, and Commissioners Kean and Hamilton) as if the test was antiterrorist mesures.

Good work, debunkers! Thanks for proving Jon Gold's point!

 
At 07 January, 2011 13:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Question: How does one prove Jon Gold's point?

Answer: Take his hat off.

 
At 07 January, 2011 13:04, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I think Pat actually did want to know what they specifically wanted accountability for. Maybe if they were specific then he could address the question properly." -Trite every time.

If you believe that, then you're more stupid than even Pat thinks you are. What a gullible shitsmear.

"If someone thinks NORAD should be held accountable for being dishonest that does not mean that person thinks they willingly obstructed anti-terrorism measures."

So now you're saying that they SHOULD be accountable now? Make up your mind, knucklefuck
!
Why did they change their story 3 times, Trite Trope? Do you think this makes them more or less suspect? Pat once claimed that NORAD has been absolved of everything because their lies were 'caught and corrected', but he couldn't cite any other case where this still didn't count as perjury, a prosecutable offense. The doublethink is doublethick around here, starting with the thickest dumbunkass of them all, Portley Turdley.

 
At 07 January, 2011 13:04, Blogger Triterope said...

TR ignores the question (cover-up) to frame it in completely different terms of "inside job".

The creators of this promoters of this video are obviously promoting belief in 9-11 conspiracy. They're trying to hide it behind vague, non-conspiratorial questions like "do you think there was a coverup." You'd have to be an idiot not to see th... oh, right, it's you, Brian.

 
At 07 January, 2011 14:03, Blogger TroyFromWV said...

Pat Cowardly.....

You're hate-filled obsession with Pat Curley is going to destroy you from the inside out. Do yurself a favor and just blow your brains out.

 
At 07 January, 2011 14:35, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Thanks ToyFromPat'sVagina, but I don't take advice from racist, drugged, convicted child-abusers whom Pat claims as 'buddies'. Just a quirk of mine.

Why not offer your proposed origin for the melted iron in the dust, Troy? Pull your cock out of your daughter's ass for a second and give us your analysis, chubby.

 
At 07 January, 2011 14:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This is an example of stupid people promoting a lie that influences borderline stupid people:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/news/la-heb-andrew-wakefield-01052011

It is about the lie of Austism being linked to Vaccines. ONE DOCTOR issues a report about his phoney resreach to the British Medical Journal Lancet - ONE FUCKING DOCTOR, and the next thing that happens is that pharmacutical companies are hit with lawsuits. Then families with autistic kids go before Congress demanding answers (sound familiar?), and when the government and independant research comes back finding NO LINK TO VACCINES the families and the cottage industry that has grown around the Austism-Vaccine Link myth says what?

Do they accept the volume of research that says there is no link?

Do they give the money back that they received from lawsuits?

Do they apologize for being stupid?

Nope. They refuse to believe the independant research and the growing volumes of evidence that runs counter to their claims, and instead say things like :

"Nobody can tell me that vaccines aren't the cause"

"The government is under the thumb of big Pharma. It's all a cover-up"

...and my favorite:

"I know what I know"

That last one was uttered by a former Playmate of the Year, which qualifies her as a medical expert.

Everything above applies to the bafoonery that is trooferdumb. If there had been a more active debunking network when this first came put then the growing number of children who have died from preventable diseases may have been prevented.

 
At 07 January, 2011 14:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why not offer your proposed origin for the melted iron in the dust, Troy?

Oh hooray. Fresh from sucking Jon Gold's sperm out of his own ass with a tube, Pat Cowardly is here again to prove to the world that 9/11 Truthers are stupid. As if we needed more evidence.

The melted iron in the dust isn't important. Let's talk about something interesting. Why did "Andrew Bernstein" lie about Uncle Mickey? Does he think Jon Gold will be there forever to defend him? Jon's fatal stroke is just a few years away by the looks of it.

Did you unban me from #truthaction yet?

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:00, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The melted iron in the dust isn't important." TesticleBrain.

then why did Pat bend over backwards to provide his BS explanation?

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Then why did Pat bend over backwards to provide his BS explanation?

It doesn't matter. It's just Pat's opinion on a marginal issue. The iron in the dust isn't important, or even relevant.

Am I unbanned from #truthaction yet? What's taking you so fucking long?

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More adventures of the "dynamic duo", Jon "Let's Get Another Big Mac" Gold and Andrew "Don't Fuck With The Cat On My Chin" Bernstein.

Jon Gold Interviews Cosmos (aka, "Pat Cowardly", Andrew Bernstein) And The Cat On His Chin At Ground Zero - 5/1/2010.

As you can see, "Cosmos" ("Pat Cowardly", Andrew Bernstein) still cannot afford a razor.

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:08, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Just because I suck Jon's dick every so often doesn't make me gay. Besides, he loves me.

Oh yeah, iron microshperes in the dust.

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo "Cosmos" (aka "Pat Cowardly," Andrew Bernstein)!

The next time you attempt to shave, stand a couple of feet closer to the razor. Okay dust boy?

 
At 07 January, 2011 15:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Andrew Bernstein whines, "...Oh yeah, iron microshperes in the dust."

You're like a broken record, dust boy.

In fact, I've proven where the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres originated--the Towers lightweight concrete.

You, moreover, have not one shred of evidence to substantiate the claim that proposes the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres are the product of "melting" or heat-induced "conflagration."

You should stick to subjects you understand, Andrew (and we're still trying to determine what that subject might be. Perhaps underwater basket-weaving).

 
At 07 January, 2011 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

GlitterBoy, you might consider tossing your razor too. Covering up your triple chin would do wonders for your appearance.

 
At 07 January, 2011 16:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 January, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't have a triple chin, gay boi.

Apparently, you've spent so much time chokin' your chicken and lusting after Willie Rodriguez that you're blind.

 
At 07 January, 2011 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're just living proof, GlitterBall, that love is blind.

 
At 07 January, 2011 17:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shouldn't you tell that to your mom, gay boi?

 
At 07 January, 2011 18:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"then why did Pat bend over backwards to provide his BS explanation?"

Actually, nobody gives a flying fuck.

 
At 07 January, 2011 19:08, Blogger TroyFromWV said...

Pat Cowardly, seriously, you're a miserable soul who blames America for your personal failures.

Blow your brains out. I promise. You won't be missed.

 
At 07 January, 2011 19:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why not offer your proposed origin for the melted iron in the dust, Troy?

Planted by modified attack baboons.

Now that we've answered your question, will you please put less energy into stalking Pat and more into trying to get laid?

 
At 07 January, 2011 21:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

then why did Pat bend over backwards to provide his BS explanation?


What is your fascination with Pat bending over, and what do you picture him wearing in your mind while he does?

 
At 08 January, 2011 00:32, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

You know why I lied about Uncle Mickey, right? Low self esteem. It got worse when I started working in the industry... I was surrounded by rich, beautiful people and I wanted part of that. I was just tired of being a nobody.

Then I discovered the 9/11 Truth Movement where anybody can be a hero. You don't have to be intelligent or good looking. You don't even have to believe what you're saying as long as you can say it smoothly. I'm living proof of that.

Sure, my family hates me now. But I owe my life to 9/11 Truth and I will NEVER betray it. Besides, I'll always have Jon.

 
At 08 January, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But I owe my life to 9/11 Truth and I will NEVER betray it.

Little do you know that they have betrayed you, Andrew! Delusional dipshit!

 
At 08 January, 2011 11:14, Blogger Pat said...

Hey, you want accountability from the Air Force generals for lying about when they knew about Flight 93? Sure, I'll go along with that. But of course that has nothing to do with your foolish fantasies of nanothermite and standdown orders.

 
At 08 January, 2011 12:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well, Pat, let me be the first to welcome you to the 9/11 Truth movement. Let's get new investigations of the actions of NORAD on that day, and a credible explanation of why there was no effective air defense for 100 minutes even though according to a G.A.O. report, interceptions of problem aircraft had been a once-a-day assignment (even without transponders) just a few years before.

You will be happy to know that a sizable reality-based contingent of the truth movement has no fantasies about nanothermite or stand-down orders or any of the other issues that our detractors like to raise as straw men.

 
At 08 January, 2011 12:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 January, 2011 12:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fantasies that clowns like Barrett and Jesse and Ranke promote to give our detractors ammunition.

Let me clarify about nanothermite: the findings of the Jones team are very interesting and IMHO worthy of further research, and I would like to see further study of the microspheres done to clarify the controversy about their origin. The Jones findings have not yet been replicated as far as I know, so the "nanothermite fantasy" as I see it is the notion that controlled demolition has been proven by the discovery of engineered nano-incendiaries in the WTC dust. The issue remains to be resolved.

 
At 08 January, 2011 13:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

You will be happy to know that a sizable reality-based contingent of the truth movement has no fantasies about nanothermite or stand-down orders or any of the other issues that our detractors like to raise as straw men.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Brian, you've given up all the nonsense about thermite and explosives and squibs and superheated dust and "free-fall speed" and molten iron and all that?

Hey, if you want a truth movement that wants accountability for incompetence on 9/11, sign me up. Just don't expect me to go along with spray-on thermite, OK?

 
At 08 January, 2011 13:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

On another note, how long before the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords is revealed as an Alex Jones fan?

 
At 08 January, 2011 13:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never had any nonsense or any theories. I have always maintained that the truth movement should stick with facts that can be proven. That's what brought me into conflict with fact-averse people like Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Craig Ranke--and their naive advocates like Carol Brouillet.

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I never had any nonsense or any theories. I have always maintained that the truth movement should stick with facts that can be proven. That's what brought me into conflict with fact-averse people like Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Craig Ranke--and their naive advocates like Carol Brouillet.

What? Brian, you've repeated nonsense here over and over again for almost 2 years. I can write your usual refrain from memory: "the reports failed to explain the most baffling aspects of the towers collapse: the free-fall speed, the pulverization of concrete, the superheated dust, the squibs, and the molten iron."

All of the above is either wild fantasies or simple stuff with mundane explanations, but whenever we tried to tell you this, it was more babbling about spray-on thermite or smoldering carpets.

Now you're telling us that you were playing devil's advocate with all that gibberish?

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:20, Blogger Triterope said...

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

WTF indeed. Brian calls stand-down orders and thermite "fantasies" and "straw men", while simultaneously demanding further investigation into both.

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

I get real tired of explaining basic epistemology to you guys.

When you guys say stupid stuff like claiming that nobody could plant explosives in the towers because there would be miles of det cord and somebody would see it, I bring up the fact that wireless detonators exist and explosives could be planted in the elevator shafts, or even inside the hollow core columns.

That doesn't mean I believe wireless detonators were used or even that I believe explosives were used.

Sure, I'd like to see people questioned under oath about why there was no air defense on 9/11, including questions about a stand-down order. That doesn't mean I believe there was a stand-down order. Such a thing would be stupid and unnecessary.

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:44, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:54, Blogger Triterope said...

On another note, how long before the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords is revealed as an Alex Jones fan?

Details are coming out now.

Media is reporting the shooter's name is Jared Lee Loughner, a white male born in 1988.

Don't know if he's an Alex Jones fan, but apparently he has posted some rather strange manifesto videos on YouTube. Coincidentally, they're in the same all-text format as the OP in this thread. He also refers to himself in the past tense.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY

It sure seems like the same guy, though I find it hard to believe these videos have only 300 views now that his name and the above link is flying all over the web.

 
At 08 January, 2011 14:59, Blogger garysjwa said...

On another note, how long before the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords is revealed as an Alex Jones fan?

Details are surfacing now.

Media are reporting the shooter's name was Jared Lee Laughner, a 22-year-old white male.

Apparently he had a YouTube channel of rather strange manifestos... coincidentally enough, in the same all-text format as the OP in this thread. He also refers to himself in the past tense.

link

Sure seems like the same guy, though it's odd that these videos only have 300 views each, as the story circulates all over the web.

 
At 08 January, 2011 15:01, Blogger garysjwa said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 January, 2011 15:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

I get real tired of explaining basic epistemology to you guys.

Says the guy lying about what Carol Brouillet says about him....

When you guys say stupid stuff like claiming that nobody could plant explosives in the towers because there would be miles of det cord and somebody would see it, I bring up the fact that wireless detonators exist and explosives could be planted in the elevator shafts, or even inside the hollow core columns.

Right, in other words, you believe in in the "inside job" nonsense with religious certainty and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince you otherwise. Thermite doesn't work the way you need it to? Well, just make up some magical properties for "nanothermite" and say it could be sprayed on by unwitting workers.

That doesn't mean I believe wireless detonators were used or even that I believe explosives were used.

Then maybe you should stop babbling about it?

Sure, I'd like to see people questioned under oath about why there was no air defense on 9/11, including questions about a stand-down order. That doesn't mean I believe there was a stand-down order. Such a thing would be stupid and unnecessary.

Are you finally beginning to figure out that the truth movement is a bunch of nonsense? It's about damn time....

 
At 08 January, 2011 15:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You don't believe wireless detonators were used, yet you throw them out there.

Even though nobody would use them in the way that they would have had to be used on 9/11. Why? Forget the tousands of cell phones in use inside of each tower (and the thousands more in use outside) which effectively blocked all cell traffic. Your nifty wireless dets would have had to compete with the thousands of police and fire radios in use.

No credible demo guy would use a wireless detonator on that kind of job.

As for NORAD, what do you think that we are going to learn that we don't know now?

1. Mass confusion was the order of the day? - Old news

2. The "Stand Down" order? [see #1]

3. Why was there no intercept? - The planes got to Manhattan late, the planes sent for AA77 went out over the Atlantic, and they couldn't find UA93 until it went down. Again, old news.

4. Defense spending had cut the ANG budget so bad, and due to the end of the Cold War NORAD no longer kept aircraft on hair-trigger alert. - Again this is old news.

So after wasting everyone's time an investigation into NORAD on 9/11 would boild down to the American tax payer being ultimately to blame for not funding the nation's air defenses in a way that would have maintianed a Cold War footing in FY 2001.

Shit Brian, we're in two wars right now and the Secretary of Defense is still planning to cut defnese spending, just like Rumsfeld wanted to do before 9/11.

Are you going to send Gates an angry letter?

I didn't think so.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

G.A.O. report, interceptions of problem aircraft had been a once-a-day assignment (even without transponders) just a few years before.

Name one time outside of the Payne Steward flight when passenger jet had to be intercepted.

What the GAO is talking about is routine stuff, private plane flies into military airspace, coast guard intercepts drug aircraft flying low into US airspace.

You would know this, if you had the brains to know.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I bring up the fact that wireless detonators exist and explosives could be planted in the elevator shafts, or even inside the hollow core columns.

Yeah, and I could get hit on the head by a meteor, but I don't bother worrying about it because it's so far outside the realm on probability it is in effect impossible.

You are stupid enough to think anyone should investigate this when the facts of a fire induced, gravity driven collapse is thousands of time more likely. And is held as true by a vast majority of structural engineers with qualifications exceeding anything truthers can come up with.

And it is not like you have proof of your silly idea, just stupid questions.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Hey. let investigate Judy Woods death rays too, After all it could have happened.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:18, Blogger Triterope said...

On another note, how long before the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords is revealed as an Alex Jones fan?

The suspect's name is Jared Lee Loughner, a 22-year-old white male. Don't know if he's an Alex Jones fan, but he has a YouTube channel of bizarre manifestos. I'd post the link, but blogger keeps eating my posts when I do that. It's easy enough to find.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The problem with Brian is as we all know he is not very smart. And being low on intelligence he got suckered into the truther thing and didn't have enough sense to quit early like smarter truthers did.

Being devoid of any real skills or talent, being a truther is all poor old Brian has. So now he is grasping at straws trying to cope with the realization he is just another loser smuck who got sold a bill of goods.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This is Jarad under another name on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw

Bad music, burning the flag,

A nut with strange political ideas. Could be left, could be right but always blame the government first for your problems. Bet he would buy the truther shit too.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Myron, I throw out wireless detonators only to defeat the stupid notion that controlled demolition would necessarily entail miles of det cord.

There's no problem using them, either. All you have to do is use very insensitive receivers and very powerful transmitters and the RFI problem is solved.

You have a major problem with thinking you know stuff you don't know.

What are we going to learn from NORAD? We're going to learn why key people (like Rumsfeld) stayed in meetings or were otherwise unavailable to do their jobs. We're going to learn how a slow unarmed airliner can fly 400 miles without detection. We're going to learn why planes sat on the tarmac at Otis and Andrews after the alert was given. We're going to learn exactly how many hijacking drills and plane-into-building drills NORAD did in the year before 9/11. We're going to learn how much command authority Cheney took over the six simultaneous wargames that were going on that morning. We're going to learn about the radar injects, the PROMIS software, and the Ptech installation in the basement of the FAA. We're going to learn what time the FAA notified NORAD. We're going to learn what the orders were that still stood. We're going to find out why Rumsfeld went out to the lawn to play Nurse instead of defending his country. We're going to find out what time Cheney got to the bunker. We're going to find out if the C-130H carried electronic warfare weaponry. I could go on all day.

Pray tell--how does an investigation waste "everyone's" time? If you don't want to know about it, you don't have to read it. I bet there are people who very much want to tell what happened.

I think the military budget should be cut by 80%. Issue every man a box cutter and have him learn to use it before they get any new toys.

 
At 08 January, 2011 17:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the fact that interceptions were routine is the point I'm trying to make. Also airliners, being bigger and faster, are easier to pick out on radar than private aircraft.

You claim the vast majority of structural engineers believe it was a fire-induced collapse, but you can't name one independent structural engineer who has endorsed the NIST report. How smart is that?

 
At 08 January, 2011 19:03, Blogger Triterope said...

I throw out wireless detonators only to defeat the stupid notion that controlled demolition would necessarily entail miles of det cord.

That's what you do. You replace a stupid notion with a different, equally stupid notion.

 
At 08 January, 2011 20:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"What are we going to learn from NORAD? We're going to learn why key people (like Rumsfeld) stayed in meetings or were otherwise unavailable to do their jobs."

What the fuck does Rumsfeld have to do with NORAD? They don't have to wait for the SecDef to do whatever you think they do.

"We're going to learn how a slow unarmed airliner can fly 400 miles without detection."

Are you that fucking stupid ( I know, trick question). Without the IFF it dropped off ATC screens. That meant that the Civilian air control couldn't vector (clue in) the USAF as to the liner's location/heading. That is why they kept asking for any visual confirmations from other aircraft that were near.

"We're going to learn why planes sat on the tarmac at Otis and Andrews after the alert was given."

Any number of reasons. No target, no authorization. It makes no difference because there were enough planes in the air at the time to deal with the threat, they were just in the wrong place.

"We're going to learn exactly how many hijacking drills and plane-into-building drills NORAD did in the year before 9/11"

Why don't you just ask them? You file a FOIA request, and then keep submitting it. You also ask for help from you Congressional rep. My guess is zero plane-into-building scenarios because the USAF has never practiced that before, and the only place they ran that was in a room a Langley. They run all kinds of scenarios. Means nothing.

"We're going to learn how much command authority Cheney took over the six simultaneous wargames that were going on that morning."

Who cares? Most of those games didn't involve actual armed aircraft. So why would Cheney take control? The F-16s that took to the air from DC weren't even armed. Nobody was expecting a strike. Cheney took no control, the President made the calls via phone.

"We're going to learn about the radar injects, the PROMIS software, and the Ptech installation in the basement of the FAA."

What the fuck does any of this have to do with NORAD? Are you that brain damaged [again, trick question]?

"We're going to learn what time the FAA notified NORAD."

It is already in the report.

"We're going to find out why Rumsfeld went out to the lawn to play Nurse instead of defending his country."

Seriously? Your first statement is that we need to know where Rumsfeld was, then you answer your own stupid question. Rumsfeld went to help the injured because that is what REAL MEN do, Bwian, they get in there and help. I understand that this is an alien concept for a grown man who dresses up like a comicbook character in a Guy Fawkes mask because he thinks it makes him look intimidating. His security got him out of there ASAP too.

"We're going to find out what time Cheney got to the bunker"

Who cares? Ever hear of a cell phone? Do you even understand that the President of the United States has had to ability to start WWIII while sitting on the crapper since the 1960s? Also if they made public how long it took to get from the VP office down to the bunker then that would give away just how far and how deep the bunker is.

Are you planning an attack?

"We're going to find out if the C-130H carried electronic warfare weaponry"

So what if it did? How does EWO gear change anything that happened on 9/11?

"I could go on all day."

I'm sure you can.
In fact you should have your own TV show. It would be like the old "Mr. Ed" except the horse talks out the other end.

all.

 
At 08 January, 2011 20:50, Blogger paul w said...

"I throw out wireless detonators only to defeat the stupid notion that controlled demolition would necessarily entail miles of det cord."

Another idiotic Brian comment.

Miles of det cord IS used when detonating a 'normal' building, let alone a 110 story skyscraper.

There are many YouTube videos of this; controlled demo experts explaining how a building is collapsed.

So, if you going to use det cord, then you WOULD need miles of the stuff.

As always, you proved absolutely fucking nothing (except in your own delusional mind).

As for this comment:

"You have a major problem with thinking you know stuff you don't know."

Another example of irony, Brian.

 
At 08 January, 2011 22:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

You claim the vast majority of structural engineers believe it was a fire-induced collapse, but you can't name one independent structural engineer who has endorsed the NIST report. How smart is that?

Aaaaand we're back to Brian babbling about the NIST report. For a moment there, I thought he had figured things out, but now he's looking for excuses for his insane beliefs again.

Brian, you still haven't named an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity.

 
At 09 January, 2011 06:59, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Anybody heard if the Arizona shooter is a twoofer? He certainly parrots a lot of their non-9/11 beliefs, if you could call them that.

 
At 09 January, 2011 07:42, Blogger Triterope said...

Dunno, but he's definitely a fruitcake. Also, they're looking for a second person.

 
At 09 January, 2011 08:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The little girl was apparently born on 9/11.

Glenn Zarmanov, where are you? Please explain what this means.

 
At 09 January, 2011 10:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ConsDemo wrote, "...Anybody heard if the Arizona shooter is a twoofer?"

Apparently, Loughner spent a lot of time in his YouTube videos talking about mind control and currency reform (aka, Federal Reserve conspiracy theory), which carries echoes of Glenn Beck's rhetoric, particularly with regard to currency and revolution.

It appears that he was influenced by the constant drumbeat of violent extremist right-wing rhetoric on the AM radio talk show circuit--including Sarah Palin--cable television (Faux Noose to be specific), the right-wing elements who inhabit our Congress, and the rabid, irresponsible right-wing nut bags who spew propaganda from one end of the 'net to the other. Couple that with Sharon Angle's talk of "second amendment remedies" and the implications couldn't be more obvious.

Thus, I'd bet 100 to 1 that he's a troofer.

 
At 09 January, 2011 10:45, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian, you still haven't named an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity.

Even though just about every major structural engineering firm uses the lessons learned from the fire induced collapse of the WTC in construction of buildings today. Things like better fire proofing and ways to cool structure during a fire. The fact they use the NIST report is tacit approval of the report. The fireproofing of the new WTC7 was modified in light of what happened to the old building.

Guys like gage don't use the report because they never build anything os consequence.

 
At 09 January, 2011 10:56, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

We're going to learn how a slow unarmed airliner can fly 400 miles without detection.

Because Idiot, without a transponder it just becomes a blip on a radar screen among a thousand other blips.

Brian bet you don't even know what the difference between primary and secondary radar is. That on 9/11 NORAD didn't even monitor the radar used for passenger flights. That they only had 8 minutes warning on the first flight, none on the second before it hit the south tower.

A retarded child like you Brian thinks the world works like in the movies and it does not, leave the thinking to us who can think.

 
At 09 January, 2011 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, what's stupid about the notion of wireless detonators? Would you argue that wireless computer networks can not possibly work in offices because there are too many cell phones?

Actually, Myron, the command structure had been recently overhauled to concentrate authority in Cheney and IIRC Rumsfeld. I'm not sure at what time C.O.G procedures were invoked, but that became a factor also. Your belief that Rumsfeld had no operational function is not justified.

Loss of transponder signal did not make the airliners invisible to radar. As I pointed out, interception of mostly transponderless aircraft was an every day activity of NORAD a few years before 9/11.

You are just inventing "facts" to make an excuse for your complacency. If you would bother to research these issues you would see that there are many questions.
Your guess of zero plane into building exercises is an example. There were hijacked airliner into WTC exercises.

My Congressional Rep is a shameless political hack who spends her time raising money for the Democratic Party. Useless.

The radar injects have to do with NORAD's war games, and the FAA has to do with NORAD's notification of problem aircraft.

FAA's notifications are not in the report. They left out the phone bridge established before 9:00 a.m. that provided info on all flights of interest, including AA77.

Your belief that a real man abandons his position of responsibility to provide "help" for which he is untrained and useless elsewhere shows you to be someone who has never had a serious responsibility. You wouldn't qualify to be a night watchman.

If you don't understand why it matters when Cheney got to the bunker, then you don't know beans about 9/11. Norm Mineta saw him there at 9:25 discussing a shoot-down order on AA77. The 9/11 Commission claims that he didn't get there until a half hour later--because they want to make it impossible for him to have illegally ordered a shoot-down on flight 93.

The electronic warfare capabilities of the C-130H are necessary to provide information on the possibility that electronic weapons were used to bring down UA93.

 
At 09 January, 2011 13:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, you are dishonestly shifting the issue from whether it's stupid to use det cord because it would show from whether it's stupid to think miles of it would be needed if you did use det cord. Typical debunker sophistry.

Ian, your inability to distinguish between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity makes your Iananity inane.

DK, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. How many transponderless aircraft were flying across West Virginia at 500 mph that morning?

The claims that NORAD never got FAA warnings are one of the things that needs further investigation. If FAA personnel failed to follow established procedures, as the 9/11 claims, then why was nobody fired?

 
At 09 January, 2011 13:50, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, what's stupid about the notion of wireless detonators?

This has already been explained to you. As has everything else. I grow tired of your act.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, no it hasn't. You claimed that wireless detonators were impossible because of the prevalence of radio emissions in the area. I pointed out that if you used insensitive receivers and powerful transmitters, the noise would be filtered out.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This has already been explained to you. As has everything else. I grow tired of your act.

It's not an act, Brian Good is really that stupid. We as bright people forget that, it's hard to imaging the thinking process of a man with a room temperature IQ.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. How many transponderless aircraft were flying across West Virginia at 500 mph that morning?

Well if you were informed you would know there were about 4000 aircraft over the US that morning. Most over the eastern NY DC area. So you would have hundred over the search area.

See you learned something again from me.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:28, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The claims that NORAD never got FAA warnings

They did get warnings. And only had 8 minutes warning before the first aircraft hit its target.

Don't you know anything Brian?

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

if you used insensitive receivers and powerful transmitters, the noise would be filtered out.

Exactly what frequency would these operate on?

Let us know and I will teach you why it would not work.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:34, Blogger Triterope said...

You claimed that wireless detonators were impossible because of the prevalence of radio emissions in the area.

Actually, that was someone else. I don't really care what kind of detonator you use, since you have nothing to detonate with it.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"TR, what's stupid about the notion of wireless detonators? Would you argue that wireless computer networks can not possibly work in offices because there are too many cell phones?"

Actually some computer wireless networks will knock eachother off the air. We had to upgrade our network because we were losing connection due to the 14 networks in our geographic location.

Cell phones don't operate on the same frequency as computer networks.

Anybody in Manhattan on 9/11 can tell you that getting a signal on their cell was impossible, and the NYFD/NYPD's radio failure due to cross-talk jamming is in the damned report. So a wireless detonator of any type makes no sense.

"Actually, Myron, the command structure had been recently overhauled to concentrate authority in Cheney and IIRC Rumsfeld. I'm not sure at what time C.O.G procedures were invoked, but that became a factor also. Your belief that Rumsfeld had no operational function is not justified."

No. The Constitution is pretty clear about the chain of command. It flows from POTUS down. In fact because AA77 had hit the Pentagon the Military command would have had to assume he was killed or injured/trapped. Until the SecDef was confirmed safe someone else takes his place.

Your charge that somehow the national defense hinged on two men is galactically stupid.

"Your guess of zero plane into building exercises is an example. There were hijacked airliner into WTC exercises."

Well those exercises had names. List them.

"Your belief that a real man abandons his position of responsibility to provide "help" for which he is untrained and useless elsewhere shows you to be someone who has never had a serious responsibility. You wouldn't qualify to be a night watchman."

He never abandoned jack shit. He had his team, they had phones. He was never out of contact with the NSC or the DoD. The last time I checked the SecDef's position IS the Pentagon. The military is not a bunch of robots, they don't need to be told what to do.

So now ww know that not only do you not understand government, elevator repairmen, radios/rf/wireless networks, but now you demonstrate that you don't know what a security guard does.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't ask "how many aircraft were over the US?" I asked "how many transponderless airliners were flying at 500 mph across West Virginia?"

Answer: probably one.

DK, it doesn't matter what frequency was used, or whether it was AM, FM, or PWC.

TR, oh I get it. Wireless detonators are stupid because there's nothing to detonate! Silly me! How could I have failed to notice that?

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

You are just inventing "facts" to make an excuse for your complacency. If you would bother to research these issues you would see that there are many questions.

Uh, no. You're the one who invents stuff out of thin air so you can desperately cling to your fanatical beliefs in an inside job.

My Congressional Rep is a shameless political hack who spends her time raising money for the Democratic Party. Useless.

Primary her, Brian! Run as a truth candidate! You have 84% of the country on your side, right? You should win easily!

Ian, your inability to distinguish between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity makes your Iananity inane.

Um, Brian, learn what "theory" means in scientific context and then get back to us, OK?

Anyway, you still haven't named one independent engineer who has endorsed gravity.

DK, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. How many transponderless aircraft were flying across West Virginia at 500 mph that morning?

Many dozens, you fucking moron. Jesus, Brian, how clueless are you? Do you know how many planes are in the air at any one time?

You claimed that wireless detonators were impossible because of the prevalence of radio emissions in the area. I pointed out that if you used insensitive receivers and powerful transmitters, the noise would be filtered out.

It would be much easier to use modified attack baboons as theorized by Deagle, et. al. to ensure the charges detonate at the right time.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Myron, your post is just a list of silly straw men.

I'm sorry that it'd not worth posting a substantive response because it would only get buried under 18" of Ian's lie-spam.

 
At 09 January, 2011 14:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

I asked "how many transponderless airliners were flying at 500 mph across West Virginia?"

Answer: probably one.


How many abandoned coal mine shafts are in West Virginia? Probably hundreds. This question is about as relevant to 9/11 as yours.

DK, it doesn't matter what frequency was used, or whether it was AM, FM, or PWC.

False.

TR, oh I get it. Wireless detonators are stupid because there's nothing to detonate! Silly me! How could I have failed to notice that?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Sigh...for a very brief moment, Brian started making sense in this thread. Now he's back to babbling about remote control detonators. So much for progress....

 
At 09 January, 2011 15:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm sorry that it'd not worth posting a substantive response because it would only get buried under 18" of Ian's lie-spam.

You have no point, petgoat. You're just a liar and sex stalker who babbles about imaginary widows and thermite.

 
At 09 January, 2011 15:06, Blogger Triterope said...

How could I have failed to notice that?

Brian, that answer to that question could fill a book.

 
At 09 January, 2011 16:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, the answer is quite simple. I failed to notice it because there's no reason to believe it's true and quite a lot to suggest that it isn't.

 
At 09 January, 2011 17:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, what you have failed to notice is what I'm actually talking about. As usual. Sorry, sometimes I forget you have no concept of subtlety.

 
At 09 January, 2011 18:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah like "you have nothing to detonate" is a subtle argument.

 
At 09 January, 2011 18:29, Blogger Triterope said...

Too subtle for you, apparently.

(HINT: I'm referring to another thread.)

 
At 10 January, 2011 14:54, Blogger Bill said...

Of course comments are pending approval. Nothing like censorship in the name of "truth".

 
At 10 January, 2011 21:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe they got tired of flippant answers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home