Friday, February 04, 2011

Sherlock Holmes Would Be Rolling Over In His Grave

If he weren't a fictional character. Jon Cole, David Chandler's partner in Troofiness, has created a video:

I like to use a little metric called TFLOM, for Time to First Lie Or Mistake. This one probably sets the all-time speed record, as less than 3 seconds in, he shows this quote: "Condemnation before investigation, is the highest form of ignorance."-Albert Einstein. There are two problems with that quote: a) Einstein didn't say it, and b) that's not the proper quotation.

The actual quote goes something like this: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."

Cole's video doesn't get better. Thirteen seconds in he spews the "some of the hijackers were alive" meme. Then we get the Rex Tomb "quote" about no evidence tying Bin Laden to the attacks 26 seconds in. At this point, I was beginning to think this must be one of those "how many errors can you spot" contests, especially since the next bit is about the gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

And then, after establishing that he's a full-on kooky kook mckookster, Cole gets into the sort of "evidence" that we'd expect an engineer to present on buildings and collapses. The missing jolt, etc.

What's the term the Troofers like to use for this sort of video? Turd in the punchbowl is what Alex Jones calls it. See, you have this delicious punch (the controlled demolition "evidence") but in the middle of it, you place an enormous turd, so that nobody wants to drink the punch. The assumption here is that you discredit the good stuff with the bad, and that the person doing it must be a disinfo operative.

And I do have to wonder. What else would explain Cole starting off his video with all that zany stuff?

Oh, snap! He's a kooky kook mckookster!

Labels:

77 Comments:

At 04 February, 2011 14:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Sherlock Holmes would follow the Fat Cuntly approach instead: first, posit an explanation that makes no sense and is physically impossible. Then call anyone who doesn't believe it 'retarded'. Finally, backpedal weakly on your position for all to see because you're a punk-ass coward, and you never knew what you were talking about to begin with.

Elementary, son.

 
At 04 February, 2011 14:20, Blogger Triterope said...

You're boring. Go away.

 
At 04 February, 2011 16:19, Blogger Pat said...

Hi Andrew! Say hello to the rest of the Bernstein clan for us!

 
At 04 February, 2011 19:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Hi Andrew! Say hello to the rest of the Bernstein clan for us!

Turns out Penn State does list an Andrew Bernstein in 2002. Anybody got a La Vie from that year? I wonder if he looks like somebody we know.

 
At 04 February, 2011 19:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 February, 2011 20:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...Turns out Penn State does list an Andrew Bernstein in 2002. Anybody got a La Vie from that year? I wonder if he looks like somebody we know."

He wouldn't happen to have a cat on his chin, would he?

%^)

 
At 04 February, 2011 21:08, Blogger paul w said...

This is how the truthers con newbies.
From the very start, one is repeatedly battered with bullshit, whether it be quote-mining, misleading information, misquoting, etc.
The good news, is that the truthers are constantly retreating into a tiny bunch of conspiracy loons.
Good riddance.

Oh, and Pat Cowardly.
Yup, same (boring) insults, same (boring) comments, same (boring) childish behavior.

Oh my. How must it feel to come second to Brian?

Bwahahahaha!

 
At 05 February, 2011 06:12, Blogger Garry said...

'He wouldn't happen to have a cat on his chin, would he?'

His head must be upside down.

 
At 05 February, 2011 09:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Andrew Bernstein

http://www.peekyou.com/andrew_bernstein/14502292

Could this be our boy?

 
At 05 February, 2011 10:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.peekyou.com/andrew_bernstein/14502292

Andrew Jay Bernstein, 39 years old, lives in Los Angeles, CA. He has also lived in Santa Monica, CA; Bar Harbor, ME; Baltimore, MD and Fort Washington, PA.

He attended the Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania State


Well I'll be! It has to be him, just look @ his picture!

 
At 05 February, 2011 10:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23185

ANDREW: Ok. I didn’t hear the recordings. I had relatives there who heard the recordings. I haven’t read the 9/11 Commission Report either.

For someone who hasn't read the Report, then assumes that the Commission was "wrong" is an idiot.

 
At 05 February, 2011 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

You don't need to read the report to know it's worthless. All you need to know is the conflicts of interest of the Executive Director, the widows' 273 unanswered questions, Dr. Griffin's list of 114 Omissions and Distortions, and that Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were "set up to fail" and said NORAD lies flagrantly. Also that they ignored the Able Danger story because it wasn't part of the story they wanted to tell, and they ignored SarShar's story and a dozen other intel folks.

 
At 05 February, 2011 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, it's interesting that you jump all over Cole for some sloppy research about the hijackers, but you had nothing to say when he showed that thermite charges can quite simply and easily be used to cut vertical surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4

 
At 05 February, 2011 12:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

You don't need to read the report to know it's worthless.

Well, we can see what the objections are to it and see if they have any validity.

All you need to know is the conflicts of interest of the Executive Director, the widows' 273 unanswered questions, Dr. Griffin's list of 114 Omissions and Distortions, and that Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were "set up to fail" and said NORAD lies flagrantly.

Nope, no validity, just a bunch of babbling lies from a failed janitor. It's good to know there are no real objections to the report.

Also that they ignored the Able Danger story because it wasn't part of the story they wanted to tell, and they ignored SarShar's story and a dozen other intel folks.

Nobody cares.

 
At 05 February, 2011 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were 'set up to fail'."

No they did nothing of the sort. YOU quote mined Kean and Hamilton's words while ignoring the portion of their writing that states that they agree with the conclusions of the Report.

Fuck you, goat molester.

 
At 05 February, 2011 12:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, it's interesting that you jump all over Cole for some sloppy research about the hijackers, but you had nothing to say when he showed that thermite charges can quite simply and easily be used to cut vertical surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4


Do you have a point, petgoat?

 
At 05 February, 2011 13:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...Do you have a point, petgoat?"

Yeah, the goat molester has a point...on the top of his head.

Combine that with tertiary syphilis and it's easy to understand why the goat molester babbles and bald-faced lies like an infected homo on steroids.

 
At 05 February, 2011 13:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat molester, if Kean and Hamilton's book proves conspiracy on 9/11, why did Kean and Hamilton write the following:

"...We established core principles for our inquiry in part to avoid the kinds of conspiracy theorizing that have followed in the wake of other inquiries. So we decided to be open and transparent so that people could see how we reached our conclusions about 9/11...If, in the course of our inquiry, we could address or knock down a particular conspiracy theory, we did so." -- "Without Precedent – The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission", written by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.

Any more quote mined garbage and bald-faced lies for us, asshole?

 
At 05 February, 2011 14:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

http://www.peekyou.com/andrew_bernstein/14502292/

Whoah -- yeah, maybe. Pretty sure our guy is Andrew H. aged 30, so it's not a 100% match. But I can certainly see how the bright eyed graduate in that photo became this pathetic burnout through the stress of living a lie for 8 years.

Great find.

 
At 05 February, 2011 14:55, Blogger paul w said...

Oh my. How must it feel to come second to Brian?

I apologize, Pat Cowardly, you are not second to Brian.

His entirely predicable 'widows' 273 unanswered questions', '114 Omissions and Distortions', "set up to fail" and 'Able Danger' comment proves he is just as boring as you.

Brian used to be entertaining, in a dipshit sort of way, but now he's just white noise.

 
At 05 February, 2011 17:08, Blogger Pat said...

I have previously seen that pic at Peekyou. Note that the age of 39 doesn't jibe with the other details; if he graduated HS in 1998, he'd be more like 30, which does fit Cosmos. But the ears don't seem to match; note how AB's ears in that pic seem to pin back at the top? That doesn't fit Cosmos.

Still it's pretty obvious he's spooked by any mention of the Bernsteins, so either he's related or knows that they know who he is.

 
At 05 February, 2011 17:16, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the widows' 273 unanswered questions"

Nobody gives a flying fuck, Boron.

 
At 05 February, 2011 17:32, Blogger paul w said...

OT, and hope it hasn't already been covered:

Gage interviewed by China TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpS1pJFyHWU

 
At 05 February, 2011 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This is a still photo of "Cosmos"/Andrew Bernstein with the characteristic trademark cat on his chin.

Here's a video of "Cosmos"/Andrew Bernstein from Hard Evidence Tour Sydney 2009. Notice that he continues to lie about his blood relationship to Mickey Rothenberg. Also, you'll notice the distinctive cat on his chin.

Finally, here's a video of "Cosmos"/Andrew Bernstein made by Jon Gold at Ground Zero. Again, notice the trademark cat on his chin.

%^)

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I have previously seen that pic at Peekyou. Note that the age of 39 doesn't jibe with the other details; if he graduated HS in 1998, he'd be more like 30, which does fit Cosmos.

The kid in that photo doesn't look a day over 25 to me. I imagine it's the wrong name with the wrong photo.

In any case, there's some resemblance between that "Andrew Bernstein" and this Cosmos photo IMO.

Cosmos could of course clear all this up, but doesn't. I wonder what he's hiding.

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were "set up to fail", as anyone who reads the first few pages of their book can see.

Whether they agree with the conclusions of their own report or not has nothing to do with the fact that they were set up to fail.

LL, thanks for expressing contempt for the victims of 9/11. You're a real class act .... not.

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Okay I'll play...

"You don't need to read the report to know it's worthless. All you need to know is the conflicts of interest of the Executive Director, the widows' 273 unanswered questions, Dr. Griffin's list of 114 Omissions and Distortions, and that Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were "set up to fail" and said NORAD lies flagrantly. Also that they ignored the Able Danger story because it wasn't part of the story they wanted to tell, and they ignored SarShar's story and a dozen other intel folks."

1. 250 of the 273 questions are bullshit, politically motivated, and have nothing to do with the attacks. So while we all know that you love to hide behind the 9/11 widows to justify your asshattery the fact is that these questions are pointless drivel.

2. Dr. Griffin is a con-man, a liar, a bullshit artist and while I do admire him for taking money out of the pockets of morons the sad fact is that he has zero credibility. So who the fuck cares about his list of questions?

3. NORAD didn't lie, NORAD just didn't know what was going on. Worse still people who made initial comments spoke before they had any facts. So NORAD is guilty of making a mess, nothing more.

4.Able Danger, yeah let's talk about Able Danger. Anthony Shaffer is the guy who has been publically touting that Able Danger had been onto Atta in 1998, but they failed to pursue him. Shaffer clearly states in his book that the reason that Able Danger didn't pursue Atta was because Able Danger was a US Army operation and under law they are forbidden to operate within CONUS. Shaffer also says that he remember's Atta's face because the only time that he saw this picture it was on a table with 40 other pictures of suspected bad guys. So to sum it up, the US Army followed the law, and they assumed that the FBI would pick up the slack. Shaffer has made a career off of Able Danger and his whacky book. The problem is that Shaffer is a master of hype and his book most be read with a truck load of salt.

What you need to understand is that picking at gnat-shit will not change the picture. The facts of 9/11 will never change. Everyone knows that the government failed to stop Al Qaeda, that was known to first Friday after the attacks in 2001. The details are known to the people who needed to know them. Eventually those details will be public knowledge but they won't change anything.

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

#1. Politically motivated? How do you know? Are you a mind reader? Do you mean they ask the Bush Administration to explain its colossal failure to protect the country?

#2 Dr. Griffin's list of 114 important omissions and distortions is an important criticism of a badly flawed report, and your opinion of him does not change that. Why didn't the Commission do Job One of an investigation of organized crime, which is "follow the money"? They declared the hijackers' source of funds to be "of little practical significance".

#3. NORAD lied. Their first story was that no planes were launched in until after the Pentagon was hit. They had no right to make that claim if they didn't know. Their stories shifted again and again, and contained so many impossible elements that the 9/11 Commission had to write their story for them so it would make some kind of sense. Kean and Hamilton wrote that they considered referring the matter to the DoJ for criminal investigation.

#4. Shaffer spoke with Zelikow in Afghabuistan, so Zelikow knew about Able Danger. They left it out of the report because it wasn't part of the story they wanted to tell.

Your bottom line is "It won't change anything". It will change things for the widows, it will change things for the children of America to have the government acknowledge that they lied to us.
You might as well argue that we don't need the truth about the Kennedy assassination because it won't bring him back to life.

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The words "set up to fail" do not prove that Kean and Hamilton believe there was a conspiracy on 9/11.

They made it very clear in their book, "Without Precedent – The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" that NORAD was not involved in a "conspiracy."

There's a big difference between CYA (Cover Your Ass) and conspiracy--you lying cretin.

Conclusion: You're trying to hijack another thread with pointless, idiotic nonsense that Kean and Hamilton's own words on the subject refute beyond a doubt.

 
At 05 February, 2011 18:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, so now you are denying that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy? Did 19 airline passengers simply decide spontaneously to take over airliners for suicide missions?

NORAD lied. That's a fact. Are you trying to argue, by saying "NORAD was not involved in a conspiracy" that they did not lie?

All you guys do here is grandstand--spouting bullshit in an effort to fool 13 year olds into believing you're not full of shit.

 
At 05 February, 2011 19:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Straw man argument. I never said anything of the sort.

Notice that the goat molester will not touch the direct quotes from Kean and Hamilton I provided above.

"...We established core principles for our inquiry in part to avoid the kinds of conspiracy theorizing that have followed in the wake of other inquiries. So we decided to be open and transparent so that people could see how we reached our conclusions about 9/11...If, in the course of our inquiry, we could address or knock down a particular conspiracy theory, we did so." -- Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.

Thus, I provide FACTS and direct quotes from Kean and Hamilton that prove the goat molester is quote mining and misrepresenting their opinion, and the goat molester continues to try to elevate his WORTHLESS OPINION TO THE REALM OF "FACT."

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 truth movement.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 05 February, 2011 22:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, you still haven't explained the significance of Jon Cole's thermite video. Why is it relevant to the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job?

 
At 06 February, 2011 03:08, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian said

NORAD lied.


Pat Cowardly/Cosmos/Andrew Bernstein lied. Why don't you want to talk about that? After all, we know you detest liars (Rodriguez and Barrett, for example), and you surely know the Pat Cowardly/Cosmos/ Andrew Bernstein liar from your time together at Northern California 9/11 Troof Alliance.

And here his again, at 1:50,
lying to New Zealand

 
At 06 February, 2011 08:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your quote indicating that the 9/11 Commission endeavored to debunk conspiracy theories has nothing to do with the fact that Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were set up to fail, and the fact that NORAD's lies caused them to consider seeking criminal investigations.

Ian, Jonathan Cole's video shows that thermite is practical for the cutting of vertical columns--refuting a key talking point of the "debunkers".

DU, Pat Cowardly is an anonymous internet poster and if he lies, he only joins the ranks of those like Ian and Guitar Bill lie who flagrantly and repeatedly.

 
At 06 February, 2011 08:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, your quote indicating that the 9/11 Commission endeavored to debunk conspiracy theories has nothing to do with the fact that Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were set up to fail, and the fact that NORAD's lies caused them to consider seeking criminal investigations.

Nobody cares about Kean and Hamilton, petgoat.

Ian, Jonathan Cole's video shows that thermite is practical for the cutting of vertical columns--refuting a key talking point of the "debunkers".

Great. Now all we need is some evidence that thermite was used at the WTC and we've got something. Otherwise, it's about as relevant as my pointing out that micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons also could cut vertical columns.

DU, Pat Cowardly is an anonymous internet poster and if he lies, he only joins the ranks of those like Ian and Guitar Bill lie who flagrantly and repeatedly.

I don't lie, petgoat. You, however, continue to babble the same lies about the NIST report, Dr. Sunder, and the "widows".

 
At 06 February, 2011 08:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anyone who is concerned about shoddy and dishonest official reports cares about Kean and Hamilton. Evidence for use of thermite at the twin towers is their rapid and symmetrical collapse, the molten metal pouring out of tower two just before collapse, the molten iron observed in the rubble, the elevated temperature of the debris pile, the sulfidation attack on the "vaporized" steel of FEMA Appendix C, and red/gray chips that contain finely-ground aluminum and nanoscale iron oxide on them.

You lie, Ian. You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding. You have also lies repeatedly about me, claiming that I am a stalker and that I am in love with the disgusting con man Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 06 February, 2011 08:41, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

DU, Pat Cowardly is an anonymous internet poster and if he lies,

Nice wriggle, Brian. Your compadre Cosmos is a liar -- that's a fact. And you have nothing to say about it?

 
At 06 February, 2011 08:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, anyone who is concerned about shoddy and dishonest official reports cares about Kean and Hamilton.

False. It's totally irrelevant, and you know it is, which is why you quote mine it. You're a liar.

Evidence for use of thermite at the twin towers is their rapid and symmetrical collapse, the molten metal pouring out of tower two just before collapse, the molten iron observed in the rubble, the elevated temperature of the debris pile, the sulfidation attack on the "vaporized" steel of FEMA Appendix C, and red/gray chips that contain finely-ground aluminum and nanoscale iron oxide on them.

Exactly: no evidence whatsoever. Just the inane babblings of a liar, failed janitor, and sex stalker.

You lie, Ian.

False

You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding.

This is true. Brian, you're aware that things that are true are not "lies", right?

You have also lies repeatedly about me, claiming that I am a stalker and that I am in love with the disgusting con man Willie Rodriguez.

You are a stalker who loves Willie Rodriguez. You can't stop babbling about that "strutting, bragging, lying hunk of Latin manhood". (Your words)

 
At 06 February, 2011 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the shoddy and dishonest nature of the official reports is relevant. It's the essence of 9/11 Truth.

Evidence for use of thermite at the twin towers is their rapid and symmetrical collapse, the molten metal pouring out of tower two just before collapse, the molten iron observed in the rubble, the elevated temperature of the debris pile, the sulfidation attack on the "vaporized" steel of FEMA Appendix C, and red/gray chips that contain finely-ground aluminum and nanoscale iron oxide on them.

You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding.

When did I ever call Willie a "hunk of latin manhood"? A blob of latin manboob, maybe.

 
At 06 February, 2011 09:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LL, thanks for expressing contempt for the victims of 9/11. You're a real class act .... not."

Classier than your American hating insanity.

Every day of the week.


And guess what, boron?

Nobody still doesn't give a flying fuck.

 
At 06 February, 2011 09:56, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"NORAD lied."

No, they didn't.

 
At 06 February, 2011 09:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's the essence of 9/11 Truth."

The essence of 9/11 truth is the fact that you're insane.

 
At 06 February, 2011 10:02, Blogger Triterope said...

Evidence

Wrong.

for use

Wrong.

of thermite

Wrong.

rapid

Wrong.

and

Wrong.

symmetrical collapse

Wrong.

the molten metal

Wrong.

pouring

Wrong.

just before collapse

Wrong.

molten iron

Wrong.

observed

Wrong.

in the rubble

Wrong.

elevated temperature

Wrong.

sulfidation

Wrong.

attack

Wrong.

on the

Wrong.

"vaporized" steel

Wrong.

of FEMA

Wrong.

Appendix C,

Wrong.

red/gray chips

Wrong.

that contain

Wrong.

finely-ground

Wrong.

nanoscale

Wrong.

iron

Wrong.

oxide

Wrong.

on

Wrong.

them.

Wrong.

 
At 06 February, 2011 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, look at SLC melting down!

 
At 06 February, 2011 10:37, Blogger Triterope said...

Wrong.

 
At 06 February, 2011 10:42, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Staying silent on the lies of Cosmos.

Wrong.

 
At 06 February, 2011 10:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ian, the shoddy and dishonest nature of the official reports is relevant. It's the essence of 9/11 Truth.

If the reports are shoddy and dishonest, then it should be a trivial matter to simply demonstrate some material way in which they are incorrect. Yet the 9/11 Truth Movement failed to do so.

 
At 06 February, 2011 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I have many times delineated the dishonesty and shoddiness of the official reports, and for you to pretend that I haven't is just silly.

I'm not going to do it again because it would only get buried under Ianspam. You can start with Dr. Griffin's list of Omissions and Distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report.

 
At 06 February, 2011 11:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I have many times delineated the dishonesty and shoddiness of the official reports, and for you to pretend that I haven't is just silly.

Oh, I hear you. I'm just good at tuning out noise. But here's something you could clear up: when you say "dishonest", is that a nice word for "false"? Or are you not going quite that far?

 
At 06 February, 2011 11:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Dishonest" is about the procedure. "False" is about the conclusion. Those are separate issues.

It's possible to have an investigation that arrives at true conclusions through a dishonest process.

In the football context, the offense might have truly moved the ball 12 yards. But if there was illegal procedure, it doesn't matter that they moved the ball. It has to be done over.

 
At 06 February, 2011 12:30, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, who wrote this:

"What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

And seriously, Griffin's 115 omissions and distortions? They're a joke; if the 9-11 Commission Report was 1/10th as shoddy as Grifter's ridiculous list, you guys would have a case.

 
At 06 February, 2011 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, do you really expect Kean and Hamilton to declare their effort a failure, thereby insulting those who did the actual research and writing work for which they take the credit, and insulting also the people who chose to put them on the Commission?

Have you read the Philip Shenon book? Zelikow actually wrote an outline complete with chapter headings and sub-headings before the investigation even started!

What exactly about the Commission's lack of interest in the alleged hijackers' source of funds is a joke? Normally organized crime investigations "follow the money".

How about the fact that the Commission ignored the Able Danger story, and ignored Sibel Edmonds and Mr. Sarshar? How about the fact that they allowed the White House to tone down their remarks about Cheney's PEOC timeline? How about the fact that they had to rewrite NORAD's story so it made some kind of sense? How about the fact that all their sources for the 10:03 (rather than 10:06) crash time for flight 93 are classified? And finally, how about the fact that their investigation did not address 65% of the widows' questions and did not answer 91% of them?

 
At 06 February, 2011 12:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

 
At 06 February, 2011 12:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"Dishonest" is about the procedure. "False" is about the conclusion. Those are separate issues.

I understand how that works, and you consistently describe the reports as "dishonest" and "not believable". You never quite get around to saying they're "false", however, and it's not clear to me if you disagree with the conclusions or just how they got there.

In the football context, the offense might have truly moved the ball 12 yards. But if there was illegal procedure, it doesn't matter that they moved the ball. It has to be done over.

Not true in real life. In real life proceedings, an error usually means nothing unless somebody can demonstrate that the error affected the outcome or prejudiced somebody's rights.

I see a somewhat bizarre inconsistency in your thinking -- an imperfect investigation by the government must mean faulty conclusions; but an imperfect investigation by a guy with eggs and cinder blocks produces reliable data, because he got the basics right.

 
At 06 February, 2011 13:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since I disagree with the process, there's no need to discuss the conclusions. We need new investigations.

I never said an imperfect investigation by the government must mean faulty conclusions. I said quite emphatically that a dishonest investigation might have true findings.

I only said an investigation by a guy with eggs and cinder blocks demonstrated the fundamental laws of physics.

 
At 06 February, 2011 13:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I challenge you to demonstrate why the fundamental laws of physics do not apply to the towers' demise.

 
At 06 February, 2011 14:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Since I disagree with the process, there's no need to discuss the conclusions. We need new investigations."

Oh my! The failed janitor, sex stalker and proven compulsive liar "disagree[s] with the process." As a result, "there's no need to discuss the conclusions" and we must immediately mount a "new investigation."

Isn't it amusing that a failed janitor, sex stalker and proven compulsive liar places such high value on his worthless opinion?

I guess when you've had your head shoved up your ass as long as the goat molester, even his own flatulence smells like a rose.

 
At 06 February, 2011 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're quote-mining, GutterBall.

 
At 06 February, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, you're as much a blob of latin manboobs as Willie is. I see how the spamsters were very quick to pile on to try to sink that very quotable line.

 
At 06 February, 2011 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You're quote-mining, GutterBall."

Well motherfucker, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

What's the matter, goat molester, you don't like it when your own tactics are used against you?

Cry me a river, goat molester.

 
At 06 February, 2011 15:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And by the way, goat molester, I never took your words out of context, so technically I'm not guilty of "quote mining."

You, on the other hand, constantly render the quotes you butcher context-free, which is proof positive that you're and intellectually dishonest hack.

 
At 06 February, 2011 16:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

They didn't ignore the Able Danger story because the story never advanced past the point where Al Qaeda operatives entered the US. Able Danger was an Army operation and Posse Comitatus forbids the Army from conducting live operations of any kind in CONUS (without a declaration by the President and/or Congress). So the operation ended.

Shaffer has a high opinion of himself (you'd like him) and his book is full of assumptions. The problem is that Shaffer had a career where he played by his own rules and pissed off his superiors. He thinks he's a hero, the facts say otherwise. The very fact that the guy wrote a book and gleefully used classified code names and mention classified locations makes him a shitbird. It's all about him.

Able Danger is a non-starter, a red-herring in the troofer playbook. The project went nowhere because of the law of the land. So there was nothing to report. Including Able Danger in the 9/11 Commission would have only compromised other on-going security operations by revealing that the US Army conducted such operations. So while you hide behind the skirts of 9/11 widows you demand revelations that will ultimately create more widows in the future.

That is why you suck, Brian, that is why I am here to call you on it.

You rape the 9/11 widows with every lie-dripping post on this site. You and the troofers are nothing more than political rapists. You don't give a shit about the truth because you ignore the mountain of facts that point to the truth, and instead you and the rest of the bottom-feeders embrace innuendoes.

If you want to pursue the 9/11 thing because of personal interest then that's fine, but don't hide behind women and children. That's what cowards do.

Take the presence of alluminum that gives the troofers such a hard-on. It's not strange at all. Between the office equipment, office furniture,computers, light fixtures, and oh yeah...the two 767s that parked on the upper floors are all sources of alluminum. While steel might melt at a high temp alluminum does not, and when combined with all the other possible burning/melting stuff this presence is unremarkable.

 
At 06 February, 2011 17:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

So GutterBall admits to quote mining, but doesn't seem top recognize that doing so while falsely accusing me of doing so is flagrantly hypocritical.

MGF, Philip Zelikow ignored Able Danger after Tony Shaffer told him about it in Afghanistan.

The widows want answers to their 273 unanswered questions. They want the unredacted testimony of Mr. Sarshar, as James B. does.

The mere presence of aluminum is not the point. The presence of highly refined nanoscale plates of aluminum is something else.

 
At 06 February, 2011 17:46, Blogger paul w said...

Able Danger...the widows...273 unanswered questions...presence of aluminum is not the point...highly refined nanoscale plates...

Predictable.

Boring.

 
At 06 February, 2011 17:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry, truth is sometimes less than fascinating.

 
At 06 February, 2011 17:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So GutterBall admits to quote mining, but doesn't seem top recognize that doing so while falsely accusing me of doing so is flagrantly hypocritical."

Wrong again, goat molester.

On the contrary, I didn't admit to quote mining. Learn to read, Pinocchio.

Here's what I wrote: "...And by the way, goat molester, I never took your words out of context, so technically I'm not guilty of 'quote mining.'...You, on the other hand, constantly render the quotes you butcher context-free, which is proof positive that you're and intellectually dishonest hack."

So we can see, once again, that you're an idiot, goat molester. After all, you don't know the definition of quote mining, which is characterized primarily by quoting out of context.

Wikipedia wrote, "...The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

Should we expect less than utter failure to grasp a simple logical fallacy from a failed janitor, sex stalker and proven compulsive liar who places such high value on his worthless opinion?

 
At 06 February, 2011 17:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Sorry, truth is sometimes less than fascinating."

Since when does a proven compulsive liar deal in "truth"?

"Truth" to the goat molester is like water to a witch.

 
At 07 February, 2011 03:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Since I disagree with the process, there's no need to discuss the conclusions. We need new investigations.

Shall I tell you what I think is going on? You disagree with the conclusions, but don't want to say so. You recognize that going down that path makes one sound like a nut. You therefore make vague criticisms about the investigation itself. That's easy enough to do, since any investigation will be imperfect.

Where you really stop making sense is where you claim to be open-minded about conclusions, but in the next breath invoke David Ray Griffin and Egg Boy as relevant.

I never said an imperfect investigation by the government must mean faulty conclusions. I said quite emphatically that a dishonest investigation might have true findings.

In light of that, you should wonder whether we need new investigations, not declare that we need them based on your impressions.

I only said an investigation by a guy with eggs and cinder blocks demonstrated the fundamental laws of physics.

Why bring that to the discussion? It's like saying only that 3 + 4 = 7. When you make assertions -- even true ones -- but then decline to explain their relevance, it makes you sound like you're full of shit.

 
At 07 February, 2011 03:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I challenge you to demonstrate why the fundamental laws of physics do not apply to the towers' demise.

And I challenge you to demonstrate where I said something like that.

 
At 07 February, 2011 03:32, Blogger Triterope said...

The widows want the unredacted testimony of Mr. Sarshar, as James B. does.

No, they do not. It doesn't say that anywhere in that goddamn question list you keep shoving down our throats. It wouldn't matter even if it did, but it's revealing that you're now making up positions for them.

I've got half a mind to track down those women's email addresses and inform them what you're doing here.

 
At 07 February, 2011 10:10, Blogger Pat said...

"Pat, do you really expect Kean and Hamilton to declare their effort a failure..."

Isn't that what you dolts do every time you talk about set up to fail?

I read the Shenon book. Remember this part?

"But by the time the 9/11 Commission opened its doors in 2003, many of the most outrageous, if well-circulated, of the theories--that the attacks were an inside job by the Bush Administration, that the Twin Towers were brought down by preplaced explosives, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane--had been well debunked."

Zelikow prepared an outline because he knew the basic outline of the story. Follow the money? The fact is that they did trace the money to accounts set up by Al Qaeda. They admitted they couldn't trace the money back beyond that, for the simple reason that the amount was so small in comparison to the money flowing through the Bin Laden network. It's like me trying to trace that penny in your pocket: Did it come from the dumpster you dived into behind Safeway? Was it from the money you took from the homeless old woman? Or did it come from the haveapenny tray at the local convenience store?

 
At 07 February, 2011 11:05, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm surprised that Cowardly hasn't returned.

Did I spill the beans with this?:

http://www.peekyou.com/andrew_bernstein/14502292

Oh Andrew, where are you?

On a lighter note, I love seeing Brian squirm & squeal.

 
At 07 February, 2011 15:56, Blogger paul w said...

On a lighter note, I love seeing Brian squirm & squeal

You know, I think Brian does, too.

 
At 07 February, 2011 16:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Paul, I know he does, that's why he keeps coming back for more smackdowns.

Perhaps Brian should be a wrestler.

 
At 07 February, 2011 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, of what relevance is the allegation that conspiracy theories had been debunked to the fact that Zelikow wrote the outline before the investigation had even started?

How did Zelikow know the basic outline to the story before the investigation had even started?

They did not say they couldn't trace the money--we already know, for instance, of wire transfers from the Pakistani ISI and checks from the wife of Prince "Bandar Bush". The Commission said the source of the money was "of little practical interest" and so dodged the issue entirely.

 
At 08 February, 2011 03:39, Blogger Pat said...

Zelikow wrote the outline well after the investigation started, Brian. I see you have fallen into the trap of believing that the commission was an investigative body. They were not, the FBI had that task. The commission was mandated "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks."

 
At 08 February, 2011 08:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, you might want to revise your statement after taking a look at Section 604 ("FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION") of Public Law 107-306, with particular reference to items a1, a1A, b2A, b2B, and b2C.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home