Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Secret Service Timeline--Updated

Over at JREF, Blue Collar Republican (aka John Farmer--see end for note) posts a graphic of a 9-11 Commission staffer's notes on a Secret Service Log of events on 9-11. This is the applicable portion:

And notes that this tends to support Mineta's testimony about the young man who told Cheney that the plane (which Mineta has consistently assumed was Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon) was 50 miles out, then 30 miles out, then 10 miles out.

Except, as pointed out by Gumboot in that thread, that the log entry does not start at 50 miles out. There are other problems with tying Mineta to those log entries, starting with the fact that Mineta's times are off for many events. For example, Mineta describes the scene at the White House when he arrives as chaotic, with people hurrying out of the building in panic. But this frantic evacuation of the White House did not happen when Mineta says it did (prior to 9:20). It happened at about 9:40, when word came of the Pentagon strike.


Mineta also said (during questioning by Tim Roemer) that the President was en route from Florida to Louisiana when he met with VP Cheney. But Bush did not leave Booker Elementary until 9:35 and was in the air at 9:55 (or 9:57 as other sources claim). And, as we shall see, those times become very significant when we look at the rest of the transcribed log:

Okay, so the Secret Service thought Bush left Booker at 10:05, and arrived at Sarasota Bradenton (airport) at 10:15? That's not correct, and it's not even close.

I wonder if this was some sort of attempt at constructing a timeline based on various accounts. I do note that the Washington Post's timeline, while getting Bush's departure time from Sarasota Bradenton correct, has both the Flight 77 discussion and the Flight 93 discussion involving planes that are X miles out and then X-20 miles out.

Flight 77:
Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.


And Flight 93:

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.


But of course that latter incident sounds nearly exactly like what Mineta described later for the 9-11 Commission. One can understand why when compiling an initial timeline, Mineta's account was given credibility. He has no reason to lie, and indeed, I don't believe he is lying. He's just mistaken about the time, and because he's mistaken about the time he thinks the plane being referred to was Flight 77 and not Flight 93.

But the Commission was able to sift through dozens of accounts, logbooks and other data from that day and compile a more accurate timeline that contradicts Mineta's, and, I suspect, contradicts this timeline which appears to have been assembled after the fact by the Secret Service and transcribed by a 9-11 Commission staffer.

BTW, to make clear, John Farmer is not the same John Farmer who was a counsel to the 9-11 Commission.

Update: See the blog post of Miles Kara, the Commission staffer who wrote the notes. Here's a very interesting speculation on why Mineta's times were wrong:
There is just one question at issue. Why did Norman Mineta testify to a precise time that was inaccurate. We may never know the answer. For anyone that has worked in an operations or command center with world-wide responsibilities there is a logical explanation. He looked at the wrong clock; Central Time.

140 Comments:

At 12 March, 2011 13:33, Blogger itsthatguy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

One way to resolve the situation, of course, would be to have the people involved testify under oath.

But that would be too easy, wouldn't it?

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:33, Blogger Ian said...

One way to resolve the situation, of course, would be to have the people involved testify under oath.

There is no situation to resolve, Brian. The squealing protests of failed janitors don't change that.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:06, Blogger Alan said...

How can they still sadly attempt to use this edited clip for a conspiracy? Just watch the whole portion of that testimony. Stand down is never uttered, only shoot down. And Mineta says although the order was given, planes that WERE SCRAMBLED from Langley couldn't get there in time, and were still about ten minutes out.

Truthers are sad, sad, people.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Being put under oath doesn't help someone's memory.

There are logs from the secret service and various staff. There are surveilence tapes with time stamps to help put people in specific locations at certain times. There are always going to be discrepancies.

All that this shows is that Mineta is not very good at judging time. It's not a big deal.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is a situation to resolve. Mineta thinks there was a shootdown order on flight 77. That was before Bush gave the authorization. So who gave the authorization?

If Mineta is right and there was a shootdown order on 77, that makes it reasonable to suspect that there was a shootdown order on 93 as well--also before Bush gave authorization.

Alan, the only reason the Langley planes couldn't get there in time is because they headed straight out to sea instead of heading for DC, which was the logical place to go if (as the official story claims) they were scrambled to protect the capital from a plane believed to be approaching from Baltimore.

The Langley planes were also subject to some rather strange delays before they took off.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, can you cite any evidence showing that Mineta has ever been bad at judging time on any other occasion? What objections would you offer to compelling those present to testify under oath? Surely the guy who told Cheney "the plane is 30 miles out" knows whether he was talking about 77 or 93--and note that 93 never got as close as 30 miles out.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:15, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is a situation to resolve.

False.

If Mineta is right and there was a shootdown order on 77, that makes it reasonable to suspect that there was a shootdown order on 93 as well--also before Bush gave authorization.

Nobody cares, since neither plane was shot down.

Alan, the only reason the Langley planes couldn't get there in time is because they headed straight out to sea instead of heading for DC, which was the logical place to go if (as the official story claims) they were scrambled to protect the capital from a plane believed to be approaching from Baltimore.

Nobody cares.

The Langley planes were also subject to some rather strange delays before they took off.

Modified attack baboons blocking the runways?

MGF, can you cite any evidence showing that Mineta has ever been bad at judging time on any other occasion?

I can. My Uncle Steve is friends with Mineta. One time, Mineta forgot to re-set his watch after daylight savings time expired, and was an hour late for a round of golf with my uncle.

What objections would you offer to compelling those present to testify under oath?

It's a waste of time that will change nothing. Besides, nobody wants it except you, and you're an irrelevant loser.

Surely the guy who told Cheney "the plane is 30 miles out" knows whether he was talking about 77 or 93--and note that 93 never got as close as 30 miles out.

Nobody cares.

I'm glad you've spent the time to think this through, Brian! It allows me to laugh at you a little more.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:16, Blogger paul w said...

Alan said...

How can they still sadly attempt to use this edited clip for a conspiracy?


By using the same irrelevant questions as Brian does here.

And, by ignoring reality, as Brian does:

"lan, the only reason the Langley planes couldn't get there in time is because they headed straight out to sea instead of heading for DC"

It's been explained many times that the planes would always meet at a point just off the coast, as the defense was based on an attack from off-shore.

On 9/11, the planes were set to this staging post, as per procedure.

It doesn't matter how many times this is said, the truthers simply ignore it.

PS.
Brian: I am not going to respond to any of your comments to me, so do not waste your time.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:32, Blogger Punxsutawneybarney said...

paulie, when the perceived threat was a plane from Baltimore, it made no sense for two planes that took off together to have a rendevous at the Cold War station off the coast.

It would be like me and my girlfriend leaving the house together and then meeting up in Seattle before we went to a movie in Spokane.

That you people find "explanations" like that convincing only shows how gullible you are.

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

MGF, can you cite any evidence showing that Mineta has ever been bad at judging time on any other occasion?

Can you cite any evidence showing that Mineta has ever more correct than others at judging time on any other occasion? Isn't it more plausible to assume that he is mistaken than to assume that everybody except him is mistaken?

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Shootdown orders came from the President, but they're not relevant because both planes came down before an intercept could take place.

It's like questioning the Oakland Raider's Super Bowl game plan execution from 2003. It doesn't matter what the plan was, only the final score, and picking it apart doesn't change anything.

Then let's say that the President didn't give the shoot-down order and Cheney did. So what? It was the correct call. Had an F-16 been able to get to AA77 or United 93 and blast them out of the sky it would have been in the clear. The President could issue the order retroactively and/or just pardon the VP.

None of this matters because there was no intercept. So there is no foul.

Your need to get people "Under Oath" is another sign of your mental illness. Your psychopathic obsession has deluded you into believing that people only tell the truth under oath. We all know that even if testimony was given under oath that you would then accuse those who testified of lying any way.

It's not about the truth for you, it's all a game.

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you think both the secret service logs and Mineta are wrong? The notion that Mineta was an hour off is validated by no one and nothing. It was an invention of the 9/11 Commission.

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you're missing the point. We don't know what the order was. How could it be a shootdown order when the plane was not shot down. We need sworn testimony on what the order was.

Invoking Presidential pardons is really weaseley. No crime is too great if it can all be swept under the rug of a hypothetical retroactive pardon.

The wide debris field for flight 93 and the missing end of the cockpit recording make the suspicion that 93 may have been shot down very reasonable.

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you think both the secret service logs and Mineta are wrong?

Yes. It is the most plausible explanation.

The notion that Mineta was an hour off is validated by no one and nothing. It was an invention of the 9/11 Commission.

I think I'm starting to see your problem. You have a psychological aversion to uncertainty. In your mind, any assumption or inference -- even a logical, reasonable one -- is unacceptable. Am I correct?

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, it's YOU that has the aversion to uncertainty. You are the one that is anxious to leap to the conclusion that corroborated testimony is wrong, and who is willing to accept an invented scenario with no corroboration at all.

What's wrong with settling the issue with sworn testimony?

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What's wrong with settling the issue with sworn testimony?

There you go again. Any conflicting data creates an "issue" in your mind. Here in the real world, it's necessary to make inferences based on plausibility and experience. Experience shows that eyewitness recollections are notoriously unreliable, and plausibility teaches that it's more likely that a handful of people are mistaken than that dozens of people are lying.

Nothing wrong with getting sworn testimony when there's an actual important issue, but you don't have one here.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:56, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, since you're in full-on meltdown mode tonight, why not log in as "pegoat"? You've already fucked up and posted as "punxsutawneybarney" and now you're babbling about how the military shouldn't be following SOP because you don't like it.

Just log in as "petgoat", call us all girls, and refer to Willie Rodriguez as "strutting" and "bragging". It will be a fitting end to a day's worth of insanity from you.

 
At 12 March, 2011 19:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, you're missing the point. We don't know what the order was. How could it be a shootdown order when the plane was not shot down. We need sworn testimony on what the order was."

It doesn't matter what the order was because those pesky Al Qaeda guys crashed the planes before we could get to them...and crash them.

Just because the planes weren't shot down doesn't mean the order wasn't given.


"The wide debris field for flight 93 and the missing end of the cockpit recording make the suspicion that 93 may have been shot down very reasonable."

Nope. It wasn't wide enough for a missile shoot down.

Plus there is the matter that no air-to-air missiles were missing. The Air Force keeps track of their weaponry, all the planes returned with whatever missiles they took off with. You can't just make a missile dissappear. This is where the Pentagon missile nut fail, this is where the TWA800 nut-jobs failed, and this is where the freaks that claimed Hellfires were used on the Branch Davidian compound failed (yes, I am well versed in conspiacy lunatics).

Missiles are all numbered. They are signed for every step of the way from when they leave the factory, to their point of destination, to their load-out onto a platform, and finally to their deployment (that means when they go boom). If United 93 was shot down then all you need to do is find which fighter returned with one less missile. The ground crew would have noticed, and the crew chief and the pilot both would have had to do paperwork.

Reality's a bitch, Brian. You just can't make shit up all the time.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I don't make stuff up. That's why I don't leap to unjustified conclusions like RGT does, or declare that things don't matter like you do, or lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters like you, and I don't like like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters like you, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters like you, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters doesn't matter like you do, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:38, Blogger Triterope said...

and now you're babbling about how the military shouldn't be following SOP because you don't like it.

And of course, if they didn't follow SOP, he'd be complaining about that.

Remember, everything proves the conspiracy.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I'm not out to prove a conspiracy. I'm out to get at the facts.

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters doesn't matter like you do, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false. Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it. Newsweek magazine reports that the original draft of the Commission report expressed much skepticism about Cheney's timeline, and that after Gonzales blew his top, the offending passages were removed.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, how can you say "it doesn't matter what the order was"? If there was a no-shoot-down order on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, doesn't that matter?

How wide does a debris field from a missile shootdown need to be, and where do you get your expertise in the issue? The 93 debris field was 8 miles wide.

How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?

Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702800.ece

Some news reports say five and some say six nukes were loaded. How come they can't get clear on how many there were?

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters doesn't matter like you do, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

 
At 13 March, 2011 11:41, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

'How do you know all missiles were accounted for? Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified? And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time. What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?'

Do you have any evidence of missile being expended by one of the fighters? Bear in mind that, as previously stated, a used missile would have been noted by many people who would then have to keep quiet.

Do you have any evidence of a C-130 armed with Stinger missiles anywhere near any of the hijacked airliners? Bear in mind that military aircraft don't just fly around at random, there are such things as flightplans for example. In this case a turboprop C-130 would have great difficulty intercepting a jetliner with much higher cruising and maximum speeds.

As for the 'electronic systems' thing, we just entered a Bond movie.

Let me tell you something: life is not a Hollywood movie. Stuff just doesn't happen because it is convenient for the script and there aren't armies of faceless henchmen with no consciences or families who will just do what they are told and keep quiet forever. In the real world people take time to adjust to new situations, processes are followed regardless because perfect information is not available and people, being real people, screw up. Also, in the real world, complex investigations take time and money and doing one without cause is an abuse of process.

So, for God's sake, grow up and go away.

 
At 13 March, 2011 11:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, obviously the conflicting data makes an "issue" in YOUR mind, because you seem to find it necessary to make inferences and judge certain datapoints false.

It's clear that your knowledge of investigation is shaped largely by what you've seen on television. On TV, every piece of data either points unambiguously to one conclusion, or can be unambiguously ruled out. Real life is different.

Mineta's timeline is confirmed by the SS data.

No, Mineta's errors are repeated in the SS data. Here again, you find a large-scale deception to be more likely than two people being wrong. This indicates that your judgment is poor.

I have no need to leap to unjustified conclusions. Instead I recognize that I have insufficient information to decide anything.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but it's just a smokescreen. You're using a detached Devil's Advocate act to hide deep insecurities.

It is an important issue because both the legality and the nature of the order in question are in doubt, and the 9/11 Commission may have dishonestly moved the time frame to obscure it.

Maybe there was a shootdown order, and maybe it was illegal, and maybe it was covered up. That's too many maybes to be a legitimate issue.

You have some critical thinking skills, but they're kind of on a teenager's level. You don't seem possess the judgment of an average well-adjusted adult, or you don't express it here in any case.

 
At 13 March, 2011 11:55, Blogger Triterope said...

You have some critical thinking skills, but they're kind of on a teenager's level. You don't seem possess the judgment of an average well-adjusted adult, or you don't express it here in any case.

Truthers as a whole just don't seem to live in the adult world. Ordinary things like bureaucratic CYA, unpunished incompetence, and simple clerical errors are foreign to them.

 
At 13 March, 2011 12:22, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, everybody testified under oath to the commission with the exception of Bush and Cheney.

 
At 13 March, 2011 12:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Truthers as a whole just don't seem to live in the adult world. Ordinary things like bureaucratic CYA, unpunished incompetence, and simple clerical errors are foreign to them.

Exactly. There's a certain amount of logic to some of it, but it's devoid of common sense or perspective. It's the simplistic logic of a child without experience.

Disclaimer: much of 9/11 Troof is without logic of any sort.

 
At 13 March, 2011 12:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve, the "somebody would have talked" thesis is unreasonable for military ops.

There was a C-130 near Shanksville. Pilot was Col. Steve O'Brien. Reportedly it was 14 miles east at 10:03, which would put it right there at Shanksville at 10:06, the time when the seismographic evidence says 93 hit the ground.

"Emissions from powerful antennas on the ground or in military planes in the air can disconnect a plane's autopilot, jam equipment, cause electrical short circuits, put a plane into a sudden dive, interrupt fuel flow -- or even trigger on-board explosions. [Elaine Scarry] learned that the U.S. military had "electronic warfare" planes expressly designed to cause these sorts of problems in enemy equipment."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001119mag-scarry.html

The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

 
At 13 March, 2011 12:57, Blogger Triterope said...

It's the simplistic logic of a child without experience.

Very much so. And the Truthers' obsession with "subpoena power" is a fine example of that.

They think subpoena power is some kind of all-powerful truth-o-scope. As if those compelled to testify would somehow lose their ability to obfuscate, forget details, give banal answers, or simply lie if they had anything to cover up.

It's kinda like the sacred list thing. The government can stage four hijackings and blow up buildings with thermite, but a name missing from a list -- even a list that clearly says it doesn't have all the names -- is proof of the conspiracy.

Idiot children, all of them.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you are the one who seems to find it necessary to come to an unambiguous, single-bit-computer, TV script evaluation of all data points. I am satisfied to acknowledge that I don't know, and I need more information.

There's nothing large-scale about any deception about Cheney's timeline, and there is ample motivation for it if he either issues a no-shootdown order on flight 77 or issued a shootdown order without presidential authorization.

The maybe's do not make the issue illegitimate. The maybe's are what need to be dealt with in a new investigation. Suspicions of a coverup are corrosive to trust in government and to democracy.

Pat, many people didn't testify at all to the 9/11 Commission, including Cheney's young man. We also need testimony from the firefighters who were inside WTC7.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, look at yourself. GutterBall trashes the concept of scholarship, and you trash the concept of legislative hearings.

Why do you guys want to live in a world where the government just tells you what to believe?

Subpoena power is not all-powerful but it's better than no subpoena power.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...TR, look at yourself. GutterBall trashes the concept of scholarship, and you trash the concept of legislative hearings."

Since when is a proven compulsive liar and high school dropout qualified to lecture anyone about "scholarship"?

So goat molester, when your mother shit you out, did she immediately begin to teach you to lie, or did you have to work at it?

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, where do you get your information that I am a high school dropout?

Anybody is qualified to lecture you on scholarship, because you make up your facts.

In the Gage Opposed to Safety Regs thread you impugn the process of quoting authorities as "cherry picking".

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LOL!

Tell us more, liar.

Here's another example of me making an ass out of the goat molester.

You're so pathetic that you're reduced to making up transparent lies that are substantiated by wind.

You're a gasbag, not to mention a laughingstock.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:52, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, you trash the concept of legislative hearings.

And here's another fine example of the juvenile worldview of 9-11 Truthers: their inability to grasp subtlety. Not that what I said was even all that subtle, but the Truther always goes straight to the black-and-white interpretation...

Why do you guys want to live in a world where the government just tells you what to believe?

...and the DURR YOU SHEEPLE argument.

Subpoena power is not all-powerful but it's better than no subpoena power.

On the contrary: I much prefer no subpoena power to subpoena power given to incompetent people.

 
At 13 March, 2011 14:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, why would you assume that subpoena power would be given to incompetent people?

 
At 13 March, 2011 14:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...TR, why would you assume that subpoena power would be given to incompetent people?"

Because the only group asking for "subpoena power" is the 9/11 "truth" movement. And we all know the troof movement is made up of incompetent liars and lunatics like you, goat molester.

Does the obvious always escape you, shit-for-brains?

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And if you look toward Palo Alto, CA, you can see the smoke rising from the goat molester's ears as he hyperventilates and mounts his latest futile attempt to formulate another spitball composed of bald-faced lies, distortion, obfuscation and Goodian stupidity.

Pathetic.

You're a psychopath, goat molester.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, since Congress already has subpoena power, there's no need for anyone to call for it on their behalf. Or would you advocate that it be taken away?

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve Horgan, your "somebody would have talked" thesis is quite unreasonable in the context ofa military op.

A C-130 flown by Col. Steve O'Brien was 14 miles from Shanksville at 10:03, which puts it right over Shanksville at 10:06, the time that the seismographs show for the impact of 93 in the ground.

Electronic weapons are not just in Hollywood.

"Emissions from powerful antennas on the ground or in military planes in the air can disconnect a plane's autopilot, jam equipment, cause electrical short circuits, put a plane into a sudden dive, interrupt fuel flow -- or even trigger on-board explosions. [Elaine Scarry] learned that the U.S. military had "electronic warfare" planes expressly designed to cause these sorts of problems in enemy equipment."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001119mag-scarry.html

The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How do you know all missiles were accounted for? "

Because they were. Because in ten years not one of the ground crews has come forward to report that their plane came back one missile short.

"Were the two fighters that cbs said were trailing 93 ever identified?"

Yes, there were no fighters trailing UA93. There were fighters looking for UA93 but none made contact.

"And how do you know it would have been a missile? Electronic systems capable of disrupting airliner control systems were available at that time"

Such a device would have knocked out power on the ground, so we'd know about it. I have experience with the RC-135. This plane has radars that cannot be activated over populated areas because it will fry electronic devices on the ground. Air Force One is also notorious for frying electronic garage doors. A device, if it exists would have been obvious in its use.

"What's to stop somebody from firing a Stinger from, say, a C-130?"

The flight crew. The backblast from a Stinger from inside a C-130 would damage the plane and cripple/kill the flight crew. Also a stinger is designed to bring down smaller aircraft, primarily helecopters. In their history a Stinger has only shot down one large aircraft, an Antinov, and that was as it was taking off limiting its ability make corrections. Most people who work with Stingers know you are going to have a problem bringing down a large jet liner with one.

"Hey, speaking of missiles and how well controlled they are, do you remember this incident from 2007?"

2007 is not 2001. Nukes are not anti-aircraft missiles, and are not handled by the same people. If you'd actually read the articles that you cite,and we all know that you didn't, you'd know that loading live ammunition on military aircraft that will fly over the U.S. is restricted. You cannot just load up an F-15 with a full combat payload and fly it from St Louis to Florida. That proves my point. Then there is the fact that the illegal movement of said nuclear missiles WAS REPORTED IN THE FUCKING NEWS PAPER BECAUSE THE GROUND CREWS AT THE AIR FORCE BASE FLIPPED OUT AND CALLED PEOPLE.

Once again when the government had the opportunity to sweep something under the rug they chose to let everyone know what had happned.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot by undermining your own arguments.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the belief that "somebody would have talked" in the context of a military op is silly.

CBS said there were two fighters tailing UA93.

Electricity on the ground was knocked out. See "True Lies" by Lappe.

And Mr. Can't-Do, what's to prevent the use of a sandbag barrier to absorb the backblast?

You guys are always inventing reasons things can't be done.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:07, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, why would you assume that subpoena power would be given to incompetent people?

And this is just a plain ol' I Know What You Are But What Am I response.

Keep going, Brian, you're giving us lots of good examples of The Juvenile Mind of the 9-11 Truther. Hey, that sounds like a good title for a paper.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve Horgan, your "somebody would have talked" thesis is quite unreasonable in the context ofa military op.

A C-130 flown by Col. Steve O'Brien was 14 miles from Shanksville at 10:03, which puts it right over Shanksville at 10:06, the time that the seismographs show for the impact of 93 in the ground.

Electronic weapons are not just in Hollywood.

"Emissions from powerful antennas on the ground or in military planes in the air can disconnect a plane's autopilot, jam equipment, cause electrical short circuits, put a plane into a sudden dive, interrupt fuel flow -- or even trigger on-board explosions. [Elaine Scarry] learned that the U.S. military had "electronic warfare" planes expressly designed to cause these sorts of problems in enemy equipment."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001119mag-scarry.html

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve Horgan, here's more on electronic weaponry:

The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, since Congress already has subpoena power, there's no need for anyone to call for it on their behalf. Or would you advocate that it be taken away?"

Babbling again, psychopath?

No one is advocating that Congressional subpoena power be "taken away"--you babbling moron.

If you'd pull your head out of your ass for 5 seconds, you may come to understand that Congress isn't asking for a new investigation of the events of 11 September 2001. The 9/11 "truth" movement is calling for a new investigation--and the adults are IGNORING the 9/11 "truth" movement.

The 9/11 "truth" movement, moreover, has neither the resources or the expertise to mount a valid investigation of 11 September 2001. And given the "truth" movement's proven record of lies and propaganda, no sane person would trust them with subpoena power. Thus, the Congress rightly ignores the troofers.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve Horgan, more on electronic warfare:


The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, do you know Rob Balsamo? You're a lot like him. You should look him up.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve Horgen, for more on electronic warfare, look at Elaine Scarry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive.

Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes....

According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester, are you familiar with Pinocchio? You should look him up. After all, like Pinocchio, you're a compulsive liar, too.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester, in reality, Rob Balsamo is a former airline pilot with no discernible skills in mathematics or physics and a history of making outrageous mistakes and telling whoppers. Thus, it's clear that he's just like you, goat molester: A liar, a charlatan and a fool.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know Rob Balsamo is a liar, a charlatan and a fool. That's my point. He's just like you.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:57, Blogger paul w said...

OT.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
http://www.vimeo.com/20574556

Oz truther interviews Bob McIIvane at Ground Zero:

http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/news/story/interview_with_bob_mcilvaine_at_ground_zero

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:58, Blogger Ian said...

I have no need to make shit up. There is plenty of shit documented. I don't make unjustified inferences like RGT, I don't declare that stuff that matters doesn't matter like you do, and I don't lie like GutterBall.

False, false, false, false, and false.

You lie about everything, Brian, because you're desperate to make something of your failed life. Unfortunately, babbling endlessly at this blog isn't going to change anything. Seeing a psychiatrist, however, can change things.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:58, Blogger paul w said...

OT.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
http://www.vimeo.com/20574556

Oz truther interviews Bob McIIvane at Ground Zero:

http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/news/story/interview_with_bob_mcilvaine_at_ground_zero

If that link does not work:
http://www.911oz.com/

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Making unsubstantiated allegations again, goat molester?

Tell us, why are YOU running from your latest pack of lies, Pinocchio?

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I haven't lied about anything.

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

Your last comment is a bald-faced lie. In fact, every comment you make to SLC is a lie.

It's no mystery why you troll SLC: The goal is to hijack the comment section and thereby destroy the blog.

That's why I recommend that the goat molester be banned permanently.


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

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

You want me banned because I pwn you with almost every post and I don't lie, but I show again and again and again that you lie.

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, the only person you've managed to "pwn" is yourself. Like all troofers, you have no credibility whatsoever. And I want you banned because your a troll, a thread hijacker, and and all purpose scumbag.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:29, Blogger Ian said...

GutterBall, I haven't lied about anything.

Stop lying, Punxsutawneybarney.

You want me banned because I pwn you with almost every post and I don't lie, but I show again and again and again that you lie.

Brian, your belief that you've "pwn3d" anyone is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

Brian, if you've pwn3d everyone, how come the widows still haven't gotten their questions answered? How come we haven't had a new investigation?

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 13 March, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I will suppose that the widows can't get their questions answered because the powers that be are threatened by the answers.

A related issue is that the powers that be are trying to create a culture where we blame the victims of misfortune for their misfortune--and you, celebrating their misfortune are living proof. It's pretty obvious why your hot girlfriend didn't stick. She can do a lot better.

 
At 13 March, 2011 19:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 19:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I will suppose that the widows can't get their questions answered because the powers that be are threatened by the answers.

No, they can't get their questions answered because their questions are irrelevant nonsense. If you were capable of rational thought, you'd realize this.

A related issue is that the powers that be are trying to create a culture where we blame the victims of misfortune for their misfortune--and you, celebrating their misfortune are living proof. It's pretty obvious why your hot girlfriend didn't stick. She can do a lot better.

Squeal squeal squeal! Hey Brian, do you think their questions will be answered tomorrow? HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 13 March, 2011 20:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the belief that "somebody would have talked" in the context of a military op is silly."

Really? Because they often do, especially after ten years. They also tend to talk if they took part in an operation that they'd found out was illegal (if for no other reason than to cover their own ass).

In the case of United 93, say it was shot down. In the context of that day why would they have kept that a secret? I guarentee that pilot would have popped up on 60 Minutes. All of the pilots have who were in the air on 9/11 have spoken to the press about what they'd done. Had UA93 been shot down they would have heard it on their radio, an NEADS would have that all on audio tape. Hell, even the pilot of the C-130 has been interviewed.

See your mental condition limits your perspective. Your paranoia causes you to assume that everyone else is just as big of a liar as you are. Because you are a compulsive liar you assume everyone else lies too. The reality is much different.

Take the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Informed people knew that LBJ had blown the incident out of proportion within weeks after it had happened. Why? BECAUSE THE CREW TALKED TO REPORTERS. There was a two week delay from the time that Johnson announced his repsonse (intervention in Vietnam), and the time that the USS Maddox pulled back into harbor. The press were there waiting. While the Captain gave the party-line, the crew was more than happy to tell the real story.

See honest people talk, especially if their actions have been misused by superiors to do wrong. Your mythical code of silence has never existed.

 
At 13 March, 2011 21:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Gulf of Tonkin incident proves my pouint. The crew all knew it was phony as hell, but the story didn't make the media until 40 years later.

The crew have all talked to the media, huh? What about the guys that flew the two fighters that CBS said was shadowing UA93? When did they talk to the media?

You make up your facts.

 
At 13 March, 2011 21:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 23:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ooooo I love it when you talk dirty! Too bad you're so fat and ugly, with big sausage fingers so you can't even play air guitar.

 
At 14 March, 2011 03:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I am satisfied to acknowledge that I don't know, and I need more information.

Why do you need more information? Most people have figured this out with the information available.

There's nothing large-scale about any deception about Cheney's timeline, and there is ample motivation for it if he either...

If. If. If. If. Until you can make a specific allegation backed by credible evidence, you're just fishing.

The maybe's do not make the issue illegitimate. The maybe's are what need to be dealt with in a new investigation. Suspicions of a coverup are corrosive to trust in government and to democracy.

Distrusting the government is an American tradition. I don't think a new investigation would change that. Do you?

Pat, many people didn't testify at all to the 9/11 Commission, including Cheney's young man. We also need testimony from the firefighters who were inside WTC7.

You need to learn how to make inferences based on imperfect data. It's what grownups do. Here, let me Google that for you.

 
At 14 March, 2011 04:25, Blogger Triterope said...

I will suppose that the widows can't get their questions answered because the powers that be are threatened by the answers.

Hey, here's another one of those juvenile worldview things.

 
At 14 March, 2011 08:27, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Steven Jones, the Resurrection of Jesus and Dr. Fetzer

Funny as hell, Fetzer and some other kooks discuss Jones, Jesus, crop circles, Aliens and all those things these idiots think are real.

 
At 14 March, 2011 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, why was 28 pages of the report of the joint Senate/House inquiry into 9/11 redacted? Was it because the powers that be opposed it being redacted?

Since somebody felt it essential to cover up information that had already been developed in the first 9/11 report, is it not reasonable to suppose that the same people covered up information that had not yet been developed in the second 9/11 report by preventing the pursuit of certain questions?

 
At 14 March, 2011 10:35, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

'Steve Horgan, your "somebody would have talked" thesis is quite unreasonable in the context of a military op.'

Military personnel can be persuaded to keep quiet about operations that they perceive to be legal and in the national interest. The idea that everyone would agree to cover up mass murder and high treason returns us to regarding the military as faceless, Hollywood thugs. Even the relatively minor mistreatment of prisoners cannot be kept secret in real life, but apparently in your fictional world the greatest conspiracy in history can be? Do me a favour.

'A C-130 flown by Col. Steve O'Brien was 14 miles from Shanksville at 10:03, which puts it right over Shanksville at 10:06, the time that the seismographs show for the impact of 93 in the ground.'

Do you have any evidence that this C-130 was armed with stinger missiles, a nonstandard fit, and intercepted, which is the operative word, the hijacked flight? This would have been some feat given the relative performance of the C-130 turboprop transport plane and a modern, jet-engined airliner even if they happened to be in roughly the same area.

'Electronic weapons are not just in Hollywood.'

Er...right, and the 'evidence' is a NYT magazine article about a liberal arts professor with a theory about accidental aeroplane crashes, which is regarded as unlikely by actual experts in the field. Even if she is dead right then the gulf between an accidental effect and a usable weapon remains vast, and there would be plenty of evidence of development and deployment.

Try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 
At 14 March, 2011 15:53, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, why was 28 pages of the report of the joint Senate/House inquiry into 9/11 redacted?

And here's another example of juvenile mentality: constantly changing the subject.

Since somebody felt it essential to cover up information that had already been developed in the first 9/11 report, is it not reasonable to suppose

And here's another: using speculation to prove what you're speculating about.

Keep 'em comin, Ace. You're a walking encyclopedia of adolescent logic.

 
At 14 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The truth of the Gulf of Tonkin incident was reported in the media in 1965. It was no big cover-up because the media already knew that LBJ had a tendency to lie, they had caught him doing so on a couple occations in 1964. So when the incident went down they were already suspicious, which is why they were there when the Maddox returned to port.

Most college kids knew the incident was blown out of proportion. It was one of the key incidents that spurred the Free Speach movement at UC Berkeley in 1965.

There was no 40 year gap, people who could read knew the truth. They also knew that Johnson was looking for an excuse it intervene in Vietnam. This was no secret either. So once again you are citing a conspiracy that never existed.

 
At 14 March, 2011 17:06, Blogger Ian said...

Take it easy on Brian. He has no memory of Vietnam because he was too busy sniffing glue instead of doing his high school physics or history homework. That's why he's a failed janitor with no grasp of science or history.

Hey Brian, did the widows get their questions answered today? Do you think they'll have their questions answered tomorrow?

 
At 14 March, 2011 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I didn't say I proved anything, so invoking proof is a logically fallacious straw man. I bet you get all your fallacioty from straw men.

The 28-page redaction in the congressional report is a coverup. So why would you expect that the subsequent report is not a coverup?

MGF, so you want to tell us everybody knew the Tonkin Gulf incident was a fake. So that's why Congress voted to go to war with Vietnam, because they knew it was faked?

What's your source for that information, GovernmentsCan'tKeepASecret.com?

 
At 14 March, 2011 19:26, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I didn't say I proved anything, so invoking proof is a logically fallacious straw man. I bet you get all your fallacioty from straw men.

Wow. Here's three in one sentence:

1. Denying what you're saying because you didn't "say" it (a Brian Good staple)
2. Misusing a fallacy
3. Making up a word

 
At 14 March, 2011 19:27, Blogger Triterope said...

The 28-page redaction in the congressional report is a coverup. So why would you expect that the subsequent report is not a coverup?

And oh yeah, #4, conjecture based on opinion.

 
At 14 March, 2011 23:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, if a 28-page redaction is not a coverup, what is it?

All you folks are on full tilt.

GutterBall is accusing the Skilling firm of fudging the safety studies, Greg maintains that only important people are entitled to credible reports, and that other guy is indulging in his usual Ianane Ianinsanity.

Get a grip!

 
At 15 March, 2011 00:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm not accusing anyone of anything--you thoroughly dishonest sex predator and deviant.

"...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

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

 
At 15 March, 2011 00:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, you're not accusing anybody.

You're just couching this quote, "A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers", which proves my point that the design allowed for that specification, in a whole lot of spam for what reason?

I kind of get the feeling that where you went to school your papers got graded by the pound.

Is that how your computer programs got graded too? Longer and more convoluted is better? Is that why you're no longer employable?

 
At 15 March, 2011 01:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 March, 2011 01:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 March, 2011 01:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right gay boi, pretend the following sentence doesn't exist:

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion..." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Do you lie to your mother, too, Pinocchio?

The goat molester, in desperation, whines, "...Is that why you're no longer employable?"

Poor goat molester. The old sex predator, deviant, and pathological liar is turning green with envy because I have a family and a career, while the goat molester sits alone at home in his mother's apartment with his thumb shoved up his backside.

Your continued desperation is palpable, goat molester.

Pathetic.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 01:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Who cares? Just some asshole from San Francisco. See, he admitted it in the previous post. And Willie's crack research team has unmasked him. I heard he used to be a janitor and he has a gay crush on Willie and he flipped out when Willie got married. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? He has a hardon for Kevin Barrett 'cause he has a bad case of PhD-envy and microphone-envy."

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 15 March, 2011 02:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, NIST said they were unable to find any evidence of the use of explosives at the twin towers. But then they admitted they had not tested for explosive residues. You don't find what you don't look for.

Please provide your evidence about what steps NIST undertook to try to locate "documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis".

The fact is, I said a study was done of the impact of a 707 at 600 mph, you said I was a liar, your own quote from the NIST report verifies that such a study was undertaken, and you are a liar.

And all you can offer as an argument is an ad hominem attack prepared by a bigoted, lying, wife-beating, violence-mongering scumbag who hates me for the same reason you do--because I have made a fool of him again and again and again.

 
At 15 March, 2011 05:01, Blogger Triterope said...

I kind of get the feeling that where you went to school your papers got graded by the pound.

I have to admit I chuckled at that.

 
At 15 March, 2011 05:12, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, if a 28-page redaction is not a coverup, what is it?

Again, if you functioned in the adult world, you'd know that redactions of official documents are not unusual. And everything else they've previously withheld and later released turned out not to prove the conspiracy. But this one's the real deal, the one where they admit the thermite, right? You sound like the fucking Birthers.

Besides, if they released it, you'd just say they doctored it, or you'd demand something else, or you'd simply refuse to look at it, like you did when that avalanche of pictures came out.

You don't know what you want, and you couldn't do anything with it if you had it. All you know is NIST didn't release something and you're going to stomp your little feet about it.

Hell, some days I wish NIST would mail you a CD-ROM of all their materials, just for the hilarity of watching you try to get the software installed.

 
At 15 March, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, can you kindly cite another example of a redaction of the report from a congressional investigation?

It's not common at all. You make up your facts.

When NIST refuses to provide the backup material for their claims, it leads to justified suspicions that their claims are not backed up. Democracy demands credible and transparent investigations. Your "need to know" argument could be applied to all government processes. What standing do you have to read the Congressional Record, to question your Representative, to watch C-Span, to attend court proceedings, to watch the votes being counted? Who do you think you are?

What you are arguing for is government by fiat.

 
At 15 March, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, NIST said they were unable to find any evidence of the use of explosives at the twin towers. But then they admitted they had not tested for explosive residues. You don't find what you don't look for."

Lying again, goat molester?

Brent Blanchard, among others, examined the debris pile, and explosives were not found at ground zero.

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 13:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Please provide your evidence about what steps NIST undertook to try to locate 'documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis'."

How many times must I tell you, sex deviant?

It's not incumbent on me to prove your cockamamie theories. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone.

So continue to pretend that NIST never wrote the following passage:

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion..." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Again, the burden of proof is yours, and so far, all you've offered is your worthless, lying opinion. Again, the worthless opinion of a pathological liar isn't evidence.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 13:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The fact is, I said a study was done of the impact of a 707 at 600 mph, you said I was a liar, your own quote from the NIST report verifies that such a study was undertaken, and you are a liar."

Wrong again, sex predator.

NIST is clear on this point. Skilling's assertions as concerns the towers ability to withstand an impact with an airliner have never been substantiated.

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion..." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, the burden of proof is yours and yours alone.

Now, either provide EVIDENCE to substantiate Skilling's claim, or go play in the freeway, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 March, 2011 14:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...And all you can offer as an argument is an ad hominem attack prepared by a bigoted, lying, wife-beating, violence-mongering scumbag who hates me for the same reason you do--because I have made a fool of him again and again and again."

Oh look! The sex predator is calling his fellow conspiracy loony a wife beater without a shred of evidence to substantiate his assertion.

That's some fine "scholarship", sex predator.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Brent Blanchard was not associated with NIST. We were talking about NIST's failure to test for explosive residues. Did Blanchard test for explosive residues?

You FAIL all right, UtterFail.

So you admit you can not find any evidence to support your claim that NIST looked for the calcs on the 707 impact study. You're the one with the cockamamy theory that one of the premier engineering firms in the world fudged its safety studies.

You FAIL all right, UtterFail.

I don't pretend anything. I said there was a 707 impact study, you said I lied, NIST confirms that there was a 707 study, and you lied.

You FAIL all right, UtterFail.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Skilling 707 study was inadequate. NIST's claims about what they couldn't find prove nothing. NIST has a pattern of not finding what they don't want to see--even when it's already been published in the FEMA report.

You FAIL all right, UtterFail.

GutterBall we have already discussed at great length Mrs. Barrett's claims that Dr. Barrett tried to smash her head on a tile floor. You made absurd claims such as claiming the newspaper reports are hearsay. I'm not surprised you don't want to remember that.

Congressional Candidate Faces Charge

by Brian D. Bridgeford
The Baraboo News Republic (Saulk County, Wis.)
September 16, 2008

....In July 2005, Barrett's wife alleges Barrett pulled her to the floor and tried to smash her head against floor tiles. Barrett's abusive words and actions were at times witnessed by their children, his wife states in the petition....

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5654

Note that newspapers carry libel insurance, and if Barrett could make any kind of case at all it would have been well worth his while.

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Furthermore, GutterBall, you are a complete hypocrite when, after attacking me for citing NIST as an authority on some noncontroversial point, and claiming that it's intellectually dishonest to cite works that have different conclusions from mine, you selectively cite Barrett's uncorroborated claims about me.

I guess you must agree with Barrett's conclusion that Jews did 9/11--is that right?

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Asking for subpoena power without any Government involvement isn't going to happen Brian:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subpoena

"Legal Dictionary:

a writ commanding a designated person upon whom it has been served to appear (as in court or before a congressional committee) under a penalty (as a charge of contempt) for failure to comply —compare SUMMONS"

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, nobody said it was going to happen.

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, nobody said it was going to happen."

Only except in your perverted mind Brian, am I right?

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The burden of proof is on you to show that the Skilling 707 study was inadequate."

Wrong again, sex predator.

NIST's statement is clear an unambiguous.

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion..." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, the burden of proof is yours and yours alone.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST's inability to locate documents or evidence or even their own dirty asses to wipe depends on their willingness to look for documents or evidence or their asses.

They have demonstrated their inability to find evidence even when it was published in official reports such as the FEMA 403.

You are the one who is making the extraordinary claim that the Skilling firm fudged its safety reports, that Roth lied about it in his telegram, and by implication that NIST is covering up design defects and thus insurance fraud.

It is for you to prove your claims. All I claimed was that a study of 707 impact showed that the building could survive a crash from a 707 at 600 mph, and that Mr. Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires associated with plane crashes. I have proved those claims.

Your verbose obfuscation isn't fooling anyone except the simple-minded, like Ian and Dave Kyte.

 
At 15 March, 2011 17:16, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

A 707 is not a 757 or 767.

The towers survived long enough for most people to evacuate, and that's really all that matters.

Obviously the towers didn't perform as well as expected, but then nobody expected they'd be attacked like they were.

No conspiracy, just misenterpretation of design data.

 
At 15 March, 2011 19:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...NIST's inability to locate documents or evidence or even their own dirty asses to wipe depends on their willingness to look for documents or evidence or their asses."

What were you saying about circular logic, sex predator?

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, nobody said a 707 was a 767.

A 707 is 73 tons and might carry 80 tons of fuel and has four engines.

The 767s were 90 tons and carried 33 tons of fuel and only had two engines.

The 707 was also faster than the 767. Since KE = 1/2 mv^2, velocity is an important factor.

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:21, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, nobody said a 707 was a 767.

A 707 is 73 tons and might carry 80 tons of fuel and has four engines.

The 767s were 90 tons and carried 33 tons of fuel and only had two engines.

The 707 was also faster than the 767. Since KE = 1/2 mv^2, velocity is an important factor.


Nobody cares, Brian. You keep babbling about these irrelevant studies as if they're magic.

 
At 15 March, 2011 21:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

They're not irrelevant. They showed that the buildings were designed to take a hit from an airplane that was faster and with four engines had nearly twice the chance to inflict damage on the cores as the two-engine plane.

They're also relevant because by claiming they were fraudulent, UtterFail is accusing the Skilling firm of misrepresenting their safety studies and accusing NIST of covering up design defects and so of insurance fraud.

 
At 16 March, 2011 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

They're not irrelevant. They showed that the buildings were designed to take a hit from an airplane that was faster and with four engines had nearly twice the chance to inflict damage on the cores as the two-engine plane.

False.

They're also relevant because by claiming they were fraudulent, UtterFail is accusing the Skilling firm of misrepresenting their safety studies and accusing NIST of covering up design defects and so of insurance fraud.

False. We're just accusing you of being a liar and lunatic. And we're right.

 
At 16 March, 2011 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

In other words, you haven't got a leg to stand on with respect to the facts.

 
At 16 March, 2011 13:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian hasn't realized this, but we've beening using him as a urinal for quite some time.

He can have his cake and eat it too!

How's that urnial cake taste Brian?

 
At 16 March, 2011 13:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Been" not "Beening"! Damn typos!

 
At 16 March, 2011 14:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I'll suppose you wrote this one too:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080726065749AAtxwMo

I guess the notion that you can piss 3000 miles is no more nutty than a lot of the other nonsense you believe.

 
At 16 March, 2011 16:32, Blogger Ian said...

In other words, you haven't got a leg to stand on with respect to the facts.

What facts? Your babbling dumbspam is not "facts". It's just that: the babbling of a liar and failed janitor that serves as amusement to the normal people who read this blog.

You're great entertainment, Brian. Everyone gets a good laugh out of you!

 
At 16 March, 2011 17:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

What facts? Well, stuff like

1. the existence of electronic weaponry that can cause an airliner to fall out of the sky

2. the 28-page redaction from the House/Senate joint 9/11 inquiry

3. the relative potential damage from 150 tons of four-engine 707 at 600 mph v. 120 tons of 767 at 470 mph

Facts like that. Not near as much fun for someone of your intellectual limitations as sneering at the widows is, I suppose. But they are facts.

 
At 16 March, 2011 18:42, Blogger Ian said...

Here are some more facts, Brian:

The San Francisco Giants won the World Series over the Texas Rangers in 2010.

The tallest building in Cleveland, Ohio is the Key Tower.

The capital of Armenia is Yerevan.

These are facts, but do they have any relevance with regard to 9/11? No.

So just listing irrelevant facts like the ones above, Brian, does not tell us anything about what happened on 9/11. Try finding something relevant.

 
At 16 March, 2011 18:43, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, here is another fact that has nothing to do with 9/11 but gives me immense satisfaction: your phony "widows" will never have their questions answered. NEVER.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 
At 16 March, 2011 19:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you would bother to read the thread you would see the relevance of those facts to the discussion. Of course the thread would be a lot more readable without your Iananity.

 
At 16 March, 2011 20:03, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you would bother to read the thread you would see the relevance of those facts to the discussion. Of course the thread would be a lot more readable without your Iananity.

Brian, your endless babbling doesn't make something relevant. That's why a decade after 9/11, the truth movement is dead and you're still a liar and failed janitor who gets laughed at everywhere.

Let me know when you get that new investigation, OK?

 
At 17 March, 2011 09:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the existence of electronic weapons is relevant to the crash of flight 93 because they should be considered in light of what happened to 93 that day.

The redaction of 28 pages from an official congressional investigation is relevant because it shows the flagrancy with which the authorities will act to hide the facts.

The existence of the study determining that the WTC could take a 4-engine 707 hitting it at 600 mph, and the applicability of those results to the actuality of a 2-engine 767 hitting the building at 480 mph, is relevant because it shows that the officials' suggestions that the buildings were not designed to be hit by airplanes is a lie.

And all three of them are relevant simply because they are facts and
the record surely shows that, as with all all facts here, first you guys denied that they were true, then you lied about them, then you obfuscated to try to cover up the fact that you lied, and then you denied that they were important.

And then you go on to deny that facts are important at all. You argue like an 8-year-old girl. You think stupid is funny.

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the existence of electronic weapons is relevant to the crash of flight 93 because they should be considered in light of what happened to 93 that day.

Brian, if we're going to consider death ray beams from space, then surely we have to investigate the possibility of the towers being brought down by modified attack baboons planting micro-nukes, right?

Also, what if the towers were holograms? Suddenly, your "widows" have a lot of explaining to do about why they're claiming their husbands were killed in towers that did not exist.

But you'd just rather bury these questions in squealspam. Pathetic.

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say anything about rays from space. This is mainstream news:


"Emissions from powerful antennas on the ground or in military planes in the air can disconnect a plane's autopilot, jam equipment, cause electrical short circuits, put a plane into a sudden dive, interrupt fuel flow -- or even trigger on-board explosions. [Elaine Scarry] learned that the U.S. military had "electronic warfare" planes expressly designed to cause these sorts of problems in enemy equipment."
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001119mag-scarry.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-639770.html

The Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive.

Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes....

According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s – capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.




Maybe if you weren't so ignorant you'd be better informed.

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:02, Blogger Ian said...

So, as usual, because you have no evidence for your death-ray beams theory, and can't refute the modified attack baboons theory, you post a bunch of nonsense, and follow it up with this:

Maybe if you weren't so ignorant you'd be better informed.

What a wonderful tautology. Brian, you're no better at logic than you are at mopping floors or getting answers to widows' questions.

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say anything about death rays. I cited the NYT magazine and the Independent for information about military weapons systems that have been common for years.

 
At 17 March, 2011 18:11, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I didn't say anything about death rays. I cited the NYT magazine and the Independent for information about military weapons systems that have been common for years.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 18 March, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

The existence of electronic weapons is relevant to the crash of flight 93 because they should be considered in light of what happened to 93 that day.

The redaction of 28 pages from an official congressional investigation is relevant because it shows the flagrancy with which the authorities will act to hide the facts.

The existence of the study determining that the WTC could take a 4-engine 707 hitting it at 600 mph, and the applicability of those results to the actuality of a 2-engine 767 hitting the building at 480 mph, is relevant because it shows that the officials' suggestions that the buildings were not designed to be hit by airplanes is a lie.

And all three of them are relevant simply because they are facts and
the record surely shows that, as with all all facts here, first you guys denied that they were true, then you lied about them, then you obfuscated to try to cover up the fact that you lied, and then you denied that they were important.

And then you go on to deny that facts are important at all. You argue like an 8-year-old girl. You think stupid is funny.

 
At 18 March, 2011 21:30, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, you already posted that squealspam above. Learn to read.

 
At 19 March, 2011 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I was trying to return the discussion to issues related to 9/11.
You don't know anything about 9/11 and don't want to learn. All you want to do is talk about me.

 
At 19 March, 2011 10:31, Blogger Ian said...

I was trying to return the discussion to issues related to 9/11.

All issues related to 9/11 have been settled. There is nothing more to discuss.

Who do you have winning the national championship in your NCAA basketball bracket?

You don't know anything about 9/11 and don't want to learn.

False.

All you want to do is talk about me.

What else is there to talk about? You're a joke who keeps babbling about nothing.

 
At 19 March, 2011 18:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows' unanswered 273 questions and the inadequate reports on the twin towers and WTC7 are something.

I have no idea what an NCAA bracket is, and have no idea why anyone who considers himself heterosexual would find it pleasurable to watch a bunch of skinny young men run around in their underwear.

 
At 20 March, 2011 07:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the widows' unanswered 273 questions and the inadequate reports on the twin towers and WTC7 are something.

No. You've had 10 years to come up with something substantial that needs to be re-investigated, and this is the best you can do? No wonder 9/11 truth is dead.

I have no idea what an NCAA bracket is, and have no idea why anyone who considers himself heterosexual would find it pleasurable to watch a bunch of skinny young men run around in their underwear.

Of course you have no idea what an NCAA bracket is, since you have no idea what college is. But the fact that you think of basketball as skinny young men running around in their underwear goes a long way towards explaining your obsession with Willie Rodriguez (you know, the guy you called a strutting, bragging lying hunk of Latin manhood).

 
At 20 March, 2011 10:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian we have dozens of issues that need to be reinvestigated. We can start with the 28 pages redacted from the original report of the House and Senate.

Ian, I know what a college is. When I was young and gasoline was cheap and the Rand McNally road atlas showed the locations of colleges all over the country I drove all over this country and the colleges were my motels.

College basketball is skinny young men running around in their underwear. I did watch when the Stanford women humiliated UConn.

I never called Willie R a hunk of Latin manhood. He's a blob of Latin manboob who wears Hawaiian shirts for TV shoots to (unsuccessfully) try to cover his fat ass.

 
At 20 March, 2011 19:32, Blogger Ian said...

So with the above post, we learned 3 things from Brian:

1, there is nothing to investigate from 9/11.

2, he never went to college

3, he has a homosexual infatuation with Willie Rodriguez.

I mean, we already knew this stuff, but it's nice to see it confirmed.

 
At 21 March, 2011 12:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Frivolity is a stern taskmaster. Imagine France without Jerry Lewis.
Laundry is the fifth dimension.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home