Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Kay On Gage

A brief extract from Among the Truthers:
Gage will admit that he’s paid a price. Friends who failed to embrace his missionary zeal have drifted away. So has his wife, who he said had difficulty accepting his “dark” vision. Gage now lives by himself in a home office near Berkeley, paying his bills with the modest amounts he earns through donations. Yet when Gage discusses all this, he seems curiously upbeat—almost euphoric—like a Benedictine monk who’s happily renounced the material encumbrances of secular life. Although he doesn’t talk much about his world before 9/11 Truth, he clearly remembers it as empty and unsatisfying.

“I would rather die speaking the truth than live in a police state, which is what 9/11 set the groundwork for,” he tells me in a final, slightly manic flourish. “I can’t have my son—or grandchildren—ask me, ‘What did you do to stop it?’—and I say, ‘I tried to talk to some architects but they wouldn’t listen.’

As a reminder, those "modest amounts" equaled $75,000 in 2009; I'm still waiting for Guidestar to post the 2010 figures.

The part that I still have difficulty believing is this:
But Gage arrived in a calm, friendly mood. After buying himself a soy latte, he sat with me on a bench outside the café for two hours, patiently describing his transformation from workaday commercial architect to 9/11 Truth evangelist. It was in March 2006 that his life changed, Gage tells me. He was in his car just after lunch, fighting traffic en route to a construction meeting. Bored, he flipped on KPFA 94.1 FM, a listener-supported station out of Berkeley—“to hear what the communists were talking about.”

Up to that point in life, Gage recalls, he’d been just your average workaday architect, with a wife, child, and a strong Republican voting record. “I believed strongly in America,” he tells me. “I believed everything was okay. When Colin Powell was giving his Iraq evidence at the United Nations [in March 2003], I was cheering him on. I wanted us to go to war in Iraq. I wanted to find the WMD. I was completely on board. I was the poster child for George W. Bush’s foreign policy.”

It's certainly not unheard of for people to listen to the other side on the radio; I used to listen to Air America. What is unusual is this:
The voice he heard on KPFA’s airwaves belonged to David Ray Griffin, a retired Claremont School of Theology professor who’s since become a full-time 9/11 Truth activist. “Griffin was logical and methodical—almost grandfatherly,” Gage remembers. “He was talking about the 118 [World Trade Center] first-responders—information that had just come out in 2005—who said they’d heard explosions and flashes of light, beams dripping with molten metal, all amid the collapse of 80,000 tons of structural steel. It hit me like a two-by-four. How come I’d never heard of any of this? I was shocked. I had to pull my car off the road to absorb it all. I knew I’d be late for the meeting. But I didn’t care.”

Most liberals, if they listened to Rush Limbaugh, would not be pulling off the road to absorb it all and saying, "You know, he's right!" Ditto with conservatives taking in Ed Schultz.

And when Gage recently hired a publicist for his group, whom did he choose? Ilene Proctor, who bills herself as "The Public Relations Princess of the Political Left".

Labels: , ,

182 Comments:

At 17 May, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Truth is neither left-wing nor right-wing, Pat. When I went to see Fahrenheit 911 (reluctantly, from a sense of civic duty, to see what that asshole Michael Moore was about) I was Republican-leaning. I would have voted for McCain in 2000, but since I despised Bush and Gore about equally, I didn't vote at all.

The original tea party, four years ago, was majorly into 9/11 Truth and protecting the Constitution from GWB. That was before Republican money gelded it.

 
At 17 May, 2011 13:22, Blogger Garry said...

'I would rather die speaking the truth than live in a police state'.

Anna Politkovskaya did this, and she paid the price with her life in December 2006. Gage, on the other hand is free to grift.

And Brian is free to be a special-needs case who stalks married women, believes that invisible SAMs could have protected the Pentagon, argues that unarmed F16s should have shot down an airliner, states that non-existent explosives brought down the WTCs, thinks that bin Laden is both innocent AND a CIA stooge, claims that KSM never admitted his responsibility for 9/11 etc etc ...

While 'troofers' boast about their phantom bravery, real truth-seekers have been tortured and killed across the globe. I wish I could swap the latter with the former.

 
At 17 May, 2011 13:25, Blogger roo said...

Why is Brian still posting?

 
At 17 May, 2011 13:52, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Sounds like your typical case of some sad sap buying into a cult. The fact he now has to pimp his ideas to the UFO. chemtrail loons is proof of how low he has sank.

 
At 17 May, 2011 13:55, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian can only post here, all the truther sites have banned him because he is such a sorry example of what truthers think they are.

 
At 17 May, 2011 14:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, from Jonathan Kay and Richard Gage and partisanship to Brian Good just like that. What a catty bunch!
Don't you know that great minds talk about ideas?

 
At 17 May, 2011 14:15, Blogger James B. said...

Came out today. Took a look at barnes and noble. The blog got a mention among debunking resources, and Kay quoted me in regards to Steven Jones' messianic musings. Now he will never return my emails....

 
At 17 May, 2011 14:39, Blogger Garry said...

'Don't you know that great minds talk about ideas?'

Does the fact that you don't have one tell you anything about yourself?

 
At 17 May, 2011 16:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

9/11 Truth is home to both far-left and far-right anti-American extremists.

Each side needs 9/11 to be an inside job in order to advance their political agendas, so they allege that Al Qaeda was a CIA creation, or that the planes were remote controlled along with other nonsense.

They're so far out on the extreme fringes that they actually meet (Think back to those WTO riots in Seattle where Greenpeace marched arm -in-arm with White Supremicists).911 Truthers are divided into fanatics, con-men, and psychopaths.

I doubt that the radio show was the driving factor, I suspect his life was well on it's way into the tiolet long before.

 
At 17 May, 2011 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well, I can tell you that it's a pretty amazing shock to hear something that sounds just plain outlandish, to say to yourself "well it can't be true or it would have been in the news" and then you look into it and find out it's true. That was exactly my trajectory with Fahrenheit 9/11. I said to myself, "If it were true it would have been reported in the liberal media." I investigated Moore's claims and found they were true. I investigated the Moore debunker sites and found that they were very sloppy and dishonest. The rest is history.

 
At 17 May, 2011 16:52, Blogger James B. said...

Sloppy and dishonest, the story of the 9/11 truth movement.

 
At 17 May, 2011 18:17, Blogger ConsDemo said...

[Twoof] Truth is neither left-wing nor right-wing

You are right, it's simply anti-American.

Kay is a good man and I'm glad he wrote the book but he is clearly cutting Dick Gage way to much slack. Since Gage's past whatever he says it is, he can claim pretty much whatever he wants. Like snuggy, he claims to be some previous right-winger who has seen the light in order to make his "awakening" seem much more meaningful. However, for those twoofers whose backgrounds are in the public domain, its not surprise that almost all their past political affiliations are on the fringes or so long ago as to be meaningless. If a twoofer was ever normal, chances are he or she started going downhill before twooferism.

There is a great article about Pakistani conspiracy theories about OBL's death in the Globe and Mail, but this type of sentiment helps explain twooferism as well.

It's a remedy for what psychologists would call cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of holding two conflicting views at the same time. Pakistan fights terrorism; Pakistan helps terrorists.

The two statements would seem mutually exclusive, but it's only one of the broader contradictions within a country founded as a secular state but increasingly threatened by religious extremists; fiercely independent but badly reliant on foreign assistance, particularly from the hated United States; nuclear armed, but deeply insecure living next door to a more powerful nuclear-armed rival, India.

You don't have to worry about such contradictions if you indulge in fantasy.


If you are an America-hating crackpot or given to bitching about the government, 9/11 was a complicating event. One one hand there is the threat of Islamic terrorists wanting to kill Americans in large numbers and then there is the unpleasant response that the war and terror has entailed. It makes for difficult trade offs that most people would rather not make. Twoofers simply opt out by claiming we attacked ourselves on 9/11. No need to worry about an islamic terrorist threat, simply indulge in a fantasy that we are governed by a tyrranical regime that conducts mass murder of its own citizens to justify war for [insert reason]...

 
At 17 May, 2011 18:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Gages story sounds like the typical religious conversion.

 
At 17 May, 2011 18:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

ConsDemo, with a little bit of word-substitution I could simply turn your argument on its head and apply it to people who live in the official fantasy-land.

If you are a flag-waving American, 9/11 was a complicating event. On one hand there are clear indications that the government is lying about what happened that day, and then then there is the unpleasant response that the devotion to truth entails. It makes for difficult trade offs that most people would rather not make. "Debunkers" simply opt out by claiming that the government story is good enough. No need to worry about unpleasant realities and obsolete technicalities like the laws of physics--simply indulge in a fantasy that we are threatened by a global Muslim conspiracy, and give up your freedoms.

 
At 17 May, 2011 18:56, Blogger Triterope said...

Ban.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"ConsDemo, with a little bit of word-substitution I could simply turn your argument on its head and apply it to people who live in the official fantasy-land.

If you are a flag-waving American, 9/11 was a complicating event. On one hand there are clear indications that the government is lying about what happened that day, and then then there is the unpleasant response that the devotion to truth entails. It makes for difficult trade offs that most people would rather not make. "Debunkers" simply opt out by claiming that the government story is good enough. No need to worry about unpleasant realities and obsolete technicalities like the laws of physics--simply indulge in a fantasy that we are threatened by a global Muslim conspiracy, and give up your freedoms."

Ooh, can I play too?

If you are Brian Goode, 9/11 was a complicating event. On one hand there are clear indications that the Willie Rodriguez became a hero that day, and then then there is the unpleasant response Brian's devotion to troof entails. It makes for difficult trade offs that most people would rather not make. Goode simply opted out of a debate with Willie by claiming that nobody can ever actually know if Willie is actually real. No need to worry about unpleasant realities and obsolete technicalities like an internet-based debate--simply indulge in a fantasy that we are threatened by Willie's heroism,...

Wow, that was fun.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Don't you know that great minds talk about ideas?"

Well that leaves you out. A mentally defective janitor has nothing to offer as far as ideas.

So here is an idea to ponder. Why is it in the world of trutherism you can not find one person of any talent or intelligence? To a man or woman these people are people no normal person would want to associate with, let alone give a job or trust with an important task. Their only value in like is as examples of what NOT to believe, how NOT to act, examples of how lowly you become by being gullible.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

1500 architects and engineers.

What's your degree in, DK? I forget. Airbush? Have you ever thought about doing custom one-of-a-kind T-shirts?

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"If you are a flag-waving American, 9/11 was a complicating event."

Yes for a "simple thinker" like you perhaps, but in reality it was fiendishly simple. Hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

"Debunkers" simply opt out by claiming that the government story is good enough."

No Debunker simply point out the holes in the conspiracy theorist ideas and logic. Its not an official story, but an accepted story by the brightest, most informed members of science, physics and the more intelligent general public. The conspiracy theorist view is bought by the less knowledgeable members of the world. You aren’t going to find many truthers at a MESA meeting. but ask people who make a living as janitors or fast food cooks you will tend to find more conspiracy theorist types, but who cares about them.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:27, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Well Brian I can do much more than you given any kind of task. So yes I am smarter that you or Richard Gage.

So what do you do all day Brian. Surely nothing that required and thinking.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:34, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

No really Brian, you say you are not a failure in life. But you don't seem to do much but jerk off about 9/11 truth while mom and dad feed you hot pockets.

As far as anyone can tell, debunker or truther alike, you ARE a failure. If I were you I would kill myself, but I guess that part of your brain that regulates shame died along with the part that can comprehend complex physics.

 
At 17 May, 2011 19:37, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Come on Brian, go out and get a life, or at least a job so you don't have to sponge off the state or your parents.

 
At 17 May, 2011 21:10, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

What was the triggering event, or key moment that turned you into a 'truther' or however you might classify yourself?

 
At 17 May, 2011 21:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the fact that you think flying planes into buildings is simple only shows your ignorance. NORAD had drilled on hijacked-plane-into-WTC scenarios before. From 1989-1992 they intercepted a plane a day--planes without transponders. The plan was ludicrous. It only made sense if the plotters knew that NORAD's response was going to be disrupted.

Your claim that the official story is promulgated by the brightest is silly. How bright was Condi Rice to lie under oath on TV to the widows? How bright was Rumsfeld to go out to the parking lot to play nurse when the nation was under attack? How bright was Shyam Sunder to say the buildings fell essentially in freefall? How bright was Leslie Robertson to lie about seeing molten metal?

That's MENSA, not MESA, BTW, just between us girls, Mr. Superior.

Roo, every time I've told my 9/11 story it takes something out of me. Maybe if you can find me somewhere else I'll tell you, but not here. I was close enough to feel righteously disgusted with the 9/11 con man W-Fraud, who steals his glory from the dead.

 
At 17 May, 2011 22:09, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

From 1989-1992 they intercepted a plane a day

What?! Where the fuck do you get your facts?

 
At 17 May, 2011 22:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

That comes from a G.A.O. report available online at FAS. We were talking about it here about a week back in the Chumpsky thread. Garry was lying about it, as I recall, but that's because he was reading the 911myths version. Here's the real deal:

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

 
At 17 May, 2011 22:48, Blogger roo said...

Brain,

The number listed on your link is for plane scrambles. Whether or not they intercepted a plane is not listed. And your assumption that every plane they tracked didn't have a transponder is a figment of your deranged imagination.

 
At 17 May, 2011 22:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Unidentified aircraft are by definition aircraft without transponders.

The text says that 7% of the interceptions were drug flights. The table says 7% of the scrambles were drug flights. There is thus no distinction made between scrambles and intercepts.

The report says that "during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)1,518 times." It does not say "took off in an attempt to intercept".

 
At 17 May, 2011 23:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

roo, Brian is citing a GAO report from 1994. A fact that Brian ignores/is too stupid to understand. The title: Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76) should also be a giant clue as to the lack of air defense in 2001.

Brian is a psychopath, he doesn't care about the facts, only about his con-job. Only a mentally ill person would make an argument and then post a link to an official government position paper that directly undermines his theory.

 
At 18 May, 2011 00:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the "no longer needed" issue has nothing to do with the fact that they did 1500 intercepts in 4 years. Do you think that skill was lost in 9 years?

How many fighters does it take to intercept one airliner?

How come the lumbering C-130H was able to intercept two while the 1800-mph f-15's couldn't get any?

 
At 18 May, 2011 02:05, Blogger Garry said...

'DK, the fact that you think flying planes into buildings is simple only shows your ignorance. NORAD had drilled on hijacked-plane-into-WTC scenarios before'.

Liar.

Let's take a look at the testimony from the 9/11 commission, shall we?

Lt Col Dawne Deskins (USAF) notes that ‘[she] does not recall ever personally designing an exercise in which a decision was made to shoot down [a] hijacked aircraft. A typical design would include course deviation in which the hijacker forces the pilot to fly to a designated landing point’ (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf). The clear implication of this is that military planning focused on traditional hijackings (where passengers were taken hostage) rather than the use of passenger aircraft as flying IEDs.

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

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

 
At 18 May, 2011 03:15, Blogger ComradeAgopian said...

Anna Politkovskaya did this, and she paid the price with her life in December 2006. Gage, on the other hand is free to grift .

Well put Garry . I have a special loathing for troofers , and Alex Jones butt boys , who act as if they are fighting a police state . When in reality those who are , get little or no notice in the MSM .

 
At 18 May, 2011 06:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

From 1989-1992 they intercepted a plane a day--planes without transponders.

What was the number of intercepts in the three years prior to 9/11?

 
At 18 May, 2011 08:51, Blogger Max said...

Brian - with your vast NORAD background would you be kind enough to describe a typical one of these 1,518 intercepts you love to cite?

 
At 18 May, 2011 09:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Yes intercepting aircraft that are coming from OUTSUDE the US from known drug shipping locations is easy, which is part of the NORADs job, NORAD did not monitor aircraft inside the US before 2001.

The fact it took more than an hours for military aircraft to locate Payne Stewarts jet when it was flying straight and level
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart

NORAD had to wait for the FAA controllers to tell them something was up, and then they had only 8 minutes.

So Brian why does anyone buy anything a worthless human like you says?

 
At 18 May, 2011 09:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, perhaps your NORAD witnesses were among those 9/11 Commissioners Hamilton and Kean were referring to when they said they considered referring NORAD's stories to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Max, I'm not an expert in NORAD and don't need to be. All I need to do is read USAToday.

"WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center."

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

If you guys would spend more time learning about 9/11 and less time congratulating each other on how smart you think you are, then maybe your opinions would be closer to reality.

 
At 18 May, 2011 11:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Conducting simulated exercises does not guarantee the success of the operation during an actual attack--you illogical twat.

You should learn how to think--you brain dead prat. Making illogical assumptions proves that you're sharp as a marble, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, nobody said anything about guaranteed success. There's no evidence that NORAD ever even tried to intercept, though when DCA ATCs asked a C-130H to do the job it found flight 77 within minutes and then practically intercepted flight 93 as well.

Flight 93 was also tracked, at FAA's request, by small aircraft near Pittsburg.

 
At 18 May, 2011 11:48, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Flight 93 was also tracked, at FAA's request, by small aircraft near Pittsburg."

Too bad no armed aircraft were in the area. And they have no way of knowing exactly what 93s intensions were.

Don't know very much do you brian?

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:03, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

NORAD radar doesn’t even cover much of the US interior

NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward.

So he again we see the ample ignorance of brian the janitor whenit comes to 9/11.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:06, Blogger Garry said...

'Brian - with your vast NORAD background would you be kind enough to describe a typical one of these 1,518 intercepts you love to cite?'

Looking at the GAO report he cited, I'd expect that the ones from North-Western air bases involved interceptions of Soviet aircraft, and the ones from the South involved suspected drug traffickers.

'Garry, perhaps your NORAD witnesses were among those 9/11 Commissioners Hamilton and Kean were referring to when they said they considered referring NORAD's stories to the Justice Department for criminal investigation'.

And maybe you're just a fucking lunatic who lives with his parents, is a social failure, and also got thrown out of the troof movement for being a stalker.

One of these two propositions is more likely.

Oh, and with your USA Today story, did you notice the following?:

'In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say'.

That's right, brainiac. That's a simulated shootdown of an airliner over the At-Laaaaantic. That means in the exercise scenario, they were responding to an overseas flight being hijacked, as per their post-Cold War 'air sovereignty' mandate.

A foreign flight.

Not a domestic one.

Not like AA11.

Or UA175.

Or UA93.

Or AA77.

...

Clear?

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:08, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Then you have the fact Air Traffic Controllers mistook an other flight, Delta Flight 1989, a 757 also flying from Boston to Los Angeles, for the hijacked plane.

We know NOW it was not 93 but at the time this is what NORAD had to go with. And mind you not many fighter aircraft to track down every mistaken blip on a radar screen.

But Brain doesn’t know this stuff, by his own admission knowing little and asking lots of questions is his way of working.

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

CBS reported that two fighters were within 60 miles of flight 93.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main311011.shtml

Also USA today reported on it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/investigate-collide.htm

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

You guys very confidently assert things when you don't know.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Brian, on that morning how many aircraft were over the US?

Bet this is another one of the magnitude of things you don't know.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, what difference does it make if it was a foreign flight or a domestic flight? The fact is that NORAD drilled on a hijacked airliner aimed at the WTC.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"At the time, there were two F-16s armed with air-to-air missiles within 60 miles of Flight 93. But the fighters were still out of missile range when the jetliner crashed, sources said.

No decision had to be made, but administration officials say that, had the jetliner continued toward Washington, the fighter jets would have shot it down. The rationale, say the sources, was that the government was willing to "kill 100 to save a thousand".

So much for a Stand Down Order, sounds more like a Shoot Down Order"

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:23, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So moron Brain post links to stories that show what we debunkers have said all along, There was no Stand Down order, but a Shoot down order as confirmed by Norm Meneta.

This idiot says 9/11 was an inside job because our jets could not get close enough to take down 93 before passengers did the job.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Garry, what difference does it make if it was a foreign flight or a domestic flight?"

DUH! Because as we know, put not you, NORAD radar looks otward to the sea looking for threats form OUTSIDE. That is how it was before 2001. But because you are Brian Good and a low IQ kind of guy this stuff is beyond your abilities to understand.

And here is another fact you won't know, NORAD used mostly "Primary" radar. But you would not know what that is, so what is the point of trying to explain it to a man with a child's mentality.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, Major Nasypany said that the problem was that the radar showed all the airplanes and the hijacked flights were lost in a sea of blips.

You know who Nasypany is, right?

So which is it? They didn't see the planes at all, or they saw all the planes?

This is why we need new investigations.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The hijackers turned the airliners' transponders OFF--you lying prat. Without the transponders the aircraft would be virtually impossible to locate on a radar screen in the time allotted.

The loss of the transponders made locating the airliners infinity more difficult.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

The lack of transponders would not be an issue if, as DK claims, NORAD's radar was looking outward so they couldn't even see the planes.

Lack of transponders is not an issue because back in the 1989-1992 period for which we have data showing an interception a day, many of the target aircraft were unidentified and thus by definition transponderless.

So how many transponderless planes were flying down the Hudson River at 600 mph that morning? Was high-speed traffic that thick?

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The lack of transponders would not be an issue if, as DK claims, NORAD's radar was looking outward so they couldn't even see the planes."

Gobbledegook.

"...Lack of transponders is not an issue because back in the 1989-1992 period for which we have data showing an interception a day, many of the target aircraft were unidentified and thus by definition transponderless [SIC]."

Meaningless gobbledegook.

"...So how many transponderless [SIC] planes were flying down the Hudson River at 600 mph that morning? Was high-speed traffic that thick?"

Making up words now--you lying prat.

Wikipedia wrote, "...In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

Thus, you're lying.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor GutterBall, reduced to claiming he can't read. LA-LA-LA-LA I can't heard you!

At both ends of the forum we've got meltdowns. At the other end Willie Rodriguez is melting down, asking me if I've called my parents.

I love the smell of burning bullshitters.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There's no "meltdown", and I can read just fine. It's your reading comprehension that's constantly in question.

The first two paragraphs you wrote are nonsense based on your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion. Thus, goobledegook.

Notice that you completely ignored the evidence I present that proves you're wrong.

Wikipedia wrote, "...In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

Thus, you're lying. And like all troofers, you ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong or lying.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"roo said...
Brian,

What was the triggering event, or key moment that turned you into a 'truther' or however you might classify yourself?"

It was the day he went crazy.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:47, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" snug.bug said...
1500 architects and engineers."

See what I mean?

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
DK, the fact that you think flying planes into buildings is simple only shows your ignorance."

See what I mean?

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not opinions, UtterFail, but logical analysis. The way to refute a logical analysis is to show it to be wrong, not to attack the analyst personally.

LL, nice job of quote-mining. What I said was:

DK, the fact that you think flying planes into buildings is simple only shows your ignorance. NORAD had drilled on hijacked-plane-into-WTC scenarios before. From 1989-1992 they intercepted a plane a day--planes without transponders. The plan was ludicrous. It only made sense if the plotters knew that NORAD's response was going to be disrupted.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
CBS reported that two fighters were within 60 miles of flight 93."

Aaaaannnnd........

What?

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" snug.bug said...
Garry, what difference does it make if it was a foreign flight or a domestic flight?"

See what I mean?

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" snug.bug said...
DK, Major Nasypany said that the problem was that the radar showed all the airplanes and the hijacked flights were lost in a sea of blips."

See what I mean?

Ummmmm, boron?

The hijacked planes turned off the on board transponders.

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:02, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
The lack of transponders would not be an issue if,"

See what I mean?

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LL, nice job of quote-mining."

See what I mean?

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Not opinions, UtterFail, but logical analysis. The way to refute a logical analysis is to show it to be wrong, not to attack the analyst personally."

I didn't attack you "personally"--you prat.

I pointed out that your argument is nothing more than your opinion. And I provided evidence that proves you're lying.

Wikipedia wrote, "...In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

Thus, you're lying. And like all troofers, you ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong or lying.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh the spam hits the rotatory ventilator. What were we talking about? Oh yes...

The lack of transponders would not be an issue if, as DK claims, NORAD's radar was looking outward so they couldn't even see the planes.

Lack of transponders is not an issue because back in the 1989-1992 period for which we have data showing an interception a day, many of the target aircraft were unidentified and thus by definition transponderless.

So how many transponderless planes were flying down the Hudson River at 600 mph that morning? Was high-speed traffic that thick?

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:24, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, what difference does it make if it was a foreign flight or a domestic flight?'

Erm, how about the fact that NORAD's mission after the Cold War is 'air sovereignty', which involves INTERCEPTING SUSPECT FLIGHTS FROM OVERSEAS.

I type that in capitals just to add some emphasis for the retarded. That's you, BTW.

You complete and utter spazmong. Do you dribble when you type? Do you have dreams about your mother which make you wake up with a hard-on? Do you eat your own snot? Do you regret the fact that you can't have sex with any bipeds you're not related to?

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker. just keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.

So when will you address the evidence I presented that proves you're lying?

Wikipedia wrote, "...In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

Thus, you're lying. And like all troofers, you ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong or lying.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Garry wrote, "...Do you eat your own snot?"

Of course he does. In fact, he's such a prolific snot gobbler that his head caved in.

%^)

 
At 18 May, 2011 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, an interception is an interception, whether it's off Long Island or over the Hudson River.

The point was that NORAD knew that the WTC was a possible and even likely terrorist target for hijacked airliners, so DK's claim that flying planes into buildings was simple should have been wrong. It shouldn't have been simple.

UtterFail, you've been hanging around with six year olds too long. You need to get an office job for some adult role models.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:15, Blogger Ian said...

Up to that point in life, Gage recalls, he’d been just your average workaday architect, with a wife, child, and a strong Republican voting record.

Of course. Every religious prophet needs a road to Damascus story. Gage thinks this will give him more credibility as an ordinary guy who could no longer hide from the truth instead of a con artist looking to make money off of rubes.

If you want a genuine right-winger who turned against Bush, look at Bruce Bartlett. Does he rant and rave about thermite and missiles at the Pentagon? No, he's angered by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:17, Blogger Ian said...

Truth is neither left-wing nor right-wing, Pat. When I went to see Fahrenheit 911 (reluctantly, from a sense of civic duty, to see what that asshole Michael Moore was about) I was Republican-leaning. I would have voted for McCain in 2000, but since I despised Bush and Gore about equally, I didn't vote at all.

The original tea party, four years ago, was majorly into 9/11 Truth and protecting the Constitution from GWB. That was before Republican money gelded it.


I've often said I come here for the entertainment value of reading the unhinged babblings of a crazy person. You can't really get much more unhinged than this.

Thanks again for the endless amusement you provide me, Brian.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:19, Blogger Ian said...

Don't you know that great minds talk about ideas?

Yup, which explains why you spend hours and hours and hours babbling about Willie Rodriguez even though nobody gives a flying fuck what you think of the man.

Not to mention your endless babbling about "widows"...

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:21, Blogger Ian said...

If you guys would spend more time learning about 9/11 and less time congratulating each other on how smart you think you are, then maybe your opinions would be closer to reality.

My, such squealing!

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:23, Blogger Ian said...

Poor GutterBall, reduced to claiming he can't read. LA-LA-LA-LA I can't heard you!

At both ends of the forum we've got meltdowns. At the other end Willie Rodriguez is melting down, asking me if I've called my parents.

I love the smell of burning bullshitters.


Man, Brian has not been this entertaining in a LOOONG time.

So with all this evidence, I guess we'll have a new investigation any day now, right Brian?

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:24, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet? I forgot to check this morning.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, you've been hanging around with six year olds too long. You need to get an office job for some adult role models."

That's right, gay boi. Just continue to ignore the evidence that proves you're a liar.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

How can I ignore what isn't there?

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The lack of transponders would not be an issue if, as DK claims, NORAD's radar was looking outward so they couldn't even see the planes.

Lack of transponders is not an issue because back in the 1989-1992 period for which we have data showing an interception a day, many of the target aircraft were unidentified and thus by definition transponderless."

Here's how it used to work in the Cold War, Skippy...

NORAD's radar screens were manned by a few thousand Airmen. Each guy sat in front of a screen that monitored a section of real estate along the Soviet/Alsaskan frontier, the North Pole, the North Atlantic, and Cuba. This was augmented by AWACs and their Navy counter parts (Sorry Swabbies, I can't name the plane right now).

When a blip heading west towards Alaska from the Soviet Union was detected NORAD dispatched fighters (these were usually already in the air flying cap). There was not a lot of skill involved. The blip was coming from a known hostile air space, so we had an idea of who it was, and we'd fly up to let them know we knew they were there. Pilots waved, and got to know eachother.


None of that happened on 9/11. Not that you care.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, if you would actually read the GAO report we're talking about, maybe your opinions about the situation would more closely resemble reality. The scramble a day was not involving hostile aircraft approaching from overseas. Most of them were unidentified aircraft and aircraft in distress.

Like most posters here, you formulate your facts to fit your opinions instead the other way around.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:29, Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:30, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Glad to see Brian's arguments yet again boil down to appeals popularity & authority,part to whole fallacies,cherry picking, and bare assertions.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, if you would bother to read the GAO report we're talking about, you would see that MGF's assertions about the situation bear no resemblance to reality.

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:05, Blogger Max said...

"The point was that NORAD knew that the WTC was a possible and even likely terrorist target for hijacked airliners"

Bitch Good - are you serious?

I fear the day I flip on the news and the top story is your mentally unstable ass has come unhinged and you have shot up a school or something.

We both know something like that is going to happen...

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course they knew the WTC was a terrorist target. Al Qaeda had already targeted it in 1993, Abdul Hakim Murad had named it in 1995 as a target in al Qaeda's "Project Bojinka" plot, and ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas told Randy Glass "those towers are coming down."

The fact that they drilled on it shows that they knew it was a potential target.

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GMS, if you would bother to read the GAO report we're talking about, you would see that MGF's assertions about the situation bear no resemblance to reality."

Bullshit.

Anyone who reads the GAO report will immediately discover that it says exactly the opposite of what you claim, goat fucker.

You have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:24, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

When women get date raped, do you accuse them of lying because they know that people have been date raped in similar situations, therefore how could it have happened to them?

.....

Have you ever played sports? Have you ever practiced a play over and over and over again? Then during the game that play doesn't work. Does that mean something is being covered up?

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The fact that they drilled on it shows that they knew it was a potential target."

Wrong again, snot gobbler.

Running practice exercises is no guarantee the plan will work.

And making the claim that the airliners flew over the Hudson River for no more than 10 seconds doesn't prove NORAD could easily intercept aircraft that had the transponders disabled.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

roo,

You must remember, the only sport the goat fucker played in high school was girls volleyball.

 
At 18 May, 2011 19:56, Blogger Ian said...

Is there a term for the opposite of renaissance man? You know, someone who is appallingly ignorant in so many fields? That's kinda what Brian is. He doesn't know anything about physics, engineering, history, global politics, or the like, but that doesn't stop him from babbling mindlessly about these topics.

 
At 18 May, 2011 21:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

roo, it wasn't a question of lying or a play going awry.

The issue was: is it a simple matter to fly airplanes into buildings. It's not simple if NORAD is trying to stop you, and only a lunatic would even think of it--unless they knew NORAD would not stop them. And all indications are that NORAD did not even try to stop them. Except maybe flight 93.

We need new investigations.

 
At 18 May, 2011 21:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

only a lunatic would even think of it--unless they knew NORAD would not stop them.

What evidence do you have that the planners considered or even knew of NORAD in the first place? That's a very strange assumption.

 
At 18 May, 2011 21:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

You think the planners of the 9/11 op thought that the greatest military power the world has ever seen would not have aircraft defending its cities and military HQ?

According to Wikipedia, the Sudan has 38 operational fighter jets, Saudi Arabia has 370, and Pakistan has several hundred. I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that the plotters were so ignorant that they wouldn't anticipate problems from an air defense.

 
At 18 May, 2011 22:22, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

Why do you assume that the U.S. government should do everything perfectly? If that were the case then there would be no loose ends in their covert 9/11 conspiracy and truthers would have nothing to nitpick.

Or, if you argue that the government does make mistakes and left hints that 9/11 was a coverup then you must also accept that they might be flawed and NORAD not intercepting the four flights is just a dumb human boner.

Truther beliefs are a big catch 22.

 
At 18 May, 2011 22:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 22:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Roo, that's a very good point. (See, I knew you were smarter than all these Ians and GBs and MGFs put together!)

If it was a conspiracy why was the cover story so awful?

Answer:

1) Maybe we're wrong and it wasn't a conspiracy, but we need further investigation to be sure

2) Maybe the psyop that is supposed to divide history into Before 9/11 and After 9/11 is so sophisticated that loose ends are left deliberately to generate a) conspiracy fatigue, b) make obvious that the military and the government are going to lie, c) create a whole lot of fall guys like Condi Rice and GWB (none of whom have had to pay any price) and d) provide nexuses for media intimidation

If NORAD was just dumb, then we need to know why. $500 billion a year is not enough that we can expect a functional air defense? What is this, a welfare state for military contractors?

The top five military contractors, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrup Grummond, divide up $100 billion in contracts every year.

Stanford University has a total endowment of $14 billion, which helps cover a budget of $4 billion a year.

It's not enough to say--OK, that's ok, the military was incompetent. We need to know why it was incompetent and what we can do about it.

 
At 18 May, 2011 22:53, Blogger roo said...

Brian,

1.) Your compliments are empty and insulting.

2.) Your theories are only fit for a comic book.

When are you going to debate W. Rodriguez, pussy?

 
At 18 May, 2011 23:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

I agree, being told you're smarter than Ian, GutterBall and MGF combined is such faint praise it's insulting. Congratulations for recognizing it!

I see, the theory that maybe we're wrong and there was no conspiracy is only fit for comic books? Interesting take.

I already did debate W-Fraud. It's over.

I pointed out that a) he stole Pablo Ortiz's story and b) his claim that he saved hundreds is refuted by death statistics and c) he's been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield for years.

Boom boom! Out go the lights!

If he wants to quibble, he knows where to find me.

 
At 18 May, 2011 23:27, Blogger sabba said...

Lol Brian, Willie made you his bitch! he owned you and pawned you and from all places...at Screwloosechange!

He didn't even had to debate you for us to see you squirming and squealing as we predicted.

I think the verdict is unanimous for anybody that has read the posts, including lurkers and yes, truthers that may be embarrassed you calling yourself a researcher for them.
If I was you I will take a break, and rejoin when you have recovered.
Have you called visibility911 yet?
Have you called 9/11blogger yet?


LOVE IT!!!!

 
At 18 May, 2011 23:29, Blogger sabba said...

Brian the gay bitch says:
I already did debate W-Fraud. It's over.
absolutely....it's over...FOR YOU.

 
At 19 May, 2011 01:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...he's been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield for years."

Projecting again, goat fucker?

 
At 19 May, 2011 03:42, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, an interception is an interception, whether it's off Long Island or over the Hudson River'.

No, dribbler, that's not the case. And as you've been told constantly, a scramble is not the same as an interception.

'MGF, if you would actually read the GAO report we're talking about, maybe your opinions about the situation would more closely resemble reality'.

And if you'd read the report you'd see that it recommended reducing NORAD's force and budget, because it's Cold War mission was over.

'You think the planners of the 9/11 op thought that the greatest military power the world has ever seen would not have aircraft defending its cities and military HQ?'

You'd think that a bisexual failed janitor would realise that he was a retard, and would STFU.

 
At 19 May, 2011 05:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You think the planners of the 9/11 op thought that the greatest military power the world has ever seen would not have aircraft defending its cities and military HQ?

That's not what I asked. I asked why you assume the planners' knowledge of NORAD equals yours. It's an invalid assumption, and it indicates both lack of empathy and dishonesty.

 
At 19 May, 2011 05:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why do you assume that the U.S. government should do everything perfectly? If that were the case then there would be no loose ends in their covert 9/11 conspiracy and truthers would have nothing to nitpick.

That's the biggest contradiction right there, isn't it? The Conspiracy has to be omnipotent enough to fake anything that's unfavorable to the theory, but at the same time leave a trail of obvious clues.

Note also how no statement from any branch of the government can be trusted, except when it's labeled an "admission" of something.

 
At 19 May, 2011 06:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, if you'd actually read the GAO report you're mischaracterizing, you'd see that it does not distinguish between scrambled and interceptions, that 7% of scrambles involve drug flights and 7% of interceptions involve drug flights, and that it nowhere discusses scrambles that did not result in interceptions.

The NORAD force reduction is a red herring. It only takes one fighter to intercept. Allegedly not one of the hijacked airliners was intercepted, though that's not clear in the case of flight 93.

RGT, I wouldn't assume anything about the planners' knowledge of NORAD. I would suppose that either a) they would over-estimate NORAD strength based on cold-war figures or b) would do a rigorous investigation of how many planes were where and plan their op accordingly. In either case, I think the expectation that they could evade NORAD is lunacy. The only realistic chance for doing so would be to hijack a plane immediately after takeoff at La Guardia, at JFK, at Newark, or at Reagan Nat'l and fly it into the target in less than ten minutes.

Sabba, my three points squished Willie like a bug:

I pointed out that a) he stole Pablo Ortiz's story and b) his claim that he saved hundreds is refuted by death statistics and c) he's been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield for years.

 
At 19 May, 2011 07:29, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Garry, an interception is an interception, whether it's off Long Island or over the Hudson River.

That's like saying a cop should act the same dealing with a crazy man with a knife on the street, or a crazy man in the cop's living room with his knife to the cop's wife's throat.

The point was that NORAD knew that the WTC was a possible and even likely terrorist target for hijacked airliners, so DK's claim that flying planes into buildings was simple should have been wrong. It shouldn't have been simple.

This is a 2-part claim.
1. NORAD knew/suspected the WTC was a likely terrorist target.
2. Norad knew/supected that people would be flying airliners into the WTC.

Source.

 
At 19 May, 2011 07:35, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Oh, I see, the "drills". The US military drills for a revolution by the Girl Scouts, to encourage unconventional thought. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be surprised and flat-footed if one actually happened.

 
At 19 May, 2011 07:38, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, if you'd actually read the GAO report you're mischaracterizing, you'd see that it does not distinguish between scrambled and interceptions, that 7% of scrambles involve drug flights and 7% of interceptions involve drug flights, and that it nowhere discusses scrambles that did not result in interceptions'.

You are clearly functionally illiterate if you can't recognise the difference between a 'scramble' and an 'intercept'. The GAO report wasn't written for morons who couldn't even hold down a job mopping piss from restroom floors. which is why you are so confused.

'The NORAD force reduction is a red herring. It only takes one fighter to intercept. Allegedly not one of the hijacked airliners was intercepted, though that's not clear in the case of flight 93'.

You are clearly retarded. Please take note of the following:

(1) NORAD's mission involves 'air sovereignty' between 1994-2001, which means intercepting suspect foreign flights. Logan and Newark airports are within US territory, and therefore aircraft taking off from these ports are domestic.

(2) Planes do not fly in the sky for ever. They need fuel, maintenance etc to keep them operational, and the pilots themselves cannot fly 24/7.

(3) Prior to 9/11 the US Air National Guard had responsibility for 'air sovereignty' missions. They had (and I quote 'Airman', December 1999) 'seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock'. Two each were based at the following locations:

Portland International Airport - OR.
March AFB, CA.
Ellington Field, TX.
Tyndall AFB - FL.
Homestead AFB - FL.
Langley AFB - VA.
Otis AFB - MA.

So much for 'the greatest military power the world has ever seen' having 'aircraft defending its cities and military HQ'.

(4) As I've told you time and time again, the Otis jets were scrambled after the WTC North Tower was hit, and even when flying supersonic they only got as far as Long Island when the South Tower was struck. Contrary to what you think, aircraft can't teleport.

 
At 19 May, 2011 08:03, Blogger Max said...

"According to Wikipedia, the Sudan has 38 operational fighter jets, Saudi Arabia has 370, and Pakistan has several hundred. I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that the plotters were so ignorant that they wouldn't anticipate problems from an air defense."

They also counted on the fact we have never shot down a highjacked plane and they also counted on all 4 flights impacting around the same time.

Bitch Good - when are you going to get out and learn how the real world works? Reading about it in USA Today just isn't the same.

 
At 19 May, 2011 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 May, 2011 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 May, 2011 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, an interception is a simple technical action. It makes no difference where it takes place, or who's on board the airliner.

For info on airplanes-as-weapons look into Flight 8969, Project Bojinka, Atlanta Olympics Airspace Closure, and the Genoa G-8 warnings that Osama planned an aerial assault. Also, in 1993 an airliner was hijacked and news reports discussed the fears that the hijacker intended to crash the plane in Manhattan.

For info on threats to the WTC look at Project Bojinka, 1993 WTC bombing, and also "Touching History" by Lynn Spencer, says a terrorist flying an airplane with a WMD into the WTC "had always been one of the military's big fears."

To be skeptically dismissive of shoddy conspiracy theories is only smart. To be skeptically dismissive of facts is not.

Garry, the GAO report we are discussing clearly makes no distinction between scramble and intercept. Since 7% of scrambles are 7% of the intercepts, the sample pool is identical.

You are relying on the same dishonest sources that GutterBall already used. If you're going to framing the issue dishonestly in terms of planes flying 24/7 and "14 fighters and pilots on call" then you can prove anything. There were more than two planes at Langley, there were at least 8 planes at Otis, there were two more at Atlantic City, and there were planes at Selfridge and Toledo and Duluth that you don't know about; there were six fighters from Tyndall and Ellington, not four; and Lt. Anthony Kuczynski had another two F-16s with him and his AWACS plane.

The military was highly motivated to present the myth that our air force was enfeebled and needed major infusions of cash, but the fact remains that the US had the greatest military the world has ever seen. We outspend the rest of the world combined.

Max, all four planes didn't impact at the same time. It was 100 minutes with no effective air defense. How did little guys with boxcutters accomplish that?

I read USAToday to find out about things that are outside of my experience, such as NORAD's drills. Is that how you keep up with historical events--by experiencing them directly or not at all?

 
At 19 May, 2011 16:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The military was highly motivated to present the myth that our air force was enfeebled and needed major infusions of cash, but the fact remains that the US had the greatest military the world has ever seen. We outspend the rest of the world combined."

What does that even mean, learn to write, dipshit.

Two of the the planes scrambled into the air that day were unarmed except for wax practice bullets. The GAO report you cite held zero relevance in 2001.

Intercepting an aircraft is not as simple as you think that it is. It's even hard when you don't know where your target is.

Your lack of knowledge in this area is painful.

 
At 19 May, 2011 17:11, Blogger Ian said...

I agree, being told you're smarter than Ian, GutterBall and MGF combined is such faint praise it's insulting. Congratulations for recognizing it!

I love being "insulted" by a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

Brian, I once offered to teach you logic and critical thinking since I do part-time work teaching these skills to prospective GMAT students. You never answered. Why is that?

 
At 19 May, 2011 18:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, if you would bother to read the GAO report

Or this is another example of you taking the parts you like and leaving out what you don't.

 
At 19 May, 2011 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You are relying on the same dishonest sources that GutterBall already used."

That's rich coming from a proven compulsive liar.

As per the goat fucker's SOP, he's cherry picking the evidence and ignoring everything that proves he's full-of-shit.

 
At 20 May, 2011 00:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Empty claims. Y'all do your best to spray eau d'skunk on truth. Why is that?

MGF, it doesn't matter if the arms were wax. When a cop pulls you over, do you test whether his bullets are wax on not?

 
At 20 May, 2011 02:07, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Jonn, an interception is a simple technical action.

No it isn't.

It makes no difference where it takes place, or who's on board the airliner.

Yes it does. Jurisdiction readily springs to mind as a critical factor, as well as proximity to intercepting forces, and whether some VIP on the aircraft deserves special consideration. All of those are fairly complex factors. IIRC, There has never been an airliner shot down over US airspace. Ever.

For info on airplanes-as-weapons look into Flight 8969, Project Bojinka, Atlanta Olympics Airspace Closure, and the Genoa G-8 warnings that Osama planned an aerial assault. Also, in 1993 an airliner was hijacked and news reports discussed the fears that the hijacker intended to crash the plane in Manhattan.

So you saying that discussing something = preparedness for something?

No matter how many punches a boxer takes in the ring, he can still be knocked down by a lucky punch from a drunk guy on a corner.

If you need me to explain the metaphor, I'll have to go out and buy some crayons.

For info on threats to the WTC look at Project Bojinka,

Not successful, I note.

1993 WTC bombing

Which involved, as the name indicates, bombs.

and also "Touching History" by Lynn Spencer, says a terrorist flying an airplane with a WMD into the WTC "had always been one of the military's big fears."

I'm not buying a book just to prove you wrong.

The military was highly motivated to present the myth that our air force was enfeebled and needed major infusions of cash, but the fact remains that the US had the greatest military the world has ever seen. We outspend the rest of the world combined.

Money != competence in any given situation.

 
At 20 May, 2011 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

If you need me to explain the metaphor, I'll have to go out and buy some crayons.

Don't talk about metaphors with Brian. He doesn't understand what they are. That's why his experiments with the WTC collapse involved throwing a meatball in the air and catching it on a fork, and throwing a bird's nest (empty, I hope) at a fencepost.

 
At 20 May, 2011 07:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Y'all do your best to spray eau d'skunk on truth. Why is that?

Because it smells better than your bullshit?

 
At 20 May, 2011 07:57, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the GAO report we are discussing clearly makes no distinction between scramble and intercept. Since 7% of scrambles are 7% of the intercepts, the sample pool is identical'.

This is what we're dealing with here ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111958/quotes

Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
[he points to some plastic cows on the table]
Father Ted: are very small; those
[pointing at some cows out of the window]
Father Ted: are far away... Small ... Far away ... Small ... Far away ...

'There were more than two planes at Langley,'

Source?

'there were at least 8 planes at Otis,'

Source?

'there were two more at Atlantic City,'

Both in the air, neither of which were armed.

'and there were planes at Selfridge and Toledo and Duluth that you don't know about; there were six fighters from Tyndall and Ellington, not four; and Lt. Anthony Kuczynski had another two F-16s with him and his AWACS plane'.

Source?

'The military was highly motivated to present the myth that our air force was enfeebled and needed major infusions of cash, but the fact remains that the US had the greatest military the world has ever seen. We outspend the rest of the world combined'.

Which doesn't mean that the USAF can be everywhere at once, you fucking spaz.

 
At 20 May, 2011 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, interception is a simple technical action. You seem to be confusing interception with shootdown, which is not surprising since dishonest propagandists have done their best to spread this confusion. In 1993 when a Lufthansa airliner was hijacked, F-15s from Otis and F-16s from Atlantic City followed standard operating procedures and intercepted the plane. They escorted it to JFK airport and nobody died.

Project Bojinka was successful--five years after the USA became aware of the plan. Four planes and three buildings were destroyed and a fourth building damaged. As an act of terrorism it was spectacularly successful, resulting in major predictable political changes in the target country.

You don't have to buy a book. There are these things called libraries. I've read entire books sitting on the floor at Barnes & Noble.

Garry, until you learn to use the database at historycommons you are going to be very confused about 9/11.

 
At 20 May, 2011 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Probably GutterBall doesn't use libraries because he thinks it's immoral to study in a place that contains books with which he disagrees, but I don't think you need to share in his crotchets.

 
At 20 May, 2011 10:13, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, until you learn to use the database at historycommons you are going to be very confused about 9/11'.

It is my refusal to use kook websites that makes me immune to 9/11 woo, nutjob.

Now show us your sources, or STFU.

 
At 20 May, 2011 10:19, Blogger J Rebori said...

"MGF, it doesn't matter if the arms were wax. When a cop pulls you over, do you test whether his bullets are wax on not?"

The point is that if your intent is to commit suicide by driving that car into an office building, the cop won't be able to stop you with those wax bullets. So even if he does find you on the highway, he can't do anything but watch you as you continue on your way

 
At 20 May, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, your belief that historycommons is a kook site is not justified. The paperback version was published by HarperCollins.

If there is any particular proposition that you wish to dispute (the 8 jets at Otis, for instance), please specify.

J Rebori, your example of the helpless cop is silly. He can just ram the suicide driver off the road.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What does a failed janitor know about studying, goat fucker?

No doubt, you're always lost in thought. After all, it's unfamiliar territory.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, actually janitorial work is very good work for thinkers, poets, and musicians because it leaves the mind free to ponder and ruminate.

The human species evolved under conditions in which most of the work that had to be done was mindless and repetitive, and we are thus highly suited to extract maximal mental productivity from periods of tedious work.

 
At 20 May, 2011 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How would you know? After all, you're none of the above.

 
At 20 May, 2011 13:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"In 1993 when a Lufthansa airliner was hijacked,..."

Guess what, dipshit, that airliner was hijacked over GERMANY - THEN FLOWN TO NEW YORK.

Way to go, puss-nuts, you refer to yet another incident that argues against your retarded theories.

NORAD's radars point outwards AND that jet's transponder was left on. So yes, it was easy to intercept.

"You don't have to buy a book. There are these things called libraries. I've read entire books sitting on the floor at Barnes & Noble."

So what you've just said is that you cannot tell the difference between a library and a book store.

 
At 20 May, 2011 14:20, Blogger J Rebori said...

"J Rebori, your example of the helpless cop is silly. He can just ram the suicide driver off the road."

Are you trying to claim the fighter pilot could/would ram a jetliner?

You are pushing the metaphor past the breaking point. The fact is a plane armed with wax bullets had zero chance to stop, slow, or divert a jetliner flown by a pilot intent on suicide.

 
At 20 May, 2011 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the fact that the Lufthansa plane was hijacked in Europe and had its transponder on is immaterial. The issue is that it was intercepted and not shot down.

JR, why wouldn't a fighter pilot jostle an airliner to show that the jig is up? Lowered landing gear would look very menacing in the vicinity of the cockpit. Employing them as a weapon would increase chances of survival for the fighter pilot.

How do you know the hijackers were intent on suicide? The pilots may have been intent on a suicide mission--if it was shown that they were not going to be allowed to reach their targets, they may have decided that the pointless murder of innocent passengers would be immoral.

Also, the "muscle" hijackers may not have known it was a suicide mission. Had a fighter threatened the plane, they might have forced the hijacker pilots to abandon the mission, or killed them.

You guys look at the issue in black and white: Either the airliner is shot down or nothing can be done. There is a whole range of nuanced responses. Us janitors like to ponder such things while we're shining up the chrome and the stainless.

 
At 20 May, 2011 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Whenever a debunker says "the fact is" I know they're going to say something that's not true.

 
At 20 May, 2011 17:17, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, why wouldn't a fighter pilot jostle an airliner to show that the jig is up? Lowered landing gear would look very menacing in the vicinity of the cockpit. Employing them as a weapon would increase chances of survival for the fighter pilot."

Fighter pilots are generally NOT suicidal. Physical jostling at over 500 MPH generally results in death for the guys in the lighter craft, and less often but frequently enough, very bad things to the people in the heavier craft. What reason would there have been to do that prior to the actual attack on the buildings?

Until the last moments of the first flight the planes were flying towards airports. Dulles, Reagan, and others near DC, LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark near NYC. Since no one had EVER conducted an attack like this why would an interceptor not have simply escorted the aircraft until at the last moment it broke away to commit the attack, leaving the fighter, with wax bullets remember, as no more than another witness to the horror?

”How do you know the hijackers were intent on suicide? The pilots may have been intent on a suicide mission--if it was shown that they were not going to be allowed to reach their targets, they may have decided that the pointless murder of innocent passengers would be immoral. “

People who are attempting to kill thousands are going to hold back from killing hundreds cause it might be immoral? Is that really your claim? That sentence alone is enough to prove you aren't interested in truth, or discovering facts or anything put pushing your BS agenda. NOTHING is clearer than the fact that those pilots were willing and capable of committing suicide in the act of killing as many as possible.

We know they were intent on suicide, because they committed suicide. QED. You don't get much more solid proof than that.

Since the muscle was not in the cockpit, what makes you think a jet flying above the cockpit would have been something they were aware of? Sightlines out of an airliner’s side windows are pretty limited when it comes to things above and/or in front of the plane.

 
At 20 May, 2011 18:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Are you trying to claim the fighter pilot could/would ram a jetliner?"

In the interview with the pilot of that unarmed F-16 the pilot said as he headed out over the ocean he was considering how to best ram his jet into the liner in such a way that he could eject. His target hit the Pentagon before he had to make that choice.

Not that Brian cares. He lives in fantasy land where F-16s magically find their targets and intimidate them into crashing.

"MGF, the fact that the Lufthansa plane was hijacked in Europe and had its transponder on is immaterial. The issue is that it was intercepted and not shot down."

The fact that the transponder was on made the plane easy to track and intercept, and the fact that the plane began flight in Germany and not the US is why NORAD could track the plane.

 
At 21 May, 2011 09:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Let us note that this discussion is a long way away from the original discussion of NORAD;s inexplicable inability to intercept the hijacked airliners.

J Rebori, is it your claim that NORAD pilots are afraid to die if it's necessary to defend their country? What kind of message does that send to the world? "Come and get us, we're a bunch of pussies!" Could it be that you're only projecting your own attitudes on them?

An Israeli F-15 was able to land safely after losing a wing in an aerial collision. Lowered landing gear would be a very threatening and expendable weapon when wielded against an airliner cockpit.

Your breakaway scenario is not realistic. La Guardia is 8-10 miles from the WTC, landing speed is around 125 mph. It would take several minutes to fly from La Guardia to the WTC--and competent military planners would order the plane to land not at La Guardia (where its presence would be very disruptive) but at a military base.

Your belief that religiously-motivated suicides are not highly concerned with the moral environment of their suicidal actions is silly. Also silly is your belief that they killed as many as possible. There were only 18,000 people in the twin towers when they struck, and almost 15,000 of them evacuated successfully. If al Qaeda wanted to maximize casualties they would have hit an hour later, when there would have been 50,000 people in the towers. They also would have acted to obstruct the evacuation by setting fires in the stairways.
They acted to minimize, not maximize, casualties.

The intercept protocol requires first establishing communication with the pilots. Since the radios were out, this likely would have involved hand signals. Any position that permitted hand signals would have made the fighter visible to passengers.

You really haven't thought this through. The debunking community is amazingly imaginative in generating "can't do" rationalizations.

 
At 21 May, 2011 09:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 May, 2011 09:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, from 1989 to 1992, intercepting aircraft was an everyday matter-- 1500 scrambles in four years. Few of them were airliners. Your belief that interceptions require magic is a fantasy.

According to Bronner (you know who Bronner is, right?) the FAA reported flight 11's position to NORAD when it was still 35 miles north of NYC. Four minutes is a long time when you can fly at 30 miles a minute.

According to Major Nasypany (you know who Major Nasypany is, right?) the reason they couldn't track the airliners is because they were needles lost in a haystack of radar blips. According to you they couldn't see the airliners because their radar only looks out to sea. So who's lying?

That's why we need new investigations.

 
At 21 May, 2011 10:12, Blogger J Rebori said...

snug.bug

You are never going to admit to being wrong. You won't admit that impeachment is not removal from office, you won't admit that the US Constitution trumps treaties, you won't even admit there is ZERO evidence nanothermite exists, never mind actually used for anytrhing. Now you are convinced that unarmed fighters can force down an airliner flown by a person intent on dying and taking as many as possible with him when such a hijacking had NEVER occured before.

You are insane.

There is no sense even attempting to prove you wrong.

Let me know when you stop running away from that debate with WR, I'd like to come watch. I suspect it will happen about the time you actually admit to any of your many mistakes.

 
At 21 May, 2011 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, when the NYT says impeachment is removal from office, I see no reason for apologizing for using the word in that same way.

I never said that treaties trump the constitution. I said treaties are by Article VI, the supreme law of the land. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but I'll suppose the constitution is the supreme law and that treaties are equal to it provided they do not contradict it.

The cases you cited in our discussion before involved not treaties, but administrative agreements, that clearly contradicted the constitution and violated US citizens' constitutional rights.

There is calorimetric and electron-micrographic evidence that nanothermite exists. I consider the findings to be speculative and as yet unreplicated, but to claim that the evidence is not there is irrational.

You provide no evidence whatsoever that any hijackers were intent on taking as many innocents as possible with them. Had they been intent on that, they probably would have insisted on a more effectively-designed operation that struck later and blocked the fire exits.

I didn't run from anything. I demolished Willie's case in three sentences, to wit:

1. You stole the story of Pablo Ortiz, a 9/11 hero who saved dozens of people by breaking down doors and letting trapped people out and who died himself when WTC1 fell down.

2. Your claim that you saved hundreds is verified by no one, proven by death statistics to be untrue, and depends on a belief that any fireman, cop, security guard, janitor, or architect can see in an instant is a lie--the notion that people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for an Angel of God with a Key of Hope to come and set them free.

3. Since the summer of 2007 you have been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield to try to intimidate me and to distract from your lies and delay the day when your fraudulence is exposed to all.

The affection y'all here show for the con artist and bullshitter William Rodriguez is extremely hypocritical.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Also silly is your belief that they killed as many as possible. There were only 18,000 people in the twin towers when they struck, and almost 15,000 of them evacuated successfully. If al Qaeda wanted to maximize casualties they would have hit an hour later, when there would have been 50,000 people in the towers. They also would have acted to obstruct the evacuation by setting fires in the stairways.
They acted to minimize, not maximize, casualties."

This is the single dumbest thing that you've written..this week.

You are a psychopath, you meet all of the criteria via your fav source, Wikipedia:

Psychopaths gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions.[12][13][14] Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.[15] [16] Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. Psychopaths can have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything to anyone without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short-lived, glib and egocentric, with an overall cold demeanor. Their behavior is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job or defaulting on debts.[16] Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behavior.[17]


That sums you up perfactly, Brian. Seek help, seek help now.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's all you can do? I took down every one of JR's specious claims, and yours as well.

And all you've got is an insult amplified with wiki-spam. A ten-year-old can do that.

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, goat fucker?

Remember me? I diagnosed you as a psychopath over a year ago.

Doesn't it just boil your ass to realize that MGF, RGT and others also recognize that you're a psychopath?

Seek psychiatric intervention--you pathetic worm.

 
At 21 May, 2011 18:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

They acted to minimize, not maximize, casualties.

This is a pretty bizarre assertion even for you, unless I'm misunderstanding it. If they wanted to minimize casualties wouldn't they have just not bothered attacking?

 
At 21 May, 2011 18:59, Blogger J Rebori said...

I took down every one of JR's specious claims

You took down nothing, you waved your hands and hoped the facts would go away.

You are a liar, you are incapable of admitting error and you are quite simply a fool.

I've spent enough time rolling in your mud. Anyone who can read can now see how pitiful your positions are.

I'm done with you.

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:36, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, actually janitorial work is very good work for thinkers, poets, and musicians because it leaves the mind free to ponder and ruminate.

He finally admits that he was a janitor. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

The human species evolved under conditions in which most of the work that had to be done was mindless and repetitive, and we are thus highly suited to extract maximal mental productivity from periods of tedious work.

What do you know about "mental productivity"? Your mind is a broken record incapable of producing any thoughts not related to Willie Rodriguez, "widows" and magic thermite.

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:38, Blogger Ian said...

Whenever a debunker says "the fact is" I know they're going to say something that's not true.

Whenever Brian posts anything, I know it's going to be dumbspam that can be safely ignored, since Brian is a failed janitor, but should be mocked in order to get him to squeal and babble in amusing ways.

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:45, Blogger Ian said...

That's all you can do? I took down every one of JR's specious claims, and yours as well.

False, you just babbled like the insane failed janitor that you are, and everyone had a good laugh at your expense.

And all you've got is an insult amplified with wiki-spam. A ten-year-old can do that.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:48, Blogger Ian said...

Also silly is your belief that they killed as many as possible. There were only 18,000 people in the twin towers when they struck, and almost 15,000 of them evacuated successfully. If al Qaeda wanted to maximize casualties they would have hit an hour later, when there would have been 50,000 people in the towers. They also would have acted to obstruct the evacuation by setting fires in the stairways.
They acted to minimize, not maximize, casualties.


Stuff like this is why I continue to come back to this blog. It's just so wildly entertaining to read the ramblings of a crazy person.

Brian, what was the point of all the thermite they planted in the towers if not to start fires? Also, why would they use micro-nukes if not to spread radioactive fallout all over downtown Manhattan?

I don't think you've thought this through very well.

 
At 22 May, 2011 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the purpose of a terrorist attack is to terrorize. The timing of the attacks and hitting the unfinished wing of the Pentagon were actions taken that minimized casualties. Emergency exit stairs in the towers could easily have been blocked by fires or debris, yet they were not.

One could make the case that fewer deaths would more effectively terrorize than mass casualties do--because then we would personalize the victims more.

JRebori, all it takes it handwaving to take down your ideologically-based fantasies.

Ian, your inferences and interpretations are, as usual, irrational. It's not surprising that as a businessman, you're a language instructor. And not a very good one, I'm sure.

 
At 22 May, 2011 10:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your inferences and interpretations are, as usual, irrational. It's not surprising that as a businessman, you're a language instructor. And not a very good one, I'm sure.

I'm not a language instructor, Brian. I'd tell you what I do, but as someone who never went to college, you wouldn't understand.

Not that it's any business of an insane failed janitor who lives with his parents, but the CEO of my company has personally commended my work.

 
At 22 May, 2011 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 16:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course he has, Ian. Commendations is what suckers get in lieu of fat paychecks.

As a businessman, clearly "Will work for Attaboys" is your mission statement.

 
At 22 May, 2011 16:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The timing of the attacks and hitting the unfinished wing of the Pentagon were actions taken that minimized casualties.

I guess you're saying that perfect timing and execution would seem less suspicious?

I'm really not sure how to respond to this, assuming you're serious. You've really jumped the shark from pedantic devil's advocate to hopeless mental case with this one.

 
At 22 May, 2011 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, it's not a question of perfect timing (precision) but of competent planning.

If the goal was to maximize casualities, then the WTC attacks should have been later, the WTC emergency exits should have been blocked, and the Pentagon should have been hit in an occupied wing instead of an unoccupied one.

For that matter, they should have flown flight 11 into the Indian Point nuke plant, and flight 175 into Three Mile Island.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If the goal was to maximize casualities, then the WTC attacks should have been later, the WTC emergency exits should have been blocked, and the Pentagon should have been hit in an occupied wing instead of an unoccupied one.

If the goal was not to maximize casualties, what was it?

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:14, Blogger Ian said...

Of course he has, Ian. Commendations is what suckers get in lieu of fat paychecks.

As a businessman, clearly "Will work for Attaboys" is your mission statement.


Poor Brian, I've destroyed him in every way that he's reduced to hoping that I don't make good money. I guess that's all you've got when you're an unemployed lunatic living with your parents despite being old enough to be my father.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:17, Blogger Ian said...

the WTC emergency exits should have been blocked

I love how on Planet Petgoat, "they" rigged the towers for demolition with spray-on magic thermite, but forgot to block the exits.

 
At 22 May, 2011 19:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the goal of a terrorist attack is not to maximize casualties but to maximize the terrorist effect. You haven't been reading my posts.

Ian, obviously if anyone sprayed on thermite, they could have blocked the emergency exits as well. Think about why they might not want to. I can think of many reasons.

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:25, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, the goal of a terrorist attack is not to maximize casualties but to maximize the terrorist effect. You haven't been reading my posts.

And how does one maximize the "terrorist effect", Brian? By making loud noises in the dark?

And we've been reading your posts. We've immensely enjoyed all the insane gibberish you've posted over the last 2.5 years.

Ian, obviously if anyone sprayed on thermite, they could have blocked the emergency exits as well. Think about why they might not want to. I can think of many reasons.

I can think of a very important one: blocked exits would have prevented the modified attack baboons from moving about the buildings and positioning the micro-nukes correctly.

 
At 22 May, 2011 21:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the goal of a terrorist attack is not to maximize casualties but to maximize the terrorist effect.

A terrorist attack is part bloodshed and part symbolism, certainly. But now you're trying to back away from what you said. Did you mean to say the attackers "reduced" casualties by some of their choices, or do you really mean that the attack was carried out in a way to kill the minimum number of people?

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

I said: "The timing of the attacks and hitting the unfinished wing of the Pentagon were actions taken that minimized casualties."

That factual statement was objective.
Of course I can not look into the terrorists' minds and divine their intent.

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Of course I can not look into the terrorists' minds and divine their intent."

Of course, you can, goat fucker. Just call your guru, Uncle Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's pathetic, floppy-cock-fingers Bill.

Oh lookee, GutterBall has disabled his profile so we can't look close at his picture and see his impotent jello-sausage fingers.

 
At 23 May, 2011 02:44, Blogger sabba said...

Oh lookee, I found a new picture of Brian for my profile! Mr. "I don't do facebook" liar. Thanks for accepting me as a "friend".

 
At 23 May, 2011 05:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Of course I can not look into the terrorists' minds and divine their intent.

But you can look into their minds and divine their knowledge of how NORAD works?

 
At 23 May, 2011 08:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh my goodness. That's quite a forehead you're sporting, goat fornicator. Do you polish your shiny noggin with carnauba wood wax?

Knock on wood!

 
At 23 May, 2011 09:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 09:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, information about NORAD was publicly available to prospective hijackers in books, magazine articles, and on the internet.

 
At 23 May, 2011 11:35, Blogger Sam said...

Luke Rudkowski was on Adam Kokesh's show RT recently responding to Jonathan Kay's book with...essentially nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktoTFCHCCgw (Luke's segment starts at 24:38)

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, information about NORAD was publicly available to prospective hijackers in books, magazine articles, and on the internet.

Did the attackers have that information?

 
At 23 May, 2011 14:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know what information the attackers had. Since Pakistan has several hundred fighter jets, and since al Qaeda was trying to recruit suicide pilots, I would expect them to be aware of the fact that most countries maintain air defenses. Al Qaeda owned an airline that flew to Dubai, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Dubai and the UAE between them have 150 jet fighters.

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Will someone ban this God damned psychopath?

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:45, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, are there any photos of you in which you don't look like an insane homeless person? Just curious.

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I would expect them to be aware of the fact that most countries maintain air defenses.

Nice dodge, jarsquatter.

The issue is not presence of air defenses. The issue is specific knowledge of the capabilities and timing of an interception. You have hinted that the hijackers had that knowledge. Did they?

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know what knowledge they had. Given the large numbers of fighter pilots and ex-fighter pilots in the Middle East I would expect that information on interception capabilities of modern jets would be fairly easy to come by.

They should have known that the very idea of flying hijacked airliners into buildings was ludicrous when the "Project Bojinka" plot had been revealed fice years before, and that the only way such a plot could succeed is if the air defense would be disrupted or if the entire op could be pulled off in less than ten minutes.

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Will someone ban this God damned psychopath?

You know, we could just ignore him.

OT: I see where Barrie Zwicker is Facebook friends with Jonathan Kay. Kind of surprising after Zwicker's butt-hurt performance regarding Kay's book.

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:31, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

the only way such a plot could succeed is if the air defense would be disrupted or if the entire op could be pulled off in less than ten minutes.

Where are you getting that figure?

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Where are you getting that figure?"

The same place he find most of his "arguments." He pulls it out of his ass.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Seriously, where? We know from the Payne Stewart incident that an intercept can take 90 minutes.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home