Sunday, May 08, 2011

Noam Chumpsky

Well, I may get back in the good graces of the vast right-wing conspiracy with this post. It becomes a little more obvious why the fraudulent 9-11 "Truth" Movement thinks that Uncle Noam should have been on their side all along:

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.


Nothing serious? What about the videos of Osama meeting with some of the hijackers?


And the idea that he should have been treated as a "suspect" is ludicrous. If we had tried to go through legal channels, does he really think that Pakistan would not have warned Osama?

96 Comments:

At 08 May, 2011 14:02, Blogger Ian said...

Is this trutherdom or is it just a lame attempt to criticize the assassination of bin Laden and do the knee-jerk "America is to blame" thing that he always does? I feel like it's the latter.

Hey, I would have loved to have taken bin Laden alive and given him a fair trial, but somehow I doubt that was going to happen no matter how much I might have wanted it.

 
At 08 May, 2011 14:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Is this trutherdom or is it just a lame attempt to criticize the assassination of bin Laden and do the knee-jerk "America is to blame" thing that he always does? I feel like it's the latter.

Seconded. Chomsky is always standing up for the rights of people like Osama bin Laden.

 
At 08 May, 2011 14:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

A basic tool in the tyrant's chest is the ability to declare anyone you want a criminal and throw them in the dungeon or summarily execute them. When such practices are tolerated the rule of law and the security of the liberties of all are degraded.

As Mendenhall pointed out, we never heard Osama's side of the story. All we got was an unrelenting media campaign.

Chomsky asks: What if the government of Iraq sent commandos to Crawford, killed George Bush, and dumped his body in the sea? How would we react? And yet, Chomsky says, Bush's crimes were far greater than anything bin Laden has been accused of.

 
At 08 May, 2011 14:56, Blogger roo said...

As Mendenhall pointed out, we never heard Osama's side of the story. All we got was an unrelenting media campaign.

Yes we did...why do you only pay attention to what you want to pay attention to? Do you see why people think you're an imbecile?

Bush's crimes were far greater than anything bin Laden has been accused of.

This is called an opinion. It's many people's opinion that people like you should be sterilized to prevent the spreading of dumb. Should the government act on that opinion too?

 
At 08 May, 2011 15:06, Blogger Barrie Singleton said...

Conspiracy theorist, Barack Obama, says Pakistan colluded with Osama bin Laden.
That would be to countenance a state conspiring with terrorists!

With ideas like that in his head, he will soon be saying that 9/11 was a joint venture between America's leadership, and terrorists. How silly is that?

 
At 08 May, 2011 15:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bush assaulted our civil liberties, and turned the world's sole superpower on a criminal path.

Osama never had the power to do that. Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Osama ever killed.

 
At 08 May, 2011 15:19, Blogger Triterope said...

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 08 May, 2011 16:14, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Snuggy, if that is what you really believe, why do you just spend your time as an internet troll? Why don't you head down to the Al Qaeda recruitment office and join the cause you find so just? I think they might have openings in their useful idiots department.

 
At 08 May, 2011 16:29, Blogger Triterope said...

Why don't you head down to the Al Qaeda recruitment office and join the cause you find so just?

And the $18 a month would certainly be a boon to Brian's income.

 
At 08 May, 2011 17:12, Blogger Len said...

"Bush assaulted our civil liberties

Which of your "civil liberties" did he "assault"?

 
At 08 May, 2011 17:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

The right not to be kidnapped and held incommunicado for years without charges, the right not to have my emails and phone calls secretly monitored without a warrant, the right to be secure in my papers, the right to free speech.

He assaulted your rights too, and you're just too ignorant to know it.

 
At 08 May, 2011 18:06, Blogger ConsDemo said...

The right not to be kidnapped and held incommunicado for years without charges, the right not to have my emails and phone calls secretly monitored without a warrant, the right to be secure in my papers, the right to free speech.

You were kidnapped and held incommunicado for years? When? Do tell!

 
At 08 May, 2011 18:37, Blogger Ian said...

As Mendenhall pointed out, we never heard Osama's side of the story. All we got was an unrelenting media campaign.

And as Luke Scott pointed out, there are a lot of questions about where President Obama was born.

Quotes from professional athletes are just slightly above quotes from unemployed janitors on the "give a fuck" scale.

And yet, Chomsky says, Bush's crimes were far greater than anything bin Laden has been accused of.

Yes, he does say that. I, no fan of George W. Bush, will beg to differ.

 
At 08 May, 2011 18:41, Blogger Ian said...

And, as we can clearly see, Brian got into 9/11 truth because he despises Bush. The actual facts of what happened on 9/11 are irrelevant to whether or not one believes 9/11 truth conspiracy theories. It's all about hatred of George W. Bush.

It's one reason why it was so surprising (in a good way) to see the percentage of Americans who are birthers cut in half after Obama released the long form. I figured birtherism, like trutherism, was immune to evidence and was just about people with a deranged hatred of Obama.

 
At 08 May, 2011 18:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The right not to be kidnapped and held incommunicado for years without charges,

Enemy combatants were always subject to that until Boumedine. Read Ex Parte Quirin to understand the law as it existed in 2001.

the right not to have my emails and phone calls secretly monitored without a warrant,

Warrantless monitoring has always been legal given exigent circumstances, and delayed-notice monitoring (when properly done) has been consistently upheld since Dalia v. U.S. in 1986.

the right to be secure in my papers,

Meaning what? Isn't that just part of the same issue?

the right to free speech.

I'm aware of exactly zero examples of the government invoking 9/11 to suppress previously-permitted speech. Please share if you know of some.

 
At 08 May, 2011 19:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

What about Carol Brouillet's rights? What about her rights not to be sexually harassed? What about her rights Brian?

What about Willie Rodriguez's rights to free speech?

Be careful throwing the word "tyrant" around you ass-maggot.

 
At 08 May, 2011 19:19, Blogger Pat said...

Yeah, Brian is all bummed out that he hasn't been able to call Uncle Ayman without the feds listening in.

 
At 08 May, 2011 19:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

MGF wrote, "...Be careful throwing the word 'tyrant' around you ass-maggot."

Referring to the goat fucker as an ass-maggot is an insult to ass-maggots.

 
At 08 May, 2011 19:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

CD, if someone claims they have the authority to throw you in the dungeon for nothing, they don't have to actually do it to have assaulted your rights. Also, we have no way of knowing whether we've been wiretapped or not, or whether there's been a sneak and peek search or not.

RGT, Jose Padilla is an American citizen. Delayed warrants was not the issue. Bush didn't even bother with the delayed warrants. The right to free speech was under assault by legislation such as the Military Commissions Act which provided that people could be declared enemy combatants after having done no more than exercised their right of free speech.

What about Carol Brouillet's rights? I didn't impinge on them in any way. She complained about what she believed to be my attitude. She was wrong about my attitude.

What about Willie's right to free speech? He can say what he wants, but when his free speech ventures into the territory of fraud, I'm going to call him on it.

 
At 08 May, 2011 20:01, Blogger 911truthinator said...

Why are you batting for the terrorists snot bug?

you,brian goodless,are obviously a terrorist sympathizer you give
them aid and comfort and are actively engaged in the propaganda war to poison the minds of the
average western citizen.

what rights would you get from the taliban brian?
you would be classed as too stupid to even be a slave and would be madeup as a billy-boy,sodomized then executed by 13yr olds in junior jihad terrorist class with boxcutters while you are chanting:
"911 was an inside job" and the boys wold be laughing out LOUD!

 
At 08 May, 2011 21:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

9t, the right of habeas corpus goes back to 1215 and it's GWB who tried to take it away, not the Taliban.

 
At 09 May, 2011 07:13, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The right to free speech was under assault by legislation such as the Military Commissions Act which provided that people could be declared enemy combatants after having done no more than exercised their right of free speech.

Cite where. Not to mention the MCA doesn't apply to US citizens or lawful enemy combatants (Ch 47A, Sub Ch 1, SS 948D). So it only applies to non US citizens who are not part of a recognized military group. You would know this if you actually read it instead of parroting BS you read online.

 
At 09 May, 2011 07:34, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

it's GWB who tried to take it away

Actually Lincoln, his congress, and Bush's congress have too. Sadly Brian this is yet another point where you shine in your glaring ignorance. Yet again that only applies to alien combatants.

And Habeas Corpus begins with the Anglo Saxons.

 
At 09 May, 2011 07:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The right to free speech was under assault by legislation such as the Military Commissions Act which provided that people could be declared enemy combatants after having done no more than exercised their right of free speech.

Wow, who told you that? Not even the ACLU claimed MCA was that harsh.

 
At 09 May, 2011 08:07, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's bitch and stalker, Brian Good from Palo alto California, AKA- snug.bug said...

the right not to be kidnapped and held incommunicado for years without charges, the right not to have my emails and phone calls secretly monitored without a warrant, the right to be secure in my papers, the right to free speech.

He assaulted your rights too, and you're just too ignorant to know it.

That is why I exercise my right to report you to the FBI, as a potential terrorist. Down to the Palo alto Address, posts, etc. It will be very stupid and naive of you to think that the most powerful agency in the government is not monitoring your activities for some time now. I only hope they act on my reort in the future. Bitch!

 
At 09 May, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, some parts of the MCA restrict enemy combatant status to aliens and some parts do not, and the 2009 Act changed the 2006 Act.

The fact remains that Bush assaulted the rights of citizens by attempting to pass a law giving him the power to declare anyone he wanted an enemy combatant, and specifically the vagueness of "Material Support" provisions allowed their application to free speech activities. There is still controversy and confusion about the powers conferred by the Act.

Sabba, when you talk to the FBI be sure to tell them that Willie was engaged in interstate and international fraud, traveling around lying about 9/11 in order to induce people to give him money.

 
At 09 May, 2011 10:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, some parts of the MCA restrict enemy combatant status to aliens and some parts do not, and the 2009 Act changed the 2006 Act.

Red herring. The military commissions apply only to aliens as per their jurisdiction. Citizens still receive their standard rights.

The fact remains that Bush assaulted the rights of citizens by attempting to pass a law giving him the power to declare anyone he wanted an enemy combatant, and specifically the vagueness of "Material Support" provisions allowed their application to free speech activities. There is still controversy and confusion about the powers conferred by the Act.

Yeah, just repeat yourself. Can't wait to see you cite them. Again, none of this shows how he has taken away free speech or anything else you have been rambling about. Considering truthers have been babbling how he is a war criminal for about 9 years I am having a hard time buying it.

 
At 09 May, 2011 12:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I said Bush assaulted our rights. The fact that the 2006 MCA was toned down before it was passed, and altered by the 2009 MCA, does not change the fact that he assaulted our rights.

The old "nobody's been thrown in jail yet and therefore the legislation is benign" argument is dishonest. The legislation remains a threat even if it's not used. It has a chilling effect.

The government recently argued that citizens could not sue about secret wiretapping unless they could prove that they had been secretly wiretapped. Bush created the environment where people like you are willing to defend the government's attempts to get away with nonsense like that.

 
At 09 May, 2011 12:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...I said Bush assaulted our rights. The fact that the 2006 MCA was toned down before it was passed, and altered by the 2009 MCA, does not change the fact that he assaulted our rights."

You can always tell when the goat fucker's lying--he splits hairs, moves the goal post and spews "the fact that" over-and-over-and-over again.

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

 
At 09 May, 2011 13:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, do you deny that Bush assaulted our rights with his policies of torture, warrantless wiretaps, and indefinite detentions with no judicial oversight?

 
At 09 May, 2011 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, when are you going to admit that you haven't a clue as to why the NRDC claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd, and that you thus don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC?

 
At 09 May, 2011 13:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The legislation remains a threat even if it's not used. It has a chilling effect.

On what? What are you afraid to mention?

 
At 09 May, 2011 13:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...UtterFail, do you deny that Bush assaulted our rights with his policies of torture, warrantless [SIC] wiretaps, and indefinite detentions with no judicial oversight?"

Moving the goal posts again, goat fucker?

The goat fucker continues to bald-faced lie and whines, "...Also, when are you going to admit that you haven't a clue as to why the NRDC claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd, and that you thus don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC?"

When you are going to admit that the NRDC's report and the findings found therein were cited by the RJ Lee Report and were used as evidence in a federal trial--you lying psychopath?

When are you going to admit that you're a psychopath and compulsive liar, shit-for-brains?

(I'd compare the goat fucker to scabies, but scabies are more intelligent by an order of magnitude than the goat fucker, and they're easier to get rid of.)

 
At 09 May, 2011 15:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I said Bush assaulted our rights...

I know...you have yet to substantiate any of your claims.

The government recently argued that citizens could not sue about secret wiretapping unless they could prove that they had been secretly wiretapped.

You mean they required evidence?! Oh heavens no!!!

 
At 09 May, 2011 16:20, Blogger Ian said...

Hey, Brian finally brought up Jose Padilla: something legitimately troubling about the Bush administration that I believe should be investigated.

Congratulations, Brian. It only took you 2.5 years of babbling about meatballs on forks, magic thermite elves, invisible widows, and your lust for that hunk Willie Rodriguez before you stumbled on something legit.

You win the broken clock award.

 
At 09 May, 2011 17:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Osama never had the power to do that."

HE did, however, have the power to murder 3,000 American citizens.

 
At 09 May, 2011 17:35, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Chomsky asks: What if the government of Iraq sent commandos to Crawford, killed George Bush, and dumped his body in the sea?"

We'd nuke Tehran.

Then we'd laugh and laugh and laugh.

 
At 09 May, 2011 17:37, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The right not to be kidnapped and held incommunicado for years without charges"

Illegal enemy combatants are not citizens, you booger eatin' moron.

 
At 09 May, 2011 17:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" the right of habeas corpus goes back to 1215"

WEll, no it hasn't.

But give us an example, you retarded marmoset.

 
At 09 May, 2011 18:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Chomsky asks: What if the government of Iraq sent commandos to Crawford, killed George Bush, and dumped his body in the sea?

Yeah, right. A team of Iraqi commandos would shoot the wrong guy and run out of gas 10 miles south of Arlington.

 
At 09 May, 2011 20:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the issue is not what I am afraid to mention. The issue is what the people who are afraid to talk are afraid to mention.

GutterBall, it doesn't matter who cited the NRDC estimate. The estimate was absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the constructrion of the WTC,which you obviously do not.

GMS, there is plenty of evidence of secret wiretapping. The testimony of the ATT whistleblower and of GWB, for starters. The issue was not a lack of evidence. The pretense was made that the plaintiffs had a lack of standing to sue unless they could prove they were wiretapped.

LL, certainly Osama, like anyone with half a brain, had the power to murder 3,000 Americans. Whether he could have done it without a totally disrupted air defense and incendiaries in the towers is much open to question.

Nuke Teheran? Because Iraq attacked us?

Jose Padilla is a US citizen. Anwar al-Awlaki, who Obama claims the right to assassinate with no judicial review at all, is a US citizen.

 
At 09 May, 2011 23:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...GutterBall, it doesn't matter who cited the NRDC estimate. The estimate was absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the constructrion [SIC} of the WTC,which you obviously do not."

Another readily debunked lie.

All evidence produced in a legal proceeding is subject to discovery.

Discovery (legal definition): A category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discovery

Any errors in the NRDC's evidence are subject to discovery, specifically Requests for Admissions of Facts. The facts as surrounds the evidence obtained from the NRDC's paper have never been brought into question by the defense or any other party. Thus, the evidence found therein is NOT in dispute. And the objections of a proven liar and sex predator certainly don't discredit the scientific evidence compiled by the NRDC.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 09 May, 2011 23:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 May, 2011 23:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...GutterBall, it doesn't matter who cited the NRDC estimate. The estimate was absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the constructrion [SIC} of the WTC,which you obviously do not."

Another readily debunked lie.

All evidence produced in a legal proceeding is subject to discovery.

Discovery (legal definition): A category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discovery

Any errors in the NRDC's evidence are subject to discovery, specifically Requests for Admissions of Facts. The facts as surrounds the evidence obtained from the NRDC's paper have never been brought into question by the defense or any other party. Thus, the evidence found therein is NOT in dispute. And the objections of a proven liar and sex predator certainly doesn't discredit the scientific evidence compiled by the NRDC.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 09 May, 2011 23:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...GutterBall, it doesn't matter who cited the NRDC estimate. The estimate was absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the constructrion [SIC} of the WTC,which you obviously do not."

Another readily debunked lie.

All evidence produced in a legal proceeding is subject to discovery.

Discovery (legal definition): A category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discovery

Continued...

 
At 09 May, 2011 23:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Any errors in the NRDC's evidence are subject to discovery, specifically Requests for Admissions of Facts. The facts as surrounds the evidence obtained from the NRDC's paper have never been brought into question by the defense or any other party. Thus, the evidence found therein is NOT in dispute. And the objections of a proven liar and sex predator certainly doesn't discredit the scientific evidence compiled by the NRDC.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 10 May, 2011 02:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the issue is not what I am afraid to mention. The issue is what the people who are afraid to talk are afraid to mention.

So now we've gone from "assaulting" free speech to just "chilling" free speech, although you're not personally afraid to say anything but you're pretty sure somebody else is. You previously claimed that your own right to free speech had been assaulted, so you're not making a lot of sense here.

GMS, there is plenty of evidence of secret wiretapping. The testimony of the ATT whistleblower and of GWB, for starters. The issue was not a lack of evidence. The pretense was made that the plaintiffs had a lack of standing to sue unless they could prove they were wiretapped.

More precisely, they had no cause of action unless they were illegally wiretapped. Warrantless monitoring is nothing new. It was legal long before Bush came along. Whether the Bush Administration misused the approach is another question.

 
At 10 May, 2011 03:14, Blogger Garry said...

'Whether he could have done it without a totally disrupted air defense'

Lie.

'and incendiaries in the towers'

Lie.

'is much open to question'.

The only thing that's open to question is how long it will take before you get sectioned.

 
At 10 May, 2011 05:33, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Christopher Hitchens's take down of Chumpsky

http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/

 
At 10 May, 2011 09:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, there is plenty of evidence of secret wiretapping.

Cute dodge. The fact is that you can sue if you are being wiretapped illegally. If you can prove it you win. You don't win if you try to argue that you are because they can. Think it over for a second.

 
At 10 May, 2011 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC can see instantly. But not you.

RGT, Bush assaulted free speech. Chilling it is assault. I was afraid to speak freely, I was even afraid to go to truther websites.

The FISA act provides for retroactive warrants. Bush brags that they didn't even ask for those. The wiretaps were illegal.

Garry, are you claiming that the air defense was not disrupted? Why then were four planes not intercepted?

GMS, the government, like you, illogically tried to frame the issue as "if you can't prove you were being wiretapped you have not case". The court found against them because the plaintiffs were able to show that they were injured by the mere fact of illegal wiretapping whether they could prove they had been wiretapped or not.

 
At 10 May, 2011 11:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC can see instantly. But not you."

Another 100% fact-free non-response from the goat fucker.

That's right, goat fucker, repeat yourself. After all, repetition of the Big Lie is sure to convince us of the validity of your argument.

The truth: You don't know fuck all about the construction of the World Trade Center Towers. You're a shameless Al Qeada apologist who should be stripped of your US citizenship and deported.

 
At 10 May, 2011 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...UtterFail, NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC can see instantly. But not you."

Another 100% fact-free non-response from the goat fucker.

That's right, goat fucker, repeat yourself. After all, repetition of the Big Lie is sure to convince us of the validity of your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

The truth: You don't know fuck all about the construction of the World Trade Center Towers. You're a shameless Al Qeada apologist who should be stripped of your US citizenship and deported.

 
At 10 May, 2011 11:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat fucker!

Let's talk about a subject that you're actually qualified to discuss--stalking and sexual harassment.

Bay Area 9/11 Truth Trivia Quiz:

Q: Who is Brian Good?

A: A sexually-frustrated wacko who, in his late 50s, still lives in his parents' basement in Palo Alto.

B. A bisexual stalker who targets famous 9/11 activists of both the female and male persuasions.

C. A coward who spends 18 hours a day hiding behind a keyboard and cyber-stalking the targets of his obsessions under a long list of pseudonyms, but is afraid to debate them live or on the radio.

D. All of the above.


9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 10 May, 2011 11:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, my post wasn't fact-free at all. It's a fact that NRDC's claim was absurd on its face and it's a fact your inability to recognize that only shows your ignorance.

For you to quote boilerplate lies from Kevin Barrett only shows your inability to mount a rational argument. Hey, I saw an anglo guy working at Jack in the Box yesterday. You can still reinvent yourself, GutterBall.

 
At 10 May, 2011 11:39, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, are you claiming that the air defense was not disrupted?'

Look, spastic, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, air defences were not 'disrupted'. As has also been repeatedly pointed out to you, NORAD's budget and assets had been cut in the aftermath of the Cold War, because once the big bad USSR disintegrated its mission - defending North American airspace against Soviet strategic bombers - became an irrelevance. And as you have been repeatedly told, NORAD's assets for the defence of the Eastern seaboard consisted of two Air National Guard units, both of which were on a reduced state of alert.

When NEADS was alerted by the FAA about the hijackings, it was conducting a prescheduled CPEX (command post exercise). The transition from the exercise to the 'real-world' alert took around 30 seconds. Again, you have been told this repeatedly, but either solvent abuse or deceit prevents you from accepting that yet again you are peddling utter falsehoods.

Just wake up and admit that you've wasted years of your life on 'da troof', and move on. Either that, or seek help from a mental health professional.

 
At 10 May, 2011 12:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...UtterFail, my post wasn't fact-free at all. It's a fact that NRDC's claim was absurd on its face and it's a fact your inability to recognize that only shows your ignorance."

According to whom, goat fucker? A proven habitual liar, psychopath, sex stalker and world-class cretin who can't substantiate the lies he tells with facts?

And I don't need to reinvent myself, goat fucker. After all, I've been wiping the floor with your sorry ass for years.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 10 May, 2011 12:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, reduced budgets have nothing to do with the fact that fighters sat on the runway without orders and then flew off in the wrong direction. NORAD's alleged inability to intercept flight 93 one hundred minutes after the first indication of trouble was not the result of reduced budgets. F-16s fly at 1500 mph. F-15's fly at 1800 mph. A GAO report shows that in the early '90s, interception of unidentified was an everyday matter, with 1500 interceptions in 4 years.

UtterFail, you've been wiping the floor with your chin.

 
At 10 May, 2011 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

And you don't know the difference between my ass and your chin.

 
At 10 May, 2011 13:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, if I wanted a comeback, I'd wipe off your chin.

 
At 10 May, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your gay allusions are over my head.
I don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 10 May, 2011 13:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, if I want any lip from you, I'll jiggle my zipper.

 
At 10 May, 2011 14:16, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, reduced budgets have nothing to do with the fact that fighters sat on the runway without orders and then flew off in the wrong direction. NORAD's alleged inability to intercept flight 93 one hundred minutes after the first indication of trouble was not the result of reduced budgets. F-16s fly at 1500 mph. F-15's fly at 1800 mph. A GAO report shows that in the early '90s, interception of unidentified was an everyday matter, with 1500 interceptions in 4 years'.

This is utter bullshit, and you know it:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down

Now go and sniff Carol's panties, and dream of having sex with a mammal that doesn't have four legs.

 
At 10 May, 2011 15:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Bush assaulted free speech. Chilling it is assault. I was afraid to speak freely, I was even afraid to go to truther websites.

How did you overcome your fear?

 
At 10 May, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, 911myths is bullshit. The GAO report showed that intercepting unidentified planes was a routine matter (1500 times over 4 years), and unidentified planes are by definition planes without transponders.

RGT, I never did overcome my fear.

 
At 10 May, 2011 17:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, goat fucker?

Never mind that the statistics you cite are for the years 1990-1994; never mind that the Strategic Air Defense Command was disbanded in the mid-1990s; never mind that Garry debunked your lies as concerns NORAD on 14 January 2010.

Garry wrote, "...Three basic facts, Mongchild:

"(1) Due to the budget cuts in NORAD from the end of the Cold War to 2001, only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by to cover the Eastern seaboard of the USA.

"(2) The 'exercises' run by NORAD NEADS on 11th September 2001 were all CPEXes, so no real planes were in flight until the first hijackings were recorded.

"(3) NORAD (and this is something you truther cunts keep forgetting) is a bi-national command. So were the Canucks in on this 'inside job' or what?"


Garry debunks the goat fucker on 14 January 2010.

Typical troofer. When your propaganda and lies are debunked, slither back into your bomb shelter and return a couple of months later in order to repeat the same lies as though they were never debunked.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 10 May, 2011 19:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your allegations are simply not true.

There may have been only four planes on stand-by, but there were many more planes available than that.

When the NYV attacks were happening there were F-16s airborne near Atlantic City.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 10 May, 2011 20:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...There may have been only four planes on stand-by, but there were many more planes available than that."

That's your opinion. And the opinion of an insane Al Qaeda apologist isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

The goat fucker whines, "...When the NYV attacks were happening there were F-16s airborne near Atlantic City."

And what does that assertion prove?

Allow me to give you a conservative estimate: ZIP. NADA. ZILCH. NOTHING.

Again, your opinion is a waste of SLC's bandwidth.

As usual, you post feces and try to pass it off as a Porterhouse steak.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

 
At 10 May, 2011 21:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

More than four planes were scrambled.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Your ignorant claim that "no real planes were in flight until the first hijackings were recorded" is not true.

 
At 10 May, 2011 22:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Don't make groundless assertions--you ass. We don't want the opinion of a psychopath.

Prove it, or go fuck yourself.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 10 May, 2011 23:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you knew how to google you could find out for yourself.

No, I'm done doing research just to have you clowns lie about it.

 
At 10 May, 2011 23:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Generally historycommons is a good place to start.

 
At 11 May, 2011 03:08, Blogger Garry said...

'GAO report showed that intercepting unidentified planes was a routine matter (1500 times over 4 years), and unidentified planes are by definition planes without transponders'.

This is the report your referring to, Mr Sex Pest. Read it in full:

http://www.911myths.com/images/4/45/Continental_Air_Defence.pdf

Note in particular the title of the report 'Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force is No Longer Needed'. Note in particular its recommendations to save costs by reducing NORAD's assets (at least those provided by the USAF), and to use the Air National Guard as a substitute for regular USAF wings.

The stats you quote cover NORAD's US operations from 1989-1992, and they talk about scrambles (planes taking off) rather than actual interceptions. You have no stats for the period between 1993 and 2001, and no justification for extrapolating the figures you quote.

Furthermore, you still have to face the basic fact that this GAO report recommended reducing NORAD's assets and budget from Cold War levels, and that the requirement for a comprehensive air defence system can no longer be justified in the absence of any threat comparable to that posed by the USSR.

Learn to read your sources properly, you spastic.

 
At 11 May, 2011 08:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can read just fine, Garry, and I don't need a heap of 911myth ladled over my reading to aid my interpretation, either.

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

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".

It also says "suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity."

The "Scramble Activity" chart lists the 1518 incidents and the text comments that "only 7 percent of NORAD fighter intercepts
from 1989-92 were drug related".

7% of the activity is thus 7% of the intercepts. There is no breakout in the data for scrambles that failed to intercept.

 
At 11 May, 2011 09:26, Blogger Kevin said...

Dear Pat & James,

Please check your gmail accounts for a registered message from me from
5/5/2011 with the subject "Important: Defamation Notice".

Let me know if I should send it again.

Sincerely,
Kevin E. Houchin, Esq.

 
At 11 May, 2011 10:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, if you knew how to google you could find out for yourself."

I've forgotten more about "google" than you'll ever know, shit-for-brains.

It's not incumbent upon me to substantiate your idiotic assertions. The truth is simple: You won't substantiate your assertions because you can't. In other words, as always, you're lying.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

 
At 11 May, 2011 10:24, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, you're very simple, so I'll keep this as simple:

(1) You don't have any figures for scrambles or intercepts after 1992.

(2) The report highlights Congress' intention to reduce NORAD's funding and capabilities in the aftermath of the Cold War, when a comprehensive air defence network for the USA is no longer required.

(3) It doesn't prove your claim that the USA had an all-encompassing AD network which was suddenly stood down on 9/11. It proves that NORAD was reduced for budgetary reasons, because no one saw any need for it anymore once the USSR had collapsed.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you need me to draw this for you in crayons?

 
At 11 May, 2011 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 May, 2011 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I'll report the facts. There's no point in substantiating them when nobody here will bother to read the links and you and Ian will lie about them.

Garry, I said nothing about an all-encompassing air defense. I disputed UtterFail's lying claim that no fighters were in the air when the attacks began, and his misleading claim that "only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by".

The fact remains that the air defense was disrupted. The roster of crucial players who were absent that day is quite impressive, and the fact that the numbers of fighters had been reduced from cold-war levels is a red herring.
There were only four target aircraft, they only flew at 600 mph, and 1800 mph F-15s were allegedly not able to catch even one, though a C-130 managed to intercept two of them.

 
At 11 May, 2011 12:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

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

.htmThe 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"."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!



"I can read just fine, Garry"

Can you?

'cuz you liked to a GAO document titled: Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed

...and here's the best part:

(05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76).

The "05" signifies the month of May, the "03" means the third day of May, and "94" means the year 1994.

Yes, I just spelled that all out because it is clear that you are indeed that fucking stupid.

So once again you cite at source that undermines your own arguement.

 
At 11 May, 2011 12:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

"UtterFail, I'll report the facts. There's no point in substantiating them when nobody here will bother to read the links and you and Ian will lie about them."

Funny thing, on the rare occassion you do post a link, I read it, and you have yet to link to one that actually, when read in full, supports your claims.

Maybe that people keep pointing that out is why you refuse so often to provide them.

 
At 11 May, 2011 13:39, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I said nothing about an all-encompassing air defense. I disputed UtterFail's lying claim that no fighters were in the air when the attacks began, and his misleading claim that "only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by".'

Which just happens to be true. Read General Arnold's testimony (amongst others) here:

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

'The fact remains that the air defense was disrupted'.

Lie.

'The roster of crucial players who were absent that day is quite impressive',

List them.

'and the fact that the numbers of fighters had been reduced from cold-war levels is a red herring'.

Why? If NEADS only has four ANG aircraft on runways at Otis and Langley, and no standing CAPs, then what's it going to do? Ask its staff to levitate?

'There were only four target aircraft, they only flew at 600 mph, and 1800 mph F-15s were allegedly not able to catch even one,'

That's its maximum speed, spastic. That's its speed when it engages its afterburner, not its normal cruising speed, which is around 900mph.

'though a C-130 managed to intercept two of them'.

Er, that's a new one, Brian. Care to offer a source? Or are you on the substances again?

 
At 11 May, 2011 13:45, Blogger Garry said...

From 'The Airman' (the USAF's magazine). December 1999 edition:

'The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas'.

What's fourteen divided by seven, Brian? Do the math.

 
At 11 May, 2011 23:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

J Rebori, my links support my claims.

Shyam Sunder, for instance, told NOVA that "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... And it essentially came down in free fall."

That's what I said he said, and that's what he said. And Ian continues to lie about it.

Garry, the fact is, more than four fighters were scrambled were scrambled, so GutterBall's "only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by" specification and your "NEADS only has four ANG aircraft on runways" specification are both deceptive.

Why would you expect a fighter to fly at cruising speed when it was trying to intercept a hostile airliner?

If you don't know about the C-130H you're just ignorant.

 
At 12 May, 2011 09:07, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, the government, like you, illogically tried to frame the issue as "if you can't prove you were being wiretapped you have not case". The court found against them because the plaintiffs were able to show that they were injured by the mere fact of illegal wiretapping whether they could prove they had been wiretapped or not.

Complete nonsense. You cannot win a case because you think someone might be doping something wrong to you. At least thats how it is here in reality.

 
At 12 May, 2011 09:08, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

FYI Brian logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Stop throwing around words you don't understand.

 
At 12 May, 2011 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, the plaintiffs won their case in court. They won it because even though they could not prove they had been wiretapped, they could show that concern about the possibility of wiretaps was damaging them by forcing them to find inconvenient and expensive alternative means of communication with clients and witnesses and informants.

 
At 12 May, 2011 12:01, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the fact is, more than four fighters were scrambled were scrambled, so GutterBall's "only 4 Air National Guard planes were on stand-by" specification and your "NEADS only has four ANG aircraft on runways" specification are both deceptive'.

Where did these magical fighters appear from Brian? 2 from Otis AFB, 2 from Langley. That makes four. What's your problem?

Here's another quick question for you. If the Otis jets were scrambled between 8.46-8.52am, they were clearly too late to do anything about AA11, which had already hit the WTC North tower. The South tower got hit at 9.02am

So the two pilots (and they were flying F15s, not F16s) had ten to fifteen minutes to fly 150 miles and intercept UA175 not only before it reached the WTC, but before it was over New York city. They also had to think about small insignificant matters such as fuel consumption.

If you've got any doubts, you can always ask the two AFG pilots - Lt Col Timothy Duffy and Maj Daniel Nash - why it took them so long to act. Hopefully they'll kick the shit out of you, and save us a lot of bother.

 
At 12 May, 2011 12:02, Blogger Garry said...

'If you don't know about the C-130H you're just ignorant'.

Is that your way of saying that you've just made this shit up again, just as you did with the (non-existent) SAMs outside the Pentagon?

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

Garry, if you don't know about the C-130H you're just ignorant. If you don't know there were three fighters from Langley, you're just ignorant.

I'm not going to inventory all the planes for you. Do your homework.

The 9/11 timeline at historycommons is a good place to start.

 
At 13 May, 2011 18:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, if you're going to pretend that you can credibly claim that my links don't support my claims, then you[re going to have to provide an example. Otherwise your claim carries no more weight than any of the other bullshit you guys say around here.

Garry, your belief that a fighter jet out to intercept a hostile aircraft should fly at cruising speed is a real hoot.

If you never heard of the C-130H then you're just ignorant. And if you don't know that 3 fighters took off from Langley, you're just ignorant. And if, like GutterBall, you don't know that two fighters from Atlantic City were airborne at the time of the WTC attacks, you're just ignorant.
Do your homework.

 
At 15 May, 2011 01:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...And if, like GutterBall, you don't know that two fighters from Atlantic City were airborne at the time of the WTC attacks, you're just ignorant."

Nice straw man argument, goat fucker.

Care to substantiate your assertion with something more than the worthless say so of a proven compulsive liar and sex stalker?

FACT: I never denied that two fighters were airborne--and you know it, sex predator.

 
At 15 May, 2011 09:27, Blogger Garry said...

Stalker boy.

Having done something called 'research', I've just confirmed the following.

The two F15s at Otis took off at 08:53. They were too late to do anything about AA11. They engaged afterburners (my bad) to make the 150 miles distance between Otis and NYC, but were South of Long Island when UA175 from crashing into the Southern WTC tower (09:02). They were ordered into a holding pattern around LI until the FAA cleared US airspace of civilian aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

You could always try and approach the pilots (Lt Col Timothy Duffy and Maj Daniel Nash) and ask them why they didn't get to NYC sooner. Hopefully they'll do the human race a favour and fill you in.

 
At 15 May, 2011 09:44, Blogger Garry said...

The two F16s you refer to flying from Atlantic City were airborne, and were 8 minutes away from New York. They were also unarmed, because they were flying a training mission. That's a crucial little detail that our stalker friend has missed.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=all

 
At 16 May, 2011 12:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, the fact that the fighters were unarmed is irrelevant to their failure to intercept.

 
At 16 May, 2011 13:27, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the fact that the fighters were unarmed is irrelevant to their failure to intercept'.

You really are a special needs case, Brian.

'Unarmed' means no cannon rounds, no missiles, no nothing. 'Unarmed' means you can't shoot a fucking plane down.

Or did you think the F16 pilots from Atlantic City should have flown up to UA175, pointed their fingers at it, and shouted 'Bang'?

You complete and utter retard.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home