Saturday, August 06, 2011

NORAD's "Lies" Explained?

I have been perusing the blog of Miles Kara, a 9-11 Commission staffer. To be honest, it is a humbling experience, because it shows the vast amount of knowledge the Commission accumulated compared to the small amount that even I, who know the subject matter well, have managed to grasp. It's sort of like the difference between going to a movie and being on the set of a movie while it is being filmed.

Miles covers the NORAD "lies" here, and it's eye-opening to say the least.

There was one critical and two other serious mistakes in the timeline. The critical error was the 9:24 time for AA77. The accurate NEADS log information was: “American Airlines No. N334AA hijacked.” N334AA is the tail number for AA11, not AA77, a basic fact apparently never checked by any NORAD, CONR, or NEADS staff officer with either American Airlines or FAA.

The 8:43 time for UA175, was impossible and never explained in any document or during any interview conducted by the Commission staff. It was most likely a NORAD misunderstanding of information from FAA. That is the approximate time that UA175 was hijacked, a fact only known post facto.


So, the 9:24 time for Flight 77 is actually a time for what I call "Phantom Flight 11". For awhile NORAD and the FAA thought that Flight 11 was not the plane that hit the North Tower, and that it was still en route to Washington DC. This error becomes compounded:

On the day after the hearing Colonel Scott sent an e-mail to Colonel Marr, with a copy to the Commission staff, stating that it became easier to explain the Langley fighter scramble in terms of UA93 than AA77. It is clear from that email that neither Scott nor Marr, whose staff supported Scott, took the time to listen to the tapes or look at the actual transcripts. The NEADS staff, and Colonel Scott, had sufficient data available to them to find the rebirth of AA11 misinformation and the real reason for the Langley scramble. If they found it they did lie. If they did not they could not tell the truth. They could not solve their Sudoku puzzle.


Hence the erroneous assertion that the military found out about Flight 93 long before they did.

Labels: , , , ,

126 Comments:

At 06 August, 2011 15:28, Blogger steve_s said...

NEW DANISH DEBUNKING SITE. www.911facts.dk is a newly started Danish debunking site which takes up various Truther postulates suchas "No steel building has ever collapsed" or "We are just asking questions" and provides thorough refutations. The site is aimed at the Danish public, who are often victims of disinformation by nanothermite activist Niels Harrit and is Truther disciples.
Please add this site to your list of foreign debunking sites: www.911fact.dk
regards,
steve s

 
At 06 August, 2011 15:30, Blogger steve_s said...

sorry www.911facts.dk is the correct name for the site

 
At 06 August, 2011 19:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

And Brian Goode melt-down in 5...4...3...2...1

 
At 06 August, 2011 19:38, Blogger paul w said...

Off topic:

This is a fascinating talk about how we look at things.
As I believe the belief system of the truthers is their major feature, I think this talk is connected.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure.html

 
At 07 August, 2011 03:16, Blogger Pat said...

Steve S, we've added it to the other languages section in our sidebar.

Paul, that was a very cool and interesting lecture.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

If the Langley fighters were scrambled to protect against a phantom flight 11 that was en route from NYC to DC, how come they flew out to sea instead of trying to head off the phantom at Baltimore?

 
At 08 August, 2011 06:59, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian, why are you just asking questions and not finding answers?

 
At 08 August, 2011 09:39, Blogger Max said...

Brian - you know the answer to your question. It was fully explained in the Vanity Fair article you often cite. Just because you don't like the answer or can't cram it into your agenda doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

 
At 08 August, 2011 14:13, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

It's August 8th and there is still no Form 990 for AE911Truth for the year 2010 available. Guidestar gets those from the IRS, so I'm wondering if AE911Truth filed this year.

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

GMS, if NORAD feels free to lie to the 9/11 Commission, how could I trust what they told me?

VF said that the reason NORAD couldn't find the airliners was because there were too many blips. If that why the Langley planes flew out to sea--'cause there were fewer blips?

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

Brian, just shut the fuck up. You have comprehensively proven to everyone here that you don't know anything about anything. Just accept that whatever questions you may have about 9-11 are borne from your incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of education.

 
At 08 August, 2011 17:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I know you find it easy to accept stuff despite a lack of evidence for it, and in spite of evidence to the contrary, but you'll have to forgive those of us in the reality-based community that don't simply accept stuff that simply ain't true.

 
At 08 August, 2011 17:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, I just have one question for your oh-so-reality-based self.

What is 10 divided by 160,000, expressed as a percentage?

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:18, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, if NORAD feels free to lie to the 9/11 Commission, how could I trust what they told me?
Are they the only sources on the planet?

As we know Brian any source that doesn't say what you want to hear you don't trust.

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:22, Blogger roo said...

What is 10 divided by 160,000, expressed as a percentage?

Expressed as a percentage it's the widows unanswered questions.

Using long division, the answer is William Rodriquez is a not a hero, but rather a liar.

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:59, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

SEALS deaths were an inside jobbie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbHc1uWIRZs

Gotta be parody.
The man knows where his money is coming from, and does his job.

 
At 08 August, 2011 19:15, Blogger Max said...

"If that why the Langley planes flew out to sea--'cause there were fewer blips?"

If it doesn't involve creeping out a married woman you're just no good at it - are you?

Read the article or find someone to read it to you.

 
At 08 August, 2011 19:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

IOW, you can't answer the question?

 
At 08 August, 2011 20:13, Blogger paul w said...

It seems most of us wanted this one banned.

As this cannot be done, just ignore him.

The posts are becoming really, really boring.

Hands up those who actually gives a shit what Brian thinks?

 
At 08 August, 2011 20:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Triterope wrote, "...Brian, just shut the fuck up. You have comprehensively proven to everyone here that you don't know anything about anything. Just accept that whatever questions you may have about 9-11 are borne from your incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of education."

Bravo! Well said.

 
At 08 August, 2011 20:26, Blogger paul w said...

Brian will never shut up, his condition will not allow it.

Just no more pictures of him in his underwear. Please.

 
At 08 August, 2011 23:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

IOW, none of you can answer the question.

 
At 09 August, 2011 06:29, Blogger steve_s said...

TO PAT:
regarding the danish debunking site www.911facts.dk
the link you inserted on your right panel does not work. 911facts.dk is the correct site name.
keep it up...

 
At 09 August, 2011 06:30, Blogger steve_s said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 August, 2011 09:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian, you have probably heard this before and likely hand waved it away, but the Atlantic is military controlled air space. By that point there was no target.

 
At 09 August, 2011 09:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, the story goes that the planes were scrambled because of a threat.

The supposed threat was allegedly phantom radar blips that someone (IIRC no one knows who) interpreted as flight 11, still in the air and headed for DC.

This story would appear to be the 9/11 Commission's invention when faced with the problem of explaining why planes were scrambled while maintaining the fiction that NORAD had not yet been notified of flight 77.

In any case, the officials tell us the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to a threat. I'll leave it to you to niggle over the semantical differences between a "target" and a "threat".

Despite this, instead of proceeding toward the place where the threat might reasonably be expected to be found, the planes headed straight out to sea. It's as if the fire department got an alarm, and immediately headed down to the lake, 'cause that's where they always go for a barbeque.

You guys constantly act not like journalists but like lawyers for the defense.

 
At 09 August, 2011 10:11, Blogger Max said...

But a clear shootdown order wouldn't have made a difference. The Langley fighters were headed the wrong way—due east, straight out to sea into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington, which neads believed was under attack. According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite having been given the order from neads to fly to Washington, the pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan out to sea—a flight plan dating from the Cold War. As one pilot later told the commission, "I reverted to the Russian threat—I'm thinking cruise-missile threat from the sea."

 
At 09 August, 2011 10:13, Blogger Max said...

Go find that pilot Brian and tell him how you would have done his job.

If only you were in charge that morning...

Wait a minute - why weren't you in charge? Are you involved in the whole conspiracy yourself???

 
At 09 August, 2011 10:32, Blogger Pat said...

Fixed it Steve, sorry for the mistake.

 
At 09 August, 2011 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Max, your answer doesn't answer the question. Why weren't the pilots told where to go to meet the alleged threat? And why did they revert to Cold War practice? Were these pilots the only guys in the USA who didn't know that airliners were being flown into buildings? Did they think the airliners were coming from Bermuda?

The "shootdown" issue is a straw man, and that doesn't answer the question about why the pilots flew out to sea. The job of NORAD is to intercept the airliner, establish communication with it, and order it to land.

It's interesting that you bring up the question of who was in charge. About eight key people were absent from their posts that morning, as it turns out.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Were these pilots the only guys in the USA who didn't know that airliners were being flown into buildings?"

At the time they were scrambled there was no confirmation that a plane had hit the WTC.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:22, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, Brian is babbling about endless innuendo again! What a surprise!

Brian, can you tell us why the fighters headed out into the Atlantic, or are you going to run away squealing and crying as usual with a "I don't know why the fighters headed out into the Atlantic"?

 
At 09 August, 2011 21:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you make up your facts. Tens of millions saw flight 175 hit live on TV at 9:03, and tens of millions more heard about it on the radio.

Maybe if you would check your statements before writing them down you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

Ian, I don't know why the fighters headed out into the Atlantic. That's what I've been asking since the top of the thread. Nobody can say.

 
At 10 August, 2011 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, as usual you make up your facts. Tens of millions saw flight 175 hit live on TV at 9:03, and tens of millions more heard about it on the radio.

Maybe if you would check your statements before writing them down you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.


My, such squealing!

Ian, I don't know why the fighters headed out into the Atlantic. That's what I've been asking since the top of the thread. Nobody can say.

See what I mean?

Brian, I can tell you why the fighters headed out into the Atlantic, but first, you must admit that you are petgoat and that you ran away squealing and crying from a debate with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 10 August, 2011 08:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I can't admit to what isn't true.

 
At 10 August, 2011 09:47, Blogger Max said...

Brian - you asked why the aircraft flew over the ocean and the pilot says why in his statement.

Do you not understand what he said or do you just not believe it?

And thanks for filling me in on NORAD's "job".

For a person who knows more than anyone else you are certainly an underachiever.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Max, you seem unable to distinguish between the question I asked ("Why did the fighters fly out to sea") and the question you answered ("Why did the pilot fly out to sea.")

The question remains: why was the pilot not told to intercept the alleged threat somewhere around Baltimore? You don't send the fire department out to drive around looking for the fire. You tell them where the fire is.

Where do you get the idea I'm an underachiever? You have not a clue as to what I've achieved.

 
At 10 August, 2011 14:03, Blogger Max said...

Brian - I can't believe our military doesn't have you on some sort of 24/7 on-call consulting program.

You know - with them being so stupid and clueless (and/or evil) and you being all that is smart and good...

Brian - you've accomplished NOTHING in life. You have always rubbed people the wrong way and you always will.

 
At 10 August, 2011 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

In other words, you can't answer the question and you prefer to wax rhapsodic on your fantasies about the questioner.

 
At 10 August, 2011 18:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Who cares about your irrelevant question, shit stain?

When will you learn, cretin? Questions are not evidence.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I can't admit to what isn't true.

Brian, it is true that you're a liar, and that you're petgoat, and that you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, and that you ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Willie Rodriguez.

Want to try again?

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

In other words, you can't answer the question and you prefer to wax rhapsodic on your fantasies about the questioner.

What questions? We just see you babbling about nothing in this thread. The fact that you think you have questions goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Why did the fighters fly out to sea" was the question, and nobody's answered it.

 
At 10 August, 2011 21:18, Blogger Ian said...

"Why did the fighters fly out to sea" was the question, and nobody's answered it.

They flew out to sea because that was the procedure they were set to follow. This is not hard to figure out for people who aren't deranged liars who failed at mopping floors for a living.

 
At 10 August, 2011 23:15, Blogger J Rebori said...

""Why did the fighters fly out to sea" was the question, and nobody's answered it."

Langley's air strip points out to sea across the mouth of the Chesapeake bay. The fighters took off and, following SOP, went to a loiter point where they awaited instructions before proceeding. The loiter point and the SOP were Cold War relics envisioning an approach from over the ocean, never having been intended to attempt to intercept a civilian craft already within the US borders.

That was pointed out to you already, and is what the pilot said they did.

 
At 11 August, 2011 00:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why were the pilots not informed about the nature of the threat to which they were allegedly scrambled to respond?

They just flew where the runway pointed. That's classic, JR!

 
At 11 August, 2011 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

Why were the pilots not informed about the nature of the threat to which they were allegedly scrambled to respond?

Who says they weren't? I mean, you do, but you're an unemployed lunatic who wears women's underwear, believes in magic thermite elves, and was kicked out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet. Nobody cares what you think.

They just flew where the runway pointed. That's classic, JR!

Brian with his endless arguments from incredulity. Unfortunately, Brian, the incredulity of a liar and lunatic like you doesn't count for much. Maybe you should ask someone who knows how to mop floors competently to post here for you?

 
At 11 August, 2011 06:32, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Why were the pilots not informed about the nature of the threat to which they were allegedly scrambled to respond?"

Pilots are given the order to scramble over the next several minutes they are finishing doning gear, climbing aboard, finishing the take off check lists, taking off, forming up with wingmates and whoever else has been sent up. Then when they can pay some attention, they are given their orders. That is why they have a prearranged spot to gather at and to be vectored out of once they are formed up.

They just flew where the runway pointed. That's classic, JR!

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that planes take off across runways? Of course they took off in the direction the runway pointed, and some miles away they formed up to be sent where they were needed, that puts them over the Atlantic. Try reading a map.

 
At 11 August, 2011 07:07, Blogger Ian said...

J Rebori, you have to remember, Brian is an unemployed janitor and thus can't afford to travel anywhere by airplane, and thus he experience with how air traffic control works.

On this topic, as with so many others, Brian believes in the cartoon version of reality.

 
At 11 August, 2011 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you are distracting with minutiae. Who cares about clipboards? Answer the question: Why were the pilots not told where the alleged threat could be found?

Like most debunkers, you are trying to make the unreasonable seem inevitable.

 
At 11 August, 2011 10:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How many times have I explained this to you, goat fucker? A dozen?

The hijackers turned the airliners' transponders OFF.

 
At 11 August, 2011 11:06, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, you are distracting with minutiae. Who cares about clipboards? Answer the question: Why were the pilots not told where the alleged threat could be found?"

That "minutiae" is reality, sorry if you want a world where jet fighters just need a quick button push to take off, but that isn't reality. And I never mentioned clipboards, your comment about them just proves how little you know about fighters.

Your question was why did the planes fly out to sea, now you want to change it. I'll take that as your admission my explanation for why they flew out to sea is too strong for you to actually disprove.

They weren't told where to fly because NORAD didn't know where the other planes were. You have had that explained to you repeatedly. You are simply too fucking stupid to grasp a basic concept. With the transponders off NORAD could not immediatly identify nor track the planes to allow for interception over some of the most crowded air space in the whole world.

"Like most debunkers, you are trying to make the unreasonable seem inevitable."

Like most "truthers" you are trying to avoid believing reality.

 
At 11 August, 2011 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the transponders are a non-issue. NORAD didn't need ID and altitude to identify the flights. All they needed to do was catch the blips moving 600 mph that had no transponders. How many of those were there?

JR, you continue to distract with minutiae. How come the pilots didn't know where the alleged threat of the phantom flight 11 was?

That's the question I've posed repeatedly, and that's the question none of you are answering.

 
At 11 August, 2011 13:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...the transponders are a non-issue. NORAD didn't need ID and altitude to identify the flights. All they needed to do was catch the blips moving 600 mph that had no transponders. How many of those were there?"

False.

Willfully omitting relevant information now, shit stain?

What's this, goat fucker?

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

Thus, we can see that "ID and altitude to identify the flights" are not the only data supplied by a transponder. A transponder is ESSENTIAL in order for air traffic regulators to identify the aircraft on radar.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your dishonesty, goat fucker.

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 13:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"UtterFail, the transponders are a non-issue. NORAD didn't need ID and altitude to identify the flights."

Actually they did. Obviously they did.

"All they needed to do was catch the blips moving 600 mph that had no transponders. How many of those were there?"

How can a murdering war-criminal such as yourself know so little about basic military technology?

 
At 11 August, 2011 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, there is no need to identify the aircraft when there are only 4 transponderless aircraft flying around at 600 mph.

You guys substitute the aggressive assertion of irrelevancies for substance.

 
At 11 August, 2011 15:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...there is no need to identify the aircraft when there are only 4 transponderless [SIC] aircraft flying around at 600 mph."

Good job, spelling bee champ.

450-600 mph is standard cruising speed for an airliner. Practically EVERY airliner over the east coast was traveling at that speed. Thus, the air traffic regulator's job of identifying the hijacked airliners (transponders turned OFF) was virtually impossible given all the air traffic over the east coast on that day. Only a painstaking process of elimination could have identified the aircraft, and by that time it would have been too late.

[1] Flight A11 was hijacked at 8:13 EDT and crashed at 8:46 EDT, which is a duration of 33 minutes.

[2] Flight UA175 was hijacked at 8:47 EDT and crashed at 9:03 EDT, which is a duration of 16 minutes.

[3] Flight AA77 was hijacked at 8:56 EDT and crashed at 9:37 EDT, which is a duration of 41 minutes.

[4] Flight UA 93 was hijacked at 9:28 EDT and crashed at 10:03 EDT, which is a duration of 35 minutes.

Thus, there simply wasn't enough time to complete a process of elimination given the high volume of air traffic flying over the east coast on that day. Furthermore, it took NORAD 81 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's Lear Jet, AND STEWART'S TRANSPONDER WAS FUNCTIONING.

Clearly, you know even less about flying than you do about physics, mathematics or chemistry.

Stick to pseudo-science and wearing women's underwear, goat fucker. You're clearly out of your league.

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, the transponders are a non-issue. NORAD didn't need ID and altitude to identify the flights. All they needed to do was catch the blips moving 600 mph that had no transponders. How many of those were there?

Brian, what makes you so entertaining is not only that you're an idiot, but that you proudly display your idiocy as some sort of sign of superiority.

Most stupid people have some grasp of how dumb they are, I suspect, but you're too mentally ill to grasp it.

 
At 11 August, 2011 16:45, Blogger Ian said...

How come the pilots didn't know where the alleged threat of the phantom flight 11 was?

Transponders. Shut off. Learn to Google.

Why do you think the hijackers shut the transponders off, Brian?

 
At 11 August, 2011 16:47, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, there is no need to identify the aircraft when there are only 4 transponderless aircraft flying around at 600 mph.

We should listen to him, guys. He's the former director of the FAA.

Oh wait, he's actually an unemployed janitor and liar who wears women's underwear and calls people "girls" on the internet all day.

 
At 11 August, 2011 16:48, Blogger Ian said...

You guys substitute the aggressive assertion of irrelevancies for substance.

I think you meant "you girls", Brian.

Also, you're squealing again. Please stop.

 
At 11 August, 2011 17:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

There's nothing like seeing Brian's mind turn into a melted jello pudding pop.

 
At 11 August, 2011 19:15, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, you continue to distract with minutiae. How come the pilots didn't know where the alleged threat of the phantom flight 11 was?"

You have asked many questions, all of them answered. That I answered one doesn't mean I have to repeat answers you got to your other questions.

But as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there were hundreds of aircraft flying in that region, 4 of which had had their transponders turned off. The only way to identify those would have been to look at every blip on the scope one at a time, see if you had a transponder reading from it, if not, wait a cycle to make sure it isn't a false return, then vector in the waiting fighters from their loiter points.

Oh yeah, and hope you hadn't picked an aircraft that innocently had a malfunctioning transponder instead of the actual ones you wanted.

Just how fast do you think that can be done?

 
At 11 August, 2011 19:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Mr. Dataspam, you didn't deal with the fact that only four planes were flying at 600 mph that had no transponders.

JR, you have never explained why the pilots were not told where the alleged threat was.

You guys just blather and blather and blather, and never explain. Just as with Bushbots, your inept arguments convince me I'm right.

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, Mr. Dataspam, you didn't deal with the fact that only four planes were flying at 600 mph that had no transponders."

False.

Cruising speed for a Boeing 767 is 678 MPH (~Mach 0.8). There were MANY airliners flying over the east coast on that day, and they were flying in excess of 600 MPH.

You make up your "facts."

"...The planes hit the towers at very high speeds. Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the 1 WTC, the north tower; flight 175 hit 2 WTC, the south tower, at about 590 mph (950 km/h)." -- Wikipedia

Again, you make up your facts.

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, there were only four blips flying at 600 mph that lacked transponders.

Your irrelevant dataspam is only a distraction.

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:34, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, Mr. Dataspam, you didn't deal with the fact that only four planes were flying at 600 mph that had no transponders.

Do you have a point, Brian?

JR, you have never explained why the pilots were not told where the alleged threat was.

Who says they weren't?

You guys just blather and blather and blather, and never explain. Just as with Bushbots, your inept arguments convince me I'm right.

Ah, there it is: the hopeless squealing of a failed janitor who has nothing in his wasted life but 9/11 truth.

Hey Brian, did you get a new investigation yet? Did the widows have their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:35, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, there were only four blips flying at 600 mph that lacked transponders.

Yes Brian, you've repeated this piece of dumbspam many times. You still haven't told us why we're supposed to care.

Your irrelevant dataspam is only a distraction.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, there were only four blips flying at 600 mph that lacked transponders."

False.

Trying to pass your lying opinion off as "fact" again, goat fucker?

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 21:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, please provide more information on your fascinating theory that more than four transponderless aircraft were flying around at 600 mph on 9/11.

 
At 11 August, 2011 23:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFail, please provide more information on your fascinating theory that more than four transponderless aircraft were flying around at 600 mph on 9/11."

I've already proven my point, cretin (see the cruising speed of a 767. The cruising speed for a Boeing 767 is 678 MPH [~Mach 0.8]). On the contrary, why don't you substantiate your idiotic and utterly false claim that only 4 airliners were traveling at 600 MPH on 9/11?

You won't substantiate your claim, because, as usual, you're lying.

You are, moreover, contradicting yourself again--you insane liar.

What's this, goat fucker?

"...UtterFail, there were only four blips flying at 600 mph that lacked transponders." -- The goat fucker lying through his terracotta teeth.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, asshole?

Of course you are.

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, thanks for showing that you can't substantiate your claims, and must instead substitute dataspam and invective for substance.

 
At 11 August, 2011 23:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

I substantiated my claim--you illiterate, double talking liar.

So where's the evidence to substantiate your assertion that says only four airliners on the east coast were traveling at 600 MPH on 9/11?

I won't hold my breath--you insane liar.

FAIL

 
At 12 August, 2011 06:40, Blogger J Rebori said...

So on a thread where I explained why your idiotic "there were only 4 transponderless aircraft, how hard could it be" bullshit and your "why did the pilots fly out to sea" inanity are both completely divorced from reality you just keep switching questions hoping to save your absurd position.

As for your latest "why weren't the pilots told?"screed. I answered that too. But you are just too fucking idiotic to realize that since NORAD didn't know where the planes were, they couldn't tell the fighters where they were.

You get dumber by the day.

 
At 12 August, 2011 08:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you are playing dumb. I never said only four airliners on the east coast were traveling at 600 MPH on 9/11. I said only four airliners on the east coast were traveling at 600 MPH on 9/11 with the transponders off.

JR, you did not answer why the pilots were not told where the alleged threat was.

 
At 12 August, 2011 09:29, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, you did not answer why the pilots were not told where the alleged threat was."

Your lies have become down right blatant.

Directly above your post I answered it. Here is my quote again:

"since NORAD didn't know where the planes were, they couldn't tell the fighters where they were."

You have apparently reached a point of sheer desperation to avoid reality.

 
At 12 August, 2011 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

So there you go again with another non-answer.

Why did the fighters fly out to sea when they were supposedly launched in response to radar blips indicating a flight from NYC toward DC?

Answer 1: The pilots didn't know where to go.

Answer 2: Nobody told the pilots where to go.

Answer 3: NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat was.

Why didn't NORAD know where the alleged threat was?

Do you honestly think FAA called up NORAD and asked for fighters and didn't say why or where?

I've reached exasperation, not desperation.

Why do you answer like you've got something to hide?

 
At 12 August, 2011 17:07, Blogger J Rebori said...

I answer like someone who expects not to have to fucking spoonfeed you every god damn step. Since you would rather appear a moron rather than admit your position is wrong, I'll walk you through the whole god damn thing in small baby steps.

FAA lost contact with a number of aircraft when their transponders stopped transmitting and called NORAD for assistance.

SInce the transponders were off, FCC couldn't just hand them off as usual, they had to be found among hundreds, at least, of other aircraft. That required a painstaking and time consuming examination of all the contacts on the radars in the suspected areas.

While that was happening the fighters were scrambled and went to their predetermined loiter points to be ready to respond when those planes were located.

Since those pilots took off before the hijacked planes could be indentified no one was able to tell them where the planes were

The only one here who can't grasp this is you.

 
At 13 August, 2011 09:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, like most of youse here you substitute attitude for fact.

You don't know what you'te talking about. FAA only lost flight 77, not "a number of aircraft". According to Bronner, FAA even told NORAD when flight 11 was 35 miles north of Brooklyn. According to the 9/11 Commission, flight 77 has nothing to do with the issue of the Langley fighters.

Finding the airliners should not have been difficult, because they would be the only four aircract in the sky moving at 600 mph that had no transponders.

Simply saying "the fighters ... went to their predetermined loiter points" does not answer the question.

According to the 9/11 Commission the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to false radar blips that FAA believed to be flight 11 heading toward DC. Thus the location of the alleged threat was known. Your claim that the planes could not be identified is simply not true. You make up your facts and then pretend that you know.

The question remains: when the alleged reason for the scrambling of the planes was that flight 11 was believed to be approaching DC, why did they not fly to Baltimore where they could reasonably expect to find the alleged threat?

You substitution of invective for answers is just dumb.

 
At 14 August, 2011 14:38, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Finding the airliners should not have been difficult, because they would be the only four aircract in the sky moving at 600 mph that had no transponders."

And that is the biggest proof of your nature.

Why that statement is wrong has been explained to you over and over. Several times in this thread and repeatedly in others. You simply ignore the explaination and repeat the absurd claim again later.

You are either too stupid to understand a simple concept or you are unwilling to face reality that doesn't agree with your fantasies. On most boards with that ability you would have been banned as a troll long ago

As for invective, anyone who cares can look back through our interactions here. I was civil to you until you refused to admit a basic simple error. Then I pointed out your idiocy. Later you decided to get personal, and I decided to treat you like the kind of scum who would try to use dead friends to try to slap at me. So now I simply insult you and point out just how stupid you are.

That is all you have come to deserve. You have squandered any right to civil discourse you might have ever had by your own personal attacks, refusal to be intellectually honest, and sheer blindness to reality.

 
At 14 August, 2011 15:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bravo! Well said, JR.

 
At 14 August, 2011 16:33, Blogger Ian said...

JR, like most of youse here you substitute attitude for fact.

Says the pathetic liar who writes "youse" and "y'all" all the time in some deranged attempt and appearing folksy, or something.

You don't know what you'te talking about.

Brian, the only person here who doesn't know what he's talking about is you. That's understandable, given that you're an unemployed janitor. Just don't expect anyone to take your babbling seriously. Expect a lot of laughter from people who actually understand what happened on 9/11.

 
At 14 August, 2011 22:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

IOW,JR, you still can't answer the question, and substitute invective for facts.

Ian, I use "youse" and "Y'all" in an effort to be grammatically precise. I don't need to appear folksy. I am folksy.

 
At 15 August, 2011 09:20, Blogger J Rebori said...

"IOW,JR, you still can't answer the question"

Your blatant lie does not become true simply because you insist it is. Anyone who cares to verify that you are indeed incapable of acting as an honest debater need only read through your passt postings and the lies become selfevident. The answer has been given to you repeatedly. Your refusal to admit it is simply an extension of your basic dishonesty.

As always, I have no fear about being judged the one in the right by any of the quiet lurkers come here to measure for themselves the value of our respective arguments.

"and substitute invective for facts."

You think that is invective? That isn't invective, This is invective.

You are a dickless wonder with the brains of a turd of horseshit. You have less honesty than a crossdressing hooker. You are too fucking stupid to remember which end of your cock to slip your favorite goat without pictures.

That is invective, maybe had you spent some time in the real world instead of always on the internet you would have heard similar. Next time, don't tell a sailor he's using invective unless you want to hear some real invective, moron.

 
At 15 August, 2011 10:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 August, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can not answer the question. Why were the pilots not informed about the whereabouts of the alleged threat in response to which they were allegedly scrambled?

Your statement that NORAD did not know where the threat was is not an answer. Why didn't NORAD know where the threat was? How do you know they didn't know where the threat was?

The quality of your invective reflects the quality of your mind. You'd think someone who claims to be a New Yorker could do better than your second-rate imitations of a third-string player like GutterBall.

You are playing dumb to avoid the issue. Why is that? What are you trying to hide?

 
At 15 August, 2011 12:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

We've already answered your question, goat fucker.

That you're too dishonest and underhanded to acknowledge our perfectly rational explanation is an indictment of your alleged "intellectual integrity"--which can be measured in negative engineering units.

But then again, should we expect less from a cretin who tried to covert acceleration to a velocity?

Have you ever wondered what life would have been like if you'd got enough oxygen at birth?

 
At 15 August, 2011 14:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have not answered the question, and your defensiveness shows how dishonest you are being about it.

It's like if you asked the babysitter "How did my child come to drown in the pool?" and she keeps going on about water in lungs, and the inevitable effects of gravity, and how artificial respiration can't be expected to work after 3 hours face down in the water, and then claims she's explained how the child died. Gravity, stupid!

How do you know NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat was? Aren't you just making up that fact because you think it makes sense? Who told you NORAD didn't know where the threat was?

 
At 15 August, 2011 15:40, Blogger Ian said...

You have not answered the question, and your defensiveness shows how dishonest you are being about it.

Brian, the question has been answered. You just don't like that JR has pwn3d you so now you're going to try to bury his answer in dumbspam.

It's like if you asked the babysitter "How did my child come to drown in the pool?" and she keeps going on about water in lungs, and the inevitable effects of gravity, and how artificial respiration can't be expected to work after 3 hours face down in the water, and then claims she's explained how the child died. Gravity, stupid!

See what I mean?

 
At 15 August, 2011 15:42, Blogger Ian said...

How do you know NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat was? Aren't you just making up that fact because you think it makes sense? Who told you NORAD didn't know where the threat was?

Seek professional help, Brian. You're really losing it.

 
At 15 August, 2011 16:30, Blogger J Rebori said...

"How do you know NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat was? Aren't you just making up that fact because you think it makes sense? Who told you NORAD didn't know where the threat was?"

Nothing like you proving how incapable you are of string together a simple piece of logic.

Norad didn't know where the planes were because the FAA couldn't tell them.

The FAA couldn't tell them because the FAA didn't know where they were.

The FAA didn't know where they were because THE FUCKING TRANSPONDERS WERE TURNED OFF.

And as been pointed out to you repeatedly the job of ixolating those planes from all the other contacts, real and false, on the areas radars wasn't a trivial problem.

Therefore, NORAD scrambled the fighters without knowing where the threat was, and couldn't tell the pilots.

QED, MF.

 
At 15 August, 2011 18:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...How do you know NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat was? Aren't you just making up that fact because you think it makes sense? Who told you NORAD didn't know where the threat was?"

The answer is simple. The 9/11 Commission Report told us the following about FAA and NEADS awareness of the flight 77 hijacking--and I quote:

"...FAA Awareness. American 77 began deviating from its flight plan at 8:54, with a slight turn toward the south. Two minutes later, it disappeared completely from radar at Indianapolis Center, which was controlling the flight...The controller tracking American 77 told us he noticed the aircraft turning to the southwest, and then saw the data disappear. The controller looked for primary radar returns. He searched along the plane’s projected flight path and the airspace to the southwest where it had started to turn. No primary targets appeared. He tried the radios, first calling the aircraft directly, then the airline. Again there was nothing. At this point, the Indianapolis controller had no knowledge of the situation in New York. He did not know that other aircraft had been hijacked. He believed American 77 had experienced serious electrical or mechanical failure, or both, and was gone."

So, goat fucker, what part of "it disappeared completely from radar at Indianapolis Center" don't you understand?

Is this another example of your stellar "research skills"?

You're an idiot.

Check and mate.

FAIL

 
At 15 August, 2011 18:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The 9/11 Commission Report continues, "...The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying...In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C."

Check and mate.

FAIL

 
At 15 August, 2011 18:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So much for the goat fucker's alleged stellar "research skills."

Beyond parody.

 
At 15 August, 2011 19:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Recall what I wrote at time stamp 11 August, 2011 15:21:

[3] Flight AA77 was hijacked at 8:56 EDT and crashed at 9:37 EDT, which is a duration of 41 minutes.

Thus, "American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C." That means the air traffic regulators and NORAD had approximately 5 minutes to intercept American flight 77.

Proof:

41 minutes - 36 minutes = 5 minutes

As a result, the air traffic regulators and NORAD didn't have enough to time to intervene.

Check and mate.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 15 August, 2011 22:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

So JR, you're going to claim that FAA didn't know where were the alleged radar blips they saw that inspired them to call NORAD? Wow! You have evidence for this?

UtterFail, flight 77 has nothing to do with this, and if you were not so ignorant about 9/11 you'd know that.

 
At 15 August, 2011 22:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you still can't explain why the NRDC's claim was absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized. That's because you not only don;t know the first thing about flight 77, you don't know the first thing about the construction of the twin towers, either.

 
At 16 August, 2011 08:52, Blogger J Rebori said...

"So JR, you're going to claim that FAA didn't know where were the alleged radar blips they saw that inspired them to call NORAD? Wow! You have evidence for this?"

Try to keep some contact with reality, moron.

FAA wasn't calling NORAD because they had radar contacts they couldn't identify, they were calling them because they didn't have radar contacts they should have had.

Once again we see you intentionally falsifying my statements and the facts.

And by the way, regarding your other comment, there was no "alleged" regarding the scramble of fighters. They were indeed scrambled or you wouldn't be straining your tiny mind trying to understand the obvious reasons they went to a loiter point over the Atlantic. Hell, even you have claimed they were launched.

Now we see that you will even lie about your own claims.

 
At 16 August, 2011 10:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...flight 77 has nothing to do with this, and if you were not so ignorant about 9/11 you'd know that."

False.

Pat's OP makes direct reference to Flight 77. In fact, you can't understand the air traffic regulators' dilemma until you understand what happened to Flight 77.

Furthermore, you can't follow a simple time line without making major errors.

Now pay attention, stupid.

For example, confusion reigned on that morning. Regulators had no idea that we were under terrorist attack until AFTER Flight UA175 slammed into the South Tower at 9:03 EDT. Thus, NORAD didn't have a CHANCE IN HELL OF STOPPING Flight UA175. After all, Flight UA175 remained in the air for only 16 MINUTES after it was hijacked. FACT: 16 minutes is simply not enough time to intercept an airliner with a disabled transponder, let alone locate Flight UA175.

Thus, we can see that it's YOU who doesn't understand a thing about the events of 11 September 2001. Hell, you're such a liar and an idiot that you can't follow a simple time line, which I'll reproduce below:

[1] Flight A11 was hijacked at 8:13 EDT and crashed at 8:46 EDT, which is a duration of 33 minutes.

[2] Flight UA175 was hijacked at 8:47 EDT and crashed at 9:03 EDT, which is a duration of 16 minutes.

[3] Flight AA77 was hijacked at 8:56 EDT and crashed at 9:37 EDT, which is a duration of 41 minutes.

[4] Flight UA 93 was hijacked at 9:28 EDT and crashed at 10:03 EDT, which is a duration of 35 minutes.

The remainder of your comment is a straw man argument. And we always can tell when the you're losing the "debate," because you constantly resort to the idiotic "424,000 tons of WTC concrete" straw man. After all, everyone knows that when your back is against the wall, it's time to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Learn to read, idiot--and shove your revisionist history up your ass. And if you ever decide to get a real education, learn to follow a time line, jackass.

Pathetic.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 11:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

It's also clear that you have no idea how FAA or NORAD protocol works.

For example, when Payne Stewart's LearJet began to veer off course, air traffic regulators tried to contact Stewart by radio request at 9:33:38 EDT. The air traffic regulators, however, didn't contact NORAD until 9:55 EDT. That's 21 minutes after the problem came to the air traffic regulator's attention.

Given the aforementioned FACTS, how can you possibly claim that NORAD had a chance to intercept Flight UA175? After all, Flight UA175 was only in the air for 16 minutes after the hijackers took control of the flight? Flight UA175's transponder, moreover, was turned OFF by the hijackers in order to elude detection by air traffic regulators.

You're full-of-shit, goat fucker.

Furthermore, you couldn't find you ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

You're an idiot--not to mention a revisionist history spewing liar.

Pathetic.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 13:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you don't know what you're talking about. The Langley fighters were scrambled allegedly because of reports that flight 11 was headed for DC.

I think you're playing dumb to try to cover over the fact that you can't answer the question.

UtterFail, as usual you are burying your inability to answer the questioon under a whole lot of dataspam.

 
At 16 August, 2011 15:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

JR, you don't know what you're talking about.

Brian's translation: "You're right JR, I'm confused and I don't understand you."

 
At 16 August, 2011 15:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...as usual you are burying your inability to answer the questioon [SIC] under a whole lot of dataspam."

Good job, spelling bee champ.

I answered your question, and, in the process, I proved that you're a liar and an idiot who knows nothing about 9/11.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

You did not answer the question. How do you know that NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat of phantom flight 11 was? Why wasn't NORAD told where the alleged threat of phantom flight 11 was?

Flight 77 has nothing to do with it. You not only don't have the answer, you don't even know the question.

 
At 16 August, 2011 17:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I already answered your question, asshole.

The transponders were turned OFF. And as I proved above, when the transponder is turned OFF the aircraft disappears from the primary and secondary radar.

Flight 77 is a perfect example of this phenomenon--and I quote:

"...American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C."

Now answer the question, goat fucker:

Given the aforementioned FACTS, how can you possibly claim that NORAD had a chance to intercept Flight UA175? After all, Flight UA175 was only in the air for 16 minutes after the hijackers took control of the flight?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the plane does not disappear from primary when the transponder is turned off.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Failure to intercept 175 is not the issue. The fact that they didn't even try is.

 
At 16 August, 2011 18:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

And neither you nor JR has yet answered the question I posed NINE DAYS AGO about why the Langley fighters were not vectored to Baltimore.

You guys are lame.

 
At 16 August, 2011 19:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 August, 2011 19:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...the plane does not disappear from primary when the transponder is turned off."

False.

The 9/11 Commission wrote, "...The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying...American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C."

And you failed to answer my question--a question which I've asked you at least a dozen times in this thread alone.

END OF DEBATE. YOU LOSE BY DEFAULT. STONEWALLING IS NOT "DEBATE," IT'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 19:36, Blogger J Rebori said...

"And neither you nor JR has yet answered the question I posed NINE DAYS AGO about why the Langley fighters were not vectored to Baltimore.

You guys are lame."


And true to form, after having the answer repeatedly given to him, carefully explained over and over, the moron simply claims it hasn't been given and tries to start the merry-go-round again.

Anyone with a mind can read the posts and see for themselves that you have changed the question, repeated proven falsehoods, and ignored actual answers when they were given.

You are doing a great job of proven just how doctrinaire and afraid of real facts and explanations the "truth" movement is. Keep up the good work and it will have disappeared by the 15th anniversary.

 
At 16 August, 2011 21:10, Blogger Ian said...

You did not answer the question. How do you know that NORAD didn't know where the alleged threat of phantom flight 11 was? Why wasn't NORAD told where the alleged threat of phantom flight 11 was?

Brian, your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers since they demonstrate that you're a hopeless liar and ignorant lunatic, so you just post dumbspam to bury the answers.

I wonder what Laurie Van Auken would think of that?

 
At 16 August, 2011 21:10, Blogger Ian said...

And neither you nor JR has yet answered the question I posed NINE DAYS AGO about why the Langley fighters were not vectored to Baltimore.

See what I mean?

 
At 17 August, 2011 00:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you keep babbling about AA 77 even though it has nothing to do with the issue. And the plane does not disappear from primary radar when the transponder is turned off. You don't know what you're talking about.

JR, you have never explained why you believe that NORAD did not know about the reports that flight 11 was approaching DC. Nor have you explained why these reports were not communicated to NORAD, if in fact they were not communicated.

 
At 17 August, 2011 05:16, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, you keep babbling about AA 77 even though it has nothing to do with the issue. And the plane does not disappear from primary radar when the transponder is turned off. You don't know what you're talking about.

More dumbspam in a desperate attempt to obscure the fact that he's been pwn3d.

JR, you have never explained why you believe that NORAD did not know about the reports that flight 11 was approaching DC. Nor have you explained why these reports were not communicated to NORAD, if in fact they were not communicated.

Poor Brian. Life is tough when you're a failed janitor with no friends or family and nothing to do but post dumbspam on a blog where everyone laughs at you.

Maybe you should seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 17 August, 2011 07:09, Blogger J Rebori said...

Brian, your constant lies, evasions, and distortions have been repeatedly exposed, in this and other threads.

Your questions have been answered repeatedly, as often as your denials of reality have been documented.

I see no reason to list them again, or to answer, yet again, your simply foolish question. Scroll back, and try to be honest with yourself. You'll find it.

I rest easy knowing any honest neutral reader who cares can look at our histories at see which of us lies, distorts, and tries to create confusion to protect his warped view of reality.

Feel free to have the last comment. I've proven my case.

 
At 17 August, 2011 09:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, I haven't lied about anything. Your empty claims and elaborate obfuscations are obvious. In over a hundred posts you guys blither and blather and have not begun to answer the question I posed TEN DAYS AGO.

"If the Langley fighters were scrambled to protect against a phantom flight 11 that was en route from NYC to DC, how come they flew out to sea instead of trying to head off the phantom at Baltimore?"

You "explain" that the pilots flew out to their Cold War station because they didn't know where the alleged threat was. If that's true then either NORAD didn't tell them where the alleged threat was, or FAA didn't tell NORAD where the alleged threat was. Which was it, and why was the information withheld.

You guys are lawyering for the defense when even the 9/11 Commissioners tell us that NORAD lied to them.

 
At 17 August, 2011 21:04, Blogger Ian said...

JR, I haven't lied about anything. Your empty claims and elaborate obfuscations are obvious. In over a hundred posts you guys blither and blather and have not begun to answer the question I posed TEN DAYS AGO.

Brian, your question has been answered. You're just trying to bury the answer in dumbspam. That's not going to work.

You guys are lawyering for the defense when even the 9/11 Commissioners tell us that NORAD lied to them.

My, such squealing!

So Brian, have you gotten a new investigation yet? Have the widows had their questions answered yet? Did your "meatball on a fork" model get published in an engineering journal yet?

 
At 17 August, 2011 22:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where was the question answered?

"They flew out to their Cold War positions" does not answer the question "why were they not told where the alleged threat was?"

Ian, "meatball on a fork" is so obvious to anyone who understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law that there's no need to publish it anywhere.

 
At 18 August, 2011 18:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where was the question answered?

Above. Maybe if you learned to read, you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.

"They flew out to their Cold War positions" does not answer the question "why were they not told where the alleged threat was?"

That was answered too. You make up your facts.

Ian, "meatball on a fork" is so obvious to anyone who understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law that there's no need to publish it anywhere.

Of course not, which is why not a single engineer or physicist has come up with it. The only person who did is an unemployed lunatic who wears women's underwear.

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

The questions weren't answered upthread, Ian. As usual, you lie.

The fact that the cores persisted after the floors had collapsed proves that the meatball on a fork model was correct.

 
At 18 August, 2011 20:32, Blogger Ian said...

The questions weren't answered upthread, Ian. As usual, you lie.

Brian, it's not my fault that you can't read.

The fact that the cores persisted after the floors had collapsed proves that the meatball on a fork model was correct.

What happened to "symmetry" and "totality"? Then again, you also claim the Bush did it and bin Laden did it and that thermite was used and that explosives were used, so it shouldn't surprise me that you believe both these things. You are, after all, an unemployed lunatic who wears women's underwear and calls people "girls" on the internet.

 
At 18 August, 2011 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are very confused. There's none so ignorant as he who refuses to learn.

 
At 19 August, 2011 04:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you are very confused. There's none so ignorant as he who refuses to learn.

Ah, ducking the question entirely. The sign of desperation from someone who knows he's been pwn3d.

Brian, it must really bother you that I'm a successful adult and you're a total failure, and yet I come here to make fun of you. Really, if you weren't into 9/11 truth nonsense, I'd leave you alone. Regardless, I still think you need to seek psychiatric care.

 
At 19 August, 2011 07:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie to further people's illusions. Why you think that's ok is beyond me. If truth were on your side, why would you lie to protect it?

You are a very cynical person--to you truth is a joke. Your life is a joke.

 
At 19 August, 2011 10:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian, you lie to further people's illusions.

If the experts got money because of everyone "furthering their careers" they'd be rich beyond their wildest dreams. But I guess they have to stick to their weekly Friday paychecks like everyone else.

 
At 19 August, 2011 10:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You are a very cynical person--to you truth is a joke. Your life is a joke.

Cpt. Oblivious, don't talk about your life in public.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home