GOP Senate Candidate Flirts With Troof, Endorses Infowars
Greg Brannon, a contender in the Republican primary for the US Senate, certainly seems like a fruitcake. He danced close to the edge of Trooferism in a radio interview in 2012 (when he was running for Congress):
Greg Brannon: These questions, again, actually, that's what [9/11 commission vice-chair] Lee Hamilton said. And he just said, there's other questions that need answering. The guy who got all the information…a Democrat and a Republican, were the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, and when they got done, they did not put their stamp of approval on the commission. They said, 'There's data that we did not put in there.' So things like this have to be asked.Of course, the notion that Hamilton and Kean did not put their stamp of approval on the commission report is a bunch of BS. Troofers love to quote that passage in their book about the commission being set up to fail, but they always miss the conclusion the two reached, that the commission did not fail due to the hard work of their staffers.
More troubling than that, however, is that Brannon's response came to a particularly buffonish Troofer question:
John, caller: I'm a 9/11 truther. And I had a friend of mine…tell me, look on the internet, Google "the Pentagon" and show me where the plane hit the Pentagon. Where is the plane? There's all kinds of pictures of that building smoldering, and fire trucks everywhere. There's no plane. So I did research on the size of planes, of the engines that ran this plane. These things are 12,000 pounds, these engines that would have flown off—that's six tons—and put a hole in something. There's nothing there.Hunt the Boeing in 2012? Seriously?
Brannon also fell back on his comments about Hamilton when challenged about a website he ran called Founders' Truth, which included a link to Alex Jones' ridiculous Infowars:
Jim, caller: So I went to your website, and you made a comment about 9/11 a few weeks ago, and I went to your website, and you have a link to [InfoWars]. Can you tell your listeners, where InfoWars got their name on the web? On the internet? What was their claim to fame?Note particularly that Brannon apparently knew off the top of his head that Infowars had been on the web since 1995. That certainly indicates more than a passing familiarity with the site.
Brannon: Well they've been on [the web] for 17 years, but they think it is an inside job.
Jim: Right. So, do you—do you think it's an inside job?
Brannon: I'm the same as [the commissioners], they want more investigation. I just want more investigations…Don't forget, Lee Hamilton, the chair of the 9/11 committee, he wants more investigations. I just think it's very important we study things thoroughly.
RCP polling currently has Brannon running a reasonably close second to Thom Tillis, the speaker of NC's house, but Tillis will probably need to face Brannon or whoever finishes second in a runoff .
Brannon has some other skeletons in his closet; a jury found him liable for misleading investors in a tech startup company he co-founded in 2010.
Hat Tip to Consdemo in the comments.
posted by Pat @ 2:33 PM
70 comments
70 Comments:
It seems whatever party doesn't hold the Presidency becomes a haven for conspiratoids. They mostly clustered around Democrats during Bush's term and now they cluster around Republicans. Unfortunately, the party leadership is often too timid to swatting these idiots down, lest they be seen as too sympathetic to the President of the opposite party. Not that such timidity should ever be acceptable, but its particulary egregious in this case since Bannon is claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans.
Where did Bannon claim that the President of his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans?
He said "I just want more investigations. . . . I just think it's very important we study things thoroughly."
Why do you conflate criticism of a demonstrably corrupt and incomplete investigation with "claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans' ?
He said "I just want more investigations. . . . I just think it's very important we study things thoroughly."
Right, which means "the investigations didn't conclude the batshit things I believe, therefore we need new ones, and when those don't conclude with the batshit things I believe, we'll need new ones again".
Why do you conflate criticism of a demonstrably corrupt and incomplete investigation with "claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans' ?
See what I mean? The investigations were "corrupt and incomplete" because they didn't determine that Dick Cheney had the WTC destroyed by magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives because those are your fanatical, non-falsifiable beliefs because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who needs 9/11 truth to give his empty, worthless life meaning.
Also, Brian, you haven't been babbling about widows of late, which I assume is because you've finally admitted to yourself that the widows have no questions.
I win again. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
The Truthers have been investigating for almost 13 years and they've established only one thing; that the short bus should have stopped at their house if it didn't.
Pat, the truth movement has established that 91% of the widows 300 questions were not answered.
It has established that the 9/11 Commission Report was corrupt and incomplete.
It has established that NIST's report on the towers was only half a report that failed its number one objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed, and dodged the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise by cutting off its analyses at the moment the collapses began.
The truth movement has established that a pattern of State Crimes Against Democracy exists in contemporary history, of which 9/11 appears to be only one example.
The truth movement has established that the government lied repeatedly and blatantly. It has established that Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission (and the widows) about the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" memo was blatant perjury.
The truth movement has established that the official reports are whitewashes and new investigations are needed.
The truth movement has established that NIST's report about WTC7 employed several dishonest devices to make their girder walk-off theory seem plausible--devices such as shrinking and eliminating structural components such as a girder seat, girder stiffener plates, lateral girders, and shear studs; and devices such as assuming axial expansion from heated beams that under the heating conditions would have bowed downward instead.
The truth movement has established that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds--something that NIST's Dr. Sunder had said was impossible because that would mean there was absolutely no structural support.
The truth movement has established that there were 9/11 warnings from 13 foreign countries, four FBI offices, and the CIA.
The truth movement has established that molten and melted steel was seen in the rubble pile, and was not explained by the NIST reports.
Ian, where did Bannon criticize the conclusions of the official investigations?
He said "there's other questions that need answering." He said "'There's data that we did not put in [the report].'"
I'm going to let you in on a little secret that most adults know: it's possible to criticize the process of an investigation without disputing its conclusions. In fact, those who agree with a report's conclusions should be (if they are honest) the most severe critics of a flawed process, because a flawed process casts doubt (among reasonable persons) on the validity of the conclusions. So the fact that someone wants new, honest, complete investigations does not mean that they dispute the conclusions.
I love this crap:
The truth movement has established that a pattern of State Crimes Against Democracy exists in contemporary history, of which 9/11 appears to be only one example.
The truth movement has established that the government lied repeatedly and blatantly. It has established that Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission (and the widows) about the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" memo was blatant perjury.
Truthers are capable of holding mutually contradictory thoughts in their head. The government did 9-11 and the government also ignored the warnings that Bin Laden was about to do 9-11.
Short bus material indeed.
Consdemo, there's an old saying. The party in power grows arrogant, while the party out of power goes insane.
Pat, did you never hear the bromide about the "hobgoblin of little minds" or the one about the "test of a first-rate intelligence".
Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
Pat, the truth movement has established that 91% of the widows 300 questions were not answered.
False.
It has established that the 9/11 Commission Report was corrupt and incomplete.
False.
It has established that NIST's report on the towers was only half a report that failed its number one objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed, and dodged the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise by cutting off its analyses at the moment the collapses began.
False.
And the rest of Brian's post is gibberish about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives and how the Bush administration planted them to get support for a war to steal Afghanistan's oil. In other words, the typical dumbspam from the failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Pat, did you never hear the bromide about the "hobgoblin of little minds" or the one about the "test of a first-rate intelligence".
Poor Brian. He's babbling about "first-rate intelligence" when he lacks the cognitive function to correctly mop floors. This is why he's unemployed and lives with his parents.
Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
Why would you condemn Rice for ignoring the warnings when she was ordering the invisible elevator repairmen to spray magic thermite in the elevator shafts? Wouldn't you have expected her to ignore the warnings?
We can always rely on Lyin Ian to post his Lyinanity.
I didn't say anything about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives and how the Bush administration planted them to get support for a war to steal Afghanistan's oil. I leave such babbling to you.
I can mop floors just fine. I mastered the art before you were born. I've had little opportunity to exercise that skill in the last few decades, though.
Where do you get the idea that Condi Rice ordered invisible elevator repairmen to do anything? Why do you think that my (hind-sight) expectation that Dr. Rice would ignore the warnings conflicts with condemning her for meeting that expectation?
And my questions to Pat still stand, your efforts to bury them notwithstanding.
Pat, did you never hear the bromide about the "hobgoblin of little minds" or the one about the "test of a first-rate intelligence"?
Pat, where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
No coherent narrative can contain both elements.
RGT, under what reasoning can no coherent narrative contain both the element of ignoring the warnings and an inside job?
RGT, did you never hear the bromide about the "hobgoblin of little minds" or the one about the "test of a first-rate intelligence"?
RGT, under what reasoning can no coherent narrative contain both the element of ignoring the warnings and an inside job?
The simplest way to refute me would be to suggest a coherent narrative that contains both elements.
I didn't say anything about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives and how the Bush administration planted them to get support for a war to steal Afghanistan's oil. I leave such babbling to you.
False. This is what you believe. You've told us so many, many times.
I can mop floors just fine. I mastered the art before you were born. I've had little opportunity to exercise that skill in the last few decades, though.
Thanks for proving my point. You're unemployed and live with your parents. And thanks for proving that you're a pathetic dinosaur who been surpassed by the smart and successful members of the next generation, like me.
Where do you get the idea that Condi Rice ordered invisible elevator repairmen to do anything?
I don't. That's an idea that came from your malfunctioning brain.
RGT, under what reasoning can no coherent narrative contain both the element of ignoring the warnings and an inside job?
We wouldn't expect a coherent narrative from you, as you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and hobgoblins.
RGT, did you never hear the bromide about the "hobgoblin of little minds" or the one about the "test of a first-rate intelligence"?
And now Brian's just repeating hysterical spam to make up for the fact that he's been pwn3d again. But at least we now know that he believes in hobgoblins just as much as he believes in elves who spray magic thermite onto building columns.
RGT, I wouldn't try to refute you before I've made some effort to understand you.
Pat seems to feel that it's somehow self-evident that the element of ignored warnings contradicts the element of inside job, but he declines to explain why he feels that.
You state emphatically that the presence of both elements would destroy a narrative's coherence, but as Pat does, you decline to explain the basis for your opinion.
I'm trying to understand how your minds work--the process by which you arrive at an unquestioned axiom upon which you build your collective temple of unjustifiable scorn.
Ian, your dumb lies do not improve with repetition.
Thanks for calling Emerson and Fitzgerald "dumbspam", showing that your ignorance of science is equaled only by your ignorance of literature.
Oh, sorry. You didn't call Emerson and Fitgerald "dumbspam", showing that your ignorance of science is equaled only by your ignorance of literature.
You called them "hysterical spam", showing that your ignorance of science is equaled only by your ignorance of literature.
You state emphatically that the presence of both elements would destroy a narrative's coherence, but as Pat does, you decline to explain the basis for your opinion.
It's your job to connect the two dots, not my job to prove they are disconnected.
You're the one who made the claim. I think you owe us an explanation of your reasoning in making that claim.
I think Pat also owes an explanation of his reasoning in supposing that the two dots are mutually exclusive.
Surely it's not too much to ask that two rational, logical, people should be able to explain the basis of their axiomatic opinions.
Oh, sorry. You didn't call Emerson and Fitgerald "dumbspam", showing that your ignorance of science is equaled only by your ignorance of literature.
I didn't call Emerson and Fitgerald [sic] "hysterical spam". I called your post hysterical spam. Emerson was not a failed janitor with a hideous haircut who lived with his parents at age 60.
You're the one who made the claim. I think you owe us an explanation of your reasoning in making that claim.
Sorry, Brian, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who thinks the investigations were dishonest and incomplete and unbelievable. It's up to you to explain why. The rest of us don't care what a failed janitor thinks of the investigations.
Ian, I have explained at length how the official investigations are incomplete, unbelievable, and dishonest. That has nothing to do with the fact of Pat and RGT's refusal to explain their beliefs.
Your polka-dot suit and your fright wig and your big shoes can't change the fact that Pat and RGT refuse to explain the rational basis for opinions they clearly regard as axiomatic.
Not just axiomatic--axiomatic and dispositive.
You're the one who made the claim. I think you owe us an explanation of your reasoning in making that claim.
Very little reasoning is required. The two elements describe two incompatible scenarios; a scenario containing both is incoherent.
What is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
Ian, I have explained at length how the official investigations are incomplete, unbelievable, and dishonest.
Yes you have, Brian. And I've many times explained to you how nobody cares what a delusional failed janitor who lives with his parents thinks. You'd think you'd get this given that you've been babbling about 9/11 for over a decade now, and still haven't accomplished anything.
Your polka-dot suit and your fright wig and your big shoes can't change the fact that Pat and RGT refuse to explain the rational basis for opinions they clearly regard as axiomatic.
Squeal squeal squeal!
What is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
Poor Brian. He's so stupid and insane that he actually asks questions like this seriously.
Of course, he also goes out in public looking like this:
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
Yes, I'm sure people take you seriously Brian, what with the hideous homeless mullet, the 1000 yard stare, and the clothes stolen from the Goodwill dumpster. When you talk about 9/11, I'm sure everyone thinks, "well this man is obviously a serious scholar, and not at all a pathetic paranoid lunatic."
Also, Brian, last night was yet another night to celebrate "mission accomplished" in preventing the widows from ever getting their questions answered. If only they had someone normal to advocate on their behalf, instead of a failed janitor who lives with his parents and can't afford a decent haircut.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
So the clown comes around with his lying ad hominems and his fashion tips and his ignorance of science and literature to cover up the fact that neither Pat nor RGT are willing to explain the basis for beliefs they regard as self-evident.
If they can't explain them, then they're hardly self-evident.
Pat, where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
RGT, what is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
So the clown comes around with his lying ad hominems and his fashion tips and his ignorance of science and literature to cover up the fact that neither Pat nor RGT are willing to explain the basis for beliefs they regard as self-evident.
Squeal squeal squeal!
What Pat and RGT think is self-evident. You can't figure it out because you're too stupid/insane. I mean, you can't even mop floors correctly, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand this.
If they can't explain them, then they're hardly self-evident.
No, if you can't understand why it's self-evident, then that's not Pat or RGT's fault. As I said above, you're too stupid/insane to mop floors properly, so it's not surprising that you can't understand Pat and RGT's points.
Pat, where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
RGT, what is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
Aaaaand here comes the endless hysterical spam where Brian demands that normal people explain the obvious to him because he's a hopeless lunatic and imbecile.
Brian, you'll never understand. Your brain doesn't work properly. It's pointless to explain these things to you. Just take comfort in the fact that there are smart, successful people like me who do understand how the world works, and we're there to take care of the unfortunate failures in life like you. You don't need to know anything. Just keep cashing your disability checks. It will be OK.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That Pat and RGT think WHAT they think is not in question. I understand their very simple point just fine.
Without an explanation of WHY they think what they think, WHY can not be self-evident. No one can understand the basis for their opinions when they refuse to explain it.
Where do you get the idea that I can't mop floors correctly? I could mop floors correctly before you were born.
I am not interested in discussing your belief that the incompatibility of ignoring warnings and inside job is "obvious". A whole lot of things that are obvious to you just ain't so. Your Lianinanity is a waste of time.
Pat, where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
RGT, what is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
Are youse guys going to let Lyin Ian speak for you?
Pat, where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory? What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
RGT, what is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
Brian, give it up. This stuff is above your mental capabilities. I'm sure mommy has many Barney the Dinosaur DVDs for you to watch. Go enjoy those and stop trying to understand 9/11. Leave that to the smart, successful adults like Pat, RGT, and myself.
Here, Brian, this is something more on your level of intellect. Try to enjoy this and stop worrying your little head about 9/11.
http://youtu.be/gG13DKQA7bE
Your Lianinanity is a waste of time.
The gallery of "debunkers" in this thread is quite instructive.
We start with Consdemo, who boldly states that "Bannon is claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans" but declines to back that claim up or to tell us where he got such a silly idea.
Then we have Pat and RGT, who confidently inform us that it is self-evident that ignored warnings and inside job are mutually contradictory, but can't or won't share the reasoning process by which they arrived at this insight.
And then we have Lyin' Ian, who can offer nothing but insults of such a degree of uncleverness that they indict his intellect.
A fine bunch of specimens y'all are.
Nobody cares, Brian. You really need to go back to your Barney the Dinosaur DVDs and leave 9/11 to the adults.
Also, the widows have no questions.
"Pat, the truth movement has established that 91% of the widows 300 questions were not answered."
Those 91%, if even asked by actual widows, had nothing to do with 9-11. There were anti-American baiting - nothing more.
"It has established that the 9/11 Commission Report was corrupt and incomplete."
Established by idiots, lunatics, and the usual "I hate America" crowd. Not intelligent people.
"It has established that NIST's report on the towers was only half a report that failed its number one objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed, and dodged the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise by cutting off its analyses at the moment the collapses began."
Because the only important information is the stuff leading up to the collapse. They can't dumb down the report for kindergarten-like minds.
"The truth movement has established that a pattern of State Crimes Against Democracy exists in contemporary history, of which 9/11 appears to be only one example."
What? Paranoid idiots are paranoid?
"The truth movement has established that the government lied repeatedly and blatantly."
Nope. Nothing about 9/11/2001 has changed in the 13 years since the attacks. Nothing.
" It has established that Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission (and the widows) about the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" memo was blatant perjury."
No, because the memo was read if front of the committee. It says nothing about Al Qaeda attacking the WTC, or even a suspected date for an attack. You guys just hate her because she's a black woman.
"The truth movement has established that the official reports are whitewashes and new investigations are needed."
The Troof movement has established acid casualties, 60s burnouts, and other morons cannot read well enough to understand the data, and would not accept them unless Che Guevarra returned from the dead to head the investigation.
"The truth movement has established that NIST's report about WTC7 employed several dishonest devices to make their girder walk-off theory seem plausible--devices such as shrinking and eliminating structural components such as a girder seat, girder stiffener plates, lateral girders, and shear studs; and devices such as assuming axial expansion from heated beams that under the heating conditions would have bowed downward instead."
They haven't established this. No real engineer has a problem with the report, just the wannabees.
"The truth movement has established that WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds--something that NIST's Dr. Sunder had said was impossible because that would mean there was absolutely no structural support."
So, the building had been collapsing for over an hour by the time the final collapse occurred, to there was little interior left to slow the fall. Duh.
"The truth movement has established that there were 9/11 warnings from 13 foreign countries, four FBI offices, and the CIA. "
But the Troof movement ignores the fact that in May, 2001 the DoD closed all of its bases to civilian access, and began building new fencing, and doubled security citing threats from Al Qaeda. They told everybody, this was no secret.
Then in July, 2001, the State Department issued a travel warning for the Mediterranean and Middle East citing a threat from Al Qaeda to hijack civilian jet liners sometime between July and August 31st.
So this tells you the warnings weren't ignored, and also tells you where the intel community thought the strikes might occur.
That you and the Troofers continue to spout this particular lie speaks to both your lack of integrity, and low intellect.
"The truth movement has established that molten and melted steel was seen in the rubble pile, and was not explained by the NIST reports."
No, they sight anecdotal reports from people speaking casually about the pile. No engineer saw molten steel, not a single expert has sad as much in an official capacity.
This is a lie.
RGT, what is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
One is LIHOP, the other is MIHOP. There is no coherent way to reconcile the two scenarios.
RGT, how do you know ignored warnings are LIHOP? And how are they incompatible with MIHOP if they are?
RGT, how do you know ignored warnings are LIHOP? And how are they incompatible with MIHOP if they are?
This is what I'm talking about. You just don't understand simple concepts. Your mind is not up to the task.
Here, Brian, enjoy this, and leave the adult topics like 9/11 to the adults.
http://youtu.be/SYuAarJTKoI
Axxman, which of the widows' 273 questions about 9/11 "had nothing to do with 9-11" and which ones are anti-American?
Upon what basis do you opine that the ten unexplained mysteries of the towers' demise are not "important information"? An hypothesis that does not explain all the observables is a weak hypothesis.
You make empty assertions (lies) about things you obviously know nothing about--and have made no effort to research.
Ian, I understand LIHOP and MIHOP just fine. Let's see how RGT does with the question before deciding whose mind is not up to the task.
Obviously yours isn't.
mgferris, who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? And so what if it had? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?
What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State and DoD in protecting their own? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA?
I didn't lie about anything.
Dr. Astaneh was not talking casually about the pile when he said "I saw melting of girders". Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, was not talking casually when he looked into the camera and said he saw molten steel. Dr. James Glanz was not talking casually when he reported a stalagmite of melted steel in the basement. And WTc engineer Leslie Robertson was not talking casually when he told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of steel flowing".
You don't know what you're talking about.
Poor Brian. He's just babbling hysterically now because none of us take him seriously.
This is why I'm telling you to leave 9/11 to the adults, Brian. We wouldn't take an actual 4-year-olds questions about 9/11 seriously, so why would we take a mental 4-year-old like you seriously?
Also,
Axxman, which of the widows' 273 questions about 9/11 "had nothing to do with 9-11" and which ones are anti-American?
The widows have no questions.
I will say this, Brian. People would take you more seriously if you got yourself a decent haircut.
Ian, why do you lie so blatantly about the widows' questions? What is wrong with you? And what is wrong with the others on this board who by their silence condone your vicious and flagrant lies?
Ian, why do you lie so blatantly about the widows' questions? What is wrong with you? And what is wrong with the others on this board who by their silence condone your vicious and flagrant lies?
Squeal squeal squeal!
"mgferris, who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? And so what if it had? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics? "
It doesn't apply.
Come on over to the JREF Forum and play with us there.
"Upon what basis do you opine that the ten unexplained mysteries of the towers' demise are not "important information"? An hypothesis that does not explain all the observables is a weak hypothesis."
Because the real mystery is why did the Towers stand as long as they did. Answer that question, and you solve the "mystery" of the collapse.
"
What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State and DoD in protecting their own? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA?"
A State Department travel warning IS FOR THE PUBLIC, dipshit.
The PUBLIC ignored the threats. Even after the 1993 WTC bombings the PUBLIC couldn't be bothered. If the Public can't be bothered then the government doesn't make it a priority.
That is how a democracy works, moron.
"
Dr. Astaneh was not talking casually about the pile when he said "I saw melting of girders". Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, was not talking casually when he looked into the camera and said he saw molten steel. Dr. James Glanz was not talking casually when he reported a stalagmite of melted steel in the basement. And WTc engineer Leslie Robertson was not talking casually when he told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of steel flowing".'
None of those men stand by those statements today, they were all off the cuff remarks. Had they known that paranoid sociopaths like you and Gage would run with them they would have spoken differently.
It only matters what they say today.
Ian, your squealing does not answer the questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
mgferris, where do you get the idea that a collapsing structure is exempt from the first law of thermodynamics? Is that the kind of nonsense they tell you at JREF?
Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? Did you just make that up? Did someone at JREF tell you that?
There's no mystery to why the towers stood as long as they did.
Most structural engineers were surprised when they fell. They were highly redundant structures, built to endure 150 mph winds. They were built to take a hit from a 4-engine jetliner traveling at 600 mph--and to survive the resultant fires, said the chief engineer. The 2-engine jetliners that hit the towers had 29% less chance of inflicting major damage on the core than did the 4-engine planes.
What significance do you ascribe to the State Dept. travel warning? Do you think this somehow mitigates the warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA? There were warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department!
Oh I see. It was the public's fault that they went to work in the twin towers and the Pentagon on 9/11. It was the public's fault that they got on airplanes on 9/11. Gee, do you blame the victim much? Would you have been smart enough to stay off of airplanes on 9.11.01?
Where do you get the idea that none of those men stand by their claims about molten steel today? They said they saw molten or melted steel. What do they say today?
Poor Brian. He's squealing hysterically now because he's so confused about 9/11.
Brian, I've already told you that you should leave 9/11 to the successful adults here. It sucks that life dealt you a bad hand and gave you a brain that doesn't work properly, but that doesn't justify your pathetic squealing at this blog.
Barney the Dinosaur DVDs, Brian. Please go watch them.
Also,
Ian, your squealing does not answer the questions.
The widows have no questions. Sorry, Brian. You've been pwn3d again.
Your persistent, vicious, and obsessive lies pwn only yourself, Lian Ian.
I'll let Lian come and do his clown act one more time before I repeat the questions to the others that they never answered.
RGT, how do you know ignored warnings are LIHOP? And how are they incompatible with MIHOP if they are?
Ignored warnings are the core of LIHOP. If there is a coherent way to reconcile MIHOP with LIHOP, the Truth Movement has not yet revealed it.
I'll let Lian come and do his clown act one more time before I repeat the questions to the others that they never answered.
See Brian? RGT answered your question. You just don't understand his answer because you're mentally ill and lack the cognitive ability to mop floors, much less understand 9/11.
Like I said, my advice to you is to just enjoy all of the Barney the Dinosaur DVDs that mommy bought for you and stop embarrassing yourself on this blog with your appalling ignorance of what happened on 9/11. The smart, successful adults like me will take care of it.
Ignored warnings are the core of LIHOP. If there is a coherent way to reconcile MIHOP with LIHOP, the Truth Movement has not yet revealed it.
Well, Brian is well-known for holding two contradictory beliefs at once. For instance, he claimed (on 8 November 2012 at 7:18) that "there are no widows". But at the same time, he babbles about 273 unanswered questions.
Well, at least one of his claims is correct. There are indeed no widows.
RGT, what is "incompatible" and "mutually contradictory" about LIHOP and MIHOP?
Why is a scenario containing both elements inevitably incoherent?
You still haven't showed us your reasoning process. All you've done is introduce new terminology to your bare assertion.
Brian, I've told you many times, you're not mentally capable of understanding RGT's point. It's a waste of time for him to explain this to someone who couldn't hold down a job mopping floors.
Barney the Dinosaur, Brian. Please go watch and leave 9/11 to the adults.
Lyin' Ian, I understand RGT's "point" just fine. His "point" is the bare assertion that there is an inherent contradiction between LIHOP and MIHOP. I am asking him to demonstrate the logical process supporting this assertion, which he apparently regards as axiomatic.
I understand his "point" better than you do, because I understand that it is an assumption, not a conclusion. Your inability to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about 9/11.
Poor Brian. He's too stupid to understand how stupid he is.
To recap unanswered questions in this thread:
To ConsDemo: Where did Bannon claim that the President of his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans?
Why do you conflate criticism of a demonstrably corrupt and incomplete investigation with "claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans' ?
To Lyin' Ian: Where did Bannon criticize the conclusions of the official investigations?
To Pat: Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory?
What is the reasoning justifying that belief?
To Ian: Where do you get the idea that Condi Rice ordered invisible elevator repairmen to do anything?
Why do you think that my (hind-sight) expectation that Dr. Rice would ignore the warnings conflicts with condemning her for meeting that expectation?
Where do you get the idea that I can't mop floors correctly?
Why do you lie so blatantly about the widows' questions? What is wrong with you? And what is wrong with the others on this board who by their silence condone your vicious and flagrant lies?
To Richard Gage's Testicles: Under what reasoning can no coherent narrative contain both the element of ignoring the warnings and an inside job?
What is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?
How do you know ignored warnings are LIHOP? And how are they incompatible with MIHOP if they are?
For Axxman: Which of the widows' 273 questions about 9/11 "had nothing to do with 9-11" and which ones are anti-American?
Upon what basis do you opine that the ten unexplained mysteries of the towers' demise are not "important information"?
For mgferris: Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? Did you just make that up? Did someone at JREF tell you that? And so what if WTC7 had been collapsing for an hour? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?
What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State in warning against hijackings? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department?
Where do you get the idea that none of the witnesses to molten or melted steel stand by their claims today? What do they say today?
Jesus Christ, he's gotten even stupider. I didn't think that was humanly possible.
I don't think anyone ever claimed that Jesus was the sharpest tool in the shed.
Post a Comment
<< Home