Wednesday, July 26, 2006


That's what Dylan and his buddies strike me as. For an example, consider this bit from the Fred McChesney Show (MP3) on Air America Phoenix, back in mid-April (begins at 19:50):

Caller: I was just wondering about--there was a man that was on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania that phoned his wife--

Bermas: That's not true, Ma'am. You're referring to Todd Beamer, correct?

Caller: Right.

Bermas: Yeah, Todd Beamer never talked to his wife. He only talked to a Verizon operator for what--19 minutes, Dylan? Yeah, and she actually offered to patch him through to his wife and he didn't really want to talk to his wife. I guess it wasn't all that important.

There's a word I'd like to use, but we have requested that our commenters cut down on the profanity, so I can't use it. But this is typical of the callous treatment that Dylan and Bermas exhibit towards the passengers on the planes. They get asked all the time about the passengers, and one gets the feeling that the Louder Than Words crew is a little annoyed at how the passengers seem to be preventing their message from being accepted by the general public.

As for why Todd Beamer decided not to be patched through to his wife, it was well-reported at the time.

Several days passed before she spoke with the GTE Airfone operator, Lisa Jefferson, who had spoken with Todd for a quarter of an hour as the passengers planned their uprising. Jefferson recounted Todd's last words. Almost as important, she explained that Todd had not called his wife directly because he was afraid she might lose the baby if he did.

Punks. Juveniles. Jerks. That's what Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas are.


At 26 July, 2006 17:13, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Are you sure we can't use the words, just this once??

As I have said before, the only, ONLY thing that D.A. cares about is the fame and fortune he can garnish from the publicity and subsequent sale of his movie and merchandise. Anyone who believes otherwise, is kidding themselves.

At 26 July, 2006 17:14, Blogger shawn said...

"Let's roll."

The first heroes of the millennium keep getting spat on by these children.

At 26 July, 2006 18:27, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

yes, but you see its all in the leprachans. I told you...they went in and placed the explosives, coming out with the $160 Billion in gold. They also used their "majik" to obtain this woman's safe combination, then gave it to the "voice mimicers" and der fancy techonology, and then they spoke the combo to the woman.

At 26 July, 2006 19:10, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, I'm a movie star now - I mean, like I'm the one in the movie, and I play the part of the investigative film maker, who brings about a revolution, and all the guys that I used to bus tables for at Friendly's - they now salute me!

Brave? I'll show you brave, that's me not wasting my time with Mark Roberts - that's what brave is.

At 27 July, 2006 08:59, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Bukakked with stupid!

LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!

Awesome page. A man after my own heart!

At 27 July, 2006 09:23, Blogger Unknown said...


Whether you use "bad words" libeling labels) or not,

whether you make acussations against Loose Change, and the Parties around making Loose Change,

you are failing to be reasonable in the following ways:

1) Acknownledge the extremely dubious evidence at the crash site of Flight 93.

2) Acknowledge the questions related to the shoot down.

This is just to name a few.

And now, you are failing to give reason due to the dubious myth-making of the Beamer story. In particular your lack of respect for the idea that the conversation reported was between Beamer and an operator, and how legitimate it is for this to be pointed out.... this shows why your viewpoint and James' viewpoint fail to meet the test of objective discussion of 9/11.

At 27 July, 2006 10:29, Blogger Pat said...

If they had shot the plane down there would be no need to cover it up. Nobody would blame them. Yes, it would be a PR nightmare when it came out that the passengers were trying to take over the plane, but they would still be seen as acting prudently.

At 27 July, 2006 11:14, Blogger Manny said...

Wouldnt it make sense to come out and say that they shot it down to prevent it from reaching its target?

See, the problem here is you're not thinking like a 9-11 denier. That the government shot down the plane does not mean that the plane was shot down. No, that the government shot down the plane means that there is a discrepancy, and the discrepancy means that there was no plane at all.

At 27 July, 2006 13:09, Blogger shawn said...

Wow, how did I miss Maddox owning Dylan?

At 31 July, 2006 06:26, Blogger Alex said...

Actually for once I'm going to back the loosers...sort of. From speaking with several members of the intelligence community I've got reason to beleive that flight 93 may actually have been shot down...but even their testimony is not conclusive. In any event, the question of whether or not it was shot down is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn't change the conversation that took place between passangers and people on the ground, it doesn't change the fact that the plane was in fact hijacked by muslim terrorists, and it doesn't change the fact that the passangers attempted to fight back.


Post a Comment

<< Home