Juveniles
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.
posted by Pat @ 5:00 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
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.
"Let's roll."
The first heroes of the millennium keep getting spat on by these children.
Yeah, this is one of the things that gets me angry. The dead are just a joke to these clowns. They don't know where to draw the line. One thing is creating a hoax and the other is hurting the people who are already crushed by losing their loved ones.
All for your loose change...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
That's just F-ing low.
I'd hate to imagine the thoughts going on in Lisa Jefferson's head if she heard that horrible interview.
Punk kids, neo-Nazis and ultra-paranoid crackpots.
Quite the team.
If you believe in a worldwide conspiracy this is small potatoes,.... yet if your sane, its another piece of detail that makes the "faked call" story that more more unbelieveable.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html
Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, 'I don't know if I'm ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I'm really going to miss you.' And she said goodbye."
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBT0lC77ayA
I think many other people will hear it. And yes, I have this clip involved too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBT0lC77ayA
I think many other people will hear it. And yes, I have this clip involved too.
Awesome single page Loose Change debunking here:
Bukakked with stupid !
Bukakked with stupid!
LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!
Awesome page. A man after my own heart!
Pat,
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.
1) Acknownledge the extremely dubious evidence at the crash site of Flight 93.
2) Acknowledge the questions related to the shoot down.
1. What dubious evidence? Airplane parts and body parts? A crater? A smoke cloud?
2. Why in the name of God would the perps shoot down their own attack aircraft - AND NOT TAKE CREDIT FOR IT!?
Think with me. Okay, I'll give you that the plane was shot down, for arguments sake. Wouldnt it make sense to come out and say that they shot it down to prevent it from reaching its target? They even said they wouldve if they coudlve, theres no reason to cover it up
The only possible explantion that they shot it down was to make it look look they did something right. But, of course, they didnt take credit, so thats a wash.
(put on your thinking cap)Even if they shot it down because the passengers regained control and tried to steer it away - they could still shoot it down and say that they had to prevent further loss of life. Again, no reason to cover it up, none whatsover.
Give me a solid reason(no, the "lets roll" slogan is not a valid reason) that they would shoot down their own attack aircraft. Why go to the trouble of involving flight 93, just to shoot it down for no apparent rhyme or reason.
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.
Jeezus H Christ on a popcicle. What difference does it make that he was talking to an operator?
Are you saying that Todd Beamer was, in fact, on a hijacked United flight 93?
If yes, pack up and go home because theres no conspiracy..
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.
bg,
What would constitute non-dubious evidence? In your warped mind aircraft wreckage, pieces of bodies and eyewitnesses who saw the crash are "dubious."
Give me some idea of what makes for a convincing crash site in CT Land.
And it's been pointed out to you and your ilk about a thousand times as to why it's perfectly reasonable that Beamer would talk to an operator.
If you're too daft to understand the answers to your brilliant questions then that's your problem.
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.
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.
Thank God my brain doesnt work like that. In the forum someone linked a political compass test, so for laughs I decided to sort of reverse the polarity of my political/social beliefs etc and I ended up in the area of GWB and not far from Hitler....I cant see any possible way someone can hold views that are so messed up. Its exactly the same thing with the CTers.
They believe/dont believe the exact opposite of reality, and its really kind of sad that people can be so warped.
this shows why your viewpoint and James' viewpoint fail to meet the test of objective discussion of 9/11.
What would you know about objective dicussion, bg? You refuse to discus anything. You make accusations, link to videos that have no relevance to the topic at hand, and then run away as if Forrest Gump is in the lead and you're trying to pass him.
Don't feel bad though. You far surpass Forrest Gump.
Wow, how did I miss Maddox owning Dylan?
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.
Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home