Not-so-shocking revelation: Cheney, Rummy, etc. masterminded 9/11!
Uncle Uh-huh
Is this the biggest con job EVER! Stay tuned for the fun!! Better
than Wkileaks!!!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/18/gordon-duff-gov-jesse-ventura-proves-911-cover-up-will-americas-government-fall/
Scratch
news:ip4bh6tpescoaq24a...@4ax.com:
> Yea, yea ... on orders from Satan no doubt ....
>
>
Hahahahahaha
A vast right wing conspiracy
--
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13
Matthew 5:17
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil.
KJV
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Next week: Ventura proves perfessional wrasslin' ain't scripted ~or~
gay.
*us*
Undisputed.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
That Ventura is just another whackjob troofer...?
Undisputed indeed.
Lobby Dosser
news:sskeh6pj7rvb7m8ic...@4ax.com...
I like Jesse Ventura, he's an enjoyable person so I watched the video. He
focused almost entirely on the Pentagon attack and had some good points.
Bottom line for me is one question: If there is nothing to hide, why are
they hiding the records of the Pentagon surveillance cameras? This is
typical government: better to hide everything and allow the citizens to
think you've done something criminal than be open and have them Know you
did.
--
If your name is No, I voted for you - more than once ...
lein
> <DaDoctorDisse...@pompous.arse> wrote in message
>
> news:sskeh6pj7rvb7m8ic...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Uh-huh
> > <moenk...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Is this the biggest con job EVER! Stay tuned for the fun!! Better
> >>than Wkileaks!!!
>
> > Next week: Ventura proves perfessional wrasslin' ain't scripted ~or~
> > gay.
>
> I like Jesse Ventura, he's an enjoyable person so I watched the video. He
> focused almost entirely on the Pentagon attack and had some good points.
> Bottom line for me is one question: If there is nothing to hide, why are
> they hiding the records of the Pentagon surveillance cameras? This is
> typical government: better to hide everything and allow the citizens to
> think you've done something criminal than be open and have them Know you
> did.
Did Jesse offer any suggestion as to where they are hiding Ted Olsen's
wife?
*us*
Still undisputed.
Mo...@tor.com
wrote:
Or the rest of the people on that plane? I watched the video as well. Done in
typical WWF style (he probably knows no other). Some great info on it, but he
seems to avoid the question "so what happened to the airplane and all aboard?"
Seems pretty clear from all of the evidence and first hand info that it wasn't
an airplane that hit the pentagon. There are some quasi tin hat connections that
were made (Rummy's statement and the fact that the pentagon was hit in the exact
spot where the accountants and accounting computerworked). Suffice it to say, if
the pentagon were to release all of the video they have, some of the questions
would be answered. The releasing of three or four frames does seem VERY
questionable. I think Lobby said it best though.
Curt
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:37:57 -0800 (PST), lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com>
They've probably classified the films for the next fifty years,
because that's the Pentagon's gut reaction to anything.
If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, then what'd they do with
the missing airplane and the ~=100souls on board?
Curt
Lobby Dosser
news:57d9ada3-c31b-47fc...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but he did suggest that the phone call never took place. And had some
back up for that. The hole in the wall is an issue. Where did the wings
penetrate the building? If they didn't, where are the parts?
Lobby Dosser
news:287118ea-d912-40fd...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Curt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If - a very big if - the plane did not crash and the damage was the result
of a missile, then what's another 100 or so dead and buried near Palmdale?
Curt
> "Curt" <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If - a very big if - the plane did not crash and the damage was the result
> of a missile, then what's another 100 or so dead and buried near Palmdale?
That's a really, really big bonus paid to the backhoe guy.
Curt
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Kinda hard to dispute dog shit.
But maybe if you weld your tinfoil troofer hat on a bit more tightly,
you could give it a whirl?
*us*
Still undisputed.
Not one contradictory fact has been presented.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Dance for us, troofer.
and Sniff
Look, a butthole with no rebuttal.
*us*
Still undisputed.
Not one contradictory fact has been presented.
The bushkultie has no facts.
*us*
Exactly.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Troofer loons are their own rebuttal.
Dance for us, troofer!
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
The troofer has no clue.
*us*
"At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC
investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed,
according to the Los Angeles Times."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
"Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to
determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies
concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the
airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people
would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the
attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example,
Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he
"designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the
attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but
also of ensuing fires."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
40% of the capacity of a 707."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the
resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest
plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of
jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this
intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It
really does nothing to the screen netting.""
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th"
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html
"these are scientific arguments that can only be fully understood by experts in the
necessary fields"
http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/norman-mineta%E2%80%99s-testimony-suggests-911-was-an-inside-job/
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-Collapse:-The-Evidence-For-.-Demolition_12354.html
*us*
>... loons are ... us...!
It's not about you, though.
*us*
>... no clue.
It's not about you, though.
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Uh-huh <moen...@comcast.net> wrote:
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:12 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>... loons are ... us...!
>
>It's not about you, though.
Childish. Even for a troofer.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:53 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>... no clue.
>
>It's not about you, though.
Repetitively childish. Even for a troofer.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>All undisputed:
All douche troofers fingerfucking each other.
*us*
>Repetitively childish ...
You believe the neocon lies even after they're exposed as such.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:53 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>... no clue.
It's not about you, though.
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Uh-huh <moen...@comcast.net> wrote:
*us*
>Childish ...
You believe the neocon traitor war criminals
are your protectors, don't you.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:12 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>... loons are ... us...!
It's not about you, though.
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:49:16 +0100, and Sniff <andS...@scratch.com> wrote:
*us*
>...douche ...
It's not about you, though.
All undisputed:
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>You believe the neocon traitor war criminals
>are your protectors, don't you.
You fried your mind with recreational drugs, didn't you.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:51 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>Repetitively childish ...
>
>You believe the neocon lies even after they're exposed as such.
You still suck 'rat traitor troofer dick, don't you.
>Still undisputed.
>
>Not one contradictory fact has been presented.
You have presented nothing but the raging delusions of a damaged mind.
Not even facts can steer you from your fantasies.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:22:00 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>...douche ...
>
>It's not about you, though.
It ~is~ about you, however. Rosie O'Donnell thunders through your wet
dreams.
>All undisputed:
Troofer turd pulling:
*us*
>...turd pulling:
Don't advertise here.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:22:00 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...douche ...
It's not about you, though.
All undisputed:
*us*
>Childish ...
You believe the neocon traitor war criminals
are your protectors, don't you.
You got duped.
*us*
>...still suck...
Don't advertise here.
The fact that 9/11 was an inside job remains undisputed.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:51 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>Repetitively childish ...
You believe the neocon lies even after they're exposed as such.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:53 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>... no clue.
It's not about you, though.
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Uh-huh <moen...@comcast.net> wrote:
Still undisputed.
Not one contradictory fact has been presented.
The bushkultie has no facts.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:09 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>Childish ...
>
>You believe the neocon traitor war criminals
>are your protectors, don't you.
>
>You got duped.
The neocon traitor war criminals just called. They're gonna get you!
Perhaps you should retreat to a deeper level of la-la land?
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>The fact that 9/11 was an inside job remains undisputed.
Keep telling yourself that.
Maybe they'll just give you a lobotomy instead of a full-out rectal
roto-rooter...
john whine
> On Dec 29, 9:36 am, Mo...@tor.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:37:57 -0800 (PST), lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Dec 28, 7:46 pm, "Lobby Dosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >> <DaDoctorDisse...@pompous.arse> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:sskeh6pj7rvb7m8ic...@4ax.com...
>
> > >> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:11:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Uh-huh
>
> > >> >>Is this the biggest con job EVER! Stay tuned for the fun!! Better
> > >> >>than Wkileaks!!!
> > >> >>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/18/gordon-duff-gov-jesse-ventura...
>
> > >> > Next week: Ventura proves perfessional wrasslin' ain't scripted ~or~
> > >> > gay.
>
> > >> I like Jesse Ventura, he's an enjoyable person so I watched the video. He
> > >> focused almost entirely on the Pentagon attack and had some good points.
> > >> Bottom line for me is one question: If there is nothing to hide, why are
> > >> they hiding the records of the Pentagon surveillance cameras? This is
> > >> typical government: better to hide everything and allow the citizens to
> > >> think you've done something criminal than be open and have them Know you
> > >> did.
>
> > >Did Jesse offer any suggestion as to where they are hiding Ted Olsen's
> > >wife?
>
> > Or the rest of the people on that plane? I watched the video as well. Done in
> > typical WWF style (he probably knows no other). Some great info on it, but he
> > seems to avoid the question "so what happened to the airplane and all aboard?"
> > Seems pretty clear from all of the evidence and first hand info that it wasn't
> > an airplane that hit the pentagon. There are some quasi tin hat connections that
> > were made (Rummy's statement and the fact that the pentagon was hit in the exact
> > spot where the accountants and accounting computerworked). Suffice it to say, if
> > the pentagon were to release all of the video they have, some of the questions
> > would be answered. The releasing of three or four frames does seem VERY
> > questionable. I think Lobby said it best though.-
>
> They've probably classified the films for the next fifty years,
> because that's the Pentagon's gut reaction to anything.
>
> If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, then what'd they do with
> the missing airplane and the ~=100souls on board?
>
> Curt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i believe there were suggestions in operation northwoods
or some other loon proposal to sub the planes
and remote fly them out toward the bahamas
and the bermuda triangle and blow them up in midair.
Scratch
news:nbvdi6pbi2ggecgli...@4ax.com:
Boy the guy is realy out there.
--
"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in
Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most
open and most ethical Congress in history,"
Pelosi - 2006
Just Words Just Speeches
Barack Obama - 2008
Curt
Aaaaah. Well that's likely what happened then. I suppose they would
have to fly them really low to get them past the ADIZ radar, so when
they went over Miami at like 100'MSL there might be witnesses, but
they could send "men in black" to kill anyone who called the FAA tower
down there and that'd wrap it all up, wouldn't it?
Of course, thinking about it, if you were going to go to all that much
trouble, hijacking the planes and all anyway, why not just fly them
right into the Pentagon which is, actually, much closer than the
Bermuda Tri... oh, nevermind... :)
Curt
Gatt
> "Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
> would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
> slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
> about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707."
The EMPTY weight of a 707 is 122,000 pounds. Max takeoff weight is
about 255,000 lbs.
The EMPTY weight of a 767-200 is is 181,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight
is about 375,000 lbs depending on the midel.
So, your value of "slightly smaller size" would be simple nonsense if
it wasn't deliberate misinformation totally disprovable by a simple
lookup at wikipedia or airliners.net. Conspicuously, I've heard this
exact language including "slightly smaller size" from other dropout
idiots who believe what little they read and can't do their own
research because they skipped that year of school.
The other crap that usually accompanies this nonsense has to do with
the airplane speeds. The top speeds for either aircraft were high
above the actual impact speed, so that's irrelevant.
Moreover, the physics behind the fire that softened the metal frame of
the building is logical. If metal is heated it softens. Guys like
you probably can't figure out how blacksmiths at Fort Vancouver manage
to forge red-hot metal using only wood and air.
Gatt
>
> The bushkultie has no facts.
I posted the empty and gross weights of the airplanes and described
how fire softens steel. By the way, the "differences in cruise
speeds" are meanlingless unless the airplanes were at cruise. Which
they weren't. Fact.
Also, I've never voted for a Bush product. You're flailing. The
hallmark of Troofer idiots is that anybody who doesn't believe them is
automatically a George Bush fan. According to you fucking idiots,
every pilot in America is a "bushkultie" who has no facts.
You probably believe the thermite theories too.
Curt
Well done response, Chris -- yet, strangely wasted.
Truthers, like birthers, don't do physics, history, logic, psychology,
nor optics. That's why they get admitted to the truther/birther fold
-- by being, um, stupid.
Once they're in The Stupid Club, of course, no response that comes
from outside the club counts.
Curt
john whine
<resists impulse to break into scornful laffter and abuse>
details, details...
>
> Of course, thinking about it, if you were going to go to all that much
> trouble, hijacking the planes and all anyway, why not just fly them
> right into the Pentagon which is, actually, much closer than the
> Bermuda Tri... oh, nevermind... :)
i don't know what their thinking might have been or what might've
seemed more expedient.
i do know that BIG 'secrets hidden in the open' exist and probably you
don't.
nanner nanner...
and just because you wouldn't do something doesn't mean somebody else
wouldn't as well.
and do you think some of these posters (the intensely antagonistic
ones)
aren't paid shills in the employ of some contractor pr firm?
just because YOU think it's a silly idea?
trusting soul.
*us*
>... strangely wasted.
Otherwise you'd have a fact.
>...turd pulling:
Don't advertise here.
>...douche ...
All undisputed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
40% of the capacity of a 707."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
*us*
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:09 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>Childish ...
You believe the neocon traitor war criminals
are your protectors, don't you.
You got duped.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:01:12 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
*us*
>I posted ...
Yet you don't have a contradictory fact.
>...still suck...
Don't advertise here.
>Repetitively childish ...
>... no clue.
Still undisputed.
The bushkultie has no facts.
*us*
>The EMPTY weight of a 707 is 122,000 pounds. Max takeoff weight is
>about 255,000 lbs.
>
>The EMPTY weight of a 767-200 is is 181,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight
>is about 375,000 lbs depending on the midel.
Neither could have caused the lower floors of the towers to pulverize.
>...turd pulling:
Don't advertise here.
>...douche ...
All undisputed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight
would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the
slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about
40% of the capacity of a 707."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
*us*
<Larry_Lund_of_Idiocy@la_load_in_the_pants> wrote:
>... realy [sic] out there.
Too far for you to learn English, no doubt.
http://mindprod.com/politics/bush911insidejob.html
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:39:17 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...still suck...
Don't advertise here.
The fact that 9/11 was an inside job remains undisputed.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:51 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
*us*
investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed,
according to the Los Angeles Times."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
Want patriotism? See: "Jesse Ventura".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html
http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/norman-mineta%E2%80%99s-testimony-suggests-911-was-an-inside-job/
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-Collapse:-The-Evidence-For-.-Demolition_12354.html
The above is all totally undisputed.
No contradictory fact has been presented.
*us*
There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt.
I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the
Rubicon.
1. Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely
separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air
Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar
screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological
capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the
acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)
2. Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches
its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more
expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney
was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided
the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our
lifetime." (Click here for a summary of these points)
3. Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the
morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at
least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA
radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the
Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded.
The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter
jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the
attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management. (Click here
for a summary of these points)"
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html
Undisputed.
*us*
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:39:17 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...still suck...
Don't advertise here.
The fact that 9/11 was an inside job remains undisputed.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:20:51 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
Scratch
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
(just more oily anal troofer discharge)
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
(yet more oily anal troofer discharge)
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
(even more oily anal troofer discharge)
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
(copious amounts of oily anal troofer discharge)
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
(Biblical flood levels of oily anal troofer discharge)
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
If I am, where the 'ell is my check?
Whatever. I happily call out troofer bullshit for free.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>>The EMPTY weight of a 707 is 122,000 pounds. Max takeoff weight is
>>about 255,000 lbs.
>>
>>The EMPTY weight of a 767-200 is is 181,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight
>>is about 375,000 lbs depending on the midel.
>
>Neither could have caused the lower floors of the towers to pulverize.
You give complete fuckwits a bad reputation.
Okay now trooferboi, post your incoherent cut & paste response for us
(~any~ editing constitutes your full agreement to a brick through your
skull):
Scratch
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 05:55:59 -0500, * US * wrote:
>
> (just more oily anal troofer discharge)
>
I had no idea they allowed computers in rubber rooms.
john whine
>and do you think some of these posters (the intensely antagonistic
>ones)
>aren't paid shills in the employ of some contractor pr firm?
>just because YOU think it's a silly idea?
If I am, where the 'ell is my check?
Whatever. I happily call out troofer bullshit for free.
********************************************************
did i mention you?
nevertheless, you have it written all over you.
abuse, no visible contribution to anything.
and you don't point out shit.
all you do is blow it out yer mouth.
john whine
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you
see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the
accessibility icon.
Send Discard
john whine View profile
More options Dec 30 2010, 12:12 am
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy, alt.politics, alt.true-crime,
misc.transport.trucking, talk.politics.misc
From: john whine <john.wh...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:12:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Dec 30 2010 12:12 am
Subject: Re: 9/11 was certainly an inside job.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
Are Right-Wing Libertarian Internet Trolls Getting Paid to Dumb Down
Online Conversations?
By George Monbiot, Comment Is Free
Posted on December 15, 2010, Printed on December 29, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/
They are the online equivalent of enclosure riots: the rick-burning,
fence-toppling protests by English peasants losing their rights to
the
land. When MasterCard, Visa, Paypal and Amazon tried to shut
WikiLeaks
out of the cyber-commons, an army of hackers responded by trying to
smash
their way into these great estates and pull down their fences.
In the Wikileaks punch-up the commoners appear to have the upper
hand.
But it’s just one battle. There’s a wider cyberwar being fought, of
which
you hear much less. And in most cases the landlords, with the help of
a
mercenary army, are winning.
I’m not talking here about threats to net neutrality and the danger
of
a
two-tier internet developing, though these are real. I’m talking
about
the daily attempts to control and influence content in the interests
of
the state and corporations: attempts in which money talks.
The weapon used by both state and corporate players is a technique
known
as astroturfing. An astroturf campaign is one that mimics spontaneous
grassroots mobilizations, but which has in reality been organized.
Anyone
writing a comment piece in Mandarin critical of the Chinese
government,
for example, is likely to be bombarded with abuse by people
purporting
to
be ordinary citizens, upset by the slurs against their country.
But many of them aren’t upset: they are members of the 50 Cent Party,
so-
called because one Chinese government agency pays 5 mao (half a yuan)
for
every post its tame commenters write. Teams of these sock-puppets are
hired by party leaders to drown out critical voices and derail
intelligent debates.
I first came across online astroturfing in 2002, when the
investigators
Andy Rowell and Jonathan Matthews looked into a series of comments
made
by two people calling themselves Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek.
They
had launched ferocious attacks, across several internet forums,
against a
scientist whose research suggested that Mexican corn had been widely
contaminated by GM pollen.
Rowell and Matthews found that one of the messages Mary Murphy had
sent
came from a domain owned by the Bivings Group, a PR company
specializing
in internet lobbying. An article on the Bivings website explained
that
“there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even
disastrous to let the audience know that your organization is
directly
involved … Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way
to
anonymously monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into
this
world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present
your
position as an uninvolved third party."
The Bivings site also quoted a senior executive from the biotech
corporation Monsanto, thanking the PR firm for its “outstanding
work”.
When a Bivings executive was challenged by Newsnight, he admitted
that
the “Mary Murphy” email was sent by someone “working for Bivings” or
“clients using our services”. Rowell and Matthews then discovered
that
the IP address on Andura Smetacek’s messages was assigned to
Monsanto’s
headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri(9). There’s a nice twist to this
story. AstroTurf TM - real fake grass - was developed and patented by
Monsanto.
Reading comment threads on the Guardian’s sites and elsewhere on the
web,
two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues
in
which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilized
than
debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions:
such
as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These
are
often characterized by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.
Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than
any
others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my
columns. But it’s a depressing experience, as instead of contesting
the
issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile
abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit
it.
This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible -
which
appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and
a
certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both
traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend be more
willing to discuss an issue than these right-wing libertarians, many
of
whom seek instead to shut down debate.
So what’s going on? I’m not suggesting that most of the people trying
to
derail these discussions are paid to do so, though I would be
surprised
if none were. I’m suggesting that some of the efforts to prevent
intelligence from blooming seem to be organized, and that neither
website
hosts nor other commenters know how to respond.
For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a
training
session organized by a rightwing libertarian group called American
Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party
members
on
how to “manipulate the medium”. This is what he told them:
“Here’s what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in “Liberal Books”. I go
through and I say “one star, one star, one star”. The flipside is you
go
to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and
give
them five stars. … This is where your kids get information: Rotten
Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So
when
you type in “Movies on Healthcare”, I don’t want Michael Moore’s to
come
up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day,
just
click, click, click, click. … If there’s a place to comment, a place
to
rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That’s how you
control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance.”
Over 75% of the funding for American Majority, which hosted this
training
session, comes from the Sam Adams Alliance. In 2008, the year in
which
American Majority was founded, 88% of the alliance’s money came from
a
single donation, of $3.7m(13). A group which trains rightwing
libertarians to distort online democratic processes, in other words,
was
set up with funding from a person or company with a very large
wallet.
The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the
greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We’re in
danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from
an
army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or
trained.
The question for all of us - the Guardian, other websites, everyone
who
benefits from this resource - is what we intend to do about it. It’s
time
we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best:
exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate.
George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from
Burning.
Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally
appeared in the Guardian.
© 2010 Comment Is Free All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/
Reply Reply to author Forward
john whine
*us*
<Larry_Lund_of_Nampa_IDIOT@a_load_in_the_pants> wrote:
>...need to be in a rubber room
You believe all the Bush/Cheney lies, don't you.
*us*
<Larry_Lund_of_Nampa_IDIOT@a_load_in_the_pants> wrote:
>I had no idea ...
Well there's the story of your 'life'.
Bush and Cheney destroyed a lot of lives already
and are still cashing in on it.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:18:20 +0000 (UTC), Snatch
<Larry_Lund_of_Nampa_IDIOT@a_load_in_the_pants> wrote:
>...need to be in a rubber room
You believe all the Bush/Cheney lies, don't you.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Snatch
*us*
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html
Undisputed.
Not one contradictory fact has been presented.
Not one.
*us*
>... discharge...
Try to avoid your keyboard with that.
You can't dispute any of this:
http://mindprod.com/politics/bush911insidejob.html
Or this:
*us*
investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed,
according to the Los Angeles Times."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
*us*
*us*
>...give complete fuckwits a bad reputation.
>... incoherent ...
You do have problems.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:46:29 -0800 (PST), Gass <gat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The EMPTY weight of a 707 is 122,000 pounds. Max takeoff weight is
>about 255,000 lbs.
>
>The EMPTY weight of a 767-200 is is 181,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight
>is about 375,000 lbs depending on the midel.
Neither could have caused the lower floors of the towers to pulverize.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:41:29 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...turd pulling:
Don't advertise here.
>...douche ...
All undisputed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html
http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/norman-mineta%E2%80%99s-testimony-suggests-911-was-an-inside-job/
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-Collapse:-The-Evidence-For-.-Demolition_12354.html
Undisputed.
*us*
*us*
>I posted ...
Yet you don't have a contradictory fact.
>...still suck...
Don't advertise here.
>Repetitively childish ...
>... no clue.
Still undisputed.
The bushkultie fears reality.
*us*
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Is ~that~ where you came from?
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:56:20 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>
>>...give complete fuckwits a bad reputation.
>>... incoherent ...
>
>You do have problems.
You, fer starters. It truly baffles me that you haven't shit yourself
inside out with all yer troofer oozings.
Scratch
from US postings he could have been the shooter in AZ. He is a Whacko!
john whine
>
> - Show quoted text -
<twiddles thumbs, looks around and rolls eyes heavenward>
still no response?
to anything?
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Nothing of value to respond to.
*us*
>... It truly baffles me...
It all does, no doubt.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:56:20 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...give complete fuckwits a bad reputation.
>... incoherent ...
You do have problems.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:46:29 -0800 (PST), Gass <gat...@gmail.com> wrote:
*us*
<Larry_Lund_of_Nampa_IDIOT@la_load_in_the_pants> wrote:
>... could have been the shooter in AZ...
No one had asked about you.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:56:20 -0800, DaDoctor...@pompous.arse wrote:
>...give complete fuckwits a bad reputation.
>... incoherent ...
You do have problems.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:46:29 -0800 (PST), Gass <gat...@gmail.com> wrote:
*us*
>Nothing of value ...
You have nothing of value because you fear reality.
Learn the real history:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p431_Lutton.html
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-bush-must-rectify-pearl-harbor-smear/
http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol11/nm_11_2_1to17.pdf
"If a group of people made a public statement saying that having a new Pearl Harbor would
be the only way the public would support their agenda, and these same people were in
positions that would allow them to conduct, permit or enable such an event when that event
actually took place...would they deserve your suspicion? Well this is EXACTLY what
happened. The very people with established motives for conducting an event like the one
that took place on 9/11/2001 were responsible for national security when we had that most
unlikely, unrealistic and implausible complete catastrophic failure of every single
defense procedure in operation."
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/smoking_gun.html
The Japanese weren't permitted to surrender when they were ready to do so.
That was in order to intimidate the Soviets via the gratuitous use of the bomb.
It helps to understand the real situation, including that of Pearl Harbor.
The US goaded Japan into attacking, and then let the attack occur despite warnings of it,
indeed even made itself more vulnerable to that attack than it should have. The US
government at that time wanted to gain public support for war, and 'improve trade' in the
east. They accomplished that, but threw in the added threat to everybody else by
escalating to the use of nuclear bombs on civilians, when many who knew a great deal about
the situation considered that excessive.
"The duty officer at U.S. Asiatic Fleet headquarters in Manila first received
word of the Pearl Harbor attack at 0230 on 8 December 1941, but a full hour passed before
Brig. Gen. Richard K. Sutherland, MacArthur's chief of staff, heard the news from
commercial broadcasts. He immediately notified MacArthur and all commanders that a state
of war now existed with Japan. MacArthur ordered his troops to battle stations.
Despite this warning, when the Japanese pilots of the 11th Air Fleet attacked Clark Field
nine hours later, they caught two squadrons of B-17s lined up on the field and a number of
American fighters just preparing to take off. The first wave of twenty-seven Japanese
twin-engine bombers achieved complete tactical surprise and destroyed most of the American
heavy bombers. A second bomber strike followed while Zero fighters strafed the field. Only
three P-40s managed to take off. A simultaneous attack on Iba Field in northwest Luzon was
also successful: all but two of the 3d Squadron's P-40s were destroyed. The Far East Air
Force lost fully half its planes the first day of the war. ..."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/pi/pi.htm
Were you unaware that Japan was *provoked* into that attack? The US froze Japanese assets
(treaty violation) and embargoed their oil. Roosevelt was tired of supplying only
materials to the war, and he saw Japan as the easiest way in, via an attack on US soil.
Why did Roosevelt order the pacific fleet to relocate from the west coast to Hawaii in the
summer of 1940? Why was the commander, Admiral Richardson, removed after complaining that
Pearl Harbor didn't offer sufficient air or topedo defense?
Didn't Roosevelt receive a memo in the fall of 1940, from a Navy analyst, describing eight
ways to force Japan to attack the US (one of them an oil embargo), and all of them
eventually implemented? Didn't Roosevelt's advisor Ickes tell him that an oil embargo
would be an "easy" way to get into the war, the day after Hitler attacked Russia in the
summer of 1941?
"President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in Europe, especially
after the fall of France (June 1940). In this desire he was supported by the old elite ...
After meeting FDR at the Atlantic Conference (August 14, 1941) Churchill noted the
"astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war." But there was a problem: the
President could not overcome the resistance to
"Europe's war" felt by most Americans and their elected representatives.
The mood of the country was a problem, and Roosevelt therefore resorted to subterfuge. He
systematically and deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking the United States.
His real target was Hitler: Roosevelt expected the German dictator to abide by the
Tripartite Pact and declare war on America, and hoped that Hitler's decision would be
facilitated by a display of America's apparent vulnerability. Accordingly, even though
Roosevelt was well aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor ..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3522a943db.html
The US Army Signal Intelligence Service had cracked the Japanese codes before December of
1941. Although a British obsession with secrecy allowed the US to claim it had first
deciphered JN25, it was actually done first by the British and Australians.
"The "true heroes" of the Allied codebreaking effort, Smith says, were Eric
Nave, an Australian officer attached to the Royal Navy, and John Tiltman, a British
cryptographer. Although the Americans claimed that they broke JN25, the Japanese navy's
operational code which contributed to the destruction of the Japanese carrier fleet at
Midway, it was the work of Tiltman -- only a few weeks after it came into use in 1939."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/09/Codebreaking2.html
"In 1979 the NSA released 2,413 JN-25 orders of the 26,581 intercepted by US
between Sept 1 and Dec 4, 1941. The NSA says "We know now that they contained important
details concerning the existence, organization, objective, and even the whereabouts of the
Pearl Harbor Strike Force." (Parker p 21) Of the over thousand radio messages sent by
Tokyo to the attack fleet, only 20 are in the National Archives. All messages to the
attack fleet were sent several times, at least one message was sent every odd hour of the
day and each had a special serial number. Starting in early November 1941 when the attack
fleet assembled and started receiving radio messages, OP-20-G stayed open 24 hours a day
and the "First Team" of codebreakers worked on JN-25. In November and early December
1941, OP-20-G spent 85 percent of its effort reading Japanese Navy traffic, 12 percent on
Japanese diplomatic traffic and 3 percent on German naval codes. FDR was personally
briefed twice a day on JN-25 traffic by his aide, Captain John Beardell, and demanded to
see the original raw messages in English. The US Government refuses to identify or
declassify any pre-Dec 7, 1941 decrypts of JN-25 on the basis of national security, a
half-century after the war."
http://home.earthlink.net/~nbrass1/3enigma.htm
Many people disagreed with the nuclear bombings of Japan:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in
Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I
was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the
wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb
test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently
expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling
of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief
that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and
secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use
of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to
surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my
attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful
bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My
own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard
common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion,
and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - William Leahy, I Was There,
pg. 441.
On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy
Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its
indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance
by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July,
demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.'
MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and
that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his
people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the
surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the
imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary." William Manchester, American Caesar:
Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of
Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur,
"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues,
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to
learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He
replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might
have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did
anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
A panel set up by President Truman to study the Pacific war issued a report, the United
States Strategic Bombing Survey, in July 1946, which declared,
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that
certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had
not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been
planned or contemplated."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j080801.html
By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the
resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been
destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the
spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except
for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was
complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese
cities for his bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, U.S. planes could fly over
Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no
longer defend itself.{6} After the war, the world learned what U.S. leaders had known by
early 1945: Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima. It had been trying for
months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these
overtures. A May 5 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., dispelled any possible
doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace. Sent to Berlin by the German
ambassador in Tokyo, after he talked to a ranking Japanese naval officer, it read:
Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese
armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if
the terms were hard...
As far as is known, Washington did nothing to pursue this opening. Later that month,
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson almost capriciously dismissed three separate high-level
recommendations from within the Roosevelt administration to activate peace negotiations.
The proposals advocated signaling Japan that the U.S. was willing to consider the
all-important retention of the emperor system; i.e., the U.S. would not insist upon
"unconditional surrender"...
According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, Secretary of State Byrnes had said
that the bomb's biggest benefit was not its effect on Japan but its power to "make Russia
more manageable in Europe"...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Slaughter_WBlum.html
http://www.socialistworker.org/377APages/377A_04_PearlHarbor.shtml
Of course, this was also the time in history when Prescott Bush, grandfather of the POTUS,
was making a fortune in banking for the Nazis.
The truth is that the Bush regime deals terror. Wasn't the first Bush president involved
in Iraqgate and Iran-Contra?
Anyone recall that the guy who shot Reagan was a Bush family friend?
Will anyone complain when anything branded a 'conspiracy theory' by the Bushites leads to
arrests and asset forfeitures, without due process, of United States citizens?
The Bush regime benefits directly and substantially from that [9/11] attack, via entities
such as the Carlyle Group.
'Born-again' Bush called it a 'crusade' against 'Islam', a 'war' against 'terrorism', as
he let the postal workers die of anthrax.
Then why the hysteria against 'Islam' and not against 'Christianity' for the likes of the
abortion-clinic bombers and the KKK?
Isn't ['Dubya'] the one who approves of groups associated with the KKK?
So US war machine propaganda means that the US military is terrorist. That's no surprise
to folks in Nicaragua, and so many other places with similar histories ...
If only a true superpower would just win over populations by letting them farm their farms
and work their trades and build schools and hospitals and medicine factories and roads,
instead of destroying helpless innocent people in droves until there is no one with the
strength left to complain.
The illegal invasion of Iraq is also a war crime of massive proportions.
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth
about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would
be chased down in the streets and lynched."
-George H. W. "Poppy" Bush, spoken in an interview with
Sarah McClendon, June 1992
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/61956/index.php
See also:
""The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
~ Former CIA Director William Colby who died shortly after speaking
the quote in a freak canoe accident"
Gatt
> Well done response, Chris -- yet, strangely wasted.
>
> Truthers, like birthers, don't do physics, history, logic, psychology,
> nor optics. That's why they get admitted to the truther/birther fold
> -- by being, um, stupid.
No doubt. But, it's strange that the use of the descriptions of 757s
being only slighty larger than a 707 keeps reoccuring. Somebody is
feeding them this stuff, like they tried to advance the thermite
theory that kept popping up.
What's startling is when you find out that some cousin, in-law or
friend's husband you thought was pretty squared away starts
regurgitating this nonsense and defending it as if they were there.
Besides, everybody knows 9/11 was a hoax. The towers were structurally
weakened when the government slaughtered a giant gorilla that climbed
up to the roof back in the '70s. Millions of people saw it and it's
all on film.
Gatt
> >The EMPTY weight of a 707 is 122,000 pounds. Max takeoff weight is
> >about 255,000 lbs.
>
> >The EMPTY weight of a 767-200 is is 181,000 lbs. Max takeoff weight
> >is about 375,000 lbs depending on the midel.
>
> Neither could have caused the lower floors of the towers to pulverize.
Don't try to change the subject, there, senator. Your sourced claimed
a similarity where there was none.
IE, it's bullshit. When your bullshit is identified, you don't get to
declare it irrelevant. Otherwise, you wouldn't have advanced the bogus
claim in the first place.
When you grow up this is all going to be very embarrassing for you.
john whine
> declare it irrelevant. Otherwise, you wouldn't have advanced the bogus
_________________________
so do you have to stand by EVERYTHING that
YOU'VE declared to be the flawless truth?
over the past few year?
i know, i know...
they keep tryin' to move the fucking goalpost on you.
woo hoo!
how can you WIN an argument THAT way!
i ask you!
(fuck having a discussion,
give and take
or arriving at some sense of the truth)
Curt
My brother is a squared-away guy, business owner, college graduate,
utterly normal -- but he will argue with me for hours that it was a
missile that hit the Pentagon and that the towers were weakened by
explosive charges. Drives me nuts.
Curt
john whine
where do these fucking shills come from?
un-announced and heretofore unheard of they pop up
like pink mushrooms in some reindeer stable.
acting like they've been here for years,
homeboy-highfiving each other like goober-faced
sockpuppets and generally trying to carry on like they're normal.
PAID SHILLS!
INTERNET PISSANTS!
SIMPERING LITTLE SHITFACED
TWATMOUTHS!
*us*
>... the use of the descriptions of 757s
>being only slighty larger than a 707 .
That's irrelevant, merely your straw man.
You don't seem to understand what the
engineers and architects know about it.
Notice that not one word of any of the following has been
disputed in any way:
"Its presumption that "collapse initiation" will automatically
lead to "global collapse" is unfounded."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
"At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC
investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed,
according to the Los Angeles Times."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
Want patriotism? See: "Jesse Ventura".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html
http://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/norman-mineta%E2%80%99s-testimony-suggests-911-was-an-inside-job/
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/WTC-Collapse:-The-Evidence-For-.-Demolition_12354.html
All totally undisputed.
No contradictory fact has been presented.
No contradictory fact is known to exist.
*us*
>... it was a
>missile that hit the Pentagon
That was what Rumsfeld said.
>and that the towers were weakened by
>explosive charges.
What do you imagine about plane crashes
and fires would pulverize concrete?
>Drives me nuts.
>
>Curt
Are you nuts enough to believe that Bush
and Cheney would refrain from having all
those people murdered so horribly?
*us*
>...try to change the subject...
You do that because you have no actual facts.
The engineers and architects have the facts..
You have no basis for your unwarranted beliefs.
>... bullshit... very embarrassing ...
You are making quite the historical-level fool of yourself
in public if you're claiming Bush and Cheney would not
have thousands of Americans murdered.
Curt
Haaar.. yeah.. we're paid by the guys that REALLY blew up the WTC.
You're on to us.
Curt
Jarbidge
The Pentagon one is tougher as we never saw the wing debris removed, or a
signature entry mark for them.
Jarbidge
> All totally undisputed.
No, he just DID dispute them, dim one.
> No contradictory fact has been presented.
Sorry ace, he did that too.
> No contradictory fact is known to exist.
0 for 3 there troofer, thanks for playing though.
Jarbidge
Where is my check?
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:20:23 -0800 (PST), Curt <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>... it was a
>>missile that hit the Pentagon
>
>That was what Rumsfeld said.
>
>>and that the towers were weakened by
>>explosive charges.
>
>What do you imagine about plane crashes
>and fires would pulverize concrete?
>
>>Drives me nuts.
>>
>>Curt
>
>Are you nuts enough to believe that Bush
>and Cheney would refrain from having all
>those people murdered so horribly?
...and still let a fecalcephalic like you walk the earth?
Unfathomable.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
Now we'll have to disintegrate him.
Where did you leave the Pu-36 explosive space modulator?
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
It was stapled to the missile.
DaDoctor...@pompous.arse
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:39:06 -0800 (PST), Gatt <gat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>...try to change the subject...
>
>You do that because you have no actual facts.
>
>The engineers and architects have the facts..
>
>You have no basis for your unwarranted beliefs.
Dance for us in your troofer tutu, fool!