This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
As hard as it is to believe, Kayinsane is a 100% True Believer™ of 9/11 inside job. With her it's Halliburton, Cheney and The Jooooos™ conspiring to take over all the world's oil.
She also claims to have inside knowlege that every Jew in the WTC was warned to get out ahead of time.
She is also a deciple of Alex Jones (through her idol Rosie) and even has echoed Rosie's "fire has never melted steel" bilge. All this while her sycophants cheerlead her like some sage.
All that and most likely a MoRon Paul Supporter as well.
VW
I am dead serious that these types are clinically insane.
This guy was straight up serious. He ACTUALLY 100% believes, that the planes weren't even there, they were holograms.
No VW, he likes Gravel.
Eventually you will see there is no percentage in engaging the insane.
You can't convince them they are insane, you can't convince them that their preposterous and luaghable ideas are mental, you can only avoid them or beat them into submission.....
And beating them down eventually loses it's charm too.
Jenn ... Shhhhhhhh! Don't tell this to KayInsane, for you know she'll believe every single word of it, especially the hologram technology part of it.
Yep, I knew it, we're all living on a big giant Holodeck on the Federation starship Voyager.
BWahahahahaha!
There is no charm at all Rex.
What I don't understand is what are the eeeeeeevil neocons waiting for? Between them and the Joooooooo's they apparently have control of everything ... let's get the show on the road.
Who killed Kennedy and Martin Luther? Someone did, do you believe?
So THAT'S who my brother in law is always telling me to listen to, Alex Jones. No wonder my sister is a moonbat of the first order. :?
LOL.
Alex Jones is severely mentally challenged. My Bro as well listened to his shit for a while till I set him straight.
I mean seriously....these people, these "moonbats" are really mental. To the point that I really believe they are a danger to society.
I mean what kind of person posts over and over again on a blog where she is universally loathed and her comments will be deleted? I mean today alone I have deleted over 15 comments and it's only 9:30, from one psycho Moonbat.
I work with a guy who believes it was George Bush the First's fault. That we were attacked because
of what the first George Bush did and because "W" was elected.
That was his stretch.
BTW your x-ray of Homer's brain is an awful generous comparison to moonbats.
I suppose the people on the planes were holograms too.
Well Kris, what you are implying is reality tending to mess up fantasy.
My issue is that anyone that can actually buy this kind of shit is scary.
These dingbatted moonbats will believe all this conspiracy bullshit but at the same time call the Bible a book of lies & errors.
There is far more proof that Jesus Christ lived, died by crucifixion and rose from the dead than global warming or any of the envirowhacko propaganda.
No kidding Kris - where are the people that were on those four planes??? And if it were fake - why did Flight 93 go into the ground instead of into another building. While the people that true believers of this crap are laughable/pathetic/insane this talk also pisses me off. How dare they take that horrible day and turn it into something other than what it was just to fuel their insane hatred of the President and the Bush Administration. I don't think I could restrain myself if I were ever to meet one of these idiots.
What's really nutty is these conspiarcy lunatics always think it's the Joooooooo's or eeeeeeeevil Neocons ... but never, ever consider the democrats who are the most devious of them all.
I suppose the plane I saw hit the Pentagon was a hologram too? And all my neighbors that died in that building were figments of my imagination?
See now - this is why I hate people! Moonbat people (I qualified that because I know Miss Jenn will make me).
BTW, Darwin - neocon and joooooo is redundant. A neocon IS a Jew. Soooo...
"neocon and joooooo is redundant."
It is?
"neocon and joooooo is redundant."
It is?
darwin
Yep:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ex...a/?
id=110005656
Kelly, I did listen to someone who really should know better spout this shit about a year or so ago.
My friends were amazed I didn't deck him.
LOL! Actually, Kris, I'm amazed too!
Miss Jeeeennnn! Clean Up on aisle 9!!!
Wow. Does this mean I'm not a neocon, and I can dispute it any time I get called one by a lefty? 
http://thisisstokenewington.word.../10/i-remember/
for wit and kelly
Nooo....let's not question what our government tell us. Lemmings. Listen, I don't believe in 911 the conspiracies but I also believe they haven't told us the whole truth.
Nice write up Kris! That brought a tear to my eye! I've saved it.
Fuck you goosestep! You should thank God that you don't have that memory burned behind your eyes!
Our government didn't see it coming - we got sucker punched! You want to blame them for that? Fine! But get off this damned schtick that they're hiding something.
Our fucking top secrets get published in the fucking newspapers and you think our government can keep secrets? You think they're that good?
On one hand you people talk about how fucking lame and inept they are - and on the other they are so great at fabrication and hiding shit they can pull off an attack on ourselves without ANYONE talking!
You fucking can't have it both ways!
Sorry for all the F-bombs, folks. I'm afraid I lost my temper!
Nooo....let's not question what our government tell us.
... was followed by...
Lemmings. Listen, I don't believe in 911 the conspiracies.
Sure you don't, Senator Kerry.
Wow. Does this mean I'm not a neocon, and I can dispute it any time I get called one by a lefty?
Kate
Sure! Keep that article I linked to with you. Then you can say something like, "Oh! But I'm not Jewish!" It'll totally screw with their heads!
LOL! That might be fun to watch!
"Sorry for all the F-bombs, folks. I'm afraid I lost my temper!"
No prob ... sounds good to me. Let 'em rip.
"but I also believe they haven't told us the whole truth."
Actually, I don't either. Clinton screwed up royally, as well as our intelligence services. Politics got in the way of protecting this nation.
Who was the guy that stole and destroyed classified documents? You know, the sock guy?
Sandy Burgler.
TURKEYS ARE MORE INTELLEGENT THEN MOONBATS
OK - if they were holograms, why do they look so darned convincing?
Where were the projectors?
How about the people controlling the projectors? Why have they not come forward?
How can a hologram be projected into precisely the right spot, through smoke, where "explosives" planted on glass were not seen by the people in the offices involved? (talking about the second plane, here)
How can a hologram leave a divot in a field in Pennsylvania?
And, the grandaddy of all questions - where are all the people who are listed as missing or dead from the attacks? I am sure their family members would want to know - no amount of payoff would keep me quiet about this.
If they were all killed off, who killed them? Members of our own government? Since the Truthers® have all the info, perhaps they can share just a name or two so we can start doing some research ourselves?
Geez - namvet is right - they believe all this crap and yet look at Christians as wacko when we share the gospel. Go figure.
Don't you people know that the the planes were real and they landed at an undisclosed military installation shorly after take off, where they were off loaded and 'processed' while the military fitted the jets with remote control devices so that they could fly them into the buildings as a cover for the demo charges they were going to detonate. The Muslim 'hijackers' were 'recruited' by the military to cast blame on the mulim world so we could go to war and steal thier oil. Furthermore, the buildings were designed to take the impact of an aircraft so it was not possible that the impacts actually caused them to fall, even if the aircraft that hit them were MUCH larger than the ones they were designed to absorb and carried MUCH more fuel which ignighted the MASSIVE amounts of flamable materials typically found in offices and created super hot pools of concentrated fire that the building designers never could have envisioned. Besides, fire can't melt steel. Steel is apparently naturally occurring element that magical fairies carve into I-beams. It is not shaped by using heat and does not become weakend and malleable at temperatures far below its melting point. It is formed by environmentally 'green' fairy magic that gets its power from the souls of the unborn.
You people are silly!
Oh, by 'processed' that means that our evil neocon military took those innocent people off the plane and disposed of them as sacrafices on the altar of Big Oil.
"How can a hologram leave a divot in a field in Pennsylvania?"
It can't ... the large divot itself was a hologram ... as well as the field and Pennsylvania itself. In fact, George Bush is a hologram.
We're ALL holograms!!
"We're ALL holograms!!"
I have to call BS on this one. If I were a hologram I would be in the same shape I was ten years ago and with the looks of Brad Pitt, the skills of Jason Bourne and the bank account of Bill Gates!
YOU LIE!
LMAO Yup...and I'd have the bod I had at 25. sigh.... Dang...reality slaps me upside the head again. 
Yeah, see - if I was a hologram I wouldn't need glasses and contacts, my six pack abs wouldn't have developed into a brewery of their own, I would still be able to run 3 miles in under 18 minutes, and it wouldn't HURT SO D/-MN MUCH WHEN I GET UP IN THE MORNING.
Hey, Kate - maybe your hologram and my hologram would hit it off. We should introduce them.
And, CC - thanks for clearing up those misconceptions. I feel MUCH better now...
It is a pleasure. I mean how can so many people 'actually' believe that there are crazy muslim extremist that hate us soooo much that they would sacrifice their own lives just two kill a few thousand Americans and take down two of the largest symbols of capitalism in the world. Utterly rediculous, right?
Utterly.
Patently false.
It was a figment of the nation's imagination. The WTC is still standing, and there are people still working there to this day.
I don't know what all the fuss is about.
You must have woken Jenn up.
I want a piece of that hologram stuff - I want to be 18 forever!!!!!
Uh oh! The 9/11 thang. Elroy is feeling somewhat nervous...
So here we are in the citadel of absolutism, where if yer ain't fer it yer a'gin it, where everything is either black or white, on or off, where to profess any doubt is to be a true believer, where any notion of equity is to be a Marxist-Stalinist dreaming of five-year tractor quotas, but here we go.
A couple of you feel that there is more proof that Jesus was the son of god than there is for the idea that not everything about 9/11 exactly stacks up but seeing as the Bible, full as it is of good intention, is not exactly bursting with scientific and empirical data I don't know if this is an entirely accurate statement.
Certainly, the Troofers have done their homework. They have emperical data coming out of every orifice and there is an increasing amount
of professionals from all walks – engineers, pilots, architects, military – willing to put their hand up and question what happened.
9/11 should not be a matter of faith, it should be a matter of hard science, of theories competing in the marketplace of ideas until the truth emerges; certainly it is a fair comment that the '19 Arabs' approach is itself a conspiracy theory – the challenge, therefore, is to unemotionally and clinically dissect the information and see whereit leads – CSI NY!
With regards to Jesus, I am always amused how the Right are so eager to uncritically accept wisdom from higher up, be it from the Bible or the White House, and also their propensity to latch onto the more barking mad aspects of their enemies' concerns and tar everyone with same brush.
Here's the thing, kiddies – not everyone with questions about 9/11 buy into the hologram hypothesis, but one thing they can all agree on is how did the towers fall down? Troofers hold that explosives were needed as the planes could not have done it alone, yet Jenn says this is 'impossible', so I wonder if she could expound on this?
This is an interesting question, and one that neither NIST or FEMA can answer. I, for one, would like to know one way or the other, so if Jenn could put me out of my misery I'd be mighty obliged.
Cheers
Elroy
It looks like Elroid uses about 1,000 words to skate around what we already know - he's a full-blown 100% moonbat troofer.
We all know and expect it. No need to mask it with a dissertation.
Bingo! I just won the bet! RR was the first cab off the rank to assume that I am the worst of the most extreme worst for merely pointing out that many otherwise sane people do have some reasonable questions about 9/11 and that a forensic inquiry would not be an entirely bad thing.
This is what we in the reality-based community call 'reasonable' – indeed, it is 'reason' that has helped humanity achieve, for better or worse, what it has.
Unfortunately, y'all seem to be more interested in superstition and assumption and yet to fully appreciate the concepts of rational debate and counter-intuitiveness. Ah well.
But kudos, RR, for not skating around what I suspected – you're a full-blown, 100% reactionary true believer. Thanks for playing. Anyone else?
And how about addressing the issue instead of attacking me?
Cheers
Elroy
"Unfortunately, y'all seem to be more interested in superstition and assumption and yet to fully appreciate the concepts of rational debate and counter-intuitiveness".
Ah, Honey: that's what we were just thinking about you - well, the "superstition and assumption" bit.
Perhaps, Elroy, you would care to precisely explain your theory and go on to ground that theory in verifiable fact.
On the other hand, perhaps you'd like to click on the line below and discover our special name for you:
http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/d...hp?
term=fuckwit
http://www.channel4.com/science/
...ews_towers.html
I do wonder why the truth isn't horrible enough. Why do the Elroys of this world need a conspiracy? To comprehend the incomprehensible. That's your issue Elroy - not ours; and it certainly has nothing to do with "truth".
Elroy - your time here is not much longer.
‘Ah, Honey: that's what we were just thinking about you - well, the "superstition and assumption" bit.’
So rational debate and counter-intuitiveness is still a bit beyond y’all, huh?
Seriously, the thing is that the alternative hypothesis has nothing to do with superstition or assumption; on the contrary, its protagonists are ruthlessly scientific and rely on the immutable laws of physics to explain themselves – the ’19 Arab’ conjectionists, however, have very little hard evidence besides the circumstantial and have an exceedingly hard, if not impossible, time answering the questions posed by the ‘troofers’ you take such pleasure in ridiculing, which is why the troofers are ridiculed.
‘Perhaps, Elroy, you would care to precisely explain your theory and go on to ground that theory in verifiable fact.’
No need to reinvent the wheel; the alternatives are easily available. Cosy up to this one for an evening and see if you can come up with a plausible scenario that covers all the concerns. Review the evidence and draw your own conclusions.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/e.../
engineers.html
‘On the other hand, perhaps you'd like to click on the line below and discover our special name for you:’
oh, very droll. What is it with the personal abuse thing for you guys? Anyhoo, I was interested to see that the term is considered a spawn of the internet; strange, because I was using it 30 years ago.
Am I guilty? Well, I do tend to answer quite comprehensively but I am trying to have a conversation and, well, y‘all do just say the daftest things. If this is a breach of internets etiquette then gee, I guess I’m just a free thinker.
As for the rest, the dropping litter etc, sorry, wrong. As for having a clue, well…
And Jenn, when you’re ready… that explanation, please.
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
'So rational debate and counter-intuitiveness is still a bit beyond y’all, huh?'
So why is it that when some scientist dispute the Global Warming theory, they are told that there is no debate over Global Warming. The lack of capacity for rational debate over subjects with conflicting scientific data seems to be the perview of the left.
As for the evidence as to why the buildings fell:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/...842.html?
page=1
Page 4 & 5 in particular address the structural failures.
glad to see you continue to refus to be pinned down or to directly answer questions or to even come out and say exactly what it is you believe.
What was the word?
Oh yes.
Fuckwit.
Fuckwit is right Kris, Kris. That's the word alright.
"scientific and empirical data"?
So, dates, names, places, and historical context don't do it for the left? (referring to the Bible here, moron)
What, pray tell, kind of evidence does one need to convince someone who refuses to believe anything outside of what they already believe?
Moron, Elroy. You are a Moron.
Elroid likes to believe he's participating in unemotional and logical debate - he's not. No matter how hard you hit him over the head with facts he responds with psycho-babble - and very longwinded psycho-babble.
Here's a fact for you, buddy - I SAW a plane hit the Pentagon! Should I refuse to believe my lying eyes? It affected me so much that I have since dedicated my life to supporting my government in any fashion I may. I now work in the very building that I saw get hit. That's how much that day impacted upon me. Now tell me how delusional I am and how I couldn't possibly have seen what I saw.
Oh! And did I tell you that I lost 15 of my neighbors in that building?
Oh! And did I tell you that I lost 15 of my neighbors in that building?
OMG! wit, I am so sorry!
Like every other Troofer™ shitbag, Elroid weasles into it with a non-commital "I'm only saying more questions need to ba asked" Every single one of them dips their toe in like this and if they get back anything other than righteous hostility, they move on to the A-List moonbattery.
Don't fall for it.
Whoever wrote this is a fool. PLanes were used and 9/11 was an inside job stop lying to yourself and really dig deep and stop being so naive and child like with the whole name calling they have planned this for decades and with militart precision, but they forgot to take into account physics and stfu when it comes to molten metal and the 10 seconds collapse. Do you want it any clearer, maybe the explosions measured on seismic activity graphs of magnitude 2.0 which occured 9 seconds before each collapse. Which can only be explained by many tonnes of TNT. There are 1000's of things wrong with the official consipracy theory that is the commission report. Its actually so bad its believeable and you gullible people out in sheep land believe it and think your government is innocent. Thats what cracks me up hahahaha
Go google Ex-Italian PM says 9/11 was an inside job carried out by CIA and Mossad and read up on his accounts and history and then I can only sit back and laugh at you silly people who are so foolish to believe you have been part of the biggest con in history. Or look at an interview with Alex Jones (oh imagine that good old AJ wow that makes me crazy now i guess LMFAO!) look at a video interview with Aaron Russo about the goal to chip people and world domination.
An event would take place which will leade to America funnily enough invading Afghanistan(which they were already signed to attack the day before 9/11 and ready and waiting on their doorstep) and then they would invade Iraq, then Iran ^_^ and after that maybe Hugo Chavez which they are stirring up just now too lol.....a funny old world we live in eh :P
‘I do wonder why the truth isn't horrible enough. Why do the Elroys of this world need a conspiracy?’
The official story is indeed horrible, and the ‘Elroys of this world’ don’t need a conspiracy – however, the official story raises some reasonable questions.
‘To comprehend the incomprehensible’
Not at all. The ’19 Arab’ theory (and by the way, isn’t it interesting that the so-called ‘20th hijacker’ has all charges against him dropped after however many years of torture at Git’mo?) is easily comprehended. Nasty Arabs who hate the west blow it up. I truly wish it were that simple, that cut and dried. However…
‘That's your issue Elroy - not ours; and it certainly has nothing to do with "truth"’
So what is ‘truth’? Is truth relative? It must be.
‘So why is it that when some scientist dispute the Global Warming theory, they are told that there is no debate over Global Warming.
The lack of capacity for rational debate over subjects with conflicting scientific data seems to be the perview of the left’
So why is it that when some scientists dispute the official 9/11 theory, they are told that there is no debate over 9/11?
The lack of capacity for rational debate over subjects with conflicting scientific data seems to be the purview of the Right.
See? It cuts both ways. Anyhoo, there are many scientists having the GW argument and meeting the skeptics head on – there is no lack of rational debate there.
Conservatives are always squawking that that the Left are being totalitarian in their efforts to shut down the GW debate, and then do the same with 9/11. The bottom line is this: you either support frank and thorough scientific debate or you don’t – you can’t pick and choose.
By the way, neither GW or 9/11 are strictly partisan issues. There are many conservatives that agree that GW exists and that 9/11 needs proper investigation, just are there are lefties who agree that GW science is shaky and the troofers are dangerous nutters.
‘As for the evidence as to why the buildings fell:
Page 4 & 5 in particular address the structural failures.
http://911review.com/pm/markup/i...kup/
index.html’
Aha! Popular Mechanics! Not the slam dunk you might imagine. I’ll see your PM and raise you 9/11 Review: http://911review.com/pm/markup/i...rkup/
index.html
Indeed, an entire tome has been written to specifically debunk PM: http://www.amazon.com/gp/
product..._pr_product_top
But not all troofers disagree with NIST and FEMA – read this pdf from a highly credible peer reviewed scientific journal:http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/
content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/
35TOCIEJ.SGM
‘glad to see you continue to refus to be pinned down or to directly answer questions or to even come out and say exactly what it is you believe.’
I haven’t actually been asked any questions on this topic. Want to ask one?
‘What was the word?
Oh yes.
Fuckwit.’
So charming. So polite. Ad hominem attacks? Not from conservatives.
‘So, dates, names, places, and historical context don't do it for the left? (referring to the Bible here, moron)’
The Bible, bless it, is not verifiable. It is not scientific because it cannot be disproved of falsified. It is quite possible that, in scientific terms, some of what the bible describes did happen, but it does not prove the existence of god per se.
‘What, pray tell, kind of evidence does one need to convince someone who refuses to believe anything outside of what they already believe?’
I might ask the same of you. You take the bible and the official 9/11 story at face value – you believe what you have been told and brook no argument or discussion.
The kind of evidence I need is empirical data that follows the immutable laws of physics. I have heard the story of the bible and 9/11 and I question them. You don’t.
For me, the idea that a supreme being created the planet in a week 6000 years ago is not practical and I have trouble with the contention that a 150+ storey building can fall down at the speed of gravity without explosives, so I question them in the hope that I can get a satisfactory answer. What is wrong with that? Isn’t that freedom?
‘Moron, Elroy. You are a Moron’
More abuse. To have inquiring mind is to be a moron? Oh.
‘Elroid likes to believe he's participating in unemotional and logical debate - he's not.’
He’s trying to. However, conservative emotion and illogic keeps on a-comin’.
‘No matter how hard you hit him over the head with facts’
What facts? And maybe I feel the same, so who’s right? What we need to do is establish the parameters – what is the standard of proof? What do you accept as a fact?
'he responds with psycho-babble - and very longwinded psycho-babble.'
Life is not a bumper sticker.
‘Here's a fact for you, buddy - I SAW a plane hit the Pentagon! Should I refuse to believe my lying eyes?’
I hate to say it, but eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. You may have seen a plane, but many people didn't. Read these, if you dare:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/
...ATS_article.php
http://nest.haifa.ac.il/index.ph...&task=view&
id=1
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killt...7/
theories.html
‘It affected me so much that I have since dedicated my life to supporting my government in any fashion I may. I now work in the very building that I saw get hit. That's how much that day impacted upon me. Now tell me how delusional I am and how I couldn't possibly have seen what I saw.
Oh! And did I tell you that I lost 15 of my neighbors in that building?’
I am sorry for your loss and trauma, but you are bringing emotion into the debate. It’s not about your anger, it’s about the physics. If someone can prove the offical story beyond any doubt using scientific principles, then fine. Until then…
I’m still waiting Jenn. ‘It is impossible for the WTC to have demolished by explosives because…’ Your move.
'Like every other Troofer™ shitbag, Elroid weasles into it with a non-commital "I'm only saying more questions need to ba asked" Every single one of them dips their toe in like this and if they get back anything other than righteous hostility, they move on to the A-List moonbattery.'
No no, it's the righteous hostility that I want to discuss. Why is discussion of this subject so taboo? Why is rigorous scientific debate OK when you want to deny Global Warming but not with 9/11? Wh are we not free to talk?
Cheers
Elroy
"If someone can prove the offical story beyond any doubt using scientific principles, then fine. Until then…"
It's not up to "someone" to prove the official story ... if someone doubts it then it's up to them to disprove it, "beyond any doubt using scientific principles". Until then ...
The same does not apply to global warming. There is simply no evidence to disprove that it's a manmade phenomenon.
If you know of any proof that global warming is manmade, and is directly responsible for what have been until recently natural flucuations of the earth's climate ... please share.
Do you notice how the single website I provided is from a widely recognized and well respected publication that did exhaustive research to debunk sixteen of the most common conspiracy theories?
What does Elroy provide as his 'proof'? Websites whos credibility at best questionable and who no one other than troofers have probably ever heard of.
Here is a short list of the 'theories' debunked in the Popular Mechanics research:
1. Airplanes carrying pods on them.
2. Military ordered to stand down.
3. No windows on Flight 175.
4. Airline intercepts being routine.
5. Widespread damage to towers not possible from aircraft impact.
6. Fire not melting steel (some people really don't get physics).
7. Puffs of dust blown out of windows (no explosives).
8. Seismic spikes detected.
9. WTC 7 collapse not caused by WTC 1 & 2 debris.
10. Pentagon small impact caused by big plane not possible.
11. Intact windows in Pentagon proving it was a missile.
12. No 757 wreckage at Pentagon.
13. The White Jet over Flight 93 crash site.
14. Flight 93 engine found miles away.
15. Body parts found in Indian Lake miles from Flight 93 crash.
16. F-16 Pilot Lt Col Rick Gibney fired 2 AIM-9M missiles to down Flight 93.
Those were the most common 'theories' in 2005 surrounding the 9/11 attacks. EVERY SINGLE ONE was debunked by popular mechanics through exhaustive research and by providing document facts.
Blow it out of your ass, Elroid.
‘It's not up to "someone" to prove the official story ... if someone doubts it then it's up to them to disprove it, "beyond any doubt using scientific principles". Until then...’
Thanks for playing big guy – that’s exactly what’s been happening. NIST, FEMA, whoever, made the case that the planes dropped the towers and the Troofers™ called them on it with buckets of scientific evidence to the contrary, so it seems to me that the ball is firmly back in FEMA/NIST et al’s court. It’s called ‘rebuttal’.
However, sober rebuttal is not what happens; what happens is the execution of numbers 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of ’25 Rules of Disinformation’ available at FreeRepublic here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/
foru...a18ab3d30c3.htm
‘The same does not apply to global warming.’
Oh really? Why not? How come the burden of proof can be shifted depending on where one stands on an issue?
‘There is simply no evidence to disprove that it's a manmade phenomenon.’
Uh huh. I think you might want to re-think this sentence. I thought the GW deniers had the science on their side and that GW was just a leftie plot tp guarantee research funding.
‘If you know of any proof that global warming is manmade, and is directly responsible for what have been until recently natural flucuations of the earth's climate ... please share.’
My my, you haven’t been paying attention, have you? Here, pick your way through this lot: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/...climate-change/
Cheers
Elroy
ConCit clearly does not understand the fundamentals of debate and opts for machine-gunning the messenger – because he hasn’t ‘heard’ of the dissenters he dismisses their arguments while championing PM because it is ‘famous’! Crikey! How discerning he is! And I thought the MSM were supposed to be liberal!
It doesn’t matter who picked PM apart – the tooth fairy, Santa, Allah, Jehovah – the point is someone did, and THAT is what cC needs to address. Dr. Steven Jones has written a lengthy tome on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/gp/ product..._pr_product_top
), but that doesn’t matter because CC hasn’t heard of him so it doesn’t count. Sheesh! Is this what passes for intelligent debate around here?
And PM may not be as squeaky clean as CC might like; apart from PM’s fairly fruit connections ( http://911review.com/disinfo/pre...s/
index.html#pm ), it is interesting to note that the entire editorial board was sacked and replaced with, among others, Ben Chertoff, cousin of Homeland Security director Micheal Chertoff, but again this is not the point – the point is that the PM article has been thoroughly debunked ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/ product..._pr_product_top
), and Troofers™ await PM’s reply; the silence, however, is deafening…
And what about all the other people here
http://patriotsquestion911.com/e.../ engineers.html
that CC hasn’t heard of? All those members of the military? Expert engineers, pilots and architects? Not famous enough?
Address the issues and stop hiding behind the skirts of a MSM you usually scorn. If you can. Come on, I dares ya! If you have such faith in PM you should be able to shoot this ( http://911review.com/pm/markup/i...rkup/
index.html ) down in seconds.
Cheers
Elroy
"Thanks for playing big guy – that’s exactly what’s been happening. NIST, FEMA, whoever, made the case that the planes dropped the towers and the Troofers™ called them on it with buckets of scientific evidence to the contrary"
I haven't seen any "scientific evidence" to dispute the reality of why the towers fell. Nothing in your links comes close to proving anything. Sorry, I can't play this game any longer.
"Uh huh. I think you might want to re-think this sentence."
You mean this one? "There is simply no evidence to disprove that it's a manmade phenomenon."
Why? There is no GW evidence for man made global warming for anyone to disprove. Everything presented by the GW folks has been twisted and manipulated. Gore and his high priest, oh sorry ... I mean scientist Hansen have been called on their every move. Hansen has been caught several times manipulating the data to produce his desired results.
I'll say it again ... there is no evidence for anyone to disprove. If you have some let's see it. Your link provided nothing except hysteria.
Actually, there is ample evidence to challenge the manmade theory. Natural warming and cooling trends, parallel warming period on Mars, retreating ice cap revealing artifacts from settlements preserved for thousand of years, one sience publication reporting we are in a warming trend the same months anothe publishes that we are indeed in a cooling trend, inaccurate and incomplete computer modelling of the Earths climate, increasing Antartic Ice Pack, etc.
The point of the matter is that we do not know enough about our climate to accurately predict anything, yet some have decided that the debate is over.
However, on the matter of 9/11, apply Occam's Razor to the subject. Which is plausible:
1. to believe that there is a vast inside government conspiracy, involving thousands of people who have yet to break their silence, which some how made three commerical airlines eithr dissapear (if there were missiles involved) along with all their passengers and crew or intentionally flew those planes into private civilian structures just to cover the detonation of pre-planted explosives that no one noticed being planted, so that they could kill 3,000 innocent people, destabilize our economy and send us into a micro-depression and allow us to attack Iraq whom we were technically still at war with anyway, when our government cannot even keep Top Secret surviellance programs secret?
2. To believe that there are those out their who hate us enough to sarifice their own lives to hijack four planes and try to take out as man American lives as possible because their religion directs them to destroy the infidels wherever they are found?
Which is the more plausible scenario?
"Actually, there is ample evidence to challenge the manmade theory."
I agree, my point to Elroy was there's nothing to challenge because the GW crowd hasn't provided any evidence that GW is man made.
Everything is based on computer modeling.
"I have trouble with the contention that a 150+ storey building..."
150+ story building...?
Yeah, you know, it's the same math involved with the fifty seven states of the Union.
As far as men-made global warming, let's consider this:
See-Oh-Two makes up 5% of the "greenhouse gases" that are "causing" the "Global Warming."
Humans' contribution to the total output of See-Oh-Two is three percent of the total. 3% of 5% of the total "greenhouse gases". That's less than .015% of the total "greenhouse gases" that are caused by humans - including exhaling and vehicle emissions.
Yeah, we're to blame, alright.
First off - the stories in the Bible have all been verified - they've been verified so much (used to be called myths) that they've been trying to come up with scientific theories for why the stories DID happen. They even found evidence Christ (the man) and are actively looking for his remains to debunk the ascention. So much for your fiction prose.
As to me "thinking" I saw a plane - I stongly suggest you STFU! Only people who weren't there doubt a plane hit the Pentagon and think a missle hit it. I happened to be very close to the thing when it belly-flopped on the road I was on. I can tell you I had a bird's eye view of the thing. I'm not bringing any emotion into what I saw (I can assure you the anger came loooong after). The only story I really want to hear is the taxi drivers - the guy I heard get spun around by getting hit with the wing of the plane - and walked away with minimal damage to his car. But I wasn't focused on the road and missed that. Check the trajectory of the plane - it came in low over I395, so low it bellyflopped on the 8B (the raod I was on) off ramp, crashed THROUGH the fence (it was practically skidding on the ground) and still had enough whomp left in it to virtually disentegrate upon impact - because of the igniting jet fuel.
Anybody who doesn't know what jetfuel does when it burns has no business commenting on the subject. It burns for days - New York was on fire for over 6 months. The Pentagon was visibly on fire for three days. I'd say the Pentagons design (and the fact that that portion had recently been reinforced) saved it from the towers fate. I would bet money the damage didn't even make it inside the inner rings but was localized to the outer E ring only. But anybody who thinks a fire involving jet fuel is the same as even an oil or gas fire is delusional.
And BTW - long winded as usual - but your utter arrogance and dismissive attitude towards someone who is telling you they saw something indicates a complete disconnect from reality. You would never make it as a scientist. Scientists base quite a bit of their findings on facts and eyewitness accounts. Your dismissal of one leads to the conclusion that you have already made up your mind and are finding ways to discredit those facts that don't fit in with your preconceived conclusion.
OMG! wit, I am so sorry!
Radical Redneck
Thanks, RR. I live in a condo and didn't know them well. It was more like MISSING people who I used to say hi to all the time. They just weren't THERE anymore. I remember writing out a lot of sympathy cards...
I DO remember all their Memorial pictures on the counter at the entry way. I was appalled how many people actually did die in that attack. The parking lot seemed incredibly empty for two years after that.
The desk clerk clued me in on how many people actually worked there because it was so close (one of the reasons I wanted to work there). A lot more people lived through it than died in it. And I've been meeting a lot of people who were actually in the building when it got hit and hearing their stories.
Everybody FELT it. Not all of them saw what happened. One guy came upon a corridor with falling debris - but no fire. Been hearing a lot of stories of people who were supposed to be there, but for one reason or another were hindered in getting there and were saved. Where it got hit would have hindered NO ONE from getting out. Thank God for that!
“I haven't seen any "scientific evidence" to dispute the reality of why the towers fell.
Maybe you should try reading those links. And by the way, no one is trying to ‘dispute the reality’, they are trying to dispute what NIST/FEMA say is reality. You really are coming at this with an open mind, aren’t you?
Let’s focus on one aspect, the one that Jenn said was ‘impossible’ – how the towers fell without explosives.
Q) How did the towers drop at free-fall speed?
A)…
Jenn? Jenn, are you there?
Anyhoo, if those links stuff didn’t curdle your girdle, try this:
http://www.bentham-open.org/page...01/
35TOCIEJ.SGM
It’s a very interesting document in which Troofers™ agree with NIST/FEMA.
‘Nothing in your links comes close to proving anything.’
Troofers™ are not trying to prove what happened – they are trying to prove what didn’t happen.
‘Sorry, I can't play this game any longer.’
What’s up? Not…chicken, are ya?
‘There is no GW evidence for man made global warming for anyone to disprove.’
There’s plenty of stuff presented as evidence. Why not start there?
However, as this is a 9/11 thread excuse me while I stick to the matter at hand.
‘However, on the matter of 9/11, apply Occam's Razor to the subject.’
Aha! William of Occam! I’m so glad CC brought him up! He put in straw men a-plenty, but there you go!
Maybe we narrow the application of said razor down a little – which is more plausible?
1. To believe that four jumbo jets can be completely vaporized at the hands of four inexperienced pilots and three multi-storey buildings can completely collapse at free fall speed, all on the same day for the first time in recorded history with no external help or…
2. To believe that there was external help?
‘Everything is based on computer modeling.’
Ooh! Darwin says that with such scorn! He obviously doesn’t realize that the NIST/FEMA reports are based on…computer modeling!
‘I50 + storey building?’
Oops! My mistake! Slight typo! That should have read ‘100+ storey. Please forgive me. However, if that’s all I’ve got wrong then I’m doing OK, huh?
‘First off - the stories in the Bible have all been verified.’
No they haven’t! What nonsense! Some, and I mean some, may have a grounding in truth – that is, it feasible that some might have happened – but so do most fairy tales. However, we do not use the works of the Brothers Grimm as a history text book, and I’m yet to hear of the water-onto-wine or the walk-on-water tricks being performed successfully under lab conditions.
Cheers
Elroy
"Maybe you should try reading those links."
Maybe you should. With nuts all over the world trying to squeeze some ridiculous conspiracy out of 9-11 you'd think someone would have found the smoking gun by now. At the very least someone, in the thousands of people that would have been involved in an effort like this would have come forward by now.
"Ooh! Darwin says that with such scorn! He obviously doesn’t realize that the NIST/FEMA reports are based on…computer modeling!"
Elroy, address the point ... don't distract from it. All GW "evidence" is based on computer modeling. As intelligent as you seem to think you are, you are not very good at picking up on the obvious.
Now you've obviously spent a lot of time researching pro-GW information and you can't seem to provide me with any evidence that GW is caused by man. I've asked you twice. If you can't provide it, drop it.
"However, if that’s all I’ve got wrong then I’m doing OK, huh?"
Yeah, if that's all you got wrong...
The towers did NOT collapse at, or near, free-fall speed.
A bunch of mentally ill paranoiacs claiming the towers collapsed that fast does not make it so.
No they haven’t! What nonsense! roid
Sure they have! Why else would they be trying to come up with scientific explanations as to HOW they happened? Why the fuss if they are all myth?
You also never answered my assertion that you'd make a lousy scientist by dismissing eyewitness accounts of events.
I find it interesting that you cherry pick what you'll answer while arrogantly dismissing what doesn't fit into your world view. Very narrow of you.....
‘With nuts all over the world trying to squeeze some ridiculous conspiracy out of 9-11 you'd think someone would have found the smoking gun by now.”
Maybe they have; as Conservative guru Winston Churchill once remarked, ‘It is important to remember that even a fool is right sometimes’, but you seem to be so completely blind to any evidence that might contradict your belief, one wonders what would constitute a smoking gun sufficient enough to sway you.
‘At the very least someone, in the thousands of people that would have been involved in an effort like this would have come forward by now.’
Why do you assume that it would have taken thousands of people? It is far more likely that it would have operated on a ‘need to know’ basis, with only a small number of maniacs aware of the full picture.
And if one of them did come forward, who would believe them? Not you. Who would print the story? None of the MSM. Whistleblowers have a hard enough time as it is, so for anyone to come forward and say ‘I’m the one wot done it!’ would be an act of near suicide.
‘Elroy, address the point ... don't distract from it. All GW "evidence" is based on computer modeling.’
Not all. It is also gleaned from observable and empirical data, and the historical record. Official 9/11 evidence, however, rejects observable and empirical data, and the historical record, and relies on computer modeling when observable and empirical data, and the historical record, do npt reflect the desired result.
‘As intelligent as you seem to think you are, you are not very good at picking up on the obvious’
To me, the obvious is, well…obvious. As it isn’t to you, the obvious is relative. Isn’t that obvious?
‘Now you've obviously spent a lot of time researching pro-GW information and you can't seem to provide me with any evidence that GW is caused by man. I've asked you twice. If you can't provide it, drop it.’
And you say it’s ME making distractions! I have never said that I have ‘spent a lot of time researching pro-GW information’ – I never even brought it up. This is YOUR little diversion and it has nothing to do with 9/11, although there are some interesting parallels regarding the various partisan reactions to the issue and the way we discuss and ‘research’ them, so all I can say is drop t yourself. Now, about those towers…
‘The towers did NOT collapse at, or near, free-fall speed.
A bunch of mentally ill paranoiacs claiming the towers collapsed that fast does not make it so.’
OK, Henry – so how fast DID they fall? A bunch of mentally ill paranoiacs claiming the towers didn’t collapse that fast does not make it so.
‘Sure they have! Why else would they be trying to come up with scientific explanations as to HOW they happened? Why the fuss if they are all myth?’
Because nutbags (no offence) like you are always trying to prove to the rest of us that the Bible is the 100% gen-u-ine article, the absolute inerrant word of Gawd and fruitcakes like are tring to prove that it’s not. It is interesting to note that both believers and non-believers take solace from these investigations but, as I said, walking on water, water into wine etc, all these ‘miracles’ remain defiantly unreplicable.
What the unbelievers are tryng to prove is that what Christians take as some sort of sign from the almighty is easily explained by rational science – that is, that the Christians are mistaken. What the Christians are trying to prove, well, god only knows…
Still, do have a source for your claim that all bible stories have been proved true? You might make a believer of me yet!
‘You also never answered my assertion that you'd make a lousy scientist by dismissing eyewitness accounts of events. I find it interesting that you cherry pick what you'll answer while arrogantly dismissing what doesn't fit into your world view. Very narrow of you..
Sorry about that – I got me one of them there ‘life’ thangs and boy! Do they suck up the time! Still, anything to oblige.,.
‘As to me "thinking" I saw a plane - I stongly suggest you STFU! Only people who weren't there doubt a plane hit the Pentagon and think a missle hit it’
OK, here’s an eyewitness breakdown: 89 saw an object crash into the Pentagon, 45 saw a plane described as 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc, 29 saw a large American Airlines jet, 17 heard deafening noise, 12 heard plane increase its throttle, 11 saw C-130 fly over afterward. What sayest thou?
If you think that eyewitness accounts are in any way scientific then you’ve got a pretty strange idea of constitutes science, but as you think the Bible is scientifically true then I suppose that much is true, but that fact is that eyewitness accounts are highly fallible. Read this: http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com...06.2006.00027.x
Now, let’s examine the next bit of Witness’s tirade:
‘…it belly-flopped on the road I was on… so low it bellyflopped on the 8B (the raod I was on) off ramp, crashed THROUGH the fence (it was practically skidding on the ground) and still had enough whomp left in it to virtually disentegrate upon impact - because of the igniting jet fuel.’
So what you are saying is that the neither the road that the plane bellyflopped onto, the fence that it crash through nor the ground that it skidded along acted as a brake? That even with these impediments to it’s progress, the pane still managed to reach the terminal velocity never attained before or since, apart from when it happened in NY earlier in the day, and which is still unkown?
I mean, really, if there is a speed at which an unstoppable force that meets an immovable object becomes atomized, could you tell me what it is? I’ve seen pictures of planes that have slammed full speed into the sides of mountains (the most immovable of objects – just ask Mohammed!) yet the plane is still there; busted up some, but not reduced to its component sub-atomic particles. Here’s one that hit the dirt a la Fight 93 but which failed to vaporize http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/191/
So, please, how fast is too fast?
‘The only story I really want to hear is the taxi drivers - the guy I heard get spun around by getting hit with the wing of the plane - and walked away with minimal damage to his car. But I wasn't focused on the road and missed that.’
Aha! Eyewitness Witness missed this – well, allow me!
http://forum.911movement.org/ind...?
showtopic=1872
‘I can tell you I had a bird's eye view of the thing.’
I can tell you that you didn’t, unless you too were airborne – that’s what a ‘birds’ eye view’ is, the view as seen through the eye of a bird. What you had was a view occluded and obstructed by many things, including a certain natural confusion.’
‘..and still had enough whomp left in it to virtually disentegrate upon impact - because of the igniting jet fuel.’
So the jet fuel ignited and burnt out the entire jet in mere seconds? Is that why the pictures taken outside the Pentagon directly after the strike do not show a plane? Because it had been entirely consumed by the fuel? That must have been some fire! And yet the lawn outside is near perfect! Green, in fact! How is such a fire possible?
‘Anybody who doesn't know what jetfuel does when it burns has no business commenting on the subject.’
At least we agree on something! Jet fuel is, more or less, kerosene, it burns quickly and not that hot. If it burning jet fuel is capable in incinerating an entire airplane, then it would have happened many times before; however…
‘It burns for days - New York was on fire for over 6 months.’
What was that you said before? That anybody who doesn't know what jetfuel does when it burns has no business commenting on the subject? I suggest you take your own advice.
New York was on fire for over six months, but as NIST themselves say ‘The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most
a few minutes”. “At any given location, the duration of
[air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures
were near 500 °C or below” . So, given that the jet fuel fires at the WTC were ‘short in duration’, does it not reasonable to assume that something else was burinng?
‘The Pentagon was visibly on fire for three days.’
If it was, it would seem that is because somebody wanted it to be. Try this: http://www.Public-Action.com/rescue.html and http://www.public-action.com/911...escue/
nfpa.html
It would seem that some guys from the airport put the Pentagon fire out in seven minutes.
‘I'd say the Pentagons design (and the fact that that portion had recently been reinforced) saved it from the towers fate.’
Isn’t it interesting that the plane went out of its way to hit the recently reinforced part?
‘I would bet money the damage didn't even make it inside the inner rings but was localized to the outer E ring only.’
That’s an interesting bet, Witness. But it raises the question that if the damage was localized to the outer E ring only, where is the plane? Things the size of jet planes don’t vanish because you want them to.
Anyhoo, I’ll take that bet ¬– how much do you want to put on it? $100? $200? Your house? Take a look at these pictures:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/...h.com/
exit.html
It got through to the C ring. How do I collect my winnings?
‘But anybody who thinks a fire involving jet fuel is the same as even an oil or gas fire is delusional.’
Yes, they are.
‘…your utter arrogance and dismissive attitude towards someone who is telling you they saw something indicates a complete disconnect from reality.’
No, the disconnect from reality comes from those who think eyewitness accounts are absolute.
‘You would never make it as a scientist. Scientists base quite a bit of their findings on facts and eyewitness accounts’
Scientists base their findings on falsifiable and replicable evidence. Eyewitness accounts are not science. See here:
‘Your dismissal of one leads to the conclusion that you have already made up your mind and are finding ways to discredit those facts that don't fit in with your preconceived conclusion.’
Not at all. As you may note, I have not cherry-picked – I have addressed all the issues you raised, although I note the irony of the fact that you accuse me of both brevity and longwindedness. Ah, well.
Seeing as Al-qeada was blamed before the sun had set on 9/11, before any investigation at all, I suggest that the preconceived conclusion is that 19 Arabs did it with box-cutters.
But what do you think? Please review the proffered info and get back to me. If you dare.
Fun, isn’t it?
Cheers
Elroy
"OK, Henry – so how fast DID they fall? A bunch of mentally ill paranoiacs claiming the towers didn’t collapse that fast does not make it so."
I'm sure you think your juvenile mimicry is clever, but as usual makes no sense. You're obviously incapable of original thought.
I could go into all the mathematical calculations regarding the 12 to 15 seconds it took the towers to fall and how that's slower than the free fall rate....
I prefer to just go with simple observation.
In every photo and every video, you can see perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse of the buildings. Not only are the columns falling faster than the buildings but they are also falling faster than the debris clouds which are ALSO falling faster than the buildings. This clearly proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had rockets pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. It would take a team of engineers using super computers with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 12 or was it 15 seconds? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making.
The collapse wasn't at free fall as mental midgets like you suggest.
Fuck yourself Elroy.
*go henry*
*go henry*
Love seeing libtards get smacked down...
Oh, dear. Henry, Henry, Henry. Yet again, you are living proof that Republicans are indeed completely impervious to irony and relativism. Deaf to the rhetorical flourish. Blind to the bleeding obvious. Ah, well…
Meanwhile, on with the show. I understand your points, but to believe them would require me to disregard the Law of Conservation of Energy, the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which, as a rational non-believer, I cannot do.
Take a peek here: http://www.physics911.net/closerlook
Read the part titled ‘What about Towers One And Two?’ and tell me what is unreasonable about it?
Cheers
Elroy
PS And Henry, enough of the fuck off, huh? It demeans you more than me. Why are conservatives so unpleasant?
PPS Cary – you can't be having much fun here, then.
I decided to read your link. Unfortunately I stopped shortly afterwards when I read this line ...
"And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal"
I've heard this so many times. What pray tell, immense military arsenal are they referring to?
Do you think every military jet is always on a constant state of alert? Fueled, armed and ready to go at a moments notice?
It irritates me to no end that people make such accusations when in reality they have no fucking idea of what they're talking about.
When the USSR collapsed, the US essentially came off decades of 24/7 alert status.
We still have some USAF bases charged with keeping jets in alert status, but those bases were few and far between. The number of jets on alert is normally two.
Prior to the USSR's collapse, the jet's were armed. Afterwards, unless there was a situation that warranted weapons, the alert jets probably weren't armed.
So ... in all of the United States, you probably had 6-8 jets that were fueled and prepared for immediate takeoff.
Every other jet on the tarmac has to be prepped, fueled and inspected prior to flight. Missles aren't just laying around anywhere, ready to be loaded. Missles are stored far from the flightline and are only brought out for approved missions ... usually overseas missions.
In summary, the "immense military arsenal" amounted to a few ready, fueled ... and probably unarmed alert jets.
Other jets could have been launched but it would have taken time. You just don't hop in, turn the key and hit the gas. It would have taken additional time to clear release of weapons and more time to load and preflight.
If the aurthor of that article didn't understand that concept, I sincerely doubt he understands others except through an extremely biased and warped lens.
No bloviations today, Elroy?
What do Republicans have to do with anything? Since I'm not a Republican, I'll just chalk it up as another example of your baseless, bigoted attacks on anyone who doesn't subscribe to your brand of idiocy.
Fine, don't believe what you can see with your own eyes. Hallmark of the mental illness plaguing "progressive" douche bags world-wide.
Since you don't believe your own eyes, and prefer to rely on linking to the ramble of some Berzerkeley architect, I'll point you to another paper that does a much better job than I could at explaining what you evidently don't understand.
I really don't care if you read it or not. In the end, you'll just keep relying on losers like Alex Jones, Phil Jayhan or Dillon Avery, believing any nonsense that reaffirms your BDS and prejudice against those you feel are inferior to your "progressive" ideals.
That's fine; you keep on keepin' on with your deluded quest for The Twoof®. In fact, keep chasing your chimera until your final, agonized breath; it won't be soon enough.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
Fuck yourself Elroy.
‘I decided to read your link. Unfortunately I stopped shortly afterwards when I read this line…’
Unfortunate is right. Had you continued you would have reached the relevant part; as it is, you have gone off on a tangent of your choosing and conveniently avoided the issue at hand. One thing at a time, please.
‘What pray tell, immense military arsenal are they referring to?’
Yours. Its hard to argue with someone who dismisses the rest of an argument they haven’t read on the basis of unproved assumptions, but I’m getting kind of used to it. The USA, with a military budget bigger than the rest of the world’s combined and then some, protects its airspace with two jets at each of their seven alert sites.
Furthermore, it was standard practice for fighter jets to intercept planes that lost, stolen or strayed – 129 times in 2000, 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.
'In my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot' said Capt. Daniel Davis, former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, 'there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!'
(At: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ )
Or this: http://911research.wtc7.net/plan...ense/
index.html
Here, read this: http://www.af.mil/news/airman/12...n/1299/
home.htm
From the computer of Master Sgt. Pat McKenna.
‘The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall.'
The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.’
‘We don’t let other aircraft — zero — penetrate our air space without being monitored or escorted’
And are they armed?
‘That’s why we have weapons on our jets. We need to be postured such that no one would dare threaten us ... and nobody better.’
I’m taking that as a ‘Yes’. To say ‘probably’ means it is you who in reality have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
Try these: http://standdown.net/
http://
www.mycountryrightorwrong...andDownMath.htm
And to get back to that pesky ‘gravity’ thang. Try this:
http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html
A word to the wise: I find it better to read stuff before I comment on it, but that’s just me – maybe conservatives do not need to have any fucking idea what they are talking about.
Cheers
Elroy
Asshole. I served in the US Air Force. I live in the US. You can't lay claim to either. The only thing you can lay claim to is listening to crackpots who twist and exaggerate the facts.
Prior to 9-11, alert aircraft were positioned and tasked to intercept hostile targets PENETRATING our airspace, not to locate and shoot down commercial airliners WITHIN our airspace.
Secondly, alert jets weren't launched the second an airliner veered off it's flightplan or lost it's transponder signal. It took coordination between the responsible civilian authority and military authority to determine the need to launch a fucking jet. It still does albeit now rougue aircraft are treated as potential threats. That wasn't the case prior to 9-11.
It wasn't some fucking game where hotshot pilots were launched at every fucking joker that steered his plane the wrong way.
Prior to 9-11 aircraft OUTSIDE our airspace were monitored and ANY unknown coming close or penetrating our airspace would be located immediately.
I said 6-8 alert jets. The number, according to you is 14. That's a far cry from the "immense military arsenal" you nutcases rant on about.
It was a new situation for all involved. NO ONE expected the airliners to slam into the WTC. If anything, the airliners were treated as hijacked ... to be found and escorted to whatever destination whoever was in control had.
If you fucking notice all of our alert facilities are coastal located. Plus you should read your own links.
"Within minutes, the crew chiefs can launch the pilots and send them on their way to intercept “unknown riders,” whether they’re Cuban MiGs, drug traffickers, smugglers, hijackers, novice pilots who’ve filed faulty flight plans or crippled aircraft limping in on a wing and a prayer."
He's talking about aircraft OUTSIDE our fucking airspace.
"But almost without exception, the only thing FANG fliers shoot are photos — pictures to help identify aircraft or for evidence in drug smuggling cases. The typical scramble often reveals an inexperienced private pilot at the controls, flying off course after vacationing in the Bahamas."
OUTSIDE our airspace.
"It’s a mission that hits close to home,” Herring said. We’ll do whatever it takes to stop a cruise missile or a Bear bomber from crossing the border — from shooting it down to ramming it."
OUTSIDE our airspace.
"We don’t let other aircraft — zero — PENETRATE OUR AIR SPACE without being monitored or escorted,” Herring said."
OUTSIDE our airspace.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/12.../1299/
home2.htm
I do have a clue as to what I'm talking about ... you don't. I lived and worked with the people that maintain these jets and fly them. You didn't. There isn't one maintainer, or one fucking pilot that wouldn't smell something fishy if it was happening. There is one thing guaranteed in the military ... rumors. Shit would have been hot and heavy if anyone involved smelled a fucking rat.
The only thing I smell is you you fucking asshole. You've provided NOTHING but innuendo and hyperbole. You're just fucking hoping all your sick theories are true. That Americans planned to kill other Americans. You're a sick, sick fuck.
Fuck you. Take your Aussie head and shove it deep inside your Aussie ass and breathe deep. I'm sure it'll smell better than the air you've been breathing.
If you're representative of the typical male in Australia, I'll write you coward ass, jealous fuckers off now.
AS Henry would say ... Fuck you Elroy.
Actually, NORAD scrambled 67 times to intercept wayward planes between June 2000 and Sept. 2001, civilian planes and all. But how is anyone supposed to know if a lost, stolen or strayed aircraft has penetrated US airspace? Surely the point of interception is to find put who they and where they are from?
And for all your knowledge of the Airforce, you weren't there, which makes two of us, but maybe you can tell me why it took so long to scramble the planes and so long for them to get there?
And you have to let go of the 'It was a new situation for all involved. NO ONE expected the airliners to slam into the WTC' routine – they had planned for it.
'In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...-18-
norad_x.htm
Your move, I believe...
Cheers
Elroy
Go away roid-boy. You're aussie ass is a bore. Your arrogance and snearing smugness is tiresome especially when you have no facts to back your ludicrous claims. You claim you wish to engage in discourse when in fact you don't listen. You just keep repeating your party line verbatim and everytime someone gives you hard facts you ignore them. That's not discourse - that's a broken record.
Go away - now.
Commenting by HaloScan
