PDA

View Full Version : Re: (Ventura) Payne Stewart's jet


Hiram Thair Mark
September 28th 06, 04:37 PM
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
> refute.


I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney changed
all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command in
himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".

The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
smooth over the inconsistencies.

There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

> Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who allowed a
> disastrous attack on the U.S.

Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
seems to be a hot trend these days.

Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.

>
>
>
> David E. Powell wrote:
>> It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
>> fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding via
>> communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector planes to
>> meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that to Sept.
11,
>> those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
>> reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
>> defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
>> things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed had
>> worked for the enemy.
>>
>> Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
>> easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
>> opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.
>>
>> Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
>> really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the usual
>> traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most airliners
>> cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there) there was not
the
>> same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were in
>> the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them down,
plus
>> trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.
>
>

How's that Kool-aid taste?

Vandar
September 28th 06, 05:02 PM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
> @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>refute.
>
>
>
> I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney changed
> all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command in
> himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
>
> The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
> regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
> smooth over the inconsistencies.
>
> There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
> into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.

I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
government-sponsored.

> *That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
> qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.
>
> Some people just won't deal with facts.

Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from the
highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is that
they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.

>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who allowed a
>>disastrous attack on the U.S.
>
>
> Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
> seems to be a hot trend these days.
>
> Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
> professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.

>>David E. Powell wrote:
>>
>>>It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
>>>fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding via
>>>communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector planes to
>>>meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that to Sept.
>
> 11,
>
>>>those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
>>>reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
>>>defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
>>>things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed had
>>>worked for the enemy.
>>>
>>>Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
>>>easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
>>>opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.
>>>
>>>Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
>>>really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the usual
>>>traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most airliners
>>>cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there) there was not
>
> the
>
>>>same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were in
>>>the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them down,
>
> plus
>
>>>trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.
>>
>>
>
> How's that Kool-aid taste?

the Bede
September 28th 06, 06:18 PM
"Vandar" > wrote in message
...
> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
> > wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
> > @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
> >>refute.
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
changed
> > all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command in
> > himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
> >
> > The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
> > regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
> > smooth over the inconsistencies.
> >
> > There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
> > into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>
> I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
> indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
> government-sponsored.
>
> > *That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
> > qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.
> >
> > Some people just won't deal with facts.
>
> Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from the
> highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is that
> they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>
> >>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who allowed a
> >>disastrous attack on the U.S.
> >
> >
> > Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
> > seems to be a hot trend these days.
> >
> > Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
> > professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>
> Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>
>
I agree with this challenge.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 28th 06, 06:51 PM
Vandar > wrote in
:

> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
>> @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>refute.
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>> changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing
>> command in himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist
>> attack".
>>
>> The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>> regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>> smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>
>> There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
>> into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>
> I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
> indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
> government-sponsored.

I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and your
Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't moldy and
threadbare.

As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online equivalent
of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and chuckling only evokes
pity.

>
>> *That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
>> qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.
>>
>> Some people just won't deal with facts.
>
> Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from the
> highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is that
> they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.

Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes required -
base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors respond
by calling them names and questioning their motives.

Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.

>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who allowed
>>>a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>
>>
>> Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
>> seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>
>> Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>> professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>
> Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.

Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass parking
lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of political
undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names published in lists
for similar reasons.

Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you one day
learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare 2 seconds to
find them yourself.

>>>David E. Powell wrote:
>>>
>>>>It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
>>>>fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding
>>>>via communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector
>>>>planes to meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that
>>>>to Sept.
>>
>> 11,
>>
>>>>those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
>>>>reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
>>>>defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
>>>>things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed
>>>>had worked for the enemy.
>>>>
>>>>Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
>>>>easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
>>>>opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.
>>>>
>>>>Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
>>>>really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the
>>>>usual traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most
>>>>airliners cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there)
>>>>there was not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were
>>>>in the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them
>>>>down,
>>
>> plus
>>
>>>>trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How's that Kool-aid taste?
>

Vandar
September 28th 06, 07:08 PM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> Vandar > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>
>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>refute.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing
>>>command in himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist
>>>attack".
>>>
>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>
>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
>>>into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>>
>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>government-sponsored.
>
>
> I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and your
> Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't moldy and
> threadbare.

I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I like".

> As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
> incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online equivalent
> of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and chuckling only evokes
> pity.

Grow up.
To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is redundant.
It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is because you have a
political agenda.

>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
>>>qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.
>>>
>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>
>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from the
>>highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is that
>>they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>
>
> Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes required -

Are you obsessed with the 90s?
It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual truth.

> base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors respond
> by calling them names and questioning their motives.

Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air pressure
blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib" without offering
one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they need it to be a squib.

I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation is,
and it isn't truth.
Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.

> Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.

What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the bull****
their selling.

>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who allowed
>>>>a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>
>>>
>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
>>>seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>
>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>>
>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>
>
> Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass parking
> lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of political
> undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names published in lists
> for similar reasons.
>
> Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you one day
> learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare 2 seconds to
> find them yourself.

If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
publish them is a lie.

You could have just admitted that you lied, that you know there aren't
"hundreds" of Ph.Ds who have spoken out about unconfortable truths
concerning 9/11. There are only a few on the fringe who have tried, and
their colleagues have either completely discredited or ignored them.

Keep believing your lie though. You need it.
Now go buy a t-shirt.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 28th 06, 07:24 PM
Vandar > wrote in
:

> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> Vandar > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>>refute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding the
>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>
>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>
>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>11, 2001.
>>>
>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>government-sponsored.
>>
>>
>> I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>> your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>> moldy and threadbare.
>
> I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I
> like".

You're as sharp as scissors.

>> As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
>> incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online
>> equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and
>> chuckling only evokes pity.
>
> Grow up.
> To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
> redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
> because you have a political agenda.

Go ahead, expose my political agenda. Be explicit.

>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>9/11.
>>>>
>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>
>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from
>>>the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is
>>>that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>
>>
>> Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>> required -
>
> Are you obsessed with the 90s?
> It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
> truth.

Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat denials
and broad generalizations, hm?

>> base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
>> respond by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>
> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they need
> it to be a squib.

Cite?

> I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation
> is, and it isn't truth.
> Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.

You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.

>> Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>
> What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
> bull**** their selling.

So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of events
is 100% true.

I think I see chalk on your back.

>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
>>>>seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>9/11/01.
>>>
>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>
>>
>> Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>> parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of
>> political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>> published in lists for similar reasons.
>>
>> Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>> one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare
>> 2 seconds to find them yourself.
>
> If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
> publish them is a lie.

The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists to
commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

> You could have just admitted that you lied, that you know there aren't
> "hundreds" of Ph.Ds who have spoken out about unconfortable truths
> concerning 9/11. There are only a few on the fringe who have tried,
> and their colleagues have either completely discredited or ignored
> them.
>
> Keep believing your lie though. You need it.
> Now go buy a t-shirt.

Let me know when you finally learn to use a search engine. I mean, it
took me literally 2 seconds to find hundreds of names. Give it a week or
five and I'm sure you'll succeed, too.

Vandar
September 28th 06, 09:22 PM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> Vandar > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>>>refute.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding the
>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>
>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>
>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>
>>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>>government-sponsored.
>>>
>>>
>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>>>your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>>>moldy and threadbare.
>>
>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I
>>like".
>
>
> You're as sharp as scissors.

And you aren't.

>>>As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
>>>incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online
>>>equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and
>>>chuckling only evokes pity.
>>
>>Grow up.
>>To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
>>redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
>>because you have a political agenda.
>
>
> Go ahead, expose my political agenda.

That's your job.

> Be explicit.

Ok...
That's your ****ing job.

>>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>>9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>>
>>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from
>>>>the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is
>>>>that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>>
>>>
>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>required -
>>
>>Are you obsessed with the 90s?
>>It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
>>truth.
>
>
> Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat denials
> and broad generalizations, hm?

It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.

>>>base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
>>>respond by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>>
>>Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they need
>>it to be a squib.
>
>
> Cite?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

>>I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation
>>is, and it isn't truth.
>>Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.
>
>
> You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.

Oooh... Nazi reference. That didn't take long, now did it?

As I said, exposing your political agenda is YOUR job.

>>>Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>>
>>What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
>>bull**** their selling.
>
>
> So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
> conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of events
> is 100% true.

Gee, Einstein, where did I ever say that the "official government
version of events is 100% true"?
Oh that's right... I DIDN'T.

See how it works? You label those who say you're wrong as supporting the
"official government version".

All you have to do is start typing and your agenda flows right off your
fingertips.

> I think I see chalk on your back.

Do you also hear echoes in your head?

>>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own crazy
>>>>>seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>
>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>>
>>>
>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>>>parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of
>>>political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>>>published in lists for similar reasons.
>>>
>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>>>one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare
>>>2 seconds to find them yourself.
>>
>>If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
>>publish them is a lie.
>
>
> The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists to
> commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.
>
> I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
label something as bad and run from it.
The abortion doctors had their information posted by someone who wished
harm to come to them. The conspiracy theorists post their own
information for the world to see.

You made an assertion that "physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds
have spoken out about since 9/11/01" and when challenged, you refuse to
back it up or admit you were wrong.

You're both a liar and a coward. Keep running.

>>You could have just admitted that you lied, that you know there aren't
>>"hundreds" of Ph.Ds who have spoken out about unconfortable truths
>>concerning 9/11. There are only a few on the fringe who have tried,
>>and their colleagues have either completely discredited or ignored
>>them.
>>
>>Keep believing your lie though. You need it.
>>Now go buy a t-shirt.
>
>
> Let me know when you finally learn to use a search engine. I mean, it
> took me literally 2 seconds to find hundreds of names. Give it a week or
> five and I'm sure you'll succeed, too.

Nice evasion, dumbass. I asked for what you said exists: "hundreds of Ph.Ds"

Keep running and keep typing. It won't go away until you do.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 28th 06, 10:02 PM
Vandar > wrote in
:

> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> Vandar > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>>>>>properly refute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>>>>>the "terrorist attack".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public
>>>>>>to smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>>>government-sponsored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>>>>your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>>>>moldy and threadbare.
>>>
>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I
>>>like".
>>
>>
>> You're as sharp as scissors.
>
> And you aren't.

That's the third time. Come up with your own insults, you lazy ****.

>>>>As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
>>>>incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online
>>>>equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and
>>>>chuckling only evokes pity.
>>>
>>>Grow up.
>>>To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
>>>redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
>>>because you have a political agenda.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead, expose my political agenda.
>
> That's your job.
>
>> Be explicit.
>
> Ok...
> That's your ****ing job.

You are the one claiming I have a political agenda, so you must have
knowledge of it.

Explain it. In detail. Now.

>>>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>>>9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from
>>>>>the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is
>>>>>that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>>required -
>>>
>>>Are you obsessed with the 90s?
>>>It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
>>>truth.
>>
>>
>> Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat
>> denials and broad generalizations, hm?
>
> It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.

Cite. Now.

>>>>base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
>>>>respond by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>>>
>>>Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>need it to be a squib.
>>
>>
>> Cite?
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
"http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/". What I require is a cite of
serious 9/11 researchers claiming what you attribute to them.

Cite. Now.

>>>I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation
>>>is, and it isn't truth.
>>>Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.
>>
>>
>> You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.
>
> Oooh... Nazi reference. That didn't take long, now did it?

Quite relevant, as the architects of 9/11 funded the Nazis and stole
their Reichstag plan. Counterargument? (Please don't just look at your
feet and mumble again.)

> As I said, exposing your political agenda is YOUR job.

So I've exposed it. What is it then, exactly?

Explain. In detail. Now.

>>>>Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>>>
>>>What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
>>>bull**** their selling.
>>
>>
>> So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
>> conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of
>> events is 100% true.
>
> Gee, Einstein, where did I ever say that the "official government
> version of events is 100% true"?
> Oh that's right... I DIDN'T.

So, you admit you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Interesting.

> See how it works? You label those who say you're wrong as supporting
> the "official government version".
>
> All you have to do is start typing and your agenda flows right off
> your fingertips.

When you label me as a gullible 9/11 merchandise consumer, is that
similarly thickheaded and wrong? Just wondering.

>> I think I see chalk on your back.
>
> Do you also hear echoes in your head?

Vibrations transmitted through the air are interpreted by mechanisms
within the head. What you propose would be impossible, even if I did lack
a brain.

Maybe you should redo 8th grade. It's never too late.

>>>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own
>>>>>>crazy seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>>>>parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of
>>>>political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>>>>published in lists for similar reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>>>>one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to
>>>>spare 2 seconds to find them yourself.
>>>
>>>If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
>>>publish them is a lie.
>>
>>
>> The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists to
>> commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.
>>
>> I refuse to facilitate terrorism.
>
> Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
> label something as bad and run from it.

There was zero evidence for terrorism against abortion doctors, until
they started getting murdered.

I'd rather not risk others' lives. I'm sorry you lack honor and cannot
comprehend that.

> The abortion doctors had their information posted by someone who
> wished harm to come to them.

Which is a possible reason why you keep demanding the list you are too
incompetent to find, and the reason I refuse to provide it to you.

>The conspiracy theorists post their own
> information for the world to see.
>
> You made an assertion that "physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds
> have spoken out about since 9/11/01" and when challenged, you refuse
> to back it up or admit you were wrong.
>
> You're both a liar and a coward. Keep running.

The truth or falsity of my claim does not depend on my particular
actions.

There are hundreds of Ph.Ds who are skeptical of the US government's 9/11
claims. FACT.

>
>>>You could have just admitted that you lied, that you know there
>>>aren't "hundreds" of Ph.Ds who have spoken out about unconfortable
>>>truths concerning 9/11. There are only a few on the fringe who have
>>>tried, and their colleagues have either completely discredited or
>>>ignored them.
>>>
>>>Keep believing your lie though. You need it.
>>>Now go buy a t-shirt.
>>
>>
>> Let me know when you finally learn to use a search engine. I mean, it
>> took me literally 2 seconds to find hundreds of names. Give it a
>> week or five and I'm sure you'll succeed, too.
>
> Nice evasion, dumbass. I asked for what you said exists: "hundreds of
> Ph.Ds"
>
> Keep running and keep typing. It won't go away until you do.

You're just making yourself look foolish.

Here's a sincere tip: buy "Search Engines For Dummies". It may seem like
a difficult tool to master, but learning is its own reward.

Vandar
September 28th 06, 11:15 PM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> Vandar > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>>>>>>properly refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>>>>>>the "terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public
>>>>>>>to smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>>>>government-sponsored.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>>>>>your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>>>>>moldy and threadbare.
>>>>
>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I
>>>>like".
>>>
>>>
>>>You're as sharp as scissors.
>>
>>And you aren't.
>
>
> That's the third time. Come up with your own insults, you lazy ****.

Frustrated?

>>>>>As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
>>>>>incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online
>>>>>equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and
>>>>>chuckling only evokes pity.
>>>>
>>>>Grow up.
>>>>To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
>>>>redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
>>>>because you have a political agenda.
>>>
>>>
>>>Go ahead, expose my political agenda.
>>
>>That's your job.
>>
>>
>>>Be explicit.
>>
>>Ok...
>>That's your ****ing job.
>
>
> You are the one claiming I have a political agenda, so you must have
> knowledge of it.

I do.

> Explain it. In detail. Now.

That's your job.

>>>>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>>>>9/11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from
>>>>>>the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is
>>>>>>that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>>>required -
>>>>
>>>>Are you obsessed with the 90s?
>>>>It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat
>>>denials and broad generalizations, hm?
>>
>>It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.
>
>
> Cite. Now.
>
>
>>>>>base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
>>>>>respond by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>>>>
>>>>Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>>pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>>without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>>need it to be a squib.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
>
>
> This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
> "http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/". What I require is a cite of
> serious 9/11 researchers claiming what you attribute to them.

No serious 9/11 researchers claim that, the fringe conspiracists do.

That said:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

No evidence presented that they are squibs, yet he immediately labels
them as such, even putting the word in quotes... "squibs".
Also note that he references the startlogic page.

> Cite. Now.

And what I require is for you to back up your claim that there are
"hundreds of Ph.Ds" questioning 9/11.

You can't.

>>>>I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation
>>>>is, and it isn't truth.
>>>>Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.
>>>
>>>
>>>You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.
>>
>>Oooh... Nazi reference. That didn't take long, now did it?
>
>
> Quite relevant, as the architects of 9/11 funded the Nazis and stole
> their Reichstag plan. Counterargument? (Please don't just look at your
> feet and mumble again.)

How about you post some proof to back your claims?

>>As I said, exposing your political agenda is YOUR job.
>
>
> So I've exposed it. What is it then, exactly?
>
> Explain. In detail. Now.

You tell us.

>>>>>Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>>>>
>>>>What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
>>>>bull**** their selling.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
>>>conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of
>>>events is 100% true.
>>
>>Gee, Einstein, where did I ever say that the "official government
>>version of events is 100% true"?
>>Oh that's right... I DIDN'T.
>
>
> So, you admit you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Interesting.

Did I say that? No, I don't believe I did.
It's revealing when you try to claim people admitted something they
never admitted.

>>See how it works? You label those who say you're wrong as supporting
>>the "official government version".
>>
>>All you have to do is start typing and your agenda flows right off
>>your fingertips.
>
>
> When you label me as a gullible 9/11 merchandise consumer, is that
> similarly thickheaded and wrong? Just wondering.

No. It's an accurate description of most conspiracists.

>>>I think I see chalk on your back.
>>
>>Do you also hear echoes in your head?
>
>
> Vibrations transmitted through the air are interpreted by mechanisms
> within the head. What you propose would be impossible, even if I did lack
> a brain.

....brain...brain...brain...

> Maybe you should redo 8th grade. It's never too late.
>
>
>>>>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own
>>>>>>>crazy seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>>>>>parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of
>>>>>political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>>>>>published in lists for similar reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>>>>>one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to
>>>>>spare 2 seconds to find them yourself.
>>>>
>>>>If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
>>>>publish them is a lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists to
>>>commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.
>>>
>>>I refuse to facilitate terrorism.
>>
>>Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
>>label something as bad and run from it.
>
>
> There was zero evidence for terrorism against abortion doctors, until
> they started getting murdered.
>
> I'd rather not risk others' lives. I'm sorry you lack honor and cannot
> comprehend that.

I have more honor in my little toe than you could ever comprehend.
Your the one who makes baseless assertions and then demand others prove
you wrong.

Prove you aren't a child molester.

>>The abortion doctors had their information posted by someone who
>>wished harm to come to them.
>
>
> Which is a possible reason why you keep demanding the list you are too
> incompetent to find, and the reason I refuse to provide it to you.

There is no such list. There aren't "hundreds of Ph.Ds".
You lied and got busted, plain and simple


>>The conspiracy theorists post their own
>>information for the world to see.
>>
>>You made an assertion that "physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds
>>have spoken out about since 9/11/01" and when challenged, you refuse
>>to back it up or admit you were wrong.
>>
>>You're both a liar and a coward. Keep running.
>
>
> The truth or falsity of my claim does not depend on my particular
> actions.

Your credibility and honor does.

> There are hundreds of Ph.Ds who are skeptical of the US government's 9/11
> claims. FACT.

Prove it.

We'll stop right here until you can.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 28th 06, 11:36 PM
Vandar > wrote in
:

> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> Vandar > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>>>>>>>properly refute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why
>>>>>>>>Cheney changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>>>>>>>the "terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a
>>>>>>>>mealymouthed regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed
>>>>>>>>to the public to smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>>>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>>>>>government-sponsored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>>>>>>your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>>>>>>moldy and threadbare.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of
>>>>>"I like".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're as sharp as scissors.
>>>
>>>And you aren't.
>>
>>
>> That's the third time. Come up with your own insults, you lazy ****.
>
> Frustrated?

Annoyed. Slightly aroused.

>>>>>>As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument
>>>>>>from incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the
>>>>>>online equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes
>>>>>>and chuckling only evokes pity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Grow up.
>>>>>To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
>>>>>redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
>>>>>because you have a political agenda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go ahead, expose my political agenda.
>>>
>>>That's your job.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Be explicit.
>>>
>>>Ok...
>>>That's your ****ing job.
>>
>>
>> You are the one claiming I have a political agenda, so you must have
>> knowledge of it.
>
> I do.
>
>> Explain it. In detail. Now.
>
> That's your job.

You're repeating yourself without adding anything to the discussion.
That's what my dog does, when he barks.

Stop barking like a dog and start speaking like a human.

>>>>>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>>>>>9/11.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim
>>>>>>>from the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the
>>>>>>>fact is that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>>>>required -
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you obsessed with the 90s?
>>>>>It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
>>>>>truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat
>>>>denials and broad generalizations, hm?
>>>
>>>It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.
>>
>>
>> Cite. Now.
>>
>>

Blank space is not an acceptable cite.

Cite. Now.

>>>>>>base their arguments on documented evidence, while their
>>>>>>detractors respond by calling them names and questioning their
>>>>>>motives.
>>>>>
>>>>>Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>>>pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>>>without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>>>need it to be a squib.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cite?
>>>
>>>http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
>>
>>
>> This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
>> "http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/". What I require is a cite of
>> serious 9/11 researchers claiming what you attribute to them.
>
> No serious 9/11 researchers claim that, the fringe conspiracists do.
>
> That said:
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuild
> ingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
>
> No evidence presented that they are squibs, yet he immediately labels
> them as such, even putting the word in quotes... "squibs".
> Also note that he references the startlogic page.

I can't read PDF format files. Please quote the entire text in your
response so that I may judge accurately. I am perfectly willing to admit
fault should the evidence show it.

>> Cite. Now.
>
> And what I require is for you to back up your claim that there are
> "hundreds of Ph.Ds" questioning 9/11.
>
> You can't.

It is not necessary for me to back up my claim for it to be true.

>>>>>I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their
>>>>>motivation is, and it isn't truth.
>>>>>Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.
>>>
>>>Oooh... Nazi reference. That didn't take long, now did it?
>>
>>
>> Quite relevant, as the architects of 9/11 funded the Nazis and stole
>> their Reichstag plan. Counterargument? (Please don't just look at
>> your feet and mumble again.)
>
> How about you post some proof to back your claims?

I would, but you have been very rude and I don't want to bother.

>>>As I said, exposing your political agenda is YOUR job.
>>
>>
>> So I've exposed it. What is it then, exactly?
>>
>> Explain. In detail. Now.
>
> You tell us.

That's your job.

>>>>>>Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
>>>>>bull**** their selling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
>>>>conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of
>>>>events is 100% true.
>>>
>>>Gee, Einstein, where did I ever say that the "official government
>>>version of events is 100% true"?
>>>Oh that's right... I DIDN'T.
>>
>>
>> So, you admit you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Interesting.
>
> Did I say that? No, I don't believe I did.
> It's revealing when you try to claim people admitted something they
> never admitted.

Language is symbolic. Try reading Chomsky once in a while.

>
>>>See how it works? You label those who say you're wrong as supporting
>>>the "official government version".
>>>
>>>All you have to do is start typing and your agenda flows right off
>>>your fingertips.
>>
>>
>> When you label me as a gullible 9/11 merchandise consumer, is that
>> similarly thickheaded and wrong? Just wondering.
>
> No. It's an accurate description of most conspiracists.

Cite?

>>>>I think I see chalk on your back.
>>>
>>>Do you also hear echoes in your head?
>>
>>
>> Vibrations transmitted through the air are interpreted by mechanisms
>> within the head. What you propose would be impossible, even if I did
>> lack a brain.
>
> ...brain...brain...brain...

You lack understanding of both basic physics and humor.

>> Maybe you should redo 8th grade. It's never too late.
>>>>>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own
>>>>>>>>crazy seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war,
>>>>>>"glass parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists
>>>>>>of political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>>>>>>published in lists for similar reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When
>>>>>>you one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able
>>>>>>to spare 2 seconds to find them yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
>>>>>publish them is a lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists
>>>>to commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.
>>>>
>>>>I refuse to facilitate terrorism.
>>>
>>>Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
>>>label something as bad and run from it.
>>
>>
>> There was zero evidence for terrorism against abortion doctors, until
>> they started getting murdered.
>>
>> I'd rather not risk others' lives. I'm sorry you lack honor and
>> cannot comprehend that.
>
> I have more honor in my little toe than you could ever comprehend.
> Your the one who makes baseless assertions and then demand others
> prove you wrong.
>
> Prove you aren't a child molester.

"Your" is possessive. The contraction "You're" is what you meant to use.

This proves I am smarter than you, and therefore I win.

>>>The abortion doctors had their information posted by someone who
>>>wished harm to come to them.
>>
>>
>> Which is a possible reason why you keep demanding the list you are
>> too incompetent to find, and the reason I refuse to provide it to
>> you.
>
> There is no such list. There aren't "hundreds of Ph.Ds".
> You lied and got busted, plain and simple

There is such a list. I just did another 2-second search to confirm.

I'm sorry you can't figure out how to use a search engine, but that
doesn't make me a liar.

>>>The conspiracy theorists post their own
>>>information for the world to see.
>>>
>>>You made an assertion that "physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds
>>>have spoken out about since 9/11/01" and when challenged, you refuse
>>>to back it up or admit you were wrong.
>>>
>>>You're both a liar and a coward. Keep running.
>>
>>
>> The truth or falsity of my claim does not depend on my particular
>> actions.
>
> Your credibility and honor does.

Even if I had zero credibility, when I state truth it is true.

>> There are hundreds of Ph.Ds who are skeptical of the US government's
>> 9/11 claims. FACT.
>
> Prove it.
>
> We'll stop right here until you can.

The proof is very easy to acquire. All you have to do is learn how to use
a search engine.

NoOneYouKnow
September 28th 06, 11:38 PM
Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

---JRE---


"Vandar" > wrote in message
...
> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> Vandar > wrote in
>> :
>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vandar > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>>>>>>>properly refute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>>>>>>>the "terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public
>>>>>>>>to smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I like how yo throw "government-sponsored" in there like it's an
>>>>>>>indictment, as if what the military does is anything but
>>>>>>>government-sponsored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" as if it were the 1990s and
>>>>>>your Saturday Night Live and Nirvana-fueled hipster sarcasm wasn't
>>>>>>moldy and threadbare.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like how you use the phrase "I like" in response to my usage of "I
>>>>>like".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're as sharp as scissors.
>>>
>>>And you aren't.
>>
>>
>> That's the third time. Come up with your own insults, you lazy ****.
>
> Frustrated?
>
>>>>>>As for the content of your response, it is fallacious. Argument from
>>>>>>incredulity means nothing. Assert or counter. Doing the online
>>>>>>equivalent of shuffling, mumbling, looking at your shoes and
>>>>>>chuckling only evokes pity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Grow up.
>>>>>To say that a military operation is "government sponsored" is
>>>>>redundant. It can be nothing else. The only reason to say it is
>>>>>because you have a political agenda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go ahead, expose my political agenda.
>>>
>>>That's your job.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Be explicit.
>>>
>>>Ok...
>>>That's your ****ing job.
>>
>>
>> You are the one claiming I have a political agenda, so you must have
>> knowledge of it.
>
> I do.
>
>> Explain it. In detail. Now.
>
> That's your job.
>
>>>>>>>>*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
>>>>>>>>huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
>>>>>>>>9/11.
>>>>>>>>Some people just won't deal with facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yup. They call themselves the "truth movement". They proclaim from
>>>>>>>the highest mountains that they are truth seekers, when the fact is
>>>>>>>that they are revenue seekers with a political agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>>>>required -
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you obsessed with the 90s?
>>>>>It's in quotes because the movement has nothing to do with actual
>>>>>truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which you have clearly demonstrated through tired mockery, flat
>>>>denials and broad generalizations, hm?
>>>
>>>It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.
>>
>>
>> Cite. Now.
>>
>>
>>>>>>base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
>>>>>>respond by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>>>>>
>>>>>Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>>>pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>>>without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>>>need it to be a squib.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cite?
>>>
>>>http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
>>
>>
>> This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
>> "http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/". What I require is a cite of
>> serious 9/11 researchers claiming what you attribute to them.
>
> No serious 9/11 researchers claim that, the fringe conspiracists do.
>
> That said:
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf
>
> No evidence presented that they are squibs, yet he immediately labels them
> as such, even putting the word in quotes... "squibs".
> Also note that he references the startlogic page.
>
>> Cite. Now.
>
> And what I require is for you to back up your claim that there are
> "hundreds of Ph.Ds" questioning 9/11.
>
> You can't.
>
>>>>>I don't question their motives. I know exactly what their motivation
>>>>>is, and it isn't truth.
>>>>>Now go buy a t-shirt, dvd, and a ticket to their next conference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You talk about "Them" just like the Nazis talked about the Jews.
>>>
>>>Oooh... Nazi reference. That didn't take long, now did it?
>>
>>
>> Quite relevant, as the architects of 9/11 funded the Nazis and stole
>> their Reichstag plan. Counterargument? (Please don't just look at your
>> feet and mumble again.)
>
> How about you post some proof to back your claims?
>
>>>As I said, exposing your political agenda is YOUR job.
>>
>>
>> So I've exposed it. What is it then, exactly?
>>
>> Explain. In detail. Now.
>
> You tell us.
>
>>>>>>Actually, it isn't funny at all. It's sick and wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's wrong is that there are people so gullible as to buy the
>>>>>bull**** their selling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, your argument amounts to: people are selling stuff about 9/11
>>>>conspiracy theories, therefore the official government version of
>>>>events is 100% true.
>>>
>>>Gee, Einstein, where did I ever say that the "official government version
>>>of events is 100% true"?
>>>Oh that's right... I DIDN'T.
>>
>>
>> So, you admit you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Interesting.
>
> Did I say that? No, I don't believe I did.
> It's revealing when you try to claim people admitted something they never
> admitted.
>
>>>See how it works? You label those who say you're wrong as supporting
>>>the "official government version".
>>>
>>>All you have to do is start typing and your agenda flows right off
>>>your fingertips.
>>
>>
>> When you label me as a gullible 9/11 merchandise consumer, is that
>> similarly thickheaded and wrong? Just wondering.
>
> No. It's an accurate description of most conspiracists.
>
>>>>I think I see chalk on your back.
>>>
>>>Do you also hear echoes in your head?
>>
>>
>> Vibrations transmitted through the air are interpreted by mechanisms
>> within the head. What you propose would be impossible, even if I did lack
>> a brain.
>
> ...brain...brain...brain...
>
>> Maybe you should redo 8th grade. It's never too late.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
>>>>>>>>>allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Calling people with political opinions different from your own
>>>>>>>>crazy seems to be a hot trend these days.
>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>>>>>>parking lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of
>>>>>>political undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names
>>>>>>published in lists for similar reasons.
>>>>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>>>>>>one day learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to
>>>>>>spare 2 seconds to find them yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>If they are available online, your argument that it's not wise to
>>>>>publish them is a lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The abortion doctor list which was utilized by domestic terrorists to
>>>>commit arson, murder and mayhem was also published online.
>>>>
>>>>I refuse to facilitate terrorism.
>>>
>>>Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
>>>label something as bad and run from it.
>>
>>
>> There was zero evidence for terrorism against abortion doctors, until
>> they started getting murdered.
>>
>> I'd rather not risk others' lives. I'm sorry you lack honor and cannot
>> comprehend that.
>
> I have more honor in my little toe than you could ever comprehend.
> Your the one who makes baseless assertions and then demand others prove
> you wrong.
>
> Prove you aren't a child molester.
>
>>>The abortion doctors had their information posted by someone who
>>>wished harm to come to them.
>>
>>
>> Which is a possible reason why you keep demanding the list you are too
>> incompetent to find, and the reason I refuse to provide it to you.
>
> There is no such list. There aren't "hundreds of Ph.Ds".
> You lied and got busted, plain and simple
>
>
>>>The conspiracy theorists post their own information for the world to see.
>>>
>>>You made an assertion that "physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have
>>>spoken out about since 9/11/01" and when challenged, you refuse
>>>to back it up or admit you were wrong.
>>>
>>>You're both a liar and a coward. Keep running.
>>
>>
>> The truth or falsity of my claim does not depend on my particular
>> actions.
>
> Your credibility and honor does.
>
>> There are hundreds of Ph.Ds who are skeptical of the US government's 9/11
>> claims. FACT.
>
> Prove it.
>
> We'll stop right here until you can.

September 29th 06, 12:30 AM
On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>
>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>> refute.
>
>
>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney changed
>all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command in
>himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
>
>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>
>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
>into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.

There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into building
in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.

<snip>

>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.

But you just can't seem to name any, right?

September 29th 06, 12:31 AM
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Hiram Thair Mark
> wrote:


>The proof is very easy to acquire.

But you just can't seem to provide it, right?

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 12:48 AM
wrote in
:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Hiram Thair Mark
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The proof is very easy to acquire.
>
> But you just can't seem to provide it, right?

Refusal is not the same thing as inability.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 12:50 AM
wrote in
:

> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>
>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>> refute.
>>
>>
>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing
>>command in himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist
>>attack".
>>
>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>
>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
>>into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>
> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into building
> in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.

The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into buildings.
A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day. Most NORAD
exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.

The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to be
for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11, 2001. So
much for slimy semantics.

>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>
> But you just can't seem to name any, right?

Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so for
reasons already stated.

September 29th 06, 01:07 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 01:48:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Hiram Thair Mark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The proof is very easy to acquire.
>>
>> But you just can't seem to provide it, right?
>
>Refusal is not the same thing as inability.

But the result is the same, you haven't provided any evidence of your
assertions. Therefore the conclusion is that you have no evidence.

September 29th 06, 01:12 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>
>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>> refute.
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing
>>>command in himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist
>>>attack".
>>>
>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>
>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
>>>into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>>
>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into building
>> in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>
>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into buildings.

Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
too simple an explanation.

>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.

And a long way away from NYC and DC.

>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.

Of aircraft from outside the United States.

>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to be
>for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11, 2001. So
>much for slimy semantics.

Cite?

>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>>
>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>
>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so for
>reasons already stated.

You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
"hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 01:26 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>> refute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding the
>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>
>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>
>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>11, 2001.
>>>
>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>
>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>buildings.
>
> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
> of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
> too simple an explanation.

False dilemma.

>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>
> And a long way away from NYC and DC.

The necessary confusion manifested.

>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>
> Of aircraft from outside the United States.

See above.

>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to
>>be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11,
>>2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>
> Cite?

The official 9/11 Commission hearings.

You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.

>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>9/11/01.
>>>
>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>
>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so
>>for reasons already stated.
>
> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
> expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.

You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of the
thread, tail 'tween legs.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 01:26 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 01:48:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Hiram Thair Mark
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The proof is very easy to acquire.
>>>
>>> But you just can't seem to provide it, right?
>>
>>Refusal is not the same thing as inability.
>
> But the result is the same, you haven't provided any evidence of your
> assertions. Therefore the conclusion is that you have no evidence.

There is no result. This is a conversation, not an equation. My refusal is
not a premiss which can lead to a conclusion. You are in serious error.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 01:32 AM
"NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
. net:

> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.

Vandar
September 29th 06, 01:32 AM
You assert everything and offer nothing.
You bore me.

Vandar
September 29th 06, 01:47 AM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>>>refute.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding the
>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>
>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>
>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>
>>>>There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>
>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>buildings.
>>
>>Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
>>of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
>>too simple an explanation.
>
>
> False dilemma.
>
>
>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>
>>And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>
>
> The necessary confusion manifested.
>
>
>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>
>>Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to
>>>be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11,
>>>2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>
>>Cite?
>
>
> The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>
> You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>
>
>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>
>>>>But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>
>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so
>>>for reasons already stated.
>>
>>You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>>"hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
>>expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>
>
> You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
> preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of the
> thread, tail 'tween legs.

When you offer nothing, you receive nothing.

John P.
September 29th 06, 02:34 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

> I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down...

Why do you think NORAD "stood down"? What do you think they should have
done?

John P.
September 29th 06, 02:41 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

> Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes required -
> base their arguments on documented evidence, while their detractors
> respond
> by calling them names and questioning their motives.

The 9/11 truth movement presents theories, not facts. If they had facts, one
could not readily dispute their claims. If they had facts, they'd not need
to resort to tactics such as using selective quotes to mischaracterize what
someone said, or selective editing of video evidence in order to make it
appear to show something different from reality. If they would avoid such
obvious and dishonest tactics, they might find support among a group of more
reasoned people.

>>> Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>> professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.

>> Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.

> Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
> parking
> lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of political
> undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names published in lists
> for similar reasons.

> Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you one
> day
> learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare 2 seconds to
> find them yourself.

I'll list the names - you just need to pick out which of them would account
for your "hundreds of PHD's" (or even 25 of them)

James H. Fetzer:
Philosophy

Paul W. Rea
Humanities

Stephen LeRoy
Economics

Tracy Belvins
Bioengineering

David Gabbard
Education

Daniel Orr
Economics

Kevin Barrett
adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin on the subject of Islam:
Religion and Culture.

Robert M. Bowman
has never held an academic position at any university.

Daniele Ganser
ETH

David Ray Griffin
Philosophy of religion and theology

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.

John McMurtry
FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public policy
issues

Don Paul
American peace movement activist, writer, musician, and poet.

Kevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend,
Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water
testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL's conclusions regarding
the collapse of the WTC.

Webster G. Tarpley
Author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic
Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism expert.

Andreas von Bülow
Former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for research
and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

William Woodward
Psychology

Harriet Cianci
Tunxis Community College


Judy Wood
Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof.
Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.

Morgan Reynolds
Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof.
Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.


Of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, none are
members of the Scholars for Truth


Among the other Scholars for Truth members, you have degrees in;
Folklore, English, Law, Philossphy, English Literature, Radiology, Medical
Hypnosis, French Language & Culture, Math, Computer Science, Political
Science, Classics & Philosophy, Criminal Profiling, Forensic Psychology,
Humanities, American Studies, Cultural Studies, Physics of Optical
Materials, Materials Science & Engineering, Theatre, Economics, Religious
Studies, Theology, Linguistics, Oriental Languages, Literature and
Humanities, Statistical Research, Sociology, Population Biology, Evolution &
Ecology, Aeronautics, Astrophysics, Engineering, Political Science,
Accounting, Creative Arts...

Quite an unimpressive list when it comes to structural engineering,
architectural engineering or forensic investigation.

To be fair, SFT does list 2 'structural engineers' among their members -
Doyle Winterton, a stereo salesman, was in training to be an engineer, but
lost his license in 1999. Joseph M.. Phelps does appear to have been a
structural engineer. He is 82 years old and runs a 9 hole golf course in
Florida.

Vandar
September 29th 06, 02:41 AM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
> . net:
>
>
>>Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>
>
> I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.

Me, earlier in this thread:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

Your reply:
This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
"http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/".


You could not know that unless you followed the html link I provided.

I reiterate: You are a liar and a coward.

September 29th 06, 02:43 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding the
>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>
>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>
>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>
>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>
>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>buildings.
>>
>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
>> of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
>> too simple an explanation.
>
>False dilemma.

Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.

>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>
>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>
>The necessary confusion manifested.

More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.

>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>
>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>
>See above.

And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.

>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to
>>>be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11,
>>>2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.

Which isn't a citation.

>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.

And you're awfully stupid.

>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>
>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>
>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so
>>>for reasons already stated.
>>
>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
>> expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>
>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of the
>thread, tail 'tween legs.

And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to prove me
wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?

September 29th 06, 02:44 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:46 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:48:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Hiram Thair Mark
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The proof is very easy to acquire.
>>>>
>>>> But you just can't seem to provide it, right?
>>>
>>>Refusal is not the same thing as inability.
>>
>> But the result is the same, you haven't provided any evidence of your
>> assertions. Therefore the conclusion is that you have no evidence.
>
>There is no result. This is a conversation, not an equation. My refusal is
>not a premiss which can lead to a conclusion. You are in serious error.

And you still haven't provided any evidence of your assertion.

September 29th 06, 02:44 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 02:32:07 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

>"NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
. net:
>
>> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>
>I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.

Ohhh, that's real scary, isn't it?

John P.
September 29th 06, 02:50 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they need
>> it to be a squib.

> Cite?

Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC towers
and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition squibs?

Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being ejected
from a single window at various locations on the buildings, at various times
during the collapse. The ejection grows in size, intensity and velocity over
the course of several frames.

An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity immediately
after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame analysis shows the
opposite is happening. The event is not indicative of an explosion.

In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having single
explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has initiated. Videos of
controlled demolition show how all the explosions occur prior to the
collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to controlled demolition.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 02:54 AM
"John P." > wrote in
:

> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>
>> Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>> required - base their arguments on documented evidence, while their
>> detractors respond
>> by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>
> The 9/11 truth movement presents theories, not facts. If they had
> facts, one could not readily dispute their claims. If they had facts,
> they'd not need to resort to tactics such as using selective quotes to
> mischaracterize what someone said, or selective editing of video
> evidence in order to make it appear to show something different from
> reality. If they would avoid such obvious and dishonest tactics, they
> might find support among a group of more reasoned people.
>
>>>> Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>> professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>> 9/11/01.
>
>>> Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>
>> Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>> parking
>> lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of political
>> undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names published in
>> lists for similar reasons.
>
>> Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>> one day
>> learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare 2
>> seconds to find them yourself.
>
> I'll list the names - you just need to pick out which of them would
> account for your "hundreds of PHD's" (or even 25 of them)
>
> James H. Fetzer:
> Philosophy
>
> Paul W. Rea
> Humanities
>
> Stephen LeRoy
> Economics
>
> Tracy Belvins
> Bioengineering
>
> David Gabbard
> Education
>
> Daniel Orr
> Economics
>
> Kevin Barrett
> adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin on the subject of
> Islam: Religion and Culture.
>
> Robert M. Bowman
> has never held an academic position at any university.
>
> Daniele Ganser
> ETH
>
> David Ray Griffin
> Philosophy of religion and theology
>
> Wayne Madsen
> Investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.
>
> John McMurtry
> FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public
> policy issues
>
> Don Paul
> American peace movement activist, writer, musician, and poet.
>
> Kevin Ryan
> Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South
> Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for
> water testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL's
> conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC.
>
> Webster G. Tarpley
> Author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11
> Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism
> expert.
>
> Andreas von Bülow
> Former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for
> research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
>
> William Woodward
> Psychology
>
> Harriet Cianci
> Tunxis Community College
>
>
> Judy Wood
> Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both
> Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.
>
> Morgan Reynolds
> Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both
> Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.
>
>
> Of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
> none are members of the Scholars for Truth
>
>
> Among the other Scholars for Truth members, you have degrees in;
> Folklore, English, Law, Philossphy, English Literature, Radiology,
> Medical Hypnosis, French Language & Culture, Math, Computer Science,
> Political Science, Classics & Philosophy, Criminal Profiling, Forensic
> Psychology, Humanities, American Studies, Cultural Studies, Physics of
> Optical Materials, Materials Science & Engineering, Theatre,
> Economics, Religious Studies, Theology, Linguistics, Oriental
> Languages, Literature and Humanities, Statistical Research, Sociology,
> Population Biology, Evolution & Ecology, Aeronautics, Astrophysics,
> Engineering, Political Science, Accounting, Creative Arts...
>
> Quite an unimpressive list when it comes to structural engineering,
> architectural engineering or forensic investigation.
>
> To be fair, SFT does list 2 'structural engineers' among their members
> - Doyle Winterton, a stereo salesman, was in training to be an
> engineer, but lost his license in 1999. Joseph M.. Phelps does appear
> to have been a structural engineer. He is 82 years old and runs a 9
> hole golf course in Florida.

You seem like quite an angry individual. I'm not sure if I should reply
to you.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 02:54 AM
Vandar > wrote in news:hR_Sg.1850$ya1.1684
@news02.roc.ny:

> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>>>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>>
>>
>> I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.
>
> Me, earlier in this thread:
> http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
>
> Your reply:
> This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
> "http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/".
>
>
> You could not know that unless you followed the html link I provided.
>
> I reiterate: You are a liar and a coward.

I telnetted to port 80, which was not possible with the other link.

Apologize to me. Now.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 02:55 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
properly
>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
the
>>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public
to
>>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>
>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>buildings.
>>>
>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
>>> of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
>>> too simple an explanation.
>>
>>False dilemma.
>
> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.

Identifying a fallacy is not spin.

>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>
>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>
>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>
> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.

Stating facts is not whining.

>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>
>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>
>>See above.
>
> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.

Your "catchphrases" are not "over".

>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to
>>>>be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11,
>>>>2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>
> Which isn't a citation.

Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best rebuttal
you could muster. This really spells the end for your "argument".

>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>
> And you're awfully stupid.

I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.

>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>
>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so
>>>>for reasons already stated.
>>>
>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>>> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
>>> expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>
>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of the
>>thread, tail 'tween legs.
>
> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to prove me
> wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?

You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I will
not give you succor.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 02:56 AM
"John P." > wrote in
:

> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>
>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>> need it to be a squib.
>
>> Cite?
>
> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition
> squibs?
>
> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings, at
> various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.
>
> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not indicative
> of an explosion.
>
> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the explosions
> occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to
> controlled demolition.

Cite?

September 29th 06, 03:20 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 03:55:06 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>properly
>>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney
>>>>>>>changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>the
>>>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
>>>>>>>regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public
>to
>>>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September
>>>>>>>11, 2001.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>
>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>buildings.
>>>>
>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the proximity
>>>> of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of course not, that's
>>>> too simple an explanation.
>>>
>>>False dilemma.
>>
>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>
>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.

Except you've identified no fallacy.

>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>
>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>
>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>
>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>
>Stating facts is not whining.

You've stated no facts.

>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>
>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>
>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".

Over what?

>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed to
>>>>>be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September 11,
>>>>>2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>
>> Which isn't a citation.
>
>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best rebuttal
>you could muster. This really spells the end for your "argument".

But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help you
with the real citation:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a
"traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and
seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to
be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an
exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several
conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as
coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so
do I.)"


>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>
>> And you're awfully stupid.
>
>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.

Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.

>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do so
>>>>>for reasons already stated.
>>>>
>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>>>> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated to
>>>> expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>
>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of the
>>>thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>
>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to prove me
>> wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>
>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I will
>not give you succor.

I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.

September 29th 06, 03:21 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 03:56:09 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

>"John P." > wrote in
:
>
>> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>>
>>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>> need it to be a squib.
>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
>> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition
>> squibs?
>>
>> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
>> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings, at
>> various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
>> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.
>>
>> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
>> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
>> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not indicative
>> of an explosion.
>>
>> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
>> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
>> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the explosions
>> occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to
>> controlled demolition.
>
>Cite?

Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
Hypocrite.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 03:29 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 03:56:09 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
>>"John P." > wrote in
:
>>
>>> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>>>
>>>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>>> need it to be a squib.
>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
>>> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition
>>> squibs?
>>>
>>> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
>>> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings,
at
>>> various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
>>> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.
>>>
>>> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
>>> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
>>> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not indicative
>>> of an explosion.
>>>
>>> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
>>> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
>>> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the
explosions
>>> occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to
>>> controlled demolition.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
> Hypocrite.

That isn't hypocrisy.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 03:30 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 03:55:06 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>properly
>>>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why
>>>>>>>>Cheney changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>the
>>>>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a
>>>>>>>>mealymouthed regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed
>>>>>>>>to the public
>>to
>>>>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>>buildings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the
>>>>> proximity of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of
>>>>> course not, that's too simple an explanation.
>>>>
>>>>False dilemma.
>>>
>>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>>
>>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.
>
> Except you've identified no fallacy.

Except for the false dilemma.

>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>
>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>
>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>
>>Stating facts is not whining.
>
> You've stated no facts.

I've stated plenty.

>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>
>>>>See above.
>>>
>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>
>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>
> Over what?

Over with the fans.

>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed
>>>>>>to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September
>>>>>>11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>
>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>
>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>"argument".
>
> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help you
> with the real citation:
>
> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>
> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a
> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and
> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to
> be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an
> exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several
> conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as
> coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so
> do I.)"

You're so wrong it's funny.

>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>
>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>
>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>
> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.

Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.

>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do
>>>>>>so for reasons already stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>>>>> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated
>>>>> to expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of
>>>>the thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>>
>>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to prove
>>> me wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>>
>>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I
>>will not give you succor.
>
> I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.

The main thing you've proven is that your only argument is namecalling.

9/11 Truth wins again.

September 29th 06, 03:33 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

<snip>

>>>Cite?
>>
>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>> Hypocrite.
>
>That isn't hypocrisy.

hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Yep, it is.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 03:35 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Cite?
>>>
>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>> Hypocrite.
>>
>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>
> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>
> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>
> Yep, it is.
>

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.

September 29th 06, 03:40 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 04:30:46 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 03:55:06 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>properly
>>>>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why
>>>>>>>>>Cheney changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled --
>>>>>>>>>centralizing command in himself -- right in the months preceding
>>>the
>>>>>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a
>>>>>>>>>mealymouthed regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed
>>>>>>>>>to the public
>>>to
>>>>>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>>>buildings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the
>>>>>> proximity of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of
>>>>>> course not, that's too simple an explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>>False dilemma.
>>>>
>>>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>>>
>>>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.
>>
>> Except you've identified no fallacy.
>
>Except for the false dilemma.

It isn't a false dilemma, it's your lie.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an
errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office
had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet
would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters
building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
International Airport. "

>>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>>
>>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>>
>>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>
>>>Stating facts is not whining.
>>
>> You've stated no facts.
>
>I've stated plenty.

Name one.

>>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>>See above.
>>>>
>>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>
>>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>>
>> Over what?
>
>Over with the fans.

????

>>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not supposed
>>>>>>>to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning of September
>>>>>>>11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>>
>>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>>"argument".
>>
>> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
>> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help you
>> with the real citation:
>>
>> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>>
>> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
>> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
>> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a
>> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
>> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and
>> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to
>> be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an
>> exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several
>> conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as
>> coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so
>> do I.)"
>
>You're so wrong it's funny.

So the citation is a lie? Then refute it.

>>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>>
>>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>>
>> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.
>
>Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.

Sure you are.

>>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>>>>>9/11/01.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do
>>>>>>>so for reasons already stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there aren't
>>>>>> "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are unrelated
>>>>>> to expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out of
>>>>>the thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>>>
>>>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to prove
>>>> me wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>>>
>>>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I
>>>will not give you succor.
>>
>> I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.
>
>The main thing you've proven is that your only argument is namecalling.

Actually, the main thing I've proven is that your just another run of
the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.

September 29th 06, 03:43 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>Cite?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
>>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>
>>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>>
>> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>>
>> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
>> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>>
>> Yep, it is.
>>
>
>Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.

Obviously it isn't yours. You expect more from others than you are
willing to give yourself, i.e, you demand a virtue from someone else
that you do not have yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 03:50 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 04:30:46 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2006 03:55:06 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 02:26:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 01:50:24 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep 2006 17:37:48 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can
>>>>properly
>>>>>>>>>>> refute.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why
>>>>>>>>>>Cheney changed all the rules about how this stuff is handled
>>>>>>>>>>-- centralizing command in himself -- right in the months
>>>>>>>>>>preceding
>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>"terrorist attack".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a
>>>>>>>>>>mealymouthed regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations
>>>>>>>>>>fed to the public
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>smooth over the inconsistencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>>>>buildings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the
>>>>>>> proximity of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of
>>>>>>> course not, that's too simple an explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>False dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>>>>
>>>>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.
>>>
>>> Except you've identified no fallacy.
>>
>>Except for the false dilemma.
>
> It isn't a false dilemma, it's your lie.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/090
> 3_plane_exercise.htm
>
> "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
> intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an
> errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
> wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
>
> Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office
> had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet
> would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters
> building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
>
> The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
> International Airport. "

You still have not dealt with the false dilemma.

>>>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>>>
>>>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>
>>>>Stating facts is not whining.
>>>
>>> You've stated no facts.
>>
>>I've stated plenty.
>
> Name one.

I could, but I won't.

>>>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See above.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>
>>>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>>>
>>> Over what?
>>
>>Over with the fans.
>
> ????

It doesn't make them "pop".

>>>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not
>>>>>>>>supposed to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning
>>>>>>>>of September 11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>>>
>>>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>>>"argument".
>>>
>>> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
>>> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help
>>> you with the real citation:
>>>
>>> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>>>
>>> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
>>> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
>>> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a
>>> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
>>> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and
>>> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed
>>> to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there
>>> was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into
>>> several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses
>>> this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of
>>> recordings, so do I.)"
>>
>>You're so wrong it's funny.
>
> So the citation is a lie? Then refute it.

You're self-refuting. You don't need my help.

>>>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>>>
>>>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>>>
>>> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.
>>
>>Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.
>
> Sure you are.

Your confirmation is unnecessary.

>>>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that
>>>>>>>>>>physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about
>>>>>>>>>>since 9/11/01.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do
>>>>>>>>so for reasons already stated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there
>>>>>>> aren't "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are
>>>>>>> unrelated to expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out
>>>>>>of the thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to
>>>>> prove me wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>>>>
>>>>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I
>>>>will not give you succor.
>>>
>>> I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.
>>
>>The main thing you've proven is that your only argument is
>>namecalling.
>
> Actually, the main thing I've proven is that your just another run of
> the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.

"Your" is possessive.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 03:51 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
>>>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>>>
>>> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
>>> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>>>
>>> Yep, it is.
>>>
>>
>>Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.
>
> Obviously it isn't yours. You expect more from others than you are
> willing to give yourself, i.e, you demand a virtue from someone else
> that you do not have yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite.

You are quite intellectually dishonest. For shame.

September 29th 06, 04:12 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 04:50:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>>>>>buildings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>>>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the
>>>>>>>> proximity of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of
>>>>>>>> course not, that's too simple an explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>False dilemma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.
>>>>
>>>> Except you've identified no fallacy.
>>>
>>>Except for the false dilemma.
>>
>> It isn't a false dilemma, it's your lie.
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/090
>> 3_plane_exercise.htm
>>
>> "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
>> intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an
>> errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
>> wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
>>
>> Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office
>> had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet
>> would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters
>> building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
>>
>> The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
>> International Airport. "
>
>You still have not dealt with the false dilemma.

You're the one in the dilemma. You've claimed that:

"There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
September 11, 2001. "

And you've been proven wrong.

>>>>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stating facts is not whining.
>>>>
>>>> You've stated no facts.
>>>
>>>I've stated plenty.
>>
>> Name one.
>
>I could, but I won't.

And we're back to being a hypocrite.

>>>>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>>>>
>>>> Over what?
>>>
>>>Over with the fans.
>>
>> ????
>
>It doesn't make them "pop".

????

>>>>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not
>>>>>>>>>supposed to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning
>>>>>>>>>of September 11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>>>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>>>>"argument".
>>>>
>>>> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
>>>> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help
>>>> you with the real citation:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>>>>
>>>> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
>>>> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
>>>> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a
>>>> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
>>>> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and
>>>> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed
>>>> to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there
>>>> was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into
>>>> several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses
>>>> this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of
>>>> recordings, so do I.)"
>>>
>>>You're so wrong it's funny.
>>
>> So the citation is a lie? Then refute it.
>
>You're self-refuting. You don't need my help.

You're the one telling the lies.

>>>>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.
>>>
>>>Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.
>>
>> Sure you are.
>
>Your confirmation is unnecessary.

Like it really matters. It's just another one of your lies.

>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that
>>>>>>>>>>>physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about
>>>>>>>>>>>since 9/11/01.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to do
>>>>>>>>>so for reasons already stated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there
>>>>>>>> aren't "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are
>>>>>>>> unrelated to expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>>>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out
>>>>>>>of the thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to
>>>>>> prove me wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>>>>>
>>>>>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded. I
>>>>>will not give you succor.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.
>>>
>>>The main thing you've proven is that your only argument is
>>>namecalling.
>>
>> Actually, the main thing I've proven is that your just another run of
>> the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.
>
>"Your" is possessive.

Quite right, but then that doesn't disprove that you're just another
run of the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.

September 29th 06, 04:12 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 04:51:28 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion when
>>>>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>>>>
>>>> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>>>>
>>>> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
>>>> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, it is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.
>>
>> Obviously it isn't yours. You expect more from others than you are
>> willing to give yourself, i.e, you demand a virtue from someone else
>> that you do not have yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite.
>
>You are quite intellectually dishonest. For shame.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 04:25 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 04:50:04 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>>>>>>>>>>>>airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>September 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There were no drills involving flying hijacked airliners into
>>>>>>>>>>> building in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The drill was for 'malfunctioning' airliners that crashed into
>>>>>>>>>>buildings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is not the same as a hijacked airliner. The drill you're
>>>>>>>>> referring to, of course, would have nothing to do with the
>>>>>>>>> proximity of the drill crash site to two major airports. Of
>>>>>>>>> course not, that's too simple an explanation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>False dilemma.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whining spin by a conspiracy wacko caught in a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Identifying a fallacy is not spin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except you've identified no fallacy.
>>>>
>>>>Except for the false dilemma.
>>>
>>> It isn't a false dilemma, it's your lie.
>>>
>>>
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/090
>>> 3_plane_exercise.htm
>>>
>>> "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
>>> intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which
an
>>> errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
>>> wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
>>>
>>> Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office
>>> had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet
>>> would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters
>>> building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
>>>
>>> The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
>>> International Airport. "
>>
>>You still have not dealt with the false dilemma.
>
> You're the one in the dilemma. You've claimed that:
>
> "There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
> airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
> September 11, 2001. "
>
> And you've been proven wrong.

....along with NORAD.

>>>>>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stating facts is not whining.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've stated no facts.
>>>>
>>>>I've stated plenty.
>>>
>>> Name one.
>>
>>I could, but I won't.
>
> And we're back to being a hypocrite.

More namecalling?

>>>>>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>>>>>
>>>>> Over what?
>>>>
>>>>Over with the fans.
>>>
>>> ????
>>
>>It doesn't make them "pop".
>
> ????

They don't "draw" any "heat".

>>>>>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not
>>>>>>>>>>supposed to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning
>>>>>>>>>>of September 11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>>>>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>>>>>"argument".
>>>>>
>>>>> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
>>>>> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help
>>>>> you with the real citation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>>>>>
>>>>> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
>>>>> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
>>>>> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including
a
>>>>> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
>>>>> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island,
and
>>>>> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed
>>>>> to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there
>>>>> was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into
>>>>> several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses
>>>>> this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of
>>>>> recordings, so do I.)"
>>>>
>>>>You're so wrong it's funny.
>>>
>>> So the citation is a lie? Then refute it.
>>
>>You're self-refuting. You don't need my help.
>
> You're the one telling the lies.

Cite?

>>>>>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.
>>>
>>> Sure you are.
>>
>>Your confirmation is unnecessary.
>
> Like it really matters. It's just another one of your lies.

Eagle Scouts don't lie.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that
>>>>>>>>>>>>physics professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out
about
>>>>>>>>>>>>since 9/11/01.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you just can't seem to name any, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Incorrect. I *could* name as many as one hundred. I refuse to
do
>>>>>>>>>>so for reasons already stated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't name them because it would be apparent that there
>>>>>>>>> aren't "hundreds" of PhD and their PhDs are in fields that are
>>>>>>>>> unrelated to expertise required to judge the events of 9/11.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are ascribing motives to me based on nothing but your own
>>>>>>>>preconceptions, just like the other scalded dog that skulked out
>>>>>>>>of the thread, tail 'tween legs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you're mistaken yet again. Wouldn't it be easier just to
>>>>>>> prove me wrong and name these "hundreds" of PhDs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You wish for me to engage you because your pride has been wounded.
I
>>>>>>will not give you succor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not the one being continually proven wrong, sport.
>>>>
>>>>The main thing you've proven is that your only argument is
>>>>namecalling.
>>>
>>> Actually, the main thing I've proven is that your just another run of
>>> the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.
>>
>>"Your" is possessive.
>
> Quite right, but then that doesn't disprove that you're just another
> run of the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 04:25 AM
wrote in
:

> On 29 Sep 2006 04:51:28 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion
when
>>>>>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>>>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>>>>>
>>>>> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
>>>>> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, it is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.
>>>
>>> Obviously it isn't yours. You expect more from others than you are
>>> willing to give yourself, i.e, you demand a virtue from someone else
>>> that you do not have yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite.
>>
>>You are quite intellectually dishonest. For shame.
>
> Pot, Kettle, Black.

You vile racist!

John P.
September 29th 06, 04:30 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

> You seem like quite an angry individual. I'm not sure if I should reply
> to you.

LOL! In what country is presentation of facts and reality considered to be a
sign of anger?

If the opposite is true, then you would seem to be an extremely happy
person! :-D

Now that'd you've dodged a serious response, would you like me to repost the
list so you can show us your hundreds of PhD's, or would you prefer to
simply admit it was a typo and you meant to say "one PHD"?

John P.
September 29th 06, 04:34 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

>>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>> need it to be a squib.

>>> Cite?

>> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
>> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition
>> squibs?

>> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
>> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings, at
>> various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
>> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.

>> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
>> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
>> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not indicative
>> of an explosion.

>> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
>> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
>> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the explosions
>> occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to
>> controlled demolition.

> Cite?

You seem to be stuck in a loop.

The 'cite' for the explanation I just provided would be "A post by John P on
9/28/06 in alt.conspiracy."

Do you disagree with what I said?

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 04:37 AM
"John P." > wrote in
:

> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>
>> You seem like quite an angry individual. I'm not sure if I should
>> reply to you.
>
> LOL! In what country is presentation of facts and reality considered
> to be a sign of anger?

Even expert philosophers aren't sure what reality is. Don't be arrogant.

> If the opposite is true, then you would seem to be an extremely happy
> person! :-D

It's bad form to use both emoticons and acronyms. In the future, please
standardize your emotional expression if you expect a serious response.

> Now that'd you've dodged a serious response, would you like me to
> repost the list so you can show us your hundreds of PhD's, or would
> you prefer to simply admit it was a typo and you meant to say "one
> PHD"?

Yes.

Hiram Thair Mark
September 29th 06, 04:39 AM
"John P." > wrote in
:

> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>
>>>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they
>>>>> need it to be a squib.
>
>>>> Cite?
>
>>> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
>>> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of
>>> demolition squibs?
>
>>> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
>>> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings,
>>> at various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
>>> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.
>
>>> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
>>> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
>>> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not
>>> indicative of an explosion.
>
>>> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
>>> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
>>> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the
>>> explosions occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing
>>> similar to controlled demolition.
>
>> Cite?
>
> You seem to be stuck in a loop.
>
> The 'cite' for the explanation I just provided would be "A post by
> John P on 9/28/06 in alt.conspiracy."
>
> Do you disagree with what I said?

Please explain your position in greater detail.

Gooserider
September 29th 06, 05:13 AM
"John P." > wrote in message
...
> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>
>>> Their evidence isn't evidence at all. They see a picture of air
>>> pressure blowing out a window and label it a "demolition squib"
>>> without offering one shred of evidence. It's a squib because they need
>>> it to be a squib.
>
>> Cite?
>
> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC towers
> and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of demolition squibs?
>
> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being ejected
> from a single window at various locations on the buildings, at various
> times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size, intensity and
> velocity over the course of several frames.
>
> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame analysis
> shows the opposite is happening. The event is not indicative of an
> explosion.
>
> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having single
> explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has initiated. Videos of
> controlled demolition show how all the explosions occur prior to the
> collapse. The WTC videos show nothing similar to controlled demolition.

Common sense would dictate that the odds of three buildings collapsing as
they did would be extremely low. If the official story is correct, we are
supposed to believe the the jet fuel caused steel girders to melt at exactly
the same rate in WTC 1 and WTC 2, causing the collapse as shown. Wouldn't
the buildings have sustained greater damage on the sides into which the
planes crashed? Why, then, did the buildings not collapse like felled trees?
It's odd.

John P.
September 29th 06, 06:02 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

>> Now that'd you've dodged a serious response, would you like me to
>> repost the list so you can show us your hundreds of PhD's, or would
>> you prefer to simply admit it was a typo and you meant to say "one
>> PHD"?

> Yes.

Not sure which you're saying yes to, but I'll take a stab at reposting the
list...

James H. Fetzer:
Philosophy

Paul W. Rea
Humanities

Stephen LeRoy
Economics

Tracy Belvins
Bioengineering

David Gabbard
Education

Daniel Orr
Economics

Kevin Barrett
adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin on the subject of Islam:
Religion and Culture.

Robert M. Bowman
has never held an academic position at any university.

Daniele Ganser
ETH

David Ray Griffin
Philosophy of religion and theology

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.

John McMurtry
FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public policy
issues

Don Paul
American peace movement activist, writer, musician, and poet.

Kevin Ryan
Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend,
Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water
testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL's conclusions regarding
the collapse of the WTC.

Webster G. Tarpley
Author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11 Synthetic
Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism expert.

Andreas von Bülow
Former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for research
and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

William Woodward
Psychology

Harriet Cianci
Tunxis Community College


Judy Wood
Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof.
Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.

Morgan Reynolds
Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof.
Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.


Of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, none are
members of the Scholars for Truth


Among the other Scholars for Truth members, you have degrees in;
Folklore, English, Law, Philossphy, English Literature, Radiology, Medical
Hypnosis, French Language & Culture, Math, Computer Science, Political
Science, Classics & Philosophy, Criminal Profiling, Forensic Psychology,
Humanities, American Studies, Cultural Studies, Physics of Optical
Materials, Materials Science & Engineering, Theatre, Economics, Religious
Studies, Theology, Linguistics, Oriental Languages, Literature and
Humanities, Statistical Research, Sociology, Population Biology, Evolution &
Ecology, Aeronautics, Astrophysics, Engineering, Political Science,
Accounting, Creative Arts...

Quite an unimpressive list when it comes to structural engineering,
architectural engineering or forensic investigation.

To be fair, SFT does list 2 'structural engineers' among their members -
Doyle Winterton, a stereo salesman, was in training to be an engineer, but
lost his license in 1999. Joseph M.. Phelps does appear to have been a
structural engineer. He is 82 years old and runs a 9 hole golf course in
Florida.

John P.
September 29th 06, 06:07 AM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message

>>>> Something is seen being ejected from some of the windows in the WTC
>>>> towers and WTC 7 during their collapses. Is it evidence of
>>>> demolition squibs?

>>>> Frame by frame analysis shows what appears to be dust/debris being
>>>> ejected from a single window at various locations on the buildings,
>>>> at various times during the collapse. The ejection grows in size,
>>>> intensity and velocity over the course of several frames.

>>>> An explosion presents the greatest size, intensity and velocity
>>>> immediately after the even, which then diminishes. Frame by frame
>>>> analysis shows the opposite is happening. The event is not
>>>> indicative of an explosion.

>>>> In a controlled demolition, there would be little gained by having
>>>> single explosions on any given floor, after the collapse has
>>>> initiated. Videos of controlled demolition show how all the
>>>> explosions occur prior to the collapse. The WTC videos show nothing
>>>> similar to controlled demolition.

>>> Cite?

>> You seem to be stuck in a loop.

>> The 'cite' for the explanation I just provided would be "A post by
>> John P on 9/28/06 in alt.conspiracy."

>> Do you disagree with what I said?

> Please explain your position in greater detail.

No greater detail is needed. Something is seen being ejected from the
buildings as they collapse. We have significant video evidence of this. We
can look at that video evidence one frame at a time in an app such as Adobe
Premier.

Doing so, we see the debris ejected in a 'puff'. The puff starts out one
size, and grows. This is the opposite of what we'd expect if this 'puff'
were the result of an explosion. In that case, the puff would start out at
its largest size, then diminish.

The 'squibs' seen in the videos offer the proof we need to know they are not
'squibs'.

John P.
September 29th 06, 07:45 AM
"Gooserider" > wrote in a message

> Common sense would dictate that the odds of three buildings collapsing as
> they did would be extremely low.

Common sense would dictate the odds of hijackers taking over 4 passenger
jets and crashing them into buildings would be extremely low. It just really
screws up your whole day the one time it happens.

Evidence has no concern for common sense. Can you imagine such a statement
in a court room "Well Geez yer honor! Of course he's guilty - it's just
common sense!"

> If the official story is correct, we are supposed to believe the the
> jet fuel caused steel girders to melt...

If 'the official story' (whatever that might be) is correct, the jet fuel
burned off within the first ten minutes and steel girders didn't melt. If I
am correct in presuming you got this 'information' from an alternate
conspiracy site, rather than some official source, you have been mislead
into believing the NIST report, or some other official source, claimed that
jet fuel fires melted steel beams. Actually reading the NIST report would
show you no such claim is made.

> ...at exactly the same rate in WTC 1 and WTC 2, causing the collapse as
> shown.

Given the difference in times between when the towers were hit and when each
of them collapsed, I can't imagine any official or unofficial source lead
you to believe that the structural failures occurred at the same rate.

> Wouldn't the buildings have sustained greater damage on the sides into
> which the planes crashed?

Evidence indicates this was the case.

> Why, then, did the buildings not collapse like felled trees?

a) Because they were buildings, not trees
b) Because they were damaged near the top, not near the bottom
c) Upon collapse initiation, the top of each building *did* tilt in the
direction of the initial structural failure (which occurred at the points
where the planes crashed - the most damaged sides)


> It's odd.

Truly odd that you'd get suckered in by foolish claims, not bother to verify
these claims, and ignore the wealth of information available that would have
told you they were foolish claims. Why didn't you check before asking your
questions?

DaffyDuck
September 29th 06, 11:01 AM
On 2006-09-28 18:41:24 -0700, "John P."
> said:

> To be fair, SFT does list 2 'structural engineers' among their members
> - Doyle Winterton, a stereo salesman, was in training to be an
> engineer, but lost his license in 1999. Joseph M.. Phelps does appear
> to have been a structural engineer. He is 82 years old and runs a 9
> hole golf course in Florida.

Wow - with references like these, that conspiracy will be uncovered
lickety-split!

Gooserider
September 29th 06, 12:17 PM
"John P." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Gooserider" > wrote in a message
>
>> Common sense would dictate that the odds of three buildings collapsing as
>> they did would be extremely low.
>
> Common sense would dictate the odds of hijackers taking over 4 passenger
> jets and crashing them into buildings would be extremely low. It just
> really screws up your whole day the one time it happens.
>
> Evidence has no concern for common sense. Can you imagine such a statement
> in a court room "Well Geez yer honor! Of course he's guilty - it's just
> common sense!"
>
>> If the official story is correct, we are supposed to believe the the
>> jet fuel caused steel girders to melt...
>
> If 'the official story' (whatever that might be) is correct, the jet fuel
> burned off within the first ten minutes and steel girders didn't melt. If
> I am correct in presuming you got this 'information' from an alternate
> conspiracy site, rather than some official source, you have been mislead
> into believing the NIST report, or some other official source, claimed
> that jet fuel fires melted steel beams. Actually reading the NIST report
> would show you no such claim is made.
>
>> ...at exactly the same rate in WTC 1 and WTC 2, causing the collapse as
>> shown.
>
> Given the difference in times between when the towers were hit and when
> each of them collapsed, I can't imagine any official or unofficial source
> lead you to believe that the structural failures occurred at the same
> rate.
>
>> Wouldn't the buildings have sustained greater damage on the sides into
>> which the planes crashed?
>
> Evidence indicates this was the case.
>
>> Why, then, did the buildings not collapse like felled trees?
>
> a) Because they were buildings, not trees
> b) Because they were damaged near the top, not near the bottom
> c) Upon collapse initiation, the top of each building *did* tilt in the
> direction of the initial structural failure (which occurred at the points
> where the planes crashed - the most damaged sides)
>
>
>> It's odd.
>
> Truly odd that you'd get suckered in by foolish claims, not bother to
> verify these claims, and ignore the wealth of information available that
> would have told you they were foolish claims. Why didn't you check before
> asking your questions?
Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility of
three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly the same
way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.

NoOneYouKnow
September 29th 06, 03:11 PM
"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in message
...
> "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>
> I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.

Wow, you really are paranoid, aren't you.

Here's the text from that link:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories:
The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective
by Phil Molé
At the Hyatt Regency O'Hare near Chicago, a crowd of approximately 400
people has gathered on a pleasant summer evening. Some are old and some are
young; some are dressed in colorful tie-died shirts while others wear dress
shirts and slacks, but most seem cheerful and friendly. We are all waiting
for the opening of the main lecture hall for the evening's event, the first
of many scheduled talks during a weekend-long conference. We bide some time
by looking at the items for sale: DVD copies of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
9/11, the anti-Karl Rove documentary Bush's Brain, and the more recent
Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.
There is nothing especially unusual here, since all of these are available
at the Borders or Best Buy near you. But then as the doors to the main hall
are about to open, one anxious attendee tries to start a chant of "9/11 was
an Inside Job." A few people join in before another attendee tells him,
quite emphatically, "we already know!" The weekend conference is the Chicago
meeting for 911truth.org, one of the most visible organizations within a
larger coalition known as the "9/11 Truth Movement," and most of the crowd
believes that the United States government planned and orchestrated the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The statement "we already know!" well summarizes the attitude of the
conference attendees toward the material presented during the lectures. Many
at the conference do not seem to be looking for new information that might
lead to more accurate perspectives about the events of 9/11. A fellow
sitting near me admits, "We already know this stuff; we're here to reconfirm
what we already know." The conference is a way for attendees to consolidate
their group identity, and try to bring their message to those people at home
and abroad who believe the "official story" of 9/11. As someone who does not
share the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I have another objective. I want
to listen to their arguments and view their evidence, and understand the
reasons why so many likable and otherwise intelligent people are convinced
that the United States government planned the murder of nearly 3,000 of its
own citizens.
The Collapse of
World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2
When most of us recall the events of 9/11, we think of the image of those
two seemingly indestructible World Trade Center towers crumbling to the
ground. Not surprisingly, their collapse is also a central issue for the
9/11 Truth Movement. An overwhelming amount of the organization's talks and
publicity materials address the fall of Buildings 1 and 2. But as these
materials show, 911truth.org does not believe the official story that the
primary damage to the WTC occurred when two airplanes hijacked by terrorists
crashed into the towers. Rather, they maintain that the towers fell due to a
controlled demolition, planned in advance by the United States government.
Why do they think this? A primary reason seems to be that the collapse of
the towers looks like the result of a controlled demolition. Since there is
no structural resistance to gravity in a controlled demolition, the building
collapses straight into its own footprint, with each floor "pancaking" onto
the floors below at or near the speed of a free fall. Many of the presenters
at the Hyatt Conference compared videos of the collapse of the towers with
videos of known controlled demolitions, noting the similarity in both the
appearance and speed of collapse. 911truth.org maintains that if actually
hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have
provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing
the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight
down. They further argue that fires caused by burning jet fuel from the
crashed planes could not have caused the collapse, since jet fuel burns at a
temperature of no more than 1500° Fahrenheit,1 while a temperature of
approximately 2800° is needed to melt steel. David Heller makes the point in
a widely read article:
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel
supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the
towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since
they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750° Fahrenheit. No fuel,
not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter
than 1500° Fahrenheit.2
Since burning jet fuel is not hot enough by itself to melt steel, reports
that melted steel was observed at Ground Zero suggest to conspiracy
theorists that some other incendiary substance must have been introduced.
Finally, many of the leaders of the movement claim that demolition "squibs"
can be seen in videos of the WTC collapse just before and during the time
the towers began to fall. In professional demolition lingo, a "squib" is an
explosive device used to weaken building structure during a controlled
demolition. Several presenters at the conference pointed out small bursts of
debris spraying out horizontally from the towers during collapse, and
identified these as "squibs" secretly detonated to fell the buildings.
What can we make of these allegations? First, let's examine the similarity
in appearance between the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and the
collapse of buildings destroyed through planned demolitions. In controlled
demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points
in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all
parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the
ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of
WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you
will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points
begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially
stationary.3 The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to
fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we
would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is
exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage
sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A
conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin
falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such
a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the
planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling
precisely there?
Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2
reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and
buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the
tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to
pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The
difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way
each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower
(Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing
almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck
the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle,
severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared
with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less
evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building's frame,
requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the
corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of
the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the
South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was
struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to
damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the
buildings fell due to a planned demolition.
The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed
to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall.
While there are varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC,
most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and
possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short
of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been
sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best
engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650°
F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5
Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire,
we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough
to result in eventual collapse.
The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by
the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight "perimeter tube" design
consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100
cm centers, with 95% of the structure's interior consisting of nothing but
air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by
40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower. Steel
trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and
provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact
and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the
insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably
increasing their vulnerability to flames. The heat of the flames reduced the
steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel
trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of
the building's floors, triggering the collapse. The expansion and warping of
the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature
differences within the burning structure.7 Thus, the trusses went limp much
like a slackened laundry line, providing little or no resistance to the
weight of the floors overhead.

Figure 1 A cutaway diagram of the
structure of the main towers at WTC
What about the "melted steel" that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at
Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones' popular article cites several anecdotal
sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at
Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of
"steel" at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish
metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it "steel" when speaking
informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel,
we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or
another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the
contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that
melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially
similar to it. As for the "squibs" conspiracy theorists claim to see in
videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected
from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of
tons of falling towers (see Figure 2). Videos of the WTC collapse show that
these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase
in intensity as the collapse continues - this is not the scenario one would
expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to
fall.
The Collapse of
World Trade Center Building 7

Figure 2 circled area shows an alleged "squib" (actually air compressed by
the falling tower) "Not so fast," the 9/11 Truth Movement might say. How do
you explain the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an
airplane? Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists maintain that the collapse of this
building at about 5:20 pm on 9/11 would not have occurred unless it was
already prepared for demolition. The conspiracy theorists assume that damage
sustained by WTC 7 during the attack was not sufficient to trigger its
collapse. The site wtc7.net claims that "fires were observed in Building 7
prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the
building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires." They further
claim that any damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have
needed to be symmetrical to trigger the pancaking collapse of WTC 7.10
These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the
fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows. The
reason this is not obvious from 9/11 Truth Movement presentations and
documentaries is that they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7,
selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and
structural damage than it actually was (see Figure 4).
Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the
north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go
there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any
damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a
hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.11

Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire
and structural damage
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to
the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on
9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows
that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first,
which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most
extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the
mechanics of the building's fall are completely consistent with the nature
of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other
hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where
damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to
predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would
strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment
that WTC 7 "fell straight down, into a convenient pile," the truth is that
the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the
kind of "convenient pile" described by conspiracy theorists.13
For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition,
some of the most powerful "evidence" seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder
Larry Silverstein's alleged "confession" that he authorized the tower's
destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special
called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and
I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to
do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse.14

Figure 4 The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement,
showing apparently minimal damage to the building
To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote
seems to be a "smoking gun" because they interpret the phrase "pull it" to
be "industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."15
Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull
(destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition.
No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy
theorists go on to argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition
long in advance.
On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to
mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from
unanimous industry agreement that the phrase "pull it" always signifies a
controlled demolition with explosives - more specific phrases such as "pull
away" would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16
And of course, "pull" has many common language uses quite separate from
demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn't describing a decision to destroy
WTC 7, what could the words "pull it" mean? A good place to seek the answer
is this September 9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesperson
for Larry Silverstein:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire
Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told
Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working
to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most
important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including,
if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the
building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at
Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a
television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible
loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan
has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of
firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17
McQuillan's response also indicated that firefighters were present at WTC 7
to evacuate tenants, and worked at the site until late in the afternoon
shortly before the collapse occurred. There is in fact abundant evidence
that firefighters were present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue
missions until late in the day on 9/11. As one account describes:
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that]
the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center . It had
very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area
sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue
operations that were going on at the time [emphasis added] and back the
people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't]
lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that
distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given],
at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.18
Another first responder adds that there were "tremendous, tremendous fires
going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out."19 The first-hand
accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the
latter quote also uses the word "pull" to describe the removal of
firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan's
statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan's
response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:
firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm
on 9/11; and
firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization,
and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the
objections of conspiracy theorists, the "official story" is both logically
coherent and supported by evidence.
By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with
holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7,
presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why
would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what
relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who,
according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to
terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if
the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to
strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all
of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported
casualties?21 The government's strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the
Truth Movement account - killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of
the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of
WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was
needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled
demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes - why not just do the
controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of
your choice?
There's also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits,
prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort.
Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for
considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact
with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were
occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3
towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to
sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working
in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls - that
scenario is unlikely in the extreme.
The Pentagon
Many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that the Pentagon was not
actually struck by Flight 77, as the "official story" claims. Instead, they
believe that the United States government somehow staged the damage, perhaps
through the use of a bomb or strategically fired missile. This claim first
attracted attention in French author Thierry Meyssan's book, Pentagate,
which claims that the damage done to the Pentagon was too limited to have
resulted from the crash of a Boeing 757.22 The documentary "Loose Change"
claims that the hole left in the Pentagon by the alleged airplane was "a
single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter," and that no remains
whatsoever of Flight 77 were found at the crash site.23 To dramatically
support this last point, conspiracy theorists cite CNN correspondent Jamie
McIntyre's report from the crash site on 9/11, which says, "From my close-up
inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon."24
Like the previously discussed arguments about WTC 7 not being damaged enough
to fall on its own, complaints about the size of the hole in the Pentagon
left by Flight 77 rely on selective choice of perspective. 9/11 conspiracy
theorists like to reference pictures of the damaged Pentagon in which the
hole made by the plane appears to be small, but aren't as fond of the
pictures accurately showing the full extent of the damage. Some conspiracy
theorists also don't seem satisfied that the shape of the hole matches that
expected for a crashed airplane. But the expectation that the plane should
have left an immediately recognizable hole in the building is delusional - a
speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself
in a concrete building (versus the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC
buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that
no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many
pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts
of an airplane in the wreckage. In an excellent article about 9/11
conspiracy theories in Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer
describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at
the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:
I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up
parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the
tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.
Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage
inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms
from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"25
But if there is so much evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, why
did CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre report that he could find none? The
answer is that McIntyre did not report this at all, and the 9/11 Truth
Movement is once again selectively manipulating evidence to fit their
conclusions. When McIntyre noted that no debris from a plane was observable
near the Pentagon, he was responding to a specific question asked by CNN
anchor Judy Woodruff during the segment. Flight 77 came in flying very low,
and there had been speculation that the plane might have struck the ground
shortly before reaching the Pentagon. McIntyre's response, when quoted in
full, makes clear that he is saying that there was no evidence that the
plane hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, but he certainly does not
deny that the plane struck the Pentagon itself.
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier - or one of our correspondence
was talking earlier - I think - actually, it was Bob Franken - with an
eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet,
American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted
the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up
inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in
[emphasis added], and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are
small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail
sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which
would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
and then caused the side to collapse [emphasis added].26
Note that McIntyre never questions that an airplane crash damaged the
Pentagon, and indeed describes seeing many pieces of the aircraft around the
crash site in an earlier section of the CNN transcript.27 Of course, this
has not stopped conspiracy theorists from picking and choosing the evidence
to push their own agendas.
Flight 93 and Other Alleged Anomalies
On April 5, 2006, the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy documentary "Loose
Change" and their supporters decided to attend the premiere of the film
"United 93," about the hijacked airplane that crashed on 9/11. They wanted
to take the opportunity to expose the alleged lies about this flight, and in
the words of one "Loose Change" forum member, to "bite these *******s where
it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them."28 To many
Americans, the passengers on United 93 who fought back against the
terrorists and caused it to crash before it could reach its target are
heroes, but the 9/11 Truth Movement sees things differently. Depending on
which conspiracy theorist you ask, you will either learn that Flight 93
actually landed safely, or that a US military jet shot the plane out of the
sky.29 The first claim stems from confusion in the initial Associated Press
(AP) reports between Flight 93 and Flight 1989, the latter of which did land
at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport on 9/11. The AP subsequently corrected the
error, but many conspiracy theorists have not followed suit.30 The second
claim rests largely on unsupported assertions that the main body of the
engine and other large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main
wreckage site - too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This
is incorrect, because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main
crash site, and its location was consistent with the direction in which the
plane had been traveling.31 Furthermore, the black box for the flight
records the struggle onboard preceding the plane's crash. Conspiracy
theorists are left with not only an evidentially worthless theory, but also
a confusing one. Why would the same U.S. government that allegedly destroyed
the WTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could cause similar damage to other
buildings? Of course, this question assumes a standard of logical
consistency that the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to lack.
Another alleged flight anomaly concerns the supposed "stand down" order
given by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on 9/11 to
allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their destinations without
interference. The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that NORAD had the capability
of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so
indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur. To support
this assertion, they claim that NORAD could have quickly neutralized the
hijacked planes because flight interceptions are routine, with 67 such
intercepts occurring before 9/11.32 Significantly, this claim does not
specify the length of time over which these alleged intercepts occurred, or
tell us whether they took place near major cities or over, say, miles of
open ocean. More specific and accurate information comes from the Popular
Mechanics article, which states:
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over
North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With
passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost
radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so,
it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in
effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.33
It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane behaving
erratically. NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with
the planes in question to rule out more mundane problems, and then must
contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct
them to the appropriate location. The situation on 9/11 was further
complicated by the fact that terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off
or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without a transponder signal
identifying the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one
moving blip among many others on NORAD'S screens, making it much harder to
track. Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked
planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to
reach the jet - time that was simply not available on 9/11.
Various other conspiracy theories focus on the government's alleged
foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. One popular theory suggests there
was a suspiciously high volume of "put" trading of airline stocks in the
days just before 9/11. Since "put" trading is effectively a gamble that the
price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading
"insiders" knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets
accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume
of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in
the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all
airline companies involved, but that's hardly surprising considering that
the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.34
Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment
companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need
to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks.
Another theory alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
arrived at the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001, thus showing that
the government knew about the coming disaster. This claim is based on a
statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force, who told CBS news
anchor Dan Rather on September 13, 2001, "We're currently, uh, one of the
first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this
disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on
Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work,
uh, the entire site."35 The rather mundane explanation for this quote is
that Mr. Kenney confused his days - not an unusual occurrence for someone
who had been working for more than two long days in emergency response
activities. Thus, a straightforward interpretation of Kenney's response is
that he arrived at Ground Zero on 9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as
Monday, rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12 (mistakenly
identified as Tuesday) and did not get a chance to work the whole WTC site
until "today" (the day he was speaking to Rather, or Thursday, 9/13).
Additionally, many sources document the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, and
Kenney's
wife confirmed the day her husband was dispatched to Ground Zero as 9/11.36
The degree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement will exaggerate and exploit
simple misunderstandings does not speak well of their concern for truth.
Much of this discussion has focused on explanations given by the 9/11 Truth
Movement, but we should note that the explanations they don't give are just
as problematic. I have not been able to locate any significant discussion of
al Qaeda, radical Islamic terrorists or the modern history of the Middle
East in any of the 9/11 Truth Movement's writings. The most likely reason
for this is that, like most other Americans, many of them simply didn't pay
very much attention to the Middle East before 9/11. Yet, it is impossible to
understand the threat of terrorism unless we also understand how the fall of
the Ottoman empire, the fragmentation of much of the Middle East into new
nations with largely arbitrary boundaries after WW II, Muslim reaction to
the creation of the state of Israel, the birth of Islamic fundamentalism,
conflict with and influence by Soviet Russia, and frustration over America's
support for Israel have shaped the ideology and mission of groups like al
Qaeda. Islamic terrorist groups arose in this context, and have actively and
repeatedly targeted American interests for over two decades. The idea that
Islamic terrorists would target U.S. buildings for attack fits well with
recent events over the past two decades, including:
an attack by the radical Hezbollah faction on Marine barracks in Lebanon in
1983;
the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985;
a truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; killing 6 people and
injuring over 1,000 more;
a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the
U.S. in January, 1995;
an attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 U.S. military
personnel and injuring hundreds more;
the bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1995,
killing 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;
a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attack Los Angeles international
airport in late 1999;
a suicide boat bombing against the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, killing
17 sailors and injuring 39 others.37
Additionally, there is well-documented evidence that Osama Bin Laden has
repeatedly organized and prompted attacks against the United States. His
role as a financier for major terrorist organizations and the leader of al
Qaeda is well-established. Bin Laden issued a 1996 fatwa officially
declaring a jihad against the United States, and a second fatwa in 1998
declaring "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and military is
an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it
is possible to do it."38 Since bin-Laden and al Qaeda have officially
claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, there is no point in seeking
alternative theories.39
The best explanation for the events of 9/11 is that it was the latest and
most damaging attack yet in a series of attacks by radical Islamic
terrorists who wish to end what they believe is an evil U.S. foreign policy.
As a nation, we were psychologically and strategically unprepared for this
attack due to our failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat.
Sadly, the 9/11 Truth Movement continues to divert its gaze from the real
problems, preferring the solace of delusions to reality.
Conclusion: The Power of Conspiracy Theories
This article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found
them lacking. Yet, the 400 people who attended the conference and the
thousands of others who support their efforts find these theories
convincing, and the reason does not necessarily seem to be grounded in
common political ideology. Based on my informal survey of the crowd at the
Hyatt conference, I noted that attendees seemed to come from each extreme of
the political spectrum. There were representatives of the far right who
decry any form of government authority, but there were also members of the
far left waging a tireless campaign against the perceived evils of
capitalism and imperialism. We need to return to a question posed near the
beginning of this discussion: Why do so many intelligent and promising
people find these theories so compelling?
There are several possible answers to this question, none of them
necessarily exclusive of the others. One of the first and most obvious is
distrust of the American government in general, and the Bush administration
in particular. This mistrust is not entirely without basis. The American
government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and
resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the
standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and
other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public
confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took
office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a
century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the
Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem
cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable "intelligence"
about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to
the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong
motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W.
Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy
theorists).
However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is
the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing -
any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously.
Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively
different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in
order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the
fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our
government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our
government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this
information.
The full irony of this last point hit me while I was at the conference. Here
was a group of about 400 people gathered to openly discuss the evil schemes
of the U.S. government, whom they accuse of horrible atrocities in the
service of establishing a police state. But if America really was a police
state with such terrible secrets to protect, surely government thugs would
have stormed the lecture halls and arrested many of those present, or would
at the very least have conducted behind the scenes arrests and jailed the
movement's leaders. Yet even the most vocal leaders of the 9/11 Truth
Movement are still going strong, and no one at the conference seemed very
worried about government reprisals. This fact seemingly indicates that at
some level, the conspiracy theorists themselves don't really believe what
they are saying.
Another reason for the appeal of 9/11 conspiracies is that they are easy to
understand. As previously mentioned, most Americans did not know or care to
know much about the Middle East until the events of 9/11 forced them to take
notice. (The brilliant satirical newspaper The Onion poked fun at this fact
with its article "Area Man Acts Like He's Been Interested In Afghanistan All
Along").41 The great advantage of the 9/11 Truth Movement's theories is that
they don't require you to know anything about the Middle East, or for that
matter, to know anything significant about world history or politics. This
points to another benefit of conspiracy theories - they are oddly
comforting. Chaotic, threatening events are difficult to comprehend, and the
steps we might take to protect ourselves are unclear. With conspiracy theory
that focuses on a single human cause, the terrible randomness of life
assumes an understandable order.
The great writer Thomas Pynchon memorably expressed this point in his novel
Gravity's Rainbow: "If there is something comforting - religious, if you
want - about paranoia, there is still also anti-paranoia, where nothing is
connected to anything, a condition not many of us can bear for long."42 The
promiscuity of conspiracy theories toward evidence thus becomes part of
their appeal - they can link virtually any ideas of interest to the theorist
into a meaningful whole. This point was illustrated nicely during the Q & A
session following the conference screening of Rick Siegel's Eyewitness:
Hoboken. An attendee wanted to know what role the Freemasons played in the
plot, and seemed very concerned that Siegel's account had neglected them.
After waffling on the answer for a few moments without appeasing his
questioner, Siegel finally relented and said, "Sure, they're involved." And
why not? With the standards of evidence used by conspiracy theorists, there
is no reason why the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Elders of
Zion cannot also be involved in the 9/11 plot - it just depends on what you
find the most solace in believing. As it turns out, some conspiracy
theorists do throw one or more of these other parties into the mix, as a
popular and bogus rumor that 4,000 Jews mysteriously failed to come to work
on 9/11 shows.43
Solace is something all of us needed after the horrible events of 9/11, and
each of us is entitled to a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit.
However, there is no moral right to seek solace at the expense of truth,
especially if the truth is precisely what we most need to avoid the mistakes
of the past. Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it
is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth
claims to serve their own agendas. It is concern for the truth that leads us
to criticize our own government when necessary, and to insist that others
who claim to do so follow the same rigorous standards of evidence and
argument. 9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human
life and liberty are - the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live
in service to delusions.
References & Notes
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths." Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
Heller, David. 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of
the World Trade Center." Garlic & Grass, Issue 6. Available at
www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
This is clearly visible in the PBS NOVA Documentary Why The Towers Fell.
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths." Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. "Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation." JOM, 53(12), 8-11.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Jones, Steven. 2006. "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" Available
at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
A good discussion of this issue can be found at
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
This claim can be found at http://wtc7.net/b7fires.html
"World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski." Interview
conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available
at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF
Ibid.
www.loosechangeguide.com
"America Rebuilds," PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from
shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/
www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
A discussion of the "pull it" phrase by professional demolition workers is
at web.archive.org/web/ 20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/
911_my_own_review.htm#222
See "9/11 Revealed? A New Book Repeats False Con-spiracy Theories." At
usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
"World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Daniel Nigrois." Interview
conducted on October 24, 2001. The text of the interview is available at
www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski." Interview
conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available
at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
9110253.PDF
Read almost anything at www.prisonplanet.com for this idea
The FEMA report on WTC 7 is available at
usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
Meyssan, Thierry. 2002. Pentagate. New York: USA Books.
www.loosechangeguide.com
The transcript: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths." Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
Ibid.
www.loosechangeguide.com
The claim that Flight 93 landed safely is at
www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm. The claim that it was shot by a missile
can be found at www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/shanksville.htm
A description of the confusion between the planes is in Kropko, M.R. 2002.
"September 11 Tension Vivid to Controller." Associated Press, August 15,
2002. The story is also available online at
www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/15/loc_sept_11_tension.html
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths." Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
One such claim can be found at 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
2005. "9/11: Debunking the Myths." Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
See "AMR Corp Issues 3Q' 2001 Profit Warning." Airline Industry Information,
September 11, 2001. Available at
www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:78127985. For a general
contemporary assessment of the viability of airline industry in the months
before 9/11, see Hamilton, Adam. 2001. "Plummeting Profits." Zeal
Speculation and Investment. June 22, 2001, available at
www.zealllc.com/2001/plummet.htm
Schorow, Stephanie. 2002. "Independent Research." Boston Herald. 5 September
(Arts & Life). A sound recording of Kenney's statement can be heard at
www.snopes.com/rumors/sound/kenney.ram
Ibid.
This list is based on information in Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11
Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public
Affairs Books. More information about radical Islam can be found in Rashid,
Ahmed. 2001. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central
Asia. New York: Yale University Press.
This quote can be found in many sources, including Strasser, Steven (ed.).
2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New
York: Public Affairs Books.
Bamer, David. 2001. "Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It." The Telegraph. November 11.
One source among many possible for this information is Alterman, Eric and
Green, Mark. 2004. The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. New
York: Penguin.
This hilarious article is at www.theonion.com/content/node/28079
Pynchon, Thomas. 1973. Gravity's Rainbow. New York: Viking Press.
See, for instance, "Absent Without Leave" at the Urban Legends Reference
Pages: www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm
In addition to the specific sources cited above, readers seeking responsible
analysis of the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement can use the following
general sources:
www.snopes.com
The Urban Legends Reference Pages, containing entries about conspiracy
claims such as the put options, the alleged early arrival of FEMA and the
Pentagon attack. The forum also contains some intelligent discussion of
conspiracy theories.
www.loosechangeguide.com
This is a viewer's guide to the documentary "Loose Change," which contains
many of the conspiracy claims discussed in this article.
www.911myths.com
A great general source for all manner of conspiracy claims.

Rallo
September 29th 06, 05:45 PM
EVERY SINGLE 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORY HAS BEEN SMASHED TO BITS BY PEOPLE IN
THERE SPARE TIME>>>HA HA HA>>>STUPID NUTBARS CANT DEFEND ONE ****IN THING
THEY SAY>>>AMERICA FOREVER>>>AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

"Gooserider" > wrote in
:

>
> "John P." > wrote in
> message . ..
>> "Gooserider" > wrote in a message
>>
>>> Common sense would dictate that the odds of three buildings
>>> collapsing as they did would be extremely low.
>>
>> Common sense would dictate the odds of hijackers taking over 4
>> passenger jets and crashing them into buildings would be extremely
>> low. It just really screws up your whole day the one time it happens.
>>
>> Evidence has no concern for common sense. Can you imagine such a
>> statement in a court room "Well Geez yer honor! Of course he's guilty
>> - it's just common sense!"
>>
>>> If the official story is correct, we are supposed to believe the the
>>> jet fuel caused steel girders to melt...
>>
>> If 'the official story' (whatever that might be) is correct, the jet
>> fuel burned off within the first ten minutes and steel girders didn't
>> melt. If I am correct in presuming you got this 'information' from an
>> alternate conspiracy site, rather than some official source, you have
>> been mislead into believing the NIST report, or some other official
>> source, claimed that jet fuel fires melted steel beams. Actually
>> reading the NIST report would show you no such claim is made.
>>
>>> ...at exactly the same rate in WTC 1 and WTC 2, causing the collapse
>>> as shown.
>>
>> Given the difference in times between when the towers were hit and
>> when each of them collapsed, I can't imagine any official or
>> unofficial source lead you to believe that the structural failures
>> occurred at the same rate.
>>
>>> Wouldn't the buildings have sustained greater damage on the sides
>>> into which the planes crashed?
>>
>> Evidence indicates this was the case.
>>
>>> Why, then, did the buildings not collapse like felled trees?
>>
>> a) Because they were buildings, not trees
>> b) Because they were damaged near the top, not near the bottom
>> c) Upon collapse initiation, the top of each building *did* tilt in
>> the direction of the initial structural failure (which occurred at
>> the points where the planes crashed - the most damaged sides)
>>
>>
>>> It's odd.
>>
>> Truly odd that you'd get suckered in by foolish claims, not bother to
>> verify these claims, and ignore the wealth of information available
>> that would have told you they were foolish claims. Why didn't you
>> check before asking your questions?
> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative
> impossibility of three buildings made with modern construction
> collapsing in exactly the same way. NO skyscraper in history has
> collapsed in such a manner.

EVERY SINGLE 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORY HAS BEEN SMASHED TO BITS BY PEOPLE IN
THERE SPARE TIME>>>HA HA HA>>>STUPID NUTBARS CANT DEFEND ONE ****IN THING
THEY SAY>>>AMERICA FOREVER>>>AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

John P.
September 29th 06, 07:20 PM
"Gooserider" > wrote in a message

> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility of
> three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly the
> same way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.

What information do you have to support your theory that what happened was
somehow relatively impossible? The three buildings did not collapse the same
way. The two towers collapsed in pretty much the same manner - not entirely
odd considering they were identical structures - "twin towers" - and each
was hit by a 767, then burned. The manner of the WTC 7 collapse was
different from that of the towers.

"No skyscrapers in history...." is an alternate conspiracy claim, often
parroted, never supported by reality. Of course, it depends how you want to
word it - Have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire before? - Yes.
Has a 110 story building exactly like the twin towers collapsed due to
fire? - No.

You might have noticed, as you set out on this road, the very deep ruts left
by all the other alternate conspiracy supporters who have come here and
already had this discussion. I have no problem going over this old ground
again - there's always the possibility that you might present a new idea or
come up with a site I haven't managed to find yet. ... but, if you're
pressed for time or not inclined to discuss it, you can just hit the Google
archive and read through this same discussion one of the previous 100 times
it's been covered.

September 30th 06, 03:46 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 05:25:22 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:


>http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/090
>>>> 3_plane_exercise.htm
>>>>
>>>> "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S.
>>>> intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which
>an
>>>> errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause
>>>> wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
>>>>
>>>> Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office
>>>> had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet
>>>> would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters
>>>> building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
>>>>
>>>> The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles
>>>> International Airport. "
>>>
>>>You still have not dealt with the false dilemma.
>>
>> You're the one in the dilemma. You've claimed that:
>>
>> "There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
>> airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
>> September 11, 2001. "

And you've been proven wrong.

>>>>>>>>>>>A simulated hijacking was scheduled for later in the day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And a long way away from NYC and DC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The necessary confusion manifested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stating facts is not whining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've stated no facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've stated plenty.
>>>>
>>>> Name one.
>>>
>>>I could, but I won't.
>>
>> And we're back to being a hypocrite.
>
>More namecalling?

Truth.

>>>>>>>>>>>Most NORAD exercises deal with hijackings. Do the math.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of aircraft from outside the United States.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet more whining spin from a conspiracy wacko.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your "catchphrases" are not "over".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Over with the fans.
>>>>
>>>> ????
>>>
>>>It doesn't make them "pop".
>>
>> ????
>
>They don't "draw" any "heat".

????

>>>>>>>>>>>The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not
>>>>>>>>>>>supposed to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning
>>>>>>>>>>>of September 11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The official 9/11 Commission hearings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which isn't a citation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Citations don't have to be specific. I'm sorry this was the best
>>>>>>>rebuttal you could muster. This really spells the end for your
>>>>>>>"argument".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, unfortunately for you, the words you cite do not appear in the
>>>>>> 9/11 Commission report or hearing transcripts. Here, let me help
>>>>>> you with the real citation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ""When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was
>>>>>> 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The
>>>>>> day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including
>a
>>>>>> "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated
>>>>>> perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island,
>and
>>>>>> seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed
>>>>>> to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there
>>>>>> was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into
>>>>>> several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses
>>>>>> this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of
>>>>>> recordings, so do I.)"
>>>>>
>>>>>You're so wrong it's funny.
>>>>
>>>> So the citation is a lie? Then refute it.
>>>
>>>You're self-refuting. You don't need my help.
>>
>> You're the one telling the lies.
>
>Cite?

Assertion:

"There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked
airliners into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of
September 11, 2001. "

Reality:

"The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios,
including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically
motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like
island, and seek asylum."

Not a word about flying the hijacked planes into buildings.

Assertion:

"The NEADS crew commander did the math. "The hijack’s not
supposed to be for another hour!", he exclaimed on the morning
of September 11, 2001. So much for slimy semantics."

Cite?

The official 9/11 Commission hearings."

Those words appear in a Vanity Fair article and don't appear in the
9/11 Commission hearings.

>>>>>>>>>You're awfully assertive for being so ignorant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you're awfully stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't accept IQ tests from ignoramuses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you wouldn't score very well anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, I'm a 6-year member of the Mega Society.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you are.
>>>
>>>Your confirmation is unnecessary.
>>
>> Like it really matters. It's just another one of your lies.
>
>Eagle Scouts don't lie.

Then you obviously aren't an Eagle Scout.


>> Quite right, but then that doesn't disprove that you're just another
>> run of the mill, conspiracy wacko liar.
>
>Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

And apparently you're in the third grade.

September 30th 06, 03:46 AM
On 29 Sep 2006 05:25:32 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:51:28 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>> wrote:
>>
wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:35:08 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2006 04:29:35 +0200, Hiram Thair Mark >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you demand a citation from John regarding his assertion
>when
>>>>>>>> you won't provide the same courtesy when you are asked for one?
>>>>>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That isn't hypocrisy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hy·poc·ri·sy Listen: [ h-pkr-s ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that
>>>>>> one does not hold or possess; falseness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously it isn't yours. You expect more from others than you are
>>>> willing to give yourself, i.e, you demand a virtue from someone else
>>>> that you do not have yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite.
>>>
>>>You are quite intellectually dishonest. For shame.
>>
>> Pot, Kettle, Black.
>
>You vile racist!

ROTFLMAO.

September 30th 06, 03:49 AM
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:17:37 GMT, "Gooserider"
> wrote:


>Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility of
>three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly the same
>way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.

And that means that none ever will? What a concept. Too bad it
doesn't really work out that way. There's always a first time. And,
of course, this time there was also the fact that this was the first
time that a 767 had ever crashed into a skyscraper. But then that, of
course, had nothing to do with anything, now did it?

DaffyDuck
September 30th 06, 04:15 PM
On 2006-09-29 04:17:37 -0700, "Gooserider" > said:

> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility
> of three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly
> the same way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.

Since you are making comparisons (a legit ruse), then please list at
least 2-3 other instances of skyscrapers having 767s flown into them,
so we can compare the effects of such documented cases to what we saw
on 9/11.

Can you do that, please?

A Troll
September 30th 06, 04:44 PM
DaffyDuck > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2006-09-29 04:17:37 -0700, "Gooserider"
> > said:
>
>> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative
>> impossibility of three buildings made with modern construction
>> collapsing in exactly the same way. NO skyscraper in history has
>> collapsed in such a manner.
>
> Since you are making comparisons (a legit ruse), then please list at
> least 2-3 other instances of skyscrapers having 767s flown into them,
> so we can compare the effects of such documented cases to what we saw
> on 9/11.

Exactly. What you "saw" on 9-11.

9-11 was a hoax created using lifelike holograms.

marika
September 30th 06, 05:31 PM
NoOneYouKnow wrote:
> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
> > . net:
> >
> >> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
> >> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
> >
> > I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.
>
> Wow, you really are paranoid, aren't you.
>
i had never seen it before. the first page of what you sent has four
citrines. i hate citrines. and these are overpriced ones too

i did like the designer jewelry
>

mk5000


'Put in they keys make that engine purr
3 in the back 1 in the passenger
Slow creepin cause we look that fly
All the boys tryna taste our candy ride'--Show Stopper,Danity Kane

The Ghost In The Machine
September 30th 06, 06:00 PM
In alt.conspiracy, DaffyDuck
>
wrote
on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:15:26 -0700
<[email protected]>:
> On 2006-09-29 04:17:37 -0700, "Gooserider" > said:
>
>> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility
>> of three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly
>> the same way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.
>
> Since you are making comparisons (a legit ruse), then please list at
> least 2-3 other instances of skyscrapers having 767s flown into them,
> so we can compare the effects of such documented cases to what we saw
> on 9/11.
>
> Can you do that, please?
>

Best I can do is a tower block collapse in 1968 because
of a gas explosion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

--
#191,
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".

John P.
September 30th 06, 06:11 PM
"A Troll" > wrote in a message

> Exactly. What you "saw" on 9-11.
> 9-11 was a hoax created using lifelike holograms.

Actually, the planes were real - there was no World Trade Center!

the Bede
September 30th 06, 06:38 PM
"John P." > wrote in message
. ..
> "A Troll" > wrote in a message
>
> > Exactly. What you "saw" on 9-11.
> > 9-11 was a hoax created using lifelike holograms.
>
> Actually, the planes were real - there was no World Trade Center!
>
>
David Copperfield never brought it back.

DaffyDuck
October 1st 06, 12:59 AM
On 2006-09-30 10:00:08 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> said:

> In alt.conspiracy, DaffyDuck
> >
> wrote
> on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:15:26 -0700
> <[email protected]>:
>> On 2006-09-29 04:17:37 -0700, "Gooserider" > said:
>>
>>> Your obnoxious attitude does not make up for the relative impossibility
>>> of three buildings made with modern construction collapsing in exactly
>>> the same way. NO skyscraper in history has collapsed in such a manner.
>>
>> Since you are making comparisons (a legit ruse), then please list at
>> least 2-3 other instances of skyscrapers having 767s flown into them,
>> so we can compare the effects of such documented cases to what we saw
>> on 9/11.
>>
>> Can you do that, please?
>
> Best I can do is a tower block collapse in 1968 because
> of a gas explosion:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2514000/2514277.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

While
>
a gas explosion, limited to one portion of a building is a far cry from
flying a plane into it, it is interesting to note that the floors BELOW
the 18th floor, where explosion happened, all collapsed like dominos,
in a manner very similar to the WTC.

In other words, if the same gas explosion had ripped through the entire
18th floor, chances are that the entire building might have collapsed
in a similar manner - with no needs of gov't sponsored demolition
explosives.

-----
It is believed there was a gas explosion on the 18th floor which ripped
through four flats above and sent all the floors below crashing down
like falling dominoes.
-----
Consequently, it stands to reason that since a similar traumatic event
took out several floors of the WTC, that the same kind of cascading
collapse as in the Ronan Point point would have followed - and bingo!
So it did.
Case closed - next!

Stick Waver
October 1st 06, 05:45 PM
Vandar wrote:
> Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
>
>> "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>>> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.
>
>
> Me, earlier in this thread:
> http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
>
> Your reply:
> This is a criticism of an argument apparently forwarded by
> "http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/".
>
>
> You could not know that unless you followed the html link I provided.
>
> I reiterate: You are a liar and a coward.
>

Y'know, I'm no fan of Pres. Bush but the depth to which some of these
sick people with sink just to fuel their irrational hatred is really
scary.

Hiram, dude, seek some therapy. Seriously.

Stick Waver
October 1st 06, 05:46 PM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

> "John P." > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in a message
>>
>>
>>>Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
>>>required - base their arguments on documented evidence, while their
>>>detractors respond
>>>by calling them names and questioning their motives.
>>
>>The 9/11 truth movement presents theories, not facts. If they had
>>facts, one could not readily dispute their claims. If they had facts,
>>they'd not need to resort to tactics such as using selective quotes to
>>mischaracterize what someone said, or selective editing of video
>>evidence in order to make it appear to show something different from
>>reality. If they would avoid such obvious and dishonest tactics, they
>>might find support among a group of more reasoned people.
>>
>>
>>>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since
>>>>>9/11/01.
>>
>>>>Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.
>>
>>>Considering the irrational jingoistic rage from the pro-war, "glass
>>>parking
>>>lot" crowd, it's probably not wise to publish lists of political
>>>undesirables. Abortion doctors don't like their names published in
>>>lists for similar reasons.
>>
>>>Sorry kook. You don't get the names, at least not from me. When you
>>>one day
>>>learn to use a search engine, perhaps you'll be able to spare 2
>>>seconds to find them yourself.
>>
>>I'll list the names - you just need to pick out which of them would
>>account for your "hundreds of PHD's" (or even 25 of them)
>>
>>James H. Fetzer:
>>Philosophy
>>
>>Paul W. Rea
>>Humanities
>>
>>Stephen LeRoy
>>Economics
>>
>>Tracy Belvins
>>Bioengineering
>>
>>David Gabbard
>>Education
>>
>>Daniel Orr
>>Economics
>>
>>Kevin Barrett
>>adjunct lecturer at the University of Wisconsin on the subject of
>>Islam: Religion and Culture.
>>
>>Robert M. Bowman
>>has never held an academic position at any university.
>>
>>Daniele Ganser
>>ETH
>>
>>David Ray Griffin
>>Philosophy of religion and theology
>>
>>Wayne Madsen
>>Investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist.
>>
>>John McMurtry
>>FRSC, moral philosopher, ethicist, and author of six books on public
>>policy issues
>>
>>Don Paul
>>American peace movement activist, writer, musician, and poet.
>>
>>Kevin Ryan
>>Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South
>>Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for
>>water testing. He was fired after publicly challenging UL's
>>conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC.
>>
>>Webster G. Tarpley
>>Author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992) and 9/11
>>Synthetic Terror: Made in USA (2005-6), historian and terrorism
>>expert.
>>
>>Andreas von Bülow
>>Former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, minister for
>>research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
>>
>>William Woodward
>>Psychology
>>
>>Harriet Cianci
>>Tunxis Community College
>>
>>
>>Judy Wood
>>Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both
>>Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.
>>
>>Morgan Reynolds
>>Resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both
>>Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies.
>>
>>
>>Of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
>>none are members of the Scholars for Truth
>>
>>
>>Among the other Scholars for Truth members, you have degrees in;
>>Folklore, English, Law, Philossphy, English Literature, Radiology,
>>Medical Hypnosis, French Language & Culture, Math, Computer Science,
>>Political Science, Classics & Philosophy, Criminal Profiling, Forensic
>>Psychology, Humanities, American Studies, Cultural Studies, Physics of
>>Optical Materials, Materials Science & Engineering, Theatre,
>>Economics, Religious Studies, Theology, Linguistics, Oriental
>>Languages, Literature and Humanities, Statistical Research, Sociology,
>>Population Biology, Evolution & Ecology, Aeronautics, Astrophysics,
>>Engineering, Political Science, Accounting, Creative Arts...
>>
>>Quite an unimpressive list when it comes to structural engineering,
>>architectural engineering or forensic investigation.
>>
>>To be fair, SFT does list 2 'structural engineers' among their members
>>- Doyle Winterton, a stereo salesman, was in training to be an
>>engineer, but lost his license in 1999. Joseph M.. Phelps does appear
>>to have been a structural engineer. He is 82 years old and runs a 9
>>hole golf course in Florida.
>
>
> You seem like quite an angry individual. I'm not sure if I should reply
> to you.

Physician, heal thyself. YOU ARE A NUTJOB!

A Troll
October 2nd 06, 08:32 AM
Well Done > wrote in
:

> Hiram Thair Mark > wrote:
>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down
>>
> No refutation is needed against such mindless bull****, you idiot.
>
> NORAD did not stand down. NORAD never looked at internal flights.
> NORAD looked mostly North, but also East and West over the ocean.
>
>>or why Cheney changed
>>all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command
in
>>himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
>>
> He didn't. You guys are full of ****!
>
> <snip>
>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>>
> ... proving once again the innate narcissism and ideological
> commitment of many a tenured Prof. There are SO many reasons these
> guys are utterly wrong it's just hard to know where to start.
>
> For one thing, the towers could NOT have been demoed without anyone
> noticing. The WTC towers had their load-bearing members distributed
> around the perimeter of the building. Any charges would have been
> seen as large explosions, complete with with shattering glass well
> below the level the planes hit. Besides, you don't demo a building
> from the top, you blow the lower floors and pull it into itself.
>
> The WTC collapsed due to catastrophic failure of load bearing members
> due to the impact of a 600 ton plane and the resulting fire.
> --
> ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
> (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
>

It's amazing how easily people like you can be fooled.


--
The above post was written by A Troll.

What Me Worry?
October 2nd 06, 09:01 AM
"A Troll" > wrote in message
...
> Well Done > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hiram Thair Mark > wrote:
>>>I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down
>>>
>> No refutation is needed against such mindless bull****, you idiot.
>>
>> NORAD did not stand down. NORAD never looked at internal flights.
>> NORAD looked mostly North, but also East and West over the ocean.
>>
>>>or why Cheney changed
>>>all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command
> in
>>>himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
>>>
>> He didn't. You guys are full of ****!
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Sorry "dude," Jesse speaks the uncomfortable truth that physics
>>>professors and hundreds of Ph.Ds have spoken out about since 9/11/01.
>>>
>> ... proving once again the innate narcissism and ideological
>> commitment of many a tenured Prof. There are SO many reasons these
>> guys are utterly wrong it's just hard to know where to start.
>>
>> For one thing, the towers could NOT have been demoed without anyone
>> noticing. The WTC towers had their load-bearing members distributed
>> around the perimeter of the building. Any charges would have been
>> seen as large explosions, complete with with shattering glass well
>> below the level the planes hit. Besides, you don't demo a building
>> from the top, you blow the lower floors and pull it into itself.
>>
>> The WTC collapsed due to catastrophic failure of load bearing members
>> due to the impact of a 600 ton plane and the resulting fire.
>> --
>> ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
>> (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
>>
>
> It's amazing how easily people like you can be fooled.

You're giving them far too much credit. They've been fully conditioned to
embrace victimhood at the slightest provocation.

DaffyDuck
October 2nd 06, 09:16 AM
On 2006-10-02 00:32:17 -0700, A Troll > said:

> It's amazing how easily people like you can be fooled.

Time to give you the respect you deserve.

*plonk*

NoOneYouKnow
October 2nd 06, 02:46 PM
"marika" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NoOneYouKnow wrote:
>> "Hiram Thair Mark" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "NoOneYouKnow" > wrote in
>> > . net:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps this will add to the "debate":
>> >> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
>> >
>> > I don't follow HTML links. There could be viruses.
>>
>> Wow, you really are paranoid, aren't you.
>>
> i had never seen it before. the first page of what you sent has four
> citrines. i hate citrines. and these are overpriced ones too
>
> i did like the designer jewelry

And hallucinatory! Do you hear voices too?

---JRE---

marika
October 3rd 06, 12:35 AM
NoOneYouKnow wrote:
>
> And hallucinatory! Do you hear voices too?
>


I don't know why you needed to "probe". This is common
knowledge, more so in steeplechasing than flat racing though.

mk5000

"Let's go driving in my new car
over a cliff onto the rocks below
you never know
we might live to tell the tale"--King Chicago, Boo Hewerdine

October 3rd 06, 04:11 AM
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:
> wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
> @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Hey, you finally found an anti-Bush argument that you can properly
> > refute.
>
>
> I didn't see any refutation of why NORAD stood down or why Cheney changed
> all the rules about how this stuff is handled -- centralizing command in
> himself -- right in the months preceding the "terrorist attack".
>
> The only thing resembling a 'refutation' I read was a mealymouthed
> regurgitation of the patchwork rationalizations fed to the public to
> smooth over the inconsistencies.
>
> There were government-sponsored 'drills' of flying hijacked airliners
> into buildings in DC and NYC on the morning of September 11, 2001.
> *That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
> qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Payne Stewart's jet flew on a constant heading at constant speed and
altitude consistent with tis flight plan and with its transponder on
for
several hours.

The hijacked airliners had their transponders turned off, immediately
departed from their flight plans, and dropped in altitude. Each
crashed
within an hour or so after being hijacked. Moreover there were four
of them.

Those are qualitative differences, don't you think?

Their destinations were unknown but the pedominant suspician was
that they were being taken overseas, don't you think?

Until the second jetliner hit the WTC, it wasn't clear that they were
being used as weapons.

--

FF