(Ventura) Payne Stewart's jet

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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*

"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---

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

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