Jared Loughner: 9-11 Truther
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
As part of our continuing coverage of all the ways that Jared Loughner is not exactly a right winger, we get this tidbit from an AP story:
Mistrust of government was Loughner’s defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (“a New World Order currency” one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.
(emphasis added.) And of course, which party, pray tell, has greater support for Trutherism? I’ll give you a hint. The name of that party starts a D and rhymes with “emocrat.” (Another source, here.) Update: And let’s not forget about Van Jones.
By the way, it’s funny how that question didn’t make it into that study asserting that Fox Viewers were Stoopid. You would tend to think that 35-42% of Democrats believing our government intentionally murdered around 3,000 of its civilians would be a far more serious concern than people “mistakenly” believing that the stimulus was a waste of money (note: they are not mistaken).
Returning to the subject of 9-11 truth and this killer, let’s not pretend that the overheated rhetoric on the left had nothing to do with the rise of Trutherism. From the start of the Iraq war, Democrats have peddled the falsehood that Bush lied to get us into that war. Never mind that Bush was told by his sources that it was a “slam dunk” that the WMDs were there, never mind that congressional Democrats saw the same evidence and drew exactly the same conclusion. No, despite all that evidence to the contrary, this blood libel has been pushed for years, including by John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. When you convince people that the government would lie to get us into a war and thus “needlessly” kill our soldiers, just how hard is it to believe that the same people murdered civilians on September 11?
And it’s not a huge leap to say that. Consider, for instance, this video:
That would be 9-11 Truthers, confronting Giffords’ staff. And the first question out of these Truthers’ mouths is to talk about Iraq and WMD.
Less on topic is Giffords herself reacting to a Truther:
(By the way, yes, she does appear to be humoring him. Ideally, she should have said, “What, are you nuts?!” But I consider it quite plausible that she just wanted to get out of the encounter without anyone flying off the handle and going crazy, like you might when a homeless man starts ranting at you. And it’s hard to blame her since a Truther just shot her in the head.)
And it’s worth noting that this might interact with other beliefs, such as that the man was linked to an anti-Semitic group and considered Mein Kampf one of his favorite books (Giffords herself is Jewish). One of the popular theories of 9-11 “truth” is that Israel was involved or knew of the attacks beforehand. And if you want to see an example of an anti-Semite who is also a Truther, you can look no further than lefty hero Cindy Sheehan. First, here is her telling us she is a Truther:
And of course Sheehan accused Israel of being behind the Iraq war. (Incidentally, so did Giffords’ fellow congressperson, Jim Moran.) And that makes a certain amount of sense from a lunatic’s perspective. If you are going to claim a conspiracy to start the Iraq war, and to murder thousands of American citizens, you are going to need a shadowy evil hand behind it, and the Jooooooos are as good a choice as any, I suppose, if you are into that kind of insanity.
Now like Patterico, I don’t believe we should be trying to pin the blame for this on any particular party or movement. But really, liberals, if there is any soul-searching to be done about the tolerance of crazy, overheated rhetoric, you might try getting that plank out of your eye first. There is nothing more inflammatory than saying our government murdered its own citizens on 9-11, or its soldiers in the Iraq war, and the left owns those theories.
But how about this instead? How about you have some decency and for once in your life not treat the murder of a Federal Judge and a little girl as a chance to score political points?
Or, on second thought, please continue doing so. I have no doubt this will backfire and hurt the causes you support.
Hat tip: Hot air.
Update: I should add, in case I was not sufficiently clear, that we don’t know that 9-11 Trutherism led to this murder, or his anti-Semitism. It is speculation to say it might, although I think Trutherism is much more likely to lead to violence than mere opposition to taxes or Health Care Reform. Anyway, the police reportedly found materials that purport to explain why the killer did it, so we might not have to speculate for much longer.
Update (II): In the original version of this post, I used the mocking term “Twoofers” to refer to the Truthers. But at least one reader pointed out that this was confusing because it looked alot like “two-fer,” which is a different thing entirely. So I changed that for clarity’s sake. But exit question: if you throw a rock and hit two twoofers, is that a two-fer?
Oh no, there I go again with the violent rhetoric!
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Aaron sorry to say but you are wasting your time. There is no more blind a man than he who refuses to see. The lefties will ignore every fact the contradicts them otherwise they would have to choose between their narrative or their lying eyes.
Jared Loughner is a nut. The only question is if he is a nut insofar as the law considers his motives to reach the legal definition of insanity.cubanbob (409ac2) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:47 am
Sorry. But I am not at all confident that this will backfire and hurt the Democrats. It still seems to work in the classic way, that the more mud you throw, the more mud sticks.
Do people see what’s happening? Sure. Some of them. But there are plenty who don’t. And I’ve even met many (who ought to know better), who will say, “Yeah, that’s going to far to accuse Sarah Palin of causing this. BUT you’ve got to admit that her rhetoric is inflammatory…”
It would make me tear my hair out, if I had any.Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:49 am
This is getting confuzzling. I think what we have to decide is… is it a valid question to ask why he went after Giffords or not? I don’t think it’s valid really. I think he’s a wackadoodle. So his views on 9/11 aren’t any more relevant than his considered thoughts on mind control really.happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:52 am
Gesundheit, if the Democrats overplay their propaganda, like they did with the Paul Wellstone funeral. The American people by a majority reject the recent HCR legislation, and if they see the Democrats associate this lunatic murderer with people who oppose Democrat HCR legislation, then the American people will rightly think that Democrats are attacking them.
So just like the Wellstone funeral, something that appeals to the extremists of their party will turn off the independants.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:56 am
Because he is evil, pikachu, that’s why you gun downnarciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:57 am
a congresswoman, kill a judge, murder a nine year old girl, the methodical nature of this, is seen in there.
Aaron, fantastic job!! I am featuring this at LibertarianRepublican.net today. This is precisely what I’ve suspected all along.
A commenter above is correct. The Left will ignore all this. HOWEVER!! The fringe non-interventionist leftwing of the libertarian movement that flirts with Alex Jones and Trutherism – Rockwell, Raimondo, Garris, Anthony Gregory, Paleos, et.al. – are gonna be stung big time by these findings.
We Right libertarians (Pro-Defense libertarians) are gonna absolutely hammer them on this. I can guarantee you that!!!
Good job my friend. Good job!
Eric Dondero, PublisherEric Dondero (0b2aa1) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:22 am
Fmr. Senior Staffer, Cong. Ron Paul 1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Comm.
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
okay, counter factual question.
on Sept 15, 1963 a bunch of kkk idiots blew up the 16th St. Baptist Church, killing four little black girls.
At their funeral, Dr. Martin Luther King says at their funeral:
Was he wrong to blame racism generally for this murder?
I think bad actions of a few can be used against a movement, but there has to be some real connection between violence and the ideology. It is not automatically invalid every time, but you have to engage in an analysis that is frankly too subtle for our political culture to grasp (present company excluded, except for certain trolls who haven’t shown up in this thread yet).Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:29 am
no he was right to blame racisms, but I think with Jared we have his youtubes… his ideology is about as coherent as the Kellogg’s Rice Crispies what keep telling me to take the blue umbrella to work
I don’t even have a blue umbrella.happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:36 am
Aaron, MLK’s speech was appropriate because the KKK was tolerated and sheltered still, in many cities of the US at that time.
No one is tolerating or sheltering Loughner in any way.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:43 am
I know, i am not saying the situations are the same. i am just saying we can’t be categorical about this. Sometimes it is justified to blame a movement for the violence it inspires. But no one has successfully made that case against the tea party.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:45 am
Wasn’t saying different, Aaron. Just expanding the thought.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:53 am
A.W. – It’s nice you made a new friend!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:57 am
lolSPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:59 am
Clayton Cramer discusses the meta question of how we deal with mental illness in this country. Not a new topic for him sadly, just topical this week.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:02 am
First, this is an admirable piece of understatement that we should keep in mind:
However, if you had to place it on a continuum, most of the 9/11 “truth” movement appears to be in the Libertarian / maybe conservative-ish camp. I didn’t believe it at first, but I’m on a 9/11 “truth” meetup list and it’s all about end the fed and Ron Paul and how vaccines are a government plot and what-not. It’s incoherent, but I certainly wouldn’t call it liberal or leftist. As mr. feets said in less words, I guess.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:03 am
okay, sorry, i shouldn’t blog without more caffeine in my system.
lol back.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:04 am
To clarify, I’m on that 9/11 meetup list out of perverse curiousity, and not in any way of the belief that 9/11 “truth” has anything to do with objective truth.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:04 am
> most of the 9/11 “truth” movement appears to be in the Libertarian / maybe conservative-ish camp.
So why do most of them call themselves democrats?Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:05 am
Oh, and let’s not forget this golden oldie.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/obamas-green-jobs-czar-signed-9-11-truth-statement/24507/Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:06 am
carlitos – I don’t get much of a conservative vibe from most of the truthers I spoken with, maybe that’s because it’s tough to detect with all the foam coming out of their mouths.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:09 am
“we don’t know that 9-11 Twooferism led to this murder, or his anti-Semitism”
Or the Satanism, or the schizophrenia, or …
And premeditation eliminates ‘insanity defense’?gary gulrud (790d43) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:16 am
Look at the respectful tone, in this piece, something you don’t really get with a look at any conservative outfit, the author would later go on to slur Palin, and whitewash the GZ Mosque;
http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/narciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:16 am
A twoofer; possibly a Joo-hater. Not looking good for those of a certain extreme ideology.
You know what he really is?
The slayer of a nine year old angel.
He’s a piece of shite . . . period.Icy Texan (d3f791) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:19 am
For the last time, AW, everyone now knows that FIRE DOESN’T MELT STEEL!!! And pay no attention to that US Steel plant operating down the road – they melt steel with their minds.Dmac (498ece) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:23 am
I used to think that too, but of late I’m doubting it. To be fair, there isn’t much of a “movement” left; the whole crazy peaked in 2006 and is in a death spiral. I’d bet that in 2006-7 it was certainly a liberal phenomenon and largely based on Bush Derangement Syndrome. Democratic Underground finally had to ban discussion on this.
But what’s left seems to be born from the same stuff as TEA partiers: anti-government regulation, distrust of federal authority etc. Take a look at Ron Paul forums and you see a bunch of this truthy stuff.
Just for example, this was in my inbox today from 9/11 truth. At the right are links to Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman and the John Birch Society. Weird.
https://sites.google.com/site/stopthelyingtrash/carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:24 am
carlitos seems to be laboring under the supposition that there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian.
Has he not read the Libertarian Party platform, which advocates legalizing all drugs and is pro-choice & isolationist? Has he never watched Bill Maher?Icy Texan (d3f791) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:25 am
“First, this is an admirable piece of understatement that we should keep in mind:
And it’s hard to blame her since a truther just shot her in the head
However, if you had to place it on a continuum, most of the 9/11 “truth” movement appears to be in the Libertarian / maybe conservative-ish camp. I didn’t believe it at first, but I’m on a 9/11 “truth” meetup list and it’s all about end the fed and Ron Paul and how vaccines are a government plot and what-not. It’s incoherent, but I certainly wouldn’t call it liberal or leftist. As mr. feets said in less words, I guess.
Comment by carlitos — 1/10/2011 @ 7:03 am”
Hermano at the far edge of the right and the left you get in to the nut orbit where all the scattered debris flies around and by force mental antigravity binds disparate concepts into a non logical whole. In other words, nuts and nuts congregate with nuts.cubanbob (409ac2) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:30 am
paul has flirted with trutherism, yes.
i have never ever seen backman do so.
and birchers? they were expelled from the right years ago.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:31 am
new chief of staff dude: I’m not saying you have to give a speech but until you do… absolutely no golf. Understand me, champ?
bumblef: oh… fiddlesticks!happyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:32 am
What is a “truther”?Jerry (fd1792) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:33 am
Is truth bad?
I call them 9/11 denialists, because they deny the essential truth, that Wahhabi terrorists from Saudi Arabia, and points west, committed this act.narciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:35 am
Icy Texan, Bill Maher thinks that wanting to smoke a joint makes him a Libertarian. Maher should smoke less of them.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:36 am
“What is a “truther”?”
Jerry – A “truther” is someone you should make your new best friend.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:37 am
You are right to an extent. Loony tunes.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I didn’t say that Paul / Bachman / Birch were truthers. I said that the truthers that I see claim to be on their side. They self-identify with these guys. Add Fox News’ Judge Napolitano and the lunatic Alex Jones. It’s all anti-government paranoia, and the current anti-government “side” is mostly right-ish. Maybe it’s because there is a Democrat in the White House, and it will flip back with a change in power?
Again, we’re talking about paranoid nuts here, so it’s mostly a moot point. But I’ve spent a year or so looking into the “truth” movement and I feel like I have a pretty good handle on their mindset, crazy as it is. There is lots of overlap between Glenn Beck saying “buy gold” and Jesse Ventura saying we’re going to be sent to FEMA camps.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:41 am
carlitos, and the point is that you are only seeing half of the truthers.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:42 am
most troofers I know are europeanhappyfeet (aa4bab) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:42 am
SPQR, that was more true 4 years ago. I don’t think that it is today.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:43 am
Napolitano is certainly in that line of sight, Beck has explicitly ‘refudiated’ the camps meme,narciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:44 am
Yes, as he has with 9/11 ‘truth’ quite adamantly. But dealing with cognative dissonance isn’t much of a problem for people who simultaneously believe that:carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:49 am
– The entire world engineering community is lying about 9/11
– While still using bridges, elevators, air travel, etc. designed by world engineering community
If I recall correctly, there was a poll during the second Bush term that found nearly half the democrats surveyed were definitely/maybe about the question of government involvement in 9/11. Republicans were about fifteen percent definitely/maybe on the same question.Birdbath (8501d4) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:00 am
Yes Birdbath, that was the 2006 Zogby poll. My emphasis added for clarity.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:25 am
well, you are entitled to your opinion, but i am unconvinced. what you are probably seeing is the level of activism. why be an activist truther, if the devil (bush) is out of office. some will turn on obama as part of the cover up, but most probably won’t.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:36 am
Carlitos, I am a 30-year hardcore veteran of the Libertarian movement, both Libertarian Party and Republican Liberty Caucus.
9/11 TRUTHERISM IS PURELY LEFTWING AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH US LIBERTARIANS!!!
There are some nutball leftwing infiltrators in our libertarian movement from the Left who are using libertarianism as a cover. But I can assure you, ANYONE! who espouses such Anti-American philosophy IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN!Eric Dondero (0b2aa1) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:41 am
Those are disturbing statistics, Carlitos.
Indeed, a lot of people are noting that 9/11 truther ideas were greatly furthered by the ‘Bush lied’ myths. Now there’s inflammatory rhetoric on a level far worse than anything Palin ever said, but I’d still say those who tried to murder Bush (there are such people) cannot blame the gasbag democrats who tried to demonize Bush.
But I will say: the truther idea obviously carried far more weight with Jared’s decision to kill people than anything Palin said (and it’s likely Jared never saw any of Palin’s ads and didn’t have a positive view of Palin).Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:42 am
That’s true, but I wouldn’t say libertarians are 100% always sane or patriotic. Most of them are. More than any other category of political thought, perhaps. But every group has some fruitloops. Libertarians do not favor Mein Kampf, however, which is intrusive social engineering and socialism.
I don’t think Jared was a leftist so much as just a completely screwed up monster. I don’t want to say leftists are like him, though I will say that EVERY truther is more like Jared than they probably realize. It takes radical dehumanization to believe that theory.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:44 am
troofers not twoofersPeterk (f11657) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:51 am
The “truthers” (a respectful name coined by the media) were initially Democrats who parlayed “Bush lied people died” when Democrat congressman and Kerry et al started saying that we were lied into “Blood For Oil”. The Left MSM in Britain was caught lying to this effect in print as well.
So this put the 9/11 history up for review, when you had “experts” like Charlie Sheen, Whoopi Goldberg, etc. who have wide audiences on the left and will get a respectful microphone somewhere.
And because of these clowns most of the rest of the world now thinks that that the US (or at least Republicans) is actually capable of this type of murderous act. Toss in “the Jews” (who the “moderate” Arab world has always blamed 9/11 on) and it’s easy to see how a paranoid psycho could get so angry.
This seems like the most likely scenario I’ve heard, particularly in light of the timeline between the psycho and congresswoman that pre-dates the current Palin theory.
The Left started this fantasy – had no problem when Jewish neocons like Wolfowitz were blamed – and now they associate the shooter’s flirtation with a Jewish hate group as “right wing”.frank (c09ba5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:55 am
That’s a great point.
I will add that no one ever really thought ‘the palin theory’ was really why Jared did what he did. It is so completely irrational, that nearly everyone saying that is well aware they are being ridiculous. That’s what Palin does to ’em.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:05 am
People in glass houses should not throw stones. Is that too violent?starboardhelm (e93080) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:37 am
People in glass houses should not throw stones. Is that too violent?
Also “you might try getting that plank out of your eye first” — I’ve alsays prefered “beam” (King James) to “plank”. Beam can be a beam of light, as in a bright reflection, and the mote also, which makes more sense in context.starboardhelm (e93080) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:41 am
so much depends
a red wheel
glazed with rain
beside the white
If I’m the mind
controller then I
control the belief and
Mind ControllerMitch (890cbf) — 1/10/2011 @ 11:09 am
Impossible not to admire the amazing patience and courtesy Giffords displays in this clip. May her recovery be rapid and full.Angeleno (cf2b88) — 1/10/2011 @ 12:27 pm
Well, I am a remember of the Truth Movement, and I can tell you it is not Left or Right leaning. The fellow that founded Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth,(now at 1,411 and growing, limited only in the capacity to verify their credentials is time consuming) Gage was a Reagan Republican, but has been disillusioned with the R brand in recent years, I’d say, as well as the lame D operation, which is just a continuation of the demise of this country.
It bypasses party affiliation. It is a NON-VIOLENT movement that uses Ghandi as a source of inspiration.
If you have balls enough, I suggest you all start studying, researching on your own. Just see the opposing views as well as the ones you have foolishly already hung your hat on. You will see why it continues to grow, internationally as well as nationally, but don’t count on the MSM doing justice to the facts of the matter. They are not going to expose their long standing negligence on the subject.
The internet has many many documentaries which will ask you to decide for yourself by reviewing footage of the day, along with different science based perspectives.
I will bring links if anyone wants to see them, but I have been deleted by the powers that be here when I’ve done that before.
So, if you care about this country, and I assume you do, then for the sake of our country, start looking for yourself, and get over yourselves. Please allow objectivity and personal honor to over ride your fears.
I know the fear of being considered “out there” may inhibit your willingness. Also the fear of facing the cancer that has occupied our government, exactly what Eisenhower warned of (military industrial complex, now running the show).
Please show the strength of character needed to see it, and speak out.
The Truth Movement continues to expand. After all it really is obvious if you are honest with yourself. Sadly cowardice is more prevalent in this country than I’d ever thought.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:32 pm
LOL, I’m am a “remember”, er member that is.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:33 pm
It’s hilarious how democrats often pretend to be moderate. They used to be a Republican! They liked [insert name of dead Republican]!
And then they go on to preach fringe kook blather.
Yes, being a truther is a left thing.
How many truthers voted for Obama, vs how many voted for Mccain?
The problem truthers and radicals who aren’t truthers (like kman) have is that they have no idea what constitutes left vs right. They think opposition to gay marriage is conservative instead of mainstream going deep, deep into the left, even (Obama, for example). they think NYT is moderate… some even think it’s conservative.
They think Obamacare is right leaning. By “they” I mean radical leftists, though to be more fair you could easily find the same lack of understanding on the extreme right.
Granted, it’s not like I can use factual evidence to explain something to an idiot truther. But here’s factual evidence.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:41 pm
Tinfoil is on sale at Kmart all this week…EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:46 pm
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 – 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 – 1994.
* Article 7/1/06: “The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 – calling it ‘the dog that doesn’t hunt.’ ‘I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that’s accurate,’ he said.” http://www.propagandamatrix.com
The specific quote follows. A subscription is required to access the audio recording.
Alex Jones: Colonel, is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?
Col. Ray: I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that’s accurate. That’s true.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:47 pm
Blubonnet – Keep f_cking that chicken!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:49 pm
I knew blu would comment on this.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:53 pm
That have this new non-stick kind that I didn’t realize I had in my cupboard. It works really well, except when you meant to create a seal.
Be careful using this tinfoil, because I’m sure mind control can leak in. Obvious reptilian strategy.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 2:59 pm
Tinfoil is not as effective as aluminum.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:00 pm
I bought a case of tinfoil at Sam’s Club. I wanted the whole pallet, but they said they would have to notify someone, and I got paranoid.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:05 pm
Ya gotta show ID for tinfoil now, JD, thanks to the evil Booosh.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:08 pm
To the people buying tin (or aluminum) foil…
Please make sure that you wear your headgear with the proper side out. I have reason to believe that if you don’t, the beams are actually magnified rather than reflected.malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:19 pm
> Well, I am a remember of the Truth Movement, and I can tell you it is not Left or Right leaning.
> It is a NON-VIOLENT movement
Which I find hard to believe.
I mean, bluntly, if I believed my country deliberately murdered 3K of its citizens, it would be lock-and-load time.
> Just see the opposing views
I believe that the 9-11 truth movement is itself a conspiracy to convince us that government is competent enough to pull off something this evil, involving a cover up of at least a million people and with none of them talking.
> The internet has
To quote Kevin Butler: Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. That’s how World War I started.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:30 pm
Here is an example of one of the Truthers…
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 – 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 – 1994.
* Article 7/1/06: “The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 – calling it ‘the dog that doesn’t hunt.’ ‘I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that’s accurate,’ he said.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 3:56 pm
Oh, great, we’ve summoned an infestation of truthers.
Blubonnet, the main characteristic of you as I recall is that you list all these people as being on your side … but each of them disagrees with the supposed 9/11 narrative in differing, often contradictory, and usually insignificant ways.
That’s just one of the way in which Truthers are dishonest.
You yourself if my memory serves would refuse to actually propose a single narrative of your own and invariably retreated to vague Johnny Cochran/Henry Lee “something not right” mutterings.
Spare us.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 4:00 pm
This guy is a wonderful American.
The father of the dead 9 year old girl.
This man is simply a tremendous person.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 4:02 pm
“You yourself if my memory serves would refuse to actually propose a single narrative of your own and invariably retreated to vague Johnny Cochran/Henry Lee “something not right” mutterings.”
SPQR – That is my recollection as well. We get meaningless walls of text and link dumps but no coherent theory.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 4:04 pm
As an example, I happen to believe that the 911 Commission report covers up the consequences of the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement created by Jamie Gorelick in DOJ during the Clinton admin. And I suspect that that would be enough for blubonnet to claim that I was a Truther too.
However, if blubonnet actually did so, I’d sue his/her f**king ass off.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 4:06 pm
Let’s keep them in our thoughts and not give the kooks like Jared, or other kooks, any power over us in this dark moment. This is not a good time for those who agree with Jared about conspiracy theories to reopen the same empty theories.
I do not care if you think the government is controlling your brain. I do not care if you agree with Jared that the US Government let 9/11 occur. I don’t care if you like Nazis or hate Giffords.
This is the absolute worst time to try to seriously contemplate those ideas, already discussed to death many years ago. If you want to do that, do not do it in context of the murder of this poor girl.
It’s a fact about Jared that he’s a truther, and sure, we can think about how disturbed he was, but it’s not fair to the slain to give Jared’s ideas a symposium.
blubonnet, if you are going to name people who agree with you, go ahead and make sure you always list Jared Loughner, and virtually every other antisemite crank. Don’t cherry pick.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 4:07 pm
Go to Patriots Question 911. Look for yourself. Of course, the whole reality is hard to fathom. People won’t believe it, it seems regardless of how many people, how much visible evidence, how many scientists, engineers, architects, former CIA, pilots, firefighters, former Bush administration people, military officers, NORAD officals, and even verifiably scientific evidence of collusion, most won’t look. Of course it’s hard to fathom. Which is exactly why you should look harder.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:13 pm
Thank you, Patterico, for allowing me to post again afterall.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:14 pm
[huge copyright violation removed — P]Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:20 pm
Thank you, Patterico, for allowing me to post again afterall.
Evidently you’re learned absolutely nothing since your last banning – still a complete fruitcake, replete with mouth foaming.Dmac (498ece) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:35 pm
Blubonnet – What is your theory of what happened given that we have video of the planes crashing into the twin towers? Speak.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:39 pm
Excuse me, I am a topic here. I am a Truth Movement member and I don’t think it is fair to assume me into a category of being a violent nut, without my being able to present reasoning as to why I believe what I believe, which in fact makes me more discerning than most, and look thoroughly at both sides of a discussion.
Well, declaring that nonviolence is the main tenet in the Truth Movement, should be recognized. Because immediately many will hang their hat early on, if they can, assuming us into the category of this very disturbed man that has devastated the lives of many.
And it seems that when one is out of offerings in a debate, name calling replaces talking points. And then, shying away from a subject matter is what people do, because they don’t want to be called names. So the lemming circles go round and round.
Well, start looking on your own, and be honest with yourself. And, oh, you will be called names of course, by cowards that won’t look at both perspectives.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:45 pm
blubonnet, a lot of the people your source claims as its own aren’t really truthers.
That Colonel, for example. there’s absolutely nothing showing he has the view you claim, except one mp3 that you can’t listen to unless you give them money (and I greatly suspect it doesn’t really mean anything).
In short, you have no evidence. As usual, the people denying a mountain of evidence present incredibly poor evidence. You’re not a skeptic… you’re a dumb dogmatic believer of the most lame load of BS.
Anyhow, way to exploit murder. Your enormous copy and past is extremely rude. Post a link to other articles… don’t steal them entirely. That’s breaking copyright.
If you can’t think for yourself, zombie, don’t comment at all.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:48 pm
I won’t question your obvious knowledge and passion for the subject but I do have to ask what was the purpose of this conspiracy?Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:55 pm
Since Blubonnet is listing truthers let’s go ahead and list some.
Jared Loughner, rabid violent anti semite and idiot who believes dumb crap: 9/11 truther.
Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, rapid violent anti semite and idiot who believes dumb crap: 9/11 truther
And the interesting thing is that, unlike blubonnet, I don’t have to pull people’s quote out of context to pretend they are truthers.
Bona fide truthers simply aren’t reasonable folks. Blubonnet’s argument is completely irrational ‘look at the experts! Ignore the evidence and look at these impressive experts someone pretends agree with me! The sad thing is that this irrational logic is based on lies.
But I again note that it’s wrong to give Jared views a platform right now. If someone wants to debate conspiracy theories, at least have the decency to do it outside the context of this guy who murdered a kid to spread awareness of his beliefs.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:55 pm
I’ve seen the “mountains of evidence” you speak of, and frankly, the mountain of evidence is far more comprehensive, visibly evident, and you only have to understand high school physics, to see it.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:56 pm
Google up: 911 Revisited. Just watch the first 20 minutes, it’s mostly just footage of the day. You decide. Ask yourself why NIST, the government agency didn’t think checking for explosives was important?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:00 pm
What I started to say, was, that the evidence on the side of the Truth Movement far surpasses the government’s “conspiracy theory”.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:01 pm
Per recent comment, “Truther” is a silly term. I for one do not believe that the 9-11 Commission report is truthful. However, I think the notion of an inside job is absurd. There is an ocean in between these two positions yet, and any poll that conflates the two is a worthless poll.
Also, truthers in the form of “inside job” thinking is not a mainstream opinion as there are no prominent Senators, Congressman, or highly influential political leaders that believe this. The best I have heard was Van Jones — a charge he has vehemently denied. And while some will debate this without resolution, the larger point is that the “truther” movement has not been mainstreamed into our electoral politics.
On the other hand, hatred has. There is no “left equivalent’ to the might of a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck that own any republican who wishes to denounce them. These men could ruin careers in just a couple of shows. There are no Sharon Angle’s on the left virtually calling for violent revolution and nearly winning a Senate seat.
Lastly, just because someone is “mad” does not mean that there is not a method to that madness. To simply leave it as a random lunatic suggests that John McCain could have been a target just as easily as Giffords was a target. It suggests that the assasination was completely arbitrary.
This is very hard to believe. What is a much more rational conclusion — even for the irrational mind — is that Jared Lee viewed Giffords as this evil target representing the albatross of government. And that evil picture was painted has a vitriolic context of her being demonized, her positions being demonized, and past violence toward her. There is a very real context here, and to factor in that context is a completely rational conclusion.MODI (e4489c) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:02 pm
False flag operations happen throughout history and all governments are responsible. I suggest you google it up. I’ll leave it at that.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:03 pm
If it would make you feel better, google up the version from the man that declares himself a Conservative Republican. Look, the whole Truth Movement, international now, is not Left or Right leaning, but if you want to listen to a fellow that is on your side of political divide, go to 911 Mysteries, and he will present you with the same facts, but lets you know right away, he is not a Leftie. I must say, for an R, I didn’t dislike him.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:07 pm
From poster #7 on MLK quote asks “Was MLK wrong to blame racism generally for this murder?”
Let’s take it a step further. Dr. King wired George Wallace that “the blood of four little children … is on your hands. Your irresponsible and misguided actions have created in Birmingham and Alabama the atmosphere that has induced continued violence and now murder.”
The question is: Was Dr. King wrong to blame George Wallace? Or does Wallace have no blame because he didn’t light the bomb?MODI (e4489c) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:40 pm
If what you’re saying is true, I simply would like to understand the purpose? What was accomplished besides death and suffering? Who benefitted?Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:48 pm
blubonnet, you’ve ignored some really good questions.
Why? Why the conspiracy to blow up the WTC?
Do you think there was one? Explain it to me. People say you refuse to say anything about this because you’re not honest. Are they right?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:49 pm
Misrepresentations of the NIST report are only a fraction of the misrepresentations blubonnet deals in.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:53 pm
Hey, I never claimed to have all the answers. I know of lies by the government that are obvious, but you will have to look for yourself. Research 911 Truth. Google away, and you decide. I love this quote by Einstein that makes my point…
ALBERT EINSTEIN: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” LOL
We would like there to be another investigation. That’s all, by those everyone can trust. Reason is, there is absolute proof that NIST was fraudulent in a myriad of ways. Go to Scientists for 911 Truth
I don’t know the whole story. I will bring links, but only if Patterico will allow it. I start to get banned as I bring sources for others to scrutinize for themselves, for some reason.
I thank Patterico for letting me post.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:56 pm
nothing is betterColonelHaiku (15abe7) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:56 pm
with blubonnet on it ‘cept
saddled Great White Shark
No, blubonnet, your attempt to wave away the fundamental dishonesty of your rhetoric is not successful.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:57 pm
I answered you all by telling you to google and decide for yourselves. I gave you some directions to start already. Answer them yourself. I never claimed to have all the answers.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:57 pm
Col, sir, that was cute.
Hey an old boyfriend said to me once, “ah to be a piece of bread.” LOLBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:59 pm
No, blubonnet, because being responsible for a single coherent explanation would cause all your “questions” to collapse into incoherency. And thereby expose your little tricks.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:04 pm
OOPS, I guess I will have to highlight this to make you all look…FALSE FLAG OPERATIONSBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:05 pm
I have no interest in disuading you from your beliefs. I hope it works out for you.
But for me to believe such an enormous conspiracy that took the lives of so many innocents, I need a plausible motive. Callously killing thousands of fellow citizens and keeping the hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators quiet requires an enormous incentive.
If you and your 9-11 investigative colleagues can uncover so much it seems the motive might be simplest question of all.
Thanks for your time and effort.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:09 pm
p’toooooey, blubonnet.ColonelHaiku (15abe7) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:09 pm
MODI is peddling the same disgusting noxious meme that the left is pushing. You are either a soulless ghouls, or brazenly dishonest. Which is it?JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:09 pm
@81 Google up
@84 google it up
@85 google up
@90 Google away
@93 telling you to google
I’m sure that those Google searches would lead me to all sorts of websites, which I could spend hours upon days upon weeks reviewing to see if they made any sense as they cross-reference each other.
Sorry, but I’ve learned to mistrust the motives of people who claim to ‘only ask questions’ and expect me to waste time proving them wrong.malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:10 pm
SPQR – why do you insist on pantsing blu?JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:11 pm
JD, because blubonnet’s fundamental dishonesty in the matter of the death of approx 3,000 people pisses me off mightily.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:12 pm
Soulless ghouls. No wait, brazenly dishonest. No, Soulless ghouls. No, brazenly dishonest. Darn. are those the only choices?Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:13 pm
Well, SPQR, I’m so glad that you are going to fill us in. YOU tell us what all those pilots, military intelligence officers, NORAD people, etc over at Patriots Question 911 They have questions, you can prove true. So, you go ahead and fill us in, but you will have to start looking at the questions. You go ahead and tell us how you know they are true.
Because someone said so, or some big institutional agency said so will not cut it. At this time in American history, our institutions, science being one of them have been thwarted.
That is why there have been over 15,000 scientists that signed a petition about Bush’s thwarting of science. Granted this subject was not on their list, but many other scientists are defying the resistance, despite the blind adherence of so many obliging of the official conspiracy theory. Progress through awareness continues to amass though.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:14 pm
blubonnet, trucking in this crap, where you dishonestly claim that each person who disputes some small aspect of the 911 Commission report suddenly becomes one of “you” … you play these little games where you run mutually contradictory subplots that are not consistent with each other much less reality … all to play on the deaths of 3,000 americans to make yourself feel important.
You disgust me. What I find on the bottom of my shoe after a walk in the city park has more integrity than you.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:18 pm
I’m sorry, but typing false flag in all caps and bold while telling me to google it is not an answer. You obviously have the answer. Why be coy?Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:18 pm
@81 Google up
@84 google it up
@85 google up
@90 Google away
@93 telling you to google
I’m sure that those Google searches would lead me to all sorts of websites, which I could spend hours upon days upon weeks reviewing to see if they made any sense as they cross-reference each other.
Sorry, but I’ve learned to mistrust the motives of people who claim to ‘only ask questions’ and expect me to waste time proving them wrong.
Comment by malclave-1/10/2011 @ 7:10 pm
That’s right, I could spend a long time explaining en dept=pth, and I know you all would just call names, so I’m asking you to go away and look at both sides, and use your own judgement. Can you???Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:20 pm
Either of those would be an improvement for you, crissyhooten, someing to strive for.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:21 pm
um, yeah, okay sorry for summoning the plague of truthers. or twoofers. or troofers. There is nothing wrong with questioning what you see, kicking the tires, etc. but at some point the lack of evidence should hit you in the forehead and occam’s razor needs to apply.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions but 9 years after the fact?Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:22 pm
And, I have to add, I’m sorry, that we all have to realize this. I’m sad for our country. I kept researching it, because I didn’t want to believe it either. So do what is right and just start looking honestly for yourself. Please.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:22 pm
I would like blu to lay out just an outline of it’s unified theory of 9/11, including the motives for same.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:25 pm
I could spend a long time explaining [in depth]
How? You said you don’t have the answers.
I’ve probably seen most of what’s in them already, though, and I didn’t find the arguments compelling.malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:27 pm
I’ve got to leave before I tell this dishonest piece of dog excrement what I would do with him.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:28 pm
I never called you a name. I held off citing it, so AW beat me but Occam’s Razor does apply.
An open mind requires it.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:29 pm
It’s rare that the term ghoulish has such a ring of truth to it. There’s something especially right about it in the case of people trying to score a political point before this little girl’s corpse is cold. These people are ghouls. And there’s no dichotomy. They are brazenly dishonest. The brazen part is because of displays of coarse and angry rhetoric ‘in the name of toning things down’.
You creeps really hate that Palin lady.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:32 pm
blubonnet, it’s pretty pathetic that you have no explanation, and excuse yourself because ‘we’d call you names’. We’re calling you names already. Like “liar”. That’s the one I use.
Leave the USA if you hate it this much. Go deny the holocaust in Iran.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:36 pm
How stupid do you have to be, or conversely, how much contempt do need to have for this country,narciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:39 pm
to believe such a crazy notion, as Mark Steyn has pointed out, if you really believed this, you would
be terrified to express such a notion.
I get it. This is a site where folks can find comfort in their like-minded opinions, and dissenters are all boxed together in that bloodthirsty gang called “the left” or “lefties”.
I’m sure the fact that Giffords was shot was 100% random. Could’ve just as easily been McCain. to explore anything is would be to engage in either disgusting or brazenly dishonest thought.MODI (e4489c) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:44 pm
No, you quite clearly don’t get it. Bugger off. I am sure that it is a pre coincidence that a 9 year old was shot and killed. A pure coincidence that a conservative judge was shot and killed. MODI, you are about the 20th nozzle that has trotted their mendacity out for all to see in the last few days.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 7:53 pm
I started researching because I didn’t want to believe it. Why don’t you?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:03 pm
Talking about cold corpses does not help your cause, unless of course it’s trying to prove how non-violent the Right isn’t.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:05 pm
I love this country which is why I speak up.
Also, one of the fellows, his last name is Cori, he made the documentary, he and his best friend, Loose Change fought in Iraq recently believing his government at first, then, he and his friend started compiling information from many different sources, and came to find out what no one wanted to believe. Research led them there. More research was needed. More perspectives from more and more credible people. They have been coming in steadily. No one wants to believe this. We need more scientists to look. Unfortunately, the only ones making sense are the independent, nongovernment scientists. Although many former government scientists are speaking up. Go look for yourself. Go to the Patriots Question 911 dot com. It is incomplete though, because it is constantly in growth mode. So, if you doubt them, research them. Work prove us wrong. We would love to be convinced wrong, but unfortunately more information keeps emerging on the side of the Truth Movement.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:13 pm
Once upon a time, I tried having a debate on 9/11 with blubonnet. She never responded on point, just listed a series of inuendo and kept telling me that scientists believe this, after all.
I suggest to all others on this thread that it isn’t worth your time engaging blubonnet, because she’s incapable of meaningful discussion.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:16 pm
You say you love the country. I’m sure you do, so why can’t you answer my simple question?
The reason I ask is because it’s my experience that when people don’t answer direct questions, they have skin in the game.
I’m certainly not opposed to profit motives, but I don’t have to play along. You may be a bit too coy for your own good.
No offense intended.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:23 pm
Blu’s bonnet is tied too tight.
MODI is a Moby.
That is all.Icy Texan (d3f791) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:33 pm
“There are no Sharon Angle’s on the left virtually calling for violent revolution and nearly winning a Senate seat.”
MODI – The Angle smear is something made up by the left. Review any place she was asked to clarify her “second amendment remedies” comment and it is clear she means ballot box not bullets and was talking about the historical context of the second amendment. The left does not care, they just lie about it.
It’s the same with Palin’s reload comment. They truncate her complete words. Disgust is too weak a word for people like you.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:38 pm
The capacity for you to take in it all is up to you, not me. I suggest you, like all in this country, start thinking more independently, and researching on your own. The government agency has been proven as engaging in “dry labbing” which means producing desired results at the expense of honest process. NIST has been proven as lying. The government on many occasions has been proven as lying. The 911 Commission even said that. One fellow though on the 911 Commission by the name of Zeilkow, also a signatory on the document The Project for the New American Century which was the plan to take over the middle east, set well before 9-11-01. Well, it just so happens, that Zeilkow was the “decider” as to what gets put into the 911 Commission Report and what did not. All the firefighters’ testimonies of explosions, NOT put in 911 Commission Report. Why not? Okay, well, why didn’t NIST, the government agency test for explosives, like all fire investigations do? NIST said fires caused the towers to collapse. Why didn’t they follow proper protocol for a fire investigation too? I bet they get paid more than an investigator at a fire station writing a report on a fire, where explosives, if any indication existed, would be required. Don’t you think?
Heck there is now not only a physics journal that has proven that in all the debris samples, existed a military grades thermitic material called nano-thermite. Anyone want the report? I’ll bring it here if you want to see it.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:44 pm
Believe me, none of this is anything I wanted to believe.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:47 pm
I want the outline of your unified 9/11 theory, to include motive, and specific people involved. Right now, you are doing what you have always done, which does not bring any credit upon yourself.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:47 pm
So, no answers tonight.
Good game in the BCS, though.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:49 pm
I learned about proper protocol for a fire investigation from Firefighters for 911 Truth which you can google too.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:51 pm
Geographers for a Flat Earth called, are you interested in a membership?narciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:54 pm
I’m asking you to bring some answers. Start looking at the evidence yourself. Just google up images of the day, the hits, the towers. Look for yourself, and get back to me, please. Talk is cheap. I want visible, in collaboration with scientific explanation to cohesively express the facts. The Truth Movements so far is doing a better job of that. I don’t think you can counter their arguments. I honestly don’t think anyone can at this point. It’s too massive and it is actually more than obvious that they are correct.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:55 pm
Motive, google False Flag OperationBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:56 pm
Yu really are dummerer than a sack of hootens, aren’t you?JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:57 pm
The fooled are going to look more foolish. But, sadly that should not be your highest concern, whether you look foolish. Seems it is though. Ego precedes honor.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:58 pm
No, I will not google anything. I just want a straight answer from you. I’m not interested in your sponsor hits.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:58 pm
I’d be kind of scared of a WHOLE SACK of hootens. Maybe a pinch.Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/10/2011 @ 8:59 pm
You want a lay out? You decide. Go to 911 Timeline.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:00 pm
Why do you want answers from me. You don’t believe me. Why would my words make a difference to you?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:02 pm
No, I want you to lay it out. Your theory. Who what when where why and how.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:03 pm
Well, fine, oblivion is your choice, if you won’t research. I’m not telling you what to believe. I’m telling you to look at both sides. It’s up to you. I think it’s obvious. But I consider myself to be objective. Are you?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:04 pm
Would you give it credence? I doubt it. Why do you want my perspective anyway?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:05 pm
Fire doesn’t melt steel. GOOGLE IT.
Amusingly, if you google things like ‘the moon is made of cheese’ you get people explaining that it is.
It’s almost as though google just shows you what’s on the internet, rather than instills credibility.
Blubonnet’s been asked for his/her position specifically. Not the positions available on google. It is pathetic when someone is asked their theory this many times and takes pride that they haven’t given it.
Blubonnet wanted to say he knew this huge ugly truth, had researched it, been enlightened, and that explains his disgusting smear of our great country. But he won’t tell us what this truth is.
What a surprise that a truther turns out to be an idiot who can’t even bother to explain his POV. I guess if he were a thoughtful person he couldn’t be a truther at all, though.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:06 pm
Because I never insulted you nor cast aspersions on your theory. I asked honest questions based on my experience. That’s why.
You volunteered.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:08 pm
Why so coy?JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:09 pm
So Wahhabi terrorist didn’t commit 3,000 casualties, following a long string of attempts like the 1994 Eiffel Tower attack, the BOHICA plansnarciso (6075d0) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:14 pm
uncovered in the interrogations of Akbar Murad, the
data from Ali Mohammed that went into at least the original Dec. 1998 PDB,
Would we give your theory credence? Well there are some here who would honestly consider it. Some will probably see all the effort you’ve put into not explaining your ‘perspective’ as a sign you don’t give your own pov any credence.
Is your POV that ridiculous? Or is it that you don’t actually have one, and because all the people you’ve cited as references have contradictory POVs are actually proposing a view of confusion and doubt that is a twisted up paradox.
My guess is that you have no view and are a spammer.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:15 pm
What’s that Godawful stench?
Oh…a truther just walked in.Dave Surls (f88125) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:16 pm
Blubonnet – Once more you are merely taking up space here and not advancing the knowledge of anyone or your cause. Here is a nice debunking of your thermite nonsense.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:21 pm
Some Chump called this one correctly.
It isn’t trying to have a discussion of its ideas. It’s trying to do something else.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:24 pm
no, this is exactly what you wanted to believe. you wanted to believe it, because you can’t deal with the truth, for whatever silly reasons you have.
And then you did “research” which consisted of getting lies from other people. Lies that have been regularly debunked. but i guess those debunkers are either “sheeple” or they are in on it, right?
Our government is fundamentally incompetant. They have trouble paving roads. they can’t pull off anything as complex as a fake 9-11, period. And if you didn’t want to believe so badly, you might realize that.Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/10/2011 @ 9:53 pm
Huh! I never knew that Rosie O’Donnell wore a bonnet.Icy Texan (d3f791) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:00 pm
What constitutes a debunking, because the lying institutions paid by the government told you so?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:10 pm
Intimidation instead of honest observation and relevant information is taking place. Not surprising.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:11 pm
Why so coy, blu?JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:14 pm
Words like “stench” wake up the lemmings. They won’t dare broach a subject wehn someone uses words like “stench”. Very effective in intimidating. NOT at all in discussion of relevance. Nice tactic. Usually the meek will vaporize about now. I mean they will cease in thought. Only allow thought that makes it so they fit nicely into the social structure. Can’t be outside of the common minds.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:14 pm
I yearn to learn from you, blu, but you deny me the opportunity.JD (395555) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:16 pm
Oh, we’re lemmings. And here I thought blubonnet was saying ad homs were some kind of ultimate problem justifying some hours long effort to … not explain yourself.
Blubonnet, just your behavior in this thread alone is unbalanced and irrational. I still think you don’t care at all about 9/11 truther BS and just want people to go to your website for other reasons. But at any rate, you didn’t bring an argument without to the argument.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:18 pm
Rocks, your source has been caught fibbing. That would be NIST. You don’t want to see the instance when in public NIST was caught lying. Would Patterico allow me bringing in a link or two, or three or for God’s sake there are so many pieces now proving the BS that is the government version it’s ridiculous. NIST has been humiliated in a room full of physicists by a seventh grade physics teacher. You want to see it yourself? Patterico would have to allow it.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:19 pm
Oh, k yes, I’m just trying to get attention.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:20 pm
Who around here has looked further than the version offered by the government?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:21 pm
Yeah, it’s all BS. The reason it has lasted so long through the ten years is because there are so many people out there that want to get attention, don’t ya know?
For God’s sake, I wish it were that simple. Would you all please just start doing honest research for yourselves. I’ve tried leaving links. They are assumed suspect before even being considered. So, please just start looking and finding your own. I have faith that if you are honest with yourselves, you’ll see what the science folks that are not getting paid by government, but are losing money because in their professions they could be making much much more money than traveling around and being called names. Richard Gage comes to mind. Highly paid professionals of every relevant field. People, I’m sure would respect, because they served their country, and are risking in another venue now, speaking out. Military Veterans, former CIA, pilots, many former military pilots, and government intelligence officials speaking out. But the cowardice of so many prevent permeating the minds that require resisting the fairy tale that the government version truly is. But non-violence is the only way to go. I wish someone would participate moe=re in the challenges this dilemna, because we in the Truth Movement need some help to counter the bullshit that is clear as day if one dared look. Explosives were in the builidng. There were ways it could have happened to get it there. The research is available to you if you want to look. However, there is more cowering than inquiring, as I can see. Be honest with yourselves and start researching science on both sides, please.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 10:31 pm
blubonnet, I’m going to ask a very simple question:
If I can prove you are wrong, will you change your mind?
Because there is no point in discussing anything with you if you will not change your mind when proven wrong.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/10/2011 @ 11:07 pm
Well, proving me wrong, would require taking on these guys, groups of professionals in a multitude of professions, of which science is the basis, and the papers just keep coming, so, your work is quite literally a task of virtual infinity, because the facts, verifiable just keep accumulating, but if you want to take on the task, I would assume you would have some degree of science background if you are willing to consider challenging them. Quite frankly, they have asked others in their field to please take on this also, and challenge them, if necessary.
Okay, read at least a paper or two, if you expect any credibility in the seriousness of your offer to prove the movement wrong. There are scores of papers from that 911 Truth Movement sect alone, but there is growth quite consistently in the Movement itself, simply because common sense and believing the laws of physics when looking at the towers descent, thinking physics, listen to government version, or look at the Truth Movement’s scientific community. Up to you. Remember that when you accept the version of the government, it is an entity that Eisenhower warned of when he said “Beware the influence of the military industrial complex”, and lo and behold, they were President Carlyle Group Bush, and Vice President Halliburton Cheney running our country, and every step of the way, they proved themselves lying. No one disbelieved them until they realized what the MSM won’t generally give you until it’s too late to do anything, the unjust horrors of our illegal dishonest war of aggression against the middle east. We have war profiteers poisoning our government processes. It is rather like a mafia. You do know, don’t you, that it was Eisenhower, a cornerstone for both our principles that I’m standing behind, don’t you? Eisenhower was a Republican!!! Now he is considered “wild-eyed-Leftie_” as I am so often called, when Eisenhower’s insight I applaud.
http://journalof911studies.com/Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 11:49 pm
War profiteers should never be President and/or Vice President. Sometimes the hardest things to see are right in front of you.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 11:52 pm
If video presentations would suit you better, let me know. It might be more efficent to take notes, as the presentations take place, and attempt to debunk them. I don’t think Patterico will allow me to drop a bazillion links of evidence based points and video documentation, but I could if you, or any one else would like me to. Just say so.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/10/2011 @ 11:56 pm
That’s a nice quote. So tell me, WHO said that Eisenhower was a “wild-eyed-Leftie”?Icy Texan (d3f791) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:55 am
The only salient difference between Lord Haw Haw and the Truthers is that Lord Haw has already been hung.Dave Surls (f88125) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:00 am
You dodged the question. I have a whole bunch of scientists who say you’re wrong, so taking on the scientists whose position you support won’t be all that difficult.
But answer the question: If I can prove you wrong, will you change your mind? Don’t dodge it this time.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:10 am
“Well, proving me wrong, would require taking on these guys, groups of professionals in a multitude of professions, of which science is the basis”
Some chump – Actually Blubonnet is unwilling to make any assertions of her own about what happened so there is nothing I can see to prove wrong. We keep asking and she refuses to say anything. She is just a “time thief” as Patterico has characterized commenters such as these elsewhere.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:53 am
Daley, that’s exactly what I was trying to show everyone here. She’s not really interested in debate, and absolutely will not be persuaded, no matter how compelling the evidence.Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:40 am
The only salient difference between Lord Haw Haw and the Truthers is that Lord Haw has already been hung.
Comment by Dave Surls — 1/11/2011 @ 1:00 am
This does not help your case as being the side that does not want to kill people for saying things.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:04 pm
You decide…and I’m not going to spend a bunch of time debating people that have that learning disorder of “already knowing everything”, but for inquisitive (sign of intelligence) minds, JUST WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE DAY, then you figure it out yourself.
I’d be a fool to think I understood it all. But this is for those that are in touch with their objectivity…
I’m leaving now.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:18 pm
So, blubonnet, you aren’t going to answer my question, are you?Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:43 pm
Some Chump, he seems to be saying no. He says that you haven’t proven him wrong unless your proof stretches on to infinity. That’s how sure he is that 9/11 was an inside job, even though he refuses to explain what he thinks happened.
He’s insane. It’s that simple. You were right the first time that it’s not possible to have a discussion with him. He wanted to spam the thread 100 times, not have an intelligent conversation.
His entire argument is an enormous appeal to authority. It’s odd, because if he really thinks that’s a good argument… virtually all experts are against him. But even his own experts don’t agree with him… he’s just lying, too.
He better be careful. We might wind up putting crazy people in the nuthouses again because sometimes truthers start shooting people. You can’t reason with them.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:48 pm
Okay, I’ll put a finer point on it:
I have an open mind, and when something is proved to me, I have no trouble changing my opinion. Further, I am a man of science with a degree in engineering. With that comes both training in and an understanding of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and the scientific method. Also, my entire career has been spent in analytical situations.
In short, I know when someone’s handing me a line of bullshit, at least when it comes to scientific matters.
So, I can read all of your links, blubonnet, and know which ones of them are pure bunk. I’ll also know which ones of them are telling the truth.
But that’s not the point to my question. My question is directed at you. Are YOU open-minded enough to be persuaded by a logical argument based in facts? Do YOU have the intellectual honesty to admit when you are proven wrong and change your opinion accordingly?Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 12:49 pm
The Truth Movement is a NON VIOLENT GROUP. Learning, is that what you are interested in? That is where I am. No, I won’t say I have it all figured out. I’m learning more, are you?
Who clicked onto the link? I’m giving you an opportunity to learn more, but being derisive is more what you are about, it seems. I’m being civil.
Try learning instead of name calling. Just study the footage of the day.
I’m also, Dustin, asking you to give me some answers by looking at the video footage. Can you do that?
FOX news footage is on the film too. Does that help?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:09 pm
AND, I’m not a he. And, by the way, another professional journal, by the name of American Behavioral Scientist has concluded after scrutiny, that after, what is known as SCADs, which are State Crimes Against Democracy, clearly evident, in the evidence of the Truth Movement and their many independent, unpaid, scientists, showing government complicity, this group of mental professionals have concluded that a good portion (although less now) are in a state of delusion and denial believing the government version of the day, because so much evidence goes contrary to the government’s conspiracy theory. The evidence is massive for anyone that has the strength of character and intact objectivity enough to look. I’m not seeing much of it around here. I’m sorry though, that, yes, it is hard to come to grips with. It often takes years for many to fully realize it. I am sorry to have to be one presenting this information, but I think it is the responsible thing to do.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:17 pm
Blubonnet, you have consistently refused to answer my question. I have been civil to you,and I haven’t called you names. Nor have I said anything about the “Truth Movement”.
I never claimed toknow everything, nor have all the answers. But I do claim that I can understand scientific matters and apply my analytical skills to them.
I want to know whether YOU have the open mind and intellectual honesty to be persuaded by facts and logic.
Right now, I don’t have time to watch a 56 minute video. But I will watch it this evening when I am home from work.
In the mean time: answer my question. This is your chance to prove that you are interested in fair debate. If you don’t answer my question, then we all know your true purpose here.Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:19 pm
I’m sorry, but before you tell me to watch an hour long video, you have to admit you are wrong. Some outspoken truthers believe in government conspiracies and are willing to kill people in our government because of that.
Such as Jared Loughner. So you need to admit some members of the ‘truth movement’ are violent. I’m not going to go to your website to watch your video.
The last time you made a claim, the only evidence for it was an mp3 I had to give my credit card info in order to listen to. No.
Can you outline your theory? You have refused to do so many times. You say the evidence needed to prove you wrong is ‘infinite’ which actually makes sense because you refuse to propose a theory at all.
You said you were done with the thread. Honor your word and get lost. You have lost this argument on legitimate grounds. You were unable to back up your claims, and a lot of the people you said were on your side contradict eachother. your position is therefore absurd.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 1:30 pm
Dustin, I applaud and respect you for your interest.
By claiming I understand it fully, would be a lie. I’m not a liar. I guess I could say that the threat of the military industrial complex, warned of by many many of our forefathers, having taken hold of the presidency, used our government processes to accomplish the war, by either allowing or accommodating the attacks that day. By studying history, one sees the warnings of not only Eisenhower, but Lincoln as well. Here is an excellent quote (actually a letter)by Lincoln…
ABE LINCOLN: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army, in front of me and the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign, by working uponn the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of the few, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment, more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
What do I have to say I’m wrong about?
I would be willing to bet that some members of any group have violent tendencies. I will state again, that Gandhi is a source of inspiration among many in the Truth Movement. Do I need to tell you that peace is what Gandhi stood for?
ABE LINCOLN: “America will not be distroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
ABE LINCOLN: “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
Thomas Paine warned of these things. James Madison warned. Eisenhower warned. General MacArthur warned. General Smedley Butler warned.
JAMES MADISON: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
Well, here we are, and and the reality of the monster we have to deal with is huge, yet non-violence is still our stand we take. Any ideas?
Do we have reasons to question our government. Well of course. In case you wondered who would have access to the buildings, this might pique your interest. There is a great deal of study that went into this, the scientist by the name of Kevin Ryan gives a compelling presentation. It isn’t too awfully long to watch. Quite rivetting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_j3Kj0TlecBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:32 pm
Blubonnet – Did you bother to look at the link I provided @151? It was not from the government. You claim to be interested in debate.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 2:49 pm
Still waiting for blubonnet to answer my question. Not holding my breathSome chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:01 pm
That’s because blubonnet’s fundamental dishonesty is in the pretense that he/she has any interest in rationality.
The whole purpose of this kind of Truther is to avoid being pinned down on any statements that can be rationally examined.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:14 pm
You look and decide. Why would you believe anything I say anyway? Why should I bother?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:40 pm
I don’t believe anything you say, blubonnet, because I’ve already exposed in detail your dishonest rhetoric that last time you infested this blog.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:44 pm
“Why would you believe anything I say anyway? Why should I bother?”
Blubonnet – Exactly. Why bother posting here since you will not take a position or stand behind the walls of text or links you post.
Thank you for your honesty.
Good bye.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:45 pm
I’ll give you a sold statement. The government is lying.
Why? You tell me.
Also, daleyrocks, I did look. that is done by…
Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.
Who are they, and why should I believe them? That site, I’ve seen before, and is quite frankly deflecting and not really covering anywhere near the amount, nor the in-depth research the Truth Movement’s unpaid scientists have done. The scientists doing the research, gladly put their names on the research they offer.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:48 pm
I meant to say the 911 Truth’s scientists researchers gladly put their name on the papers, with sufficent background to give credibility to their words.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:49 pm
Regarding the explosives material, this physicist explains well, with respect to those that are learning now. His name is Dr. Ferar…
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:53 pm
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJwE65Y32Y4
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZNSXC3KVeE
You want to hear from the government agency NIST, we in the Truth Movement have recognized, that did the fraudulent report? This is very short. I would like your perspective.
I can acknowledge that I have intelligent enough people here, not cowards after all, willing to look honestly. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A0pwCzFVCwBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 3:59 pm
“This does not help your case as being the side that does not want to kill people for saying things.”
That’s exactly what I want to do. Take, lying leftist traitors who spew Lord Haw Haw type propaganda (including Truther propaganda) that hurts our war effort and helps our enemies, put them on trial for treason, convict them and then hang them by the neck ’til they’re dead, dead, dead….just like the Brits did to William Joyce after WWII.
Whatever gave you the idea that I didn’t want to have people like you killed for what you say?Dave Surls (dfdf1f) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:00 pm
And frankly, I personally believe it was in hopes of having the wars, that had been decided upon long before the Bush presidency. So, allowing, and/or helping the attack ensured that happening.
Who wanted the wars? Those signatories of the PNAC document. It even stated in it, that what is needed to get the public to go along with these wars, was, in their own words, “a new Pearl Harbor”. Well, lucky for them, along it came. How would you choose to interpret that?
Bush even stated in his biography, by his family friend Mickey Hershcowitz, and I probably spelled that wrong, but he said, he wanted to be a war president.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:05 pm
It even stated in it, that what is needed to get the public to go along with these wars, was, in their own words, “a new Pearl Harbor”.
No it didn’t.malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:13 pm
blubell would be funny if it wasn’t so damn pathetic….AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:14 pm
Okay, blubonnet. You have no intention of answering my question. We can all now assume the following:
1. blubonnet will not change her mind if proven wrong.
2. blubonnet will not engage in good-faith debate.
You’re wasting everyone’s time here, blubonnet.Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:23 pm
Twooferism is about as sciencey as AGW.JD (109425) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:45 pm
some chump, I’ve challenged a particular fact blubonnet broke up 3 times now, and its response is to ignore it and then copy and paste a wall of text.
That’s an attempt to filibuster. It’s hatred of discussion. Truthers resent analysis and hate people who ask too many questions. They are dogmatic and irrational believers in authority… even if the authority is fictitious or lame.
It’s interesting looking into the mind of a truther and wondering what kind of malfunction was going on in that violent truther, Jared Loughner. you just can’t reason with some people. They are so arrogant that nothing anyone else says matters.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 4:46 pm
First of all, this person, 22 years old, has never attended a 9/11 Truth meeting in Tucson.
Second, the dude is Jewish, so there goes your anti-Semite argument.
Third, thanks for posting the protest video mentioning war crimes. We are, after all, engaged in two illegal wars both in violation of the Geneva Convention, which does apply to the United States.
Third, when you are emotionally prepared to find out what the 1400 licensed and practicing architects and engineers have discovered about 9/11, feel free to visit http://www.ae911truth.org.
Have a nice day!J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:08 pm
(Please change the last third to fourth. That’s what happens when you commit to numbers!)J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:10 pm
That doesn’t mean he’s not a Truther, just that he doesn’t go to the meetings.
And I can find 10 times as many licensed and practicing architects and engineers who will disagree with you. Big deal.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:15 pm
Like I said. When you are emotionally prepared to find out what they discovered:
If you know any additional architects of engineers that have not visited the site, please have them look at the site so that they can give the signers a thorough debunking – like Popular Mechanics!J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:20 pm
engaged in two illegal wars both in violation of the Geneva Convention
I assume your link is as devoid of fact as this statement?malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:23 pm
What article of the Geneva Conventions are you referring to? Iraq broke the armistice, and Afghanistan’s government, the taliban, was entwined with the people who murdered many thousands of our people.
I mean, except that you think Al Qaida isn’t behind 9/11. I’d laugh, but you’re just sad.
Do you even know what the Geneva Conventions are? They aren’t just an excuse to make up smears about this great country.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:29 pm
Iraq, Falluja, Torture, willful disruption of the water supply. False pretenses for invasion. Do I need to tell you about this?
Afghanistan? CIA oversees the wholesale slaughter of 2000 Taliban and stands by to watch them as they are removed from trucks and buried alive in the sand. Remember? How about this, what evidence did the U.S. have that Afghanistan attacked the United States when it invaded Afghanistan?
The burden of proving that the U.S. is compliant with the Geneva Conventions is yours. Sorry!J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:36 pm
The purpose of the Truthers is to help Al Qaida and our other enemies win the war by sowing as much doubt and discord as posible in order to crack our national morale.
The hogwash they spew is fundamentally no different than WWII Nazi propaganda like propaganda shown in this link, and it has exactly the same goal…
The Truthers are pro-terrorist propagandists, and out and out traitors to the United States during a time of war, and ought to be treated accordingly.
Imprisoned, if you’re extra-softhearted, executed if you’re of a more practical bent.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:44 pm
That statement demonstrates that the war on terror is simply a war on truth.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:46 pm
The burden of proving that the U.S. is compliant with the Geneva Conventions is yours.
Convenient rules you’ve set up for yourself there.malclave (4f3ec1) — 1/11/2011 @ 6:56 pm
No. It’s just a pain in the ass because it is time consuming. But I have burned this path before, for instance, this article applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan:
The 1949 Geneva Conventions state, in article 54 of their additional protocol: “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”. It is also “prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”.
Water supply in Iraq. Vital supply lines in Afghanistan were cut off in the attack, which was devastating. Total annihilation of infrastructure… If I find the specific article that refers to reasons or causes for going to war within the time I am in front of the computer, I’ll post that as well. Any sharper knives out there have this info on hand?J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:08 pm
Article 51 of the protocol forbids “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
Just look at those rave music collages burned to dvdr’s showing their greatest hits (who needs wikileaks).J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:12 pm
The rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war are spelled out in the third Geneva Convention of 1949. The Convention requires that POW’s “must at all times be treated humanely,” and goes on to list a number of specific requirements: they must not be killed, seriously endangered, mutilated or subject to medical or scientific experiments. Furthermore, they must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation, and against “insults and public curiosity” (Article 13).J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:23 pm
U.S. Official arrested for violation of Article 13 when Spain was showing big hairy bullocks:
http://warisacrime.org/node/41290J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:27 pm
Your Articles 51 and 54 are not those from the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Do you have a source for them, so I can read what they say?
Article 4 defines Prisoner of War, to which Article 13 applies.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htmmalclave (4f3ec1) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:35 pm
WWII Japanese propaganda
You’ll recognize a lot of the concepts. Much of it is the same sort of stuff spewed by Code Pink traitors, Democrat Party traitors or Truther traitors today.
American imperialism, we’re the war criminals, the enemy are noble freedom fighters, we can’t possibly win the war, blah, blah, blah.
The usual lying crap.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:49 pm
OK, JT, so you are unable to show how these wars are in violation of the Geneva conventions.
I think we treat our POWs humanely. I also think they are easily in accordance with international law. My international law professor often would claim an isolated example or two of waterboarding is torture, but this is defintely not the international law definition of torture, as most of the signatories to treaties on torture employ measures far in excess of torture. At any rate, that’s a subjective definition that is poorly defined, for which waterboarding was selected specifically to be in accordance with.
And, furthermore, you have attempted to cheat.
I didn’t ask if waterboarding violated the Geneva Conventions. I asked for how the entire wars violated it. Which they do not. If you want to say some aspect of the war showed a violation of law, I will agree. No doubt there are many violations of law, whether we go to war or not. But it’s patently absurd to say the entire war is illegal if one humvee violates the speed limit, or one tank crew breaks green regulations on disposing of bilge oil.
You need to show me how the entire war is illegal, or you have slandered the USA. Which, of course, is the entire reason you decided to agree with the truther lie, too. You hate America. It’s pretty simple.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 7:59 pm
No, that section is from what is referred to as article 54 of their additional protocol (of the 1949 Geneva conventions).
Mr. Surls,J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:03 pm
I think traitors send U.S. troops off to war on false pretenses. Look at recent history. 52,000 U.S. troops lost their lives over the lie that was the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I think you don’t know history nor the intentions of the Geneva Conventions nor how they apply to the actions of a soviergn government with democratically elected government.
Otherwise, I appreciate you taking the time to post.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:12 pm
No one cares what Truther traitors think, except for other Truther traitors.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:14 pm
I just wanted to note, further, that the US Military and our recent wars, are among the most humanitarian efforts in the history of the world. Our work to prevent civilian death has been extraordinary, and those who pretend to care about that issue, but do not thank the US Military for their triumphs in this regard, are shit.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:14 pm
Battle deaths in Vietnam: 47,410Icy Texan (0705a8) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:29 pm
Just in case anyone wants to be accurate about . . . well, anything.
Very well put.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:30 pm
Well, blubonnet . . . got the source of the “Eisenhower was a wild-eyed Leftie[sic]” rhetoric, yet?Icy Texan (0705a8) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:33 pm
Waldron, wars are not “illegal” with respect to the Geneva Convention you utter moron.
And it happens that Afghanistan had appointed Osama Bin Laden the Taliban govt’s defense minister just a month before the Al Queda 9/11 attacks. Afghanistan’s refusal to hand over Bin Laden was more than sufficient casus belli for the invasion.
Sheesh, more dog excrement on my shoe.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:41 pm
“The burden of proving that the U.S. is compliant with the Geneva Conventions is yours.”
Hey, wait a minute, didn’t you just say without a shred of evidence that:
“We are, after all, engaged in two illegal wars both in violation of the Geneva Convention, which does apply to the United States.”
J.T., are you related to blubonnet?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:45 pm
J.T. Waldron – Are you emotionally ready to admit that you’ve got nothing, absolutely nothing, worthy of a serious discussion?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:47 pm
that section is from what is referred to as article 54 of their additional protocol (of the 1949 Geneva conventions).
Okay, you’re not talking about the 1949 Geneva Conventions, you’re talking about the 1977 Protocols (which, since the US did not ratify them, you’ve got a lot further to go to prove that the wars were “illegal”).
This would be a lot easier on your own blog, rather than through this comment thread. Do you have anything written up, with links to the applicable laws/ treaties and evidence supporting your arguments?malclave (4e5d93) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:51 pm
Is it a condition of membership that Twooofers have to be pompous condescending pricks? All of them in this thread intimated that anyone that is not a kwazy Twoofer is not intellectually and emotionally capable of handling their awesomeness.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/11/2011 @ 8:51 pm
For the record of Eisenhower being a wild eyed Leftist I guess was not conveyed properly by me. The fact that Eisenhower warned of what we are talking about, and WE are just trying to make you realize, that WE are only reiterating what HE said, and thenWe get called wild-eyed Lefties by YOU ALL around here. The absurdity of which, HE was a Republican. WE are not wild-eyed, as you would assume us to be.
And no one, unless they have the fortitude to look at both sides of the issue has a right to call us anything, or sure they can, but there is no substance to your insults.
I’m sorry to all, once again, how difficult this task is to realize this. It is outrageous, and you are right to question such an outrageous statement.
THAT is why it has been researched so thoroughly, because of course you would doubt it. But at what point does one become friends again with your own objectivity, instead of blindly trusting the government.
You don’t realize how far reaching the government now is into our media. It’s their media more than ours, you know. Sure they cover some things, but don’t come close to the verifiable independent investigative journalists. No where need. And frankly, the only thing anyone should believe, is what they can see and interpret with their own eyes.
Did anyone watch the clip, or 15 minutes of it even of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNUBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:08 pm
LOL, I was just thinking that. ‘When you’re emotionally ready’ blubonnet says. Yeah, I get it. blubonnet’s answer to the koan was that America is the Great Satan. And I guess my koan from the zen master is how can a truther say he loves his country while smearing it with such a thoroughly debunked lie?
And my answer is that someone like that could say anything, so long as it isn’t true.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:14 pm
Your audience may have left the building.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:14 pm
“Did anyone watch the clip, or 15 minutes of it even of”
Blubonnet – Long ago. You said you looked at my link, but all you did was question who the people were who put it together rather than comment on the content, which severely damages the credibility of the questions your side raises. It makes me wonder if you really understand what you are talking about at all.
Also, do you know Brad Friedman and his terrorist buddy the way J.T. appears to?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:16 pm
blubonnet, how many times are you going to spam the same damn video? I get it… you need a little money. Get a job.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:16 pm
Those planes you saw crash into the Twin Towers? Lies.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:17 pm
No attempt at cheating, just presenting the info in the order at which I have found it, but I think you know that.
Here’s what I know:
We invaded Afghanistan with no evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban attacked the World Trade Center and/or the Pentagon. That was, however, the stated reason for invading Afghanistan.
In both Iraq and Iran, the U.S. has indeed committed serious war crimes in violation of the Geneva conventions- with torture, rendition and civilian casualties and destruction of their infrastructure. These are not minor gaffs.
What applies to make the wars illegal is the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:20 pm
That’s what I had to get. AG80 is right – I was confused about what precisely makes initiating the conflicts illegal, but I do know the wars are in violation of international law.
Waldron, your comment is a lie. We had plenty of evidence of Taliban and Al Queda involvement including an explicit admission by Osama Bin Laden.
The laws of armed conflict and Nuremberg do not have anything to do with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts at all. In fact, conflict with Iraq was specifically authorized by UN action. Your claims are objectively false.
Why are you repeating such falsehoods.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:24 pm
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
IMO, Truther scum have adhered to our enemies and provided them with aid and comfort by preparing and disseminating pro-terrorist and anti-American propaganda, and ought to be tried, convicted and executed for treason as per the above statute of the U.S. Code.
The sooner we deal with backstabbing, lying traitor propagandists in our own backyard, the sooner we can effectively attempt to destroy terrorists overseas.
I’m not interested in their opinions, their feelings, their freedom of speech, or anythng else. I simply wish to remove this cancer in our body politic as soon as possible.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:24 pm
SPQR, what can you present as evidence at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan?
Remember, the hanky vhs tape found in Jalalabad (in a coffee table in one of thousands of houses) occurred after the attack.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:29 pm
The bottom line, is that jet fuel, by laws of physics, cannot melt steel. Steel had melted, and molten metal was all through out the the debris, for many weeks after the day. Unless exotic materials, were in place, then, the fact remains, the molten steel could not have occurred.
Gosh, too bad I don’t get money sharing information, dropping links around. But, of course, I don’t want to do this for money. I haven’t so far. Usually the Truth Movement people end up spending money of their own. The rewards are people waking up, if they do.
I am only bringing sources for honest people wanting to see both sides to judge for themselves. You’ve heard the government’s story. Now, why don’t you hear independent scientists, that really really did not want to have to realize these things either, but as professionals with ethics to abide by, for their own self respect, choose to make this knowledge available.
Yes, we know that planes hit the buidings. Yes we know it caused a fire. NIST said fire made it come down. Science, by the government’s view, laws of physics does not apply to the government story.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:29 pm
Dave, I’m sorry that you have to realize this also. I had to and did not like it either. But, if you love your country, please look for yourself at the documentaries. If you are so sure I am wrong, then you can point out how the firefighters, they must be lying, if you think so.
How about those survivors that speak, telling us explosions were in the building? Just decide for yourself by looking at the documented film footage. I’m sorry to upset you, but I think you want to know the facts verifiable facts, of course. Of course you should doubt me at first. Of course you wouldn’t believe anything unless you saw it yourself.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:33 pm
I find JT Waldron to be in violation of the 1996 Stockholm Agreements, the 2004 Tokyo a talks, and the 1986 Addendum to the 1978 Brisbane Banter.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:35 pm
Blubonnet, jet fuel won’t melt steel? Why are you lying about a strawman that was debunked many years ago?
Because you are scum and a liar. That’s why.
Rosie O’Donnell level of stupid.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:36 pm
Fire never melted steel. Google it.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:36 pm
Its the kind of dishonesty that I expect from Blubonnet, JD.
And an example of why she/he/it avoids specifics, because of the fail.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:40 pm
Why do you lie, SPQR? Why do you lie?J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:43 pm
What a fail!J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:44 pm
Nope, you’re wrong. Here’s the quote from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force:
It’s clear the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda.
Care to try again?Some chump (e84e27) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:45 pm
I’m not lying Waldron. You are. The bafflement is why you are repeating such brazenly stupid lies more than nine years after the fact.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:46 pm
Post # 193 has a short clip, and you can listen to the agency you trusted, that would be NIST. It is very short. You can hear them, and you can see video documentation, JD. If you are honest you will see it and tell us what you think. Of course the firefighters words, and many other survivors’ words coincide with the Truth Movements’. Are you for objectivity and honesty? I hope so. You will show us with your fearless diving into the videos, that are mostly just videos of the day. YOUR perspective as to what happened, is still yours to make. You are not afraid of doing that, are you? No, why, or how could video documentation hurt you? It couldn’t. So, thanks for your willingness to take this head on.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:48 pm
A) you’re wrong on the first, and to squeal ‘you’re lying you’re lying’ instead of solemnly apologizing when that’s shown to you is typical trashy truther behavior. You should just admit you slandered a great nation and figure out what the hell is wrong with you.
B) you’re wrong on the second, too. what are you even talking about with Iran? You vague insinuate things… don’t slander this country without real evidence. Links, to reputable reports rather than truther youtube videos, that show our war crimes against Iran.
All war destroys some infrastructure. You are absolutely insane if you think all wars are illegal, or that the destruction of any infrastructure makes war illegal, or that any crime makes a war illegal.
You clearly are making this up as you go along because you are bent on slandering our nation.
I think Dave Surls is right about people like you.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:51 pm
By the way, war is a racket and dozens of people in history have said it. War profiteers are not much different than people making money on dog fights, only real human beings are their game pieces. The world is their board. Acquisition is their game. It is a game as old as history. Of course we don’t want to believe it.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:51 pm
By the way, any sane person will find the many, detailed reports from the NIST on the World Trade Center to be fascinating, complete, rational and coherent.
Everything a Truther story is not.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:52 pm
Another pre-requisite for being a Twoofer is complete and utter incoherence, coupled with repeating the same drivel over and over again.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:53 pm
Dustin, the Waldron clown is so delusional as to think that we are actually in armed conflict within Iran.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:53 pm
First of all, Al Qaeda is a database developed for the purpose of creating an entity to prosecute:
Second,what a country internally decides to deem as legal can still be a war crime.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:54 pm
Aahhh. I meant Afghanistan instead of Iran. Apologize for the typo.
The truth, by the way, is the ultimate defense against a charge of slander.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 9:58 pm
This is the kind of sentiment behind your entire world view. Powerful people of unbelievable evil controlling everything. No evidence, aside from a video full of the same proclimations, or a blog, just … your hatred.
You don’t have the first idea what you’re talking about. Dozens of people have said it? Is that really the only argument you ever learned to make? Dozens of people have said crack cocaine is a good treat.
Real human beings were living in unbelievable misery before Bush saved them from Saddam. History is probably going to look very favorably on this, yet all along there will be people who said he did it to “make money on a dog fight”, the way you did. No… he did it because he wanted them to be a free democratic people. The lack of freedom is a cancer. That’s the real issue that is old as history that you should really care about.
America has it great. We certainly don’t treat our troops as cannon fodder or game tokens. We have run into tremendous difficulty in Afghanistan, as we did in Iraq, because liberating people from tyranny is incredibly difficult. But the way we do it proves everything you have said is a complete lie.
It would be no trouble at all, and drastically more profitable, to simply bomb our enemies into oblivion. We have weapons that we actually will have to throw away when we don’t use them. It would practically be free to use cold war era weapons on the middle easy and ‘take the oil’.
But, for some reason, we are striving to deploy new, precise weapons, that harm minimal civilians though are much harder to use, and also using Petraeus’s cointer terror strategy of winning hearts and minds.
You say we are war profiteers because you do not care what the truth is. Your brain is dead and you have decided you don’t want to know the truth.
You preach about how emotionally prepared for the truth you are, but you’re a coward. You have to build up lie after lie, deny mountains of evidence in this thread alone that you have stubbornly ignored, because you’re shit.
you said you were done with this thread many hours ago. Honor your word and go away, truther scum.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:01 pm
First of all, Al Qaeda is a database developed for the purpose of creating an entity to prosecute:
This is utterly incoherent.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:04 pm
The loons seem to have internet privileges in the asylum tonight.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:05 pm
SPQR, thanks for that link. It’s interesting, though I don’t enjoy thinking about the event itself. It’s still important that we never forget. There have always been mentally ill or slanderously evil people out there, but the information age gives them the ability to communicate endlessly that they didn’t have in the past.
JT is a holocaust denier of the new era. He makes up his own law, and then says he is the judge, and we all must prove innocence. Thank God he has no power beyond the power to lie on the internet.
It means ‘the base’ in arabic, and is, in fact, a resource for various terrorists to band together, or work apart, or whatever is needed, for their cause of great evil. But you’re an idiot if you think there is no actual group of that name, or people who kill and die in its name.
It’s not merely some mythical prosecutor’s trick.
You’ve really impressed upon my how pathetic the truther mind is. You’re probably the dumbest one I’ve ever come across (And that is quite something).Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:09 pm
Dustin is the one who interests me tonight. He speaks like a senior drill instructor or a senior from a military high school. The rigorous charge of slander is almost as hysterical as SPQR (who seems like a hired shill). When Dustin gets mad, he threatens to side with Surls, who threatens state sanction executions for those who disagree with current U.S. foreign policy.
Lively bunch. Do you guys really believe buildings fell because the planes hit them?J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:18 pm
JD, I’m sorry, but calling one unbecoming adjectives,does not really add credence to your part of the discussion. It makes you look desperate. I know you are capable of real research, and I was hoping you could be honest.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:19 pm
J.T. Waldron, it was brilliant of the evil government conspiracy to arrange for two airplanes piloted by Al Queda terrorists to strike the two World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, just at the exact moment necessary to cover a demolition of the WTC towers with invisible explosives that thousands of workers in the towers never saw installed.
I think you need to complain to the local pharmacy because someone has been putting sugar pills in your usual prescriptions.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:24 pm
“How about those survivors that speak, telling us explosions were in the building?”
Blu – What kind of explosions did they say they were? Did they know what they were from? How did they know they were explosions and not some other fire/disaster related noise? Were these people trained to differentiate between noises? Had they ever heard an explosion before?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:26 pm
J.T. – How well do you know Brad Friedman?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:27 pm
I find JT Waldron to be in violation of the 1996 Stockholm Agreements, the 2004 Tokyo a talks, and the 1986 Addendum to the 1978 Brisbane Banter.
That’s nothing. The only place he could have gotten the information he’s distributing is Talos IV, and we all know that visiting Talos IV is the only crime that still has the death penalty, udner Starfleet General Order 7.malclave (4e5d93) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:29 pm
I am thinking, Waldron, that these guys are so far behind the reality of what’s going on, I’m not thinking they can be reached. I’m not thinking they are even being honest with themselves. I’ve left links here. Good luck if you continue to try to break down their wall of fear. I’m not trying anymore. I hope that others that might have come along with a more open, yet discerning mind, or minds, can take in some of this information, and do their part to help save our country from the cancer that our forefathers warned so ominously of. Awareness if essential.
I suppose it is like having to tell a child that his or her parents are criminals. Doesn’t work easily. Of course there is a likely furious temper tantrum focused on the messenger. Insults seem to be replacing any simple logical verifiable responses here.
I’m glad you are here, and I may join in later again.
I’m amazed they don’t know about the operations our country are involved with in Iran, but these guys around here listen to MSM of course. Chronic state of a serious awareness deficit. They are tools for the war profiteers, without knowing it.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:29 pm
What do you honestly believe, SPQR?
I mean, come on. Nothing can explain without explosives:
1. The rate of descent of the buildings.
2. The complete annihilation of the buildings and their contents.
3. The molten iron in the basements of the buildings.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:31 pm
“Do you guys really believe buildings fell because the planes hit them?”
J.T. – Along with the impacts themselves, I think the after effects of the planes hitting them helped, like the fires. Plus I think the curses the Joooos put on buildings may have had something to do with it, but that’s just me.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:31 pm
In this case, where you have spammed this thread with tens of thousands of words other people have written and asked us several times to check out the same youtube video? After you admit you will never admit you’re wrong, no matter the evidence, because it would have to be infinite? After you dodge the most basic question: what are you saying happened?
You’re an asshole. What do you want us to say? It’s an insulting term, but anyone who doesn’t call you out loses credibility. It’s not like we’re calling an honest person names. JD’s argument is that the premises show you are an asshole. His argument is not that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job because you’re an asshole. It’s important to understand the difference, because the former is not an ad hom, nor is it a fallacy.
Yes. They were tall buildings, and while they were designed to handle the incredible loads even if many of the supports were somehow lost, the remaining supports lost their strength under heat. Steel does melt under heat, and it also loses its strength. Take a damn fork and cook it in your broiler and see if I’m wrong about this. I thought everyone knew this before a few people started insisting ‘fire doesn’t melt steel’. Of course, those are the same people who always conclude, no matter the situation, no matter the evidence, that the USA is unspeakably evil.
But your argument is that planes cannot ever knock down any building? that’s a hilarious absolute. I don’t sound like my drill sergeants did, I’ll tell you that much.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:32 pm
“The only place he could have gotten the information he’s distributing is Talos IV, and we all know that visiting Talos IV is the only crime that still has the death penalty, udner Starfleet General Order 7”
malclave – There is a possibility he might have tapped one our Bilderberg meetings. It’s too bad Werner died before we could finish torturing the information out of him.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:34 pm
Thanks for trying, Blubonnet.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:35 pm
Waldron, there was no reason for the collapsing buildings to descend at any other rate than they did. It is astonishing to see the idiocy of twits like yourself who do not understand that the temperatures reached in a structure fire are not bounded by the temperature of the fuel that ignited it, because of the fact that the fire is fed by the combustable materials of the interior as well as the jet fuel load.
But simple consideration of the impossibility of loading the WTC towers with explosives would be enough to convince any sane person. All that would be required would be to see – on any of a score of documentary TV shows – the efforts that real building demo people go to over long periods of time to load a building being demolished.
Seriously, Waldron, you are disturbed. Your conspiracy theory is impossible.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:38 pm
The rate of fall? I’ve heard this so many times.
how many buildings anywhere near the size of the WTC towers have you seen fall, without demolition? What’s your basis for this?
I think you noticed that the towers falling look like demolition, because ALL building falling look like demolition. The only time we ever see one fall, that’s what happened.
The rate of fall is a complete myth. Lying truthers have said it fell too fast, but that’s just pure fiction.
This particular issue has been intelligently discussed in many places, many times. You would not tell this lie if you cared about honesty.
The buildings did not fall neatly, as if they had been demolished. One of them struck WTC 7, damaging it badly and causing it to collapse. Of course, a lot of you idiots pretend that didn’t happen despite eyewitness accounts. Firefighters were in on the conspiracy too, I guess, despite so many of them dying in the destruction.
What’s particularly hilarious is the idea that someone would bother with such a ridiculous cover up. Hide your bomb with planes hitting the buildings? What if they set off the bombs too early? They are full of burning jet fuel and had tremendous kinetic energy. why didn’t they set off the bombs?
And why not just have the bombs blow up, and blame that on Al Qaida? They did try a bomb in 1993, after all.
JT, your theory is impossible, gets the facts wrong, is absolutist in foolish ways, and lastly, claims a scheme that is silly.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:39 pm
“I mean, come on. Nothing can explain without explosives:”
J.T. – Wrong. It’s been done over and over and over. The only people who don’t accept it are hard core loons like yourself, the leaders of the pack of whom are trying to make a few bucks of the scam. How is you “aspartame kills” scam coming? Have you made any coin from that? How about election integrity? Do you have a group people can contribute to on that front?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:39 pm
“I’m amazed they don’t know about the operations our country are involved with in Iran”
Blu – We invaded like five times during Bush according to some reporters on the left, right?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:47 pm
Dustin, I suspected you were military and I respect where you come from. I’ll leave this thread with the request that you check into this info just a little further. Believe me, I got better things to do with my time and I wouldn’t deal with anything that I was on the fence about. You make a strong case for yourself and I think you can see through this bullshit. Maybe you already have.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:50 pm
LOL, I love how you’re praising JT for knowing about these operations, when he says he doesn’t. He made a typo, or more accurately, somehow made the amazing mistake of confusing Iran for a different country entirely.
It’s pathetic that you have ignored all the links presented to you, blubonnet. You really hate evidence, don’t you? You repeat that you are emotionally ready… that’s some kind of psychological defense mechanism, isn’t it? You know you’re projecting.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:51 pm
Dustin – It is amazing how much they think they know isn’t true.
They probably run into people more willing to be baffled by their BS rather than call them on it.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:56 pm
These are basic problems in logic, and Blubonnet and Waldron fail is ways that undermines any belief that they could feed themselves unaided.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 10:59 pm
That’s probably what has Dave pissed off.
It should be cause for losing your job, your wife, your parents disowning you, if you still peddle in this, or holocaust denial, or Protocols of Zion, or black skin is the mark of Cain… etc.
We shouldn’t let absolute bastards walk among us without a harsh reaction. They are a decay in our society.
JT has made major error after major error, and I’m still waiting on the apology.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:00 pm
So far, the discussions against us in the Truth Movement amount to…
“I think you need to complain to the local pharmacy because someone has been putting sugar pills in your usual prescriptions.”
I thought we were talking to grown ups.
While ignoring the plentiful amount of video documentation, I think cowardice is what we Waldron, are up against, and it is manifesting in the form of anger.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:08 pm
I’ll tackle #1 at a later time, but #2 and #3 are easily explained without explosives.
The buildings and their contents pretty much fell into themselves. The sheer weight of all that concrete and steel collapsed the heap into small fragments. It’s not rocket science, it’s just physics.
The molten iron in the basements of the buildings is even easier to explain. The pressure from the mass of building debris on top of the iron, combined with the heat from the fire and the collapse (all the kinetic energy from collapsing building parts got converted into heat), caused the iron below it to melt. It’s similar to the iron at the core of the earth: intense pressure keeps it molten.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:14 pm
Some Chump, it’s really bizarre that they would think molten iron would automatically suggest demolition, anyway.
But generally, I think these people expected the towers to fall over like dominoes, or be impervious to heat damage. They lost their structural strength, and it’s no shock that this is similar to what it looks like when buildings lose that strength in a different way (with demo).
I guess the approach blu/JT wants is just to throw everything at the wall, so no surprise the most well debunked claim is included.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:17 pm
Actually, Blubonnet, it is you who are ignoring inconvenient argument.
Because you demonstrated above that when pinned down, your “answers” are ridiculous nonsense of the level of Rosie O’Donnell.
That’s why you usually stick to vague insinuation and misrepresenting the views of critics of the 911 Commission.
Because you can’t present a coherent, logical, narrative.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:19 pm
How in the hell did we start talking about holocaust denial? Again, I’d hoped for the character enough to embrace growth, in understanding, instead it seems to make for a reversal of growth. Primitive defensive responses. I should have known better. In the mean time, as Dave Surl here on this thread has stated I should be killed, and on this thread I defend the Truth Movement for their commitment to non-violence. Because the thread here is inferring to us as crazy, violent in attitude. Absurd.
We are the ones around here showing the civilized discussion.
Getting personal in their attacks, is their strategy. I’m supposed to apologize to them for giving them an opportunity to see what the government doesn’t want to admit to. I’d assumed that they might want to be part of seeing what is really happening, and want to be part of keeping this country from that which our forefathers warned of. Instead, they unknowingly are participants in the promotion of the ghastly illegal dishonest war, having killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and of course our brave soldiers who were lied to, that have to endure life without body parts and even if they came home with their body intact, their minds are full of that which shatters them emotionally, knowing they took part of an illegal, dishonest slaughter of a country, in which by the most credible sources have killed over a million. (Our military brass have stated they don’t do body counts) Where is it that what we have done, shows that the ones making such a decision have any respect for life?
What about the many babies born in Fallujah that are deformed? What about the soldiers babies that have been born deformed. These war profiteers that were part of our government thought that using depleted uranium in the weapons dropped was a fine thing, while we were suppossedly “bringing democracy”.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:22 pm
The 911 Commsission said the government kept lying to them. Why?Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:23 pm
Excuse me, I meant to say the the most credible sources were the ones having stated over a million have died. I should have proof read my above statement before hitting submit.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:25 pm
I’ll come back when you have looked at the video clips. I did look at your clips. I haven’t seen enough to give any credence, when the enormous amount of research and evidence of the independent scientists of the Truth Movement’s make all else show the lameness of the official version of the day.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:27 pm
There is no credible source that states a million people have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
This is just another example of you making up shit completely, Blubonnet.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:28 pm
Blubonnet, throwing in incoherent horseshit about depleted uranium only reinforces your lack of credibility. Deformities? More incoherent nonsense.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:30 pm
Cue the Twilight Zone music.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:35 pm
The depleted uranium fantasies are almost as annoying as the 911 “Truther” lies. Well, not as infuriating.
Because the depleted uranium myths rely upon the ignorance of most about what depleted uranium is, and how the military uses it. You are supposed to be scared by the word uranium and not realize that depleted uranium has less radioactivity than natural uranium, and that uranium has a half life of billions of years – such that it is radioactive in only a technical sense.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:37 pm
“Dave Surl here on this thread has stated I should be killed…”
Yup. I’m in favor of offing ALL the terrorists who have attacked us (and killed thousands of my countrymen), and I’m also in favor of offing anyone who helps the terrorists…especially traitor American propagandists. They’re about as low a lifeform as exists in this universe.
Of course, traitor Americans should get a fair trial before they’re hung for treason. I figure about 30 seconds of fair trial ought to do it.Dave Surls (a9551c) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:40 pm
Depleted uranium is used in the military for the armor penetrator projectiles of tank cannon. It is used solely because of its great density.
Fallujah probably had almost no depleted uranium because there were no tank battles there. No reason to use DU projectiles at all.
Any birth defects in Iraq are more the result of Iraq’s polluted industrial zones, the result of Saddam’s socialist nightmare, than any military operations.
These tales by Blubonnet are all of the kind circulated by left-wing supporters of terrorism and anti-capitalist pro-revolution nutjobs.
There is nothing “non-violent” about such groups. They support anti-Western violence wholeheartedly.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:41 pm
“Of course, traitor Americans should get a fair trial before they’re hung for treason.”
Dave – We are after all, a nation of laws.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:43 pm
230. For the record of Eisenhower being a wild eyed Leftist I guess was not conveyed properly by me.
— On the contrary, you conveyed that falsehood very clearly.
The fact that Eisenhower warned of what we are talking about, and WE are just trying to make you realize, that WE are only reiterating what HE said, and thenWe get called wild-eyed Lefties by YOU ALL around here. The absurdity of which, HE was a Republican. WE are not wild-eyed, as you would assume us to be.
— And the evidence you have that people on the right have condemned Eisenhower for warning us about ‘the influence of the military-industrial complex’ is WHAT?
And no one, unless they have the fortitude to look at both sides of the issue has a right to call us anything, or sure they can, but there is no substance to your insults.
— You’re an idiot. Read your own collected posts within this thread for ample substantive evidence of that fact.
I’m sorry to all, once again, how difficult this task is to realize this. It is outrageous, and you are right to question such an outrageous statement.
— I question it not because it’s outrageous, but because it is untrue.
THAT is why it has been researched so thoroughly, because of course you would doubt it. But at what point does one become friends again with your own objectivity, instead of blindly trusting the government.Icy Texan (aff374) — 1/11/2011 @ 11:52 pm
— Believe it or not, it’s possible to objectively disagree with your positions and conclusions.
BTW, blubonnet, the current body count in Iraq?Icy Texan (aff374) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:21 am
Not quite a million yet.
About the depleted uranium…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSCCsUV7PqQBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:53 am
About the death count…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNWOj_dFSR4Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:07 am
Of course we on the Left bring evidence, and you on the Right ignore it, and continue to call us nuts. Sigh. I’d get better feedback if I talked to my plants.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:09 am
Wow you do alot to reinforce the stereo type I was not going to buy into until you all convince me otherwise of the red neck, downing beer after beer and blindly going along with the mythology of the war, when it has been proven over and over by numerous sources, including the CIA to be a bogus reasoning, and the 9-11-01 cartoon version of the government, contrary to video footage, and scientific analysis by scientists and professionals of every relevant field, I have to imagine you all in my head as toothless, beer bellied bullies, that wave the flag in contrast to rational observation and objectivity. You have conveyed yourselves that way. I had given you all more credit until you proved otherwise. The benefit of the doubt was wasted on you. You have no capacity for honesty, and looking at what is best for humanity, our troops, and your lack of awareness of the warnings of Eisenhower, that we have tried to convey. I am astonished by the level of backwards “logic” around here.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:18 am
Bush and Cheney are the military industrial complex. Ever heard of the Carlyle Group? And Halliburton?
Ever seen Iraq for Sale ? It will show the negligence of Halliburton and the unspeakable grief our troops had to endure because of them. But, Halliburton and Carlyle Group have gotten filthy rich from these recent wars.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:21 am
Blubonnet’s “depleated”[sic] uranium video consists of propaganda created by Iraq after the ’91 war. It is hilarious only its crudity and the ignorance of those who assembled it for their ignorance of chemistry and nuclear physics.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:09 am
You obviously didn’t bother to see the videos, the documentation by way of the documentaries I have given you the opportunity to see, on behalf of the good of humanity. You didn’t bother.
I bring links to show that what I believe and KNOW is verifiable. Too bad your idealism interferes with your supposed regard for humanity.
Too bad you have all been propagandized into oblivion.
I hope someday you join with the expanding awareness which promotes life instead of death and lies of the military industrial complex. You have chosen to obliviously participate in the lies, the operation warned of by our forefathers.
I’d really thought I might have some sincere thinking, civilized minds to interact with. I was disappointed.
Seriously, you need to start looking further if you care about our country and humanity.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:36 am
False, Blubonnet. I watched them. I’d already seen them and debunked them before.
Depleated[sic] Uranium does not produce the effects listed in the videos.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:39 am
Good Allah. It appears Twooferism and BDS go hand in hand, quite nicely. Their idea of facts and documentation is making stuff up.JD (228f15) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:48 am
Here is another wild eyed “twoofer”
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
* Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
“Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise—including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots—have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.
Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.
We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now—not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books—so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.
We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media.”
* Video 9/11/04: “A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder.” http://video.go
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
“We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
o An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
o Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
o Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
o The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.” http://www.911truth.org/article
* Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming with answers.”Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:49 am
COPYPASTA ROCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JD (228f15) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:52 am
This guy is a member of the Truth Movement also, as well as an EXPERT IN DEPLETED URANIUM.
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career. Instructor, undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, emergency management. Staff physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 19 years.
* Article 8/19/05:
Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” http://www.rense.com
* Speech The Science and Politics of 9/11 Conference, Madison, WI 8/5/07
“When we blew up the World Trade Center – I want to repeat, that it was deliberately blown up. The aircraft definitely hit the sucker. There were definite explosions inside the thing. You talk to Willie Rodriguez, you talk to the police and the fire, my guys – no two ways about it. It’s on the radio communications. Everything else out there. It happened. The Pentagon, same thing. No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”
* Editor’s note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:53 am
He keeps copying entire articles and then spamming a link to his site that is supported by adverts. I think this is not acceptable, and stealing entire articles can result in legal problems.
It’s also just damn rude.
You posted your link many times… why post it again?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:54 am
It’s pointless arguing with pathological liars. You’ll never get anywhere. doing that
If people feel the need to interact with Truther swine, what you ought to be doing is getting their measurements, so you’ll have the right sized coffin to plant them in, after you hang them for treason.Dave Surls (a40631) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:54 am
This military man, his credentials above, worked with depleted uranium. He is an excellent source for verifying and countering the white wash you believe…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:57 am
Blu – So your guy didn’t visit the Pentagon afterward, he just makes his expert analysis from newspaper pictures? Sweet!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:58 am
I have posted MANY DIFFERENT LINKS, ONE OF THEM TWICE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE so you didn’t have to scroll up to find it. Take note that sources of verifying are many. I could bring many more, but try not to overwhelm.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:59 am
“No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.” ”
Blu – Wait, your expert is not a pilot. What qualifications does he have to make these statement. BS.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:02 pm
One of those very ‘best men’ like Thierry Meysan,narciso (6075d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:02 pm
who don’t need to visit the site or even interview
witnesses to get the story
I really like the cut of Dave’s jib.
The Pentagon striking plane hit light poles, and is very close to an airport where planes fly low on approach in order to land. anyone can load up a great flight simulator that takes turbulent ground effect into account and see just how possible that strike was.
Blubonnet’s insane theory is that we blew up our own pentagon and then threw an entire airplane worth of smashed up airplane parts all over the ground. We then infested the area with witnesses to the strike.
why do that? Why use real planes for one attack, and fake ones for the other. what possible motivation would the military have in striking the pentagon, anyway? The WTC had been attacked too.
This is such an absurd theory, with no evidence, and denying all the great evidence as fake.
Dave is right. This level of dissembling against our country is really just an aggressive defense of our terrorist enemies. It is directly aiding them, and treasonous. Asking for a good account of 9/11 is one thing. ALL AMERICANS DID. We were prepared for the ugly questions and got a lot of answers.
But inventing myths and denying the truth, just to persist in fantasy? that’s a betrayal.
You hate America, blubonnet. Leave.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:12 pm
I personally don’t know of anyone in the Truth Movement who thinks there were no planes.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:13 pm
Hundreds of pilots haven’t let anyone dupe them. Fine military men, many of them also.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:15 pm
From a CSI perspective…
http://csi911.info/CSI911.htmlBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:17 pm
There is no relationship between DU and the World Trade Center. So claiming that one of your many deceptive claims of endorsement is also an expert in DU shows just how incoherent you are.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:18 pm
Military officers for 911 Truth…
http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.orgBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:18 pm
Christians for 911 Truth…
http://www.cf911truth.org/Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:19 pm
Well now you’re really exposed. You just said it wasn’t possible for the Pentagon to by hit by a plane. This is why you try so hard to avoid actually saying anything you really think. It’s instantly proven wrong.
You’d rather just have no case at all, and get everyone to click on your horde of websites. You’re out to make money by slandering your country. You clearly know you’re wrong.
I’m a military man myself. Do I get special credit? Why do you say someone has authority if they are a veteran, if you only say that to vets you pretend agree with you? By doing that, you betray veterans. Their military service is not yours to use to bolster your argument. I know many hundreds of vets and many in service today. None of them are on your side. You don’t value their opinion whatsoever.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:20 pm
These people’s listing of others who purportedly “agree” with them is deceptive as I’ve mentioned above. They take people who dispute trivial portions of the conclusions of the 911 Commission and exaggerate their comments into “agreement” with their claims that does not actually exist.
Often the people cited have not even stated what it claimed for them.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:20 pm
“Leuren Moret, Doug Rokke and Others Mislead Public on Depleted Uranium”
Blu – I found some interesting info on your depleted uranium guy. Scroll down to the second story on this site for a look. He has apparently been overselling both his experience and the adverse impact of depleted uranium for quite a while.
Next!daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:20 pm
Incidentally, I have a dear friend that fought in Iraq, and is now dying from the effects of depleted uranium. Billy starts to cry each time he tries to speak of Iraq. He stated: “I killed men better than myself”.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:21 pm
This is true. I noticed the Colonel claims as a truther isn’t a truther. There is no evidence he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he’s been slandered for many years ever since he opposed gays in the military. The left has decided to post his name to thousands of truther sites in order to ruin his good name.
It’s worse than pretending he’s on their side. They know they are disreputable and want to take their enemies down with them.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:22 pm
I personally don’t know of anyone in the Truth Movement who thinks there were no planes.
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 12:13 pm
You just freaking quoted one in comment #310. Are you braindead, sorry rhetorical question.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:23 pm
You are a piece of shit. Really.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:23 pm
Other than heavy metal poisoning like any heavy metal ( tungsten used in tank penetrators is about as toxic in such manner ), DU has no hazards unique to it. The claims otherwise are frauds.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:24 pm
I will read the article this evening when I get home from work, only because I believe it is only fair if I expect you to look at what I offer.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:24 pm
Are you guys still arguing with Blubonnet? Really?
I know there’s a renewed spirit of “We must answer every slight, every falsehood!” around here, but you must realize that such a spirit may be exploited by someone who simply wishes to waste your time and energy. Did you all really forget the definition of the word “troll” in the course of a day and a half?
C’mon, guys. Let it lie, in every sense of the phrase.Leviticus (f1a551) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:28 pm
I do know for a fact that there is an effort to cover up the facts regarding depleted uranium, and pumping out lies. I know they put it out there for those that don’t want to believe it, to lap up. Yes, we are causing deformities of newborn babies of both soldiers and Iraqs, and causing cancers, as my friend Billy is having to endure. He knows it is from being in Iraq. In fact the doctor told him so.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:31 pm
You’re right. I just want to again note that he is doing this to make money from his slew is little websites. He’s google bombing the site.
His intentions are probably also to just waste time, which explains why he moves on from nasty smear to nasty smear so rapidly, and shows no investment in any of these horrible comments.
I have a hard time resisting, Leviticus. He just said US Troops are not better men than their terrorist enemies.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:32 pm
http://www.truthmove.org/content/depleted-uranium/Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:32 pm
No, my friend who fought in Iraq, and is now dying from cancer from depleted uranium said he killed better men than himself. He was forced to kill or be killed. No discernment allowed. Are you going to call my friend who fought and is now dying a liar?
I am not getting any money for leaving you links here. I don’t want to make money leaving links here.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:35 pm
Wise (not to mention clever) words from Leviticus. Let’s take his advice.DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:37 pm
Depleted uranium is just another political issue for the left.
You get a sense of Blu’s agenda by the hate site she provided a link to; anti-semitism, radical environmentalism, anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, etc., etc. It’s all part of a theme.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:40 pm
I am a woman, not a he, by the way.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:41 pm
How interesting that the registrant of every single one of these sites is the same exact company, and refuses to list its actual name.
Why are you hosting dozens of ad supported smear sites anonymously?
Is it because you are slandering the people who pretend support you, in an effort to tarnish their names as truthers?
It’s interesting that all these sites hide who owns them, and then spam all over the internet.
I think spammers should have their comments go into moderation, at the very least. If blubonnet can’t make his claims without copying and pasting other people’s articles, that’s too bad.
His last site is notorious for the “hologram” theory. It claims that the planes we saw hit buildings were holograms. Yet the owner of that site just told us that no one he’s ever met claims there were no planes. Why would the person spamming a website that says X then say that no one would ever say X?
I wouldn’t put this evil on anyone’s name unless I knew for sure, but the person I suspect owns these sites says that the CIA is controlling our minds with fake Satanic Cults. Basically, he’s saying almost the same crap Jared Loughner was.
So it’s no surprise if that person is interested in capitalizing on the murders Jared committed in order to drive up his ads on his pathetic little websites.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:43 pm
Yeah, it was a funny quip and I really ought to just do as he’s advising.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:44 pm
Well the choice is yours, be part of Truth and Life or Lies and Death. You consistently stand on the side of the latter. Willful in your oblivion, it seems.
All I say, I make sure to bring verification for. You bring insults. Yeah, maybe I’d do better having a conversation with the neighbors dog.
BYEBlubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:44 pm
Last time you were posting here you refused to give your hypothesis about what happened on 9/11/2001. Is this still the case? Do you have a hypothesis that better fits the evidence than the current common narrative?carlitos (23ee80) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:47 pm
Look at these people for yourself. PLEASE scrutinize. TRY to diminish them and their statements. I dare you.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:47 pm
Start looking at my posts, Carlitos.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:48 pm
Actually Blubonnet, I’m not calling “your” imaginary friend a liar. I’m calling you one.
With that, I’ll cease engaging the troll. We’ve shown she/he/it’s fundamental dishonesty. People like this are vile and disgusting.SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:49 pm
Many posts by Blubonnet.
No coherent hypothesis to explain events.
Delusional / dishonest.carlitos (23ee80) — 1/12/2011 @ 12:59 pm
SPQR, ignoring the spammer, I still think there’s a valuable point in Jared being a truther.
Unlike people who, say, voted against Giffords, or wanted her to be more liberal, or more conservative, there is something obviously sociopathic or demented about being a truther today.
People who are that detached from reality, or that dismissive of honesty, should be looked at with suspicion. It’s relevant to what Jared’s mind was like that he was a truther.
In fact, if you thought the US Government was murdering planeloads of people and then bombing the pentagon, just for some incredibly ancillary benefit, you would be obliged to fight back. Such a world doesn’t exist, and basically couldn’t, but if a man lived in that fictional world, violence actually makes sense.
So when you encounter a truther, it’s fair to wonder when they will decide you’re part of the threat.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:02 pm
Well, hopefully, other people that are of sound mind. and about Life will read my posts and see the logic, and regard for humanity.
I don’t think you are capable of understanding, the ones I’ve encountered here. Incapable of expanding your knowledge. Too bad for America those of you choose blindness. Fortunately there are many of noble character, with the balls and temerity of spirit and devotion to this country that don’t fit into the category in which you all are, that speak out, risking all, their reputations, all showing the honor required to do proper service to this country. You could learn something if you went there, last link I left.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:19 pm
Wow, you do a great job of maintaining your beliefs, even though they hold no water. My perspective is all verifiable, which is why you choose to charge me with spamming, which is just backing up my statements.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:22 pm
Dustin, Dave Surls here has stated TWICE, I should be killed. Where does that fit into MY being a problem? I’m not advocating for killing anyone.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:24 pm
I’m advocating to stop the illegal, dishonest, war of aggression.
Did you know that over 90% of Afghanistan doesn’t even know about 9-11-01 ???Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:25 pm
Carlitos – You, SPQR, myself, and others have requested her unified theory, even the abridged version, with no response but COPYPASTA and link splatting.JD (6e25b4) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:26 pm
That’s a fair point Dustin. Honestly, that’s the only reason I posted what I did early in the comments above. 9/11 Truth at this point is all Ron Paul / anti-government / anti-vaccine / anti-science / survivalist, etc. It’s just delusional, pure and simple. Calling it “leftist” or “liberal” or “right wing” is too simplistic. There are aspects of both “wings” in what’s left of this dying “movement” at this point, but it’s mostly just crazy.
Bluebonnet, when several posters keep asking you for a hypothesis, and you can’t post one, a sane person would ask themselves why. A sociopath would tell themselves that the sheeple just don’t get the special knowledge that you have. Whatever.carlitos (23ee80) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:27 pm
He is advocating for a legal remedy to your crimes. And if I were on the jury, I would vote for a conviction and I would vote for a death penalty. That fits very nicely into your being a problem. You know I’m right… that’s why you’re pretending to be a woman and trying to hide who you are. Consciousness of guilt.
Truthers are dangerous. You can’t be that crazy about the world and not want to fight the good folks you pretend are evil.
You may claim you don’t want to fight these horrible oppressors you’ve made up… why not? If someone murdered thousands of people, why would you not be fighting back? Because you’re lying.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:30 pm
This is all the evidence we need of blubonnet’s lack of good faith and unwillingness to debate: if you don’t believe her, then she calls you insane and blind.
I’ve tried to engage blubonnet honestly, but she refused to answer the simplest of questions. I responded to her buddy’s posts with thoughtful, fact-based analysis. That doesn’tmatter, because to her, I’m incapable of expandingmy knowledge.
Blubonnet, you are fundamentally dishonest.Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:32 pm
“Dustin, Dave Surls here has stated TWICE, I should be killed.”
I know just saying it two or three times isn’t nearly enough
But, you have to be patient. I’m just getting warmed up.Dave Surls (a40631) — 1/12/2011 @ 1:35 pm
Jared Laughner is a Truther.Leviticus (acb9a6) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:06 pm
Ron Paul is a Truther.
Jared Laughner is… RON PAUL!!!11!1!
“Bluebonnet, when several posters keep asking you for a hypothesis, and you can’t post one, a sane person would ask themselves why.”
carlitos – You are obviously not cleared to receive that information.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:14 pm
“even though they hold no water”
Blu – Did you know steel burns underwater?daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:16 pm
To be honest, I didn’t know Ron Paul was a truther. If he is saying that crap, then either he is insincere, or he is a threat. That kind of delusion, that someone innocent has helped murder thousands of people, is obviously a justification (in the ill mind) for violence. In fact, those who are truthers and just sit idle about it are probably insincere, and trying to bash their country.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 2:18 pm
Hey look at the bright side, Rand Paul is even more insane. He’s appeared on hardcore conspiracist nut Alex Jones’ radio show. Glad to see more insanity in DC. Should be good for unity and non-violent rhetoric.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:17 pm
“To be honest, I didn’t know Ron Paul was a truther.”
He’s not, really – although he kinda waffles on it to play to his kooky posse. I was just messing around.Leviticus (5900d0) — 1/12/2011 @ 5:27 pm
If you all can’t connect the dots, I’m surprised you even have a drivers’ liscence. Figure it out for yourself. ALL the clues are there, if your mind was receptive enough. You won’t allow your delusions to be troubled though with facts. All I bring are facts. Theorizing is a fool’s task. I won’t go there. Carlitos, you cannot discredit what I know, just because I don’t claim to know everything.
If you meet someone who thinks they have it all figured out, you will have met a liar.
And Ron Paul. like me and a over a hundred million others in this United States has merely stated that there has been insufficient answers from our government, and anyone with half a scintilla of intelligence can see it, if they aren’t hiding under the covers. Man up, cut the cowardice routine, use your own mind instead of being a Robotican, be the kind of Republican that Eisenhower was. Links are plentiful, which I have provided.Blubonnet (b91d9f) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:16 pm
It was still funny, Leviticus.
Paul’s not really worth my attention aside from jokes.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 7:20 pm
You work for the companies mentioned by Ryan or just walk point for them?
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66755J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:45 pm
I actually run all those companies, JT. I’m also a Jew and a reptilian. I’m the one who made the holograms of the planes that ‘hit’ the pentagon and skyscrapers (as Blubonnet’s link will explain!).
How did you ever catch me!
And why oh why am I, the most evil person in the world, letting you live? You’ve exposed by incredibly evil conpiracy… yet… you’re not in danger at all after 9 years?
It’s because YOU’RE part of the conspiracy too! You’re the false flag operation to hide the REAL truth about how there never was a World Trade Center. That’s actually where Area 51 REALLY is!
Or is it? …
[minor grammatical correction made by the black hand. i.e. Aaron]Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:49 pm
100,000,000 is a lot. Enough to sway elections. I expect you will be proven correct soon.Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/12/2011 @ 9:56 pm
301. Of course we on the Left bring evidence, and you on the Right ignore it, and continue to call us nuts. Sigh. I’d get better feedback if I talked to my plants.
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 1:09 am
— No doubt they talk to you all the time.Icy Texan (89895d) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:28 pm
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 1:18 am
302. Wow you do alot to reinforce the stereo type[sic] I was not going to buy into until you all convince me otherwise of the red neck[sic], downing beer after beer and blindly going along with the mythology of the war, when it has been proven over and over by numerous sources, including the CIA to be a bogus reasoning, and the 9-11-01 cartoon version of the government, contrary to video footage, and scientific analysis by scientists and professionals of every relevant field, I have to imagine you all in my head as toothless, beer bellied bullies, that wave the flag in contrast to rational observation and objectivity.
— Okay, take a breath. No! Not from the laughing gas tank! Crap. Oh well. Carry on . . .
You have conveyed yourselves that way. I had given you all more credit until you proved otherwise. The benefit of the doubt was wasted on you. You have no capacity for honesty, and looking at what is best for humanity, our troops, and your lack of awareness of the warnings of Eisenhower, that we have tried to convey.Icy Texan (89895d) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:39 pm
— Actually, I explained how I (an Eisenhower scholar) understand exactly what his warning meant.
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 1:21 amIcy Texan (89895d) — 1/12/2011 @ 10:54 pm
303. Bush and Cheney are the military industrial complex. Ever heard of the Carlyle Group? And Halliburton?
— Where I live I see Halliburton trucks EVERY SINGLE DAY! Scared?
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 12:44 pm
All I say, I make sure to bring verification for.
— And all of your ‘evidence’ is true, because YOU say so.
You bring insults.
— And tasty treats!
Yeah, maybe I’d do better having a conversation with the neighbors dog.Icy Texan (89895d) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:03 pm
— Does the plant know that you’re cheating on it?
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 1:19 pm
Fortunately there are many of noble character, with the balls and temerity of spirit and devotion to this country that don’t fit into the category in which you all are, that speak out, risking all, their reputations, all showing the honor required to do proper service to this country.
— Nobody has bigger balls than you, sweetheart.
You could learn something if you went there, last link I left.Icy Texan (89895d) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:11 pm
— Pretty sure that YOU are the last ‘link’ left.
What is your name, then, spammer?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2011 @ 11:14 pm
Comment by Blubonnet — 1/12/2011 @ 7:16 pm
366. If you all can’t connect the dots, I’m surprised you even have a drivers’ liscence[sic].
— I’m better at finger-painting, myself. Meanwhile, you seem to excel at eating paste.
Figure it out for yourself.
— Why not? You did. What are you, some kind of freakin’ genius?!
ALL the clues are there, if your mind was receptive enough.
— I’ll admit it; i AM having trouble with my reception. May I borrow your tin-foil hat for awhile?
You won’t allow your delusions to be troubled though with facts.
— When you practiced this speech while looking in the mirror, you should have just stopped there.
All I bring are facts.
— Come on now. You’re short-selling yourself. You bring da noize AND da funk!
Theorizing is a fool’s task. I won’t go there.
— Thorazine is a fool’s salvation. PLEASE go there!
If you meet someone who thinks they have it all figured out, you will have met a liar.Icy Texan (89895d) — 1/13/2011 @ 12:15 am
— Go back to the mirror and say, “Pleased to meet me!”
No Blubonnet. Not theorizing.
Developing a falsifiable hypothesis is a critical step in the scientific method. It’s how we know how things work.
With direction and support from KSM, 19 bad dudes hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into 3 buildings. Fire damaged those 2 of those buildings so badly that they fell down, and half a dozen other buildings eventually were wrecked.
See, now you could falsify my hypothesis if you provided evidence to the contrary.
Come on, don’t be shy – what’s your version of events.carlitos (a3d259) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:32 am
This from someone who, despite repeated requests, cannot explain what she believes happened.Some chump (4c6c0c) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:34 am
wow, 380 comments and counting.
anyway, it looks like we are still talking about the truthers and their theory.
can i submit to the sane people on this thread (you know who you are), that there is no arguing with a truther. they are fact-immune.Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:43 am
LOLcarlitos (a3d259) — 1/13/2011 @ 10:47 am
Funny, burning jet fuel in a plane doesn’t melt or warp anything in or on the plane.
However, testimony and video evidence has shown that molten steel existed in the debris 6 weeks after the day. Firefighters’ testimonies. I suppose you are going to say the firefighters were lying.
Asymmetrical hit produces symmetrical descent of all three buildings at near free fall speed. No resistance from lower floors. It imploded. Pulverized debris and also has been confirmed to contain the military grades explosives material nano-thermite. Guess where that could be found. Yeah, the Pentagon. Sorry. It’s true.
You are right. Those in the Truth Movement have studied both sides inside out and backwards to make sure this unfathomable truth is true. No we didn’t want to believe it either. No one in the Truth Movement can regard the contrary perspective (yours) with anything but sadness and astonishment at your ignorance, and the willingness of your ignorance, which is even more repugnant.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/14/2011 @ 5:50 pm
That’s an incredibly stupid thing to say. The fuel that burns in the plane’s engines does so in a chamber that is designed for combustion. As such, it has plenty of cooling systems, not the least of which is cold air rushing by it at 500 mph to carry heat away. Further, not much of the plane’s fuel is burning at one time.
If it were not for the constant cooling going on in a jet engine, rest assured that engine would melt in a very short time.Some chump (e84e27) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:08 pm
Some Chump, blubonnet has relied on logic that is so utterly irrational so many times in this single thread. He doesn’t understand that engines are burning the fuel, and designed for great heat? Really?
You’d think he’d admit he’s wrong, by now.
You’re the one saying they are lying.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:10 pm
“Pulverized debris and also has been confirmed to contain the military grades explosives material nano-thermite.”
Already explained this above. No mysteries here.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:23 pm
Bubonnet – Everyone outside the Truth Movement can only regard the contrary perspective (yours) with nothing but sadness and astonishment at your ignorance, and the willingness of your ignorance, which is even more repugnant, disgust and anger.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:28 pm
daleyrocks, I’m not sad or astonished at frauds who hate our country. I’m actually just resolved to stand up to them. Occasionally angry, though blu’s just a common troll, so barely worth an eyeroll.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/14/2011 @ 6:34 pm
As expected, insults in place of logic.
Oh, so the huge metal pieces that held the building together were not as strong as the vessel in the plane? And that in the plane in which the combustion took place is stronger than the structural steel holding that building up? Yeah, right.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:07 pm
Bluebonnet does not have the emotional or intellectual capacity to wipe its own arse.JD (109425) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:12 pm
JD, gee, that was a brilliant response to a question regarding physics. Your score is 100% for being insulting, and 0 for logic, regarding physics. But, maybe being an artist is the field of insults is where your heart is. Pursue your dream.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:25 pm
If you don’t understand the basics of a combustion engine and burning large amounts of fuel, then you have the mental firepower of boiled cabbage, and should have much pity extended your way.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:36 pm
I got it, JD, you are saying that burning jet fuel in a plane requires a significant amount of strength, the steel, the composition, to contain the burning/combustion. Okay, then it’s much stronger than the building’s steel, and the pulverized building, and melted steels (verifiably still present 6 weeks later, by video proof, and the first responders) the jet fuel was enough to accomplish the pulverization of the building, and creating molten metal.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:43 pm
You clearly do not get it.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:50 pm
No, you do not get it.
Construction grade steel cannot melt until it reaches 2795 degrees.
The highest that temp that burning jet fuel can reach is 410 degrees.
Clearly, as the many scientists that are not getting any money from anyone for pointing this out, the government version is deep fried bovine matter.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:54 pm
Blubonnet’s claim is that the steel in the WTC, meant to support great weight at earthly temperatures, must have been subjected to extreme temperatures in order to weaken and fail.
His next point is that planes must withstand a similar temperature when jets burn fuel, thus he says this discrepancy proves that fire doesn’t melt steel.
However, jets are made with titanium honeycomb, titanium fanblades, and various other sophisticated parts for withstanding and dissipating extreme temperatures. The costs of these materials in tens of thousands of parts are well over one hundred times the cost of making those parts from steel.
Thus, the expense and effort to make jet engines different from the steel support in a building actually proves that get fuel DOES melt steel.
Will blubonnet admit this argument has proven his claims wrong? Nope. He is ‘revolted’ by my argument, and I’m not ‘ready’.
The only link of his I clicked talked about holograms of airplanes striking buildings. That is direct forgiveness of the monsters who hijacked real planes and murdered real people.
No, I am not pretending I can influence blubonnet. I’m not insane.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Bluebonnet is a delusional twatwaffle.JD (d4bbf1) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:03 pm
Here’s proof: a gauge from an airplane. Turbine inlet. It actually gets yet hotter than that.
Now, how did blubonnet become so convinced of something that is so easy to prove is wrong? Why would he say that in absolute terms, when it was so easy to see it’s completely incorrect? Why is he pretending to be open minded, when he is incredibly closed minded?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:03 pm
BTW, we didn’t see the WTC melt into a puddle. We saw the structure lose the strength to support the massive weight above the damageed area. ‘Melt’ is different from losing strength. Anyone can put a spoon in their oven and see that it’s weaker when hot.
Anyone who took science in elementary school understands that heat is molecules moving, thus less rigid. It’s not like a solid is just as strong from absolute zero up to just short of melting. That’s ridiculous.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:06 pm
Hell, just frost a cake, or mix concrete in the winter.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:06 pm
Another Jet temp gauge.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:08 pm
One last point: read the google cache of his links. That way he doesn’t get any money for your clicks. that’s what he really wants. It’s also much safer, since a person like that would happily load some malware onto your computer.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:13 pm
“‘Melt’ is different from losing strength. Anyone can put a spoon in their oven and see that it’s weaker when hot.”
Dustin – Don’t give me logic, I can’t stand it when you give me logic!!!!!!
Wait, how many hundreds of tons do jet engines have to support compared to structural steel? Anyone? Oh, they don’t, they typically hang underneath wings. Thanks.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:17 pm
I’m just asking stoopid questions here, don’t mind me.daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:18 pm
In fact, titanium changes shape under that kind of heat, and it has to be designed into the engine. There’s no way it could support much at the temps on the gauges I linked.
Good point. though it’s silly to even respond, because this is the umpteenth time blubonnet has told a lie. He’ll just complain about ad homs, ignore the arguments, spit out another lie, and ask us to visit his websites.
What a way to earn some money.
Imagine, being the architects of the 9/11 conspiracy, and you do nothing about the hosting of your evil schemes to the internet. You don’t plant WMDs in Iraq, you don’t take the oil there, you don’t fix the 2008 election, you don’t even catch Osama. Even Goldfinger was better than that.
Truthers walk around without their cars blowing up. The ringleaders grin and giggle instead of fear snipers. It’s almost as though they are con artists.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:25 pm
It was molten, weeks after. Look up NASA thermal images from the air.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:36 pm
Blubonnet, before making yet another point I can knock down easily, why don’t you admit you were wrong in the last point?
Explain my temp gauge links? How in the world did you get such a basic point so wrong, and then insist a lie is the truth?Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:39 pm
You are fools if you buy the government goulosh.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:41 pm
What government goulosh, blubonnet?
You think the government fixed all aircraft temp gauges for the past 60 years in order to hide that your fuel has the max temp you say it does?
EXPLAIN MY GAUGE LINK.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:43 pm
Because of the Venturi Effect, the temperature of gases at the surface of a curve may be incredibly less than just an inch away, because the gas has to travel faster over the longer distance of the curve. That is why a properly constructed Rumsford fireplace will not allow smoke into the room. Though I know nothing about jet engines, I imagine there might be similar issues as to what the hottest area is in the exhaust compared to what engine components are exposed to. A little bit like tossing a hot potato. The absolute temp is enough to burn you, but because the contact is so brief there is not time for an adequate heat transfer.
I’ve read where the SR-51 Blackbird is engineered somehow with very loose-fitting joints, because there is so much heat from air friction at tremendous speeds that the titanium significantly enlarges- like the plane actually becomes 6 inches longer when at top speed compared to sitting on the ground. Wild.MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/15/2011 @ 1:51 pm
MD, that can’t be true. Blubonnet’s saying that planes can’t withstand intense temperatures, and thus, the WTC was not exposed to any. It’s a losing argument even if you grant his premise, but I guess we have it on his word that his premise is true.
The evidence contrary is just ‘government goulash’.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/15/2011 @ 2:03 pm
WTF is “goulosh”? Are you trying to say ‘ghouloshes’?Icy Texan (a31b5a) — 1/15/2011 @ 2:08 pm
I think I read that on a Dixie cup once. It was the answer to a riddle: What do ghosts wear when it rains?
The highest that temp that burning jet fuel can reach is 410 degrees.
— blubonnet beclowns self AGAIN. News @ eleventy!
[open-air burning temp of jet fuel: 550 degrees. Burning temp of all of the things that burning jet fuel subsequently ignites? Temp required to WEAKEN steel? Ask your local blacksmith.]Icy Texan (a31b5a) — 1/15/2011 @ 2:25 pm
Break free from the insular circle jerk and check out http://www.ae911truth.org
Seriously, the more reasons given to explain how the jets demolished the skyscrapers (and their contents), the more embarrassing it gets. Yow!
Oh well, thanks again for the the post.J.T. Waldron (157ece) — 1/16/2011 @ 3:22 pm
Well, thanks for making my point. 550 degrees. I appreciate the more accurate number. Thank you. How did molten metal happen? Please, anyone? NIST denied the existence of it. Ample documentation and testimonies of firefighters/first responders, anyone there, “molten metal, like you are in a foundry” said the firemen. There is ample proof of molten metal existing weeks after the day. You and I know, that can’t be coinciding with what the government’s report was. NIST who did the study, the link for some statements directly from them to a room full of other physicists, will haunt these NIST people for the end of time, if they manage to bypass prison, their rightful destination. Fraudulent science known as “dry labbing” is what has been shown to be the case. This is reaching conclusions which simply coincide with an agenda. These kinds of people, are humiliated sometime or another, and it is on film here. I left it. Among them, I can’t recall which one. I will bring it here if you want to challenge me on it. I’ll browse through the links to evidence I have left here, which I’m asking who around here looked. I’ll bet all of you here that yelped the loudest, looked honestly at both sides, the LEAST.Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/17/2011 @ 2:08 am
This link is specifically for Carlitos.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66755Blubonnet (60b8e5) — 1/17/2011 @ 2:26 am
I dunno. Maybe the guvmint had a super secret-squirrel foundry in the basement?Icy Texan (8ea924) — 1/17/2011 @ 2:59 am
Didn’t make my point clear, I think, Dustin.
Not getting into this seriously, but I bet if you apply the burning gases coming out of the bottom of a Saturn V to the top of the Saturn V, it would not fare well, but would farewell. Just because burning gases at temp X are coming out of an engine doesn’t mean that the engine is necessarily exposed to temp X. Take the typical flame on the top of a match. The hottest part is Not immediately above the match head, but several mm higher. FWIW.MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/17/2011 @ 5:34 am
The connection between Loughner and any coherent political ideology is murky, blaming it on the toxic political discourse dubious–the man is seriously disturbed, end of story. But to deny, in 2011, that the Bush admin told lies to justify the Iraq invasion is itself a form of Kool Aid sipping lunacy.DL (8204f7) — 1/18/2011 @ 2:43 pm
Why is that? What lies are you talking about?
Remember, it’s not a lie if you think it’s true, and the entire world, including the Democrats, were completely convinced about Saddam’s WMD programs, long before Bush was president. He did, after all, use WMDs on his own people, and we did find WMDs in Iraq, too.
So just curious about these ‘lies’. I think it’s more like ‘errors’.
If you can’t prove any lies, and you call reasonable honesty ‘lunacy’, then I guess we know what attracted you to a truther thread.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 2:45 pm
Uh, no. The gauge has 4 digits. The pics on the website show temps from 550 degrees to well over 1,000 degrees.
Pathetic retort. I proved that jet engines reach incredibly high temperatures that are many times what you claimed was the max temperature. MD’s right that, additionally, heat can build up above something that is burning, but I don’t see the need to move an inch on analysis until you admit you were spectacularly wrong.
Hell, you follow a link to a gauge manufacturer, and then ignore all the readouts well over 1,000 degrees, and cherry pick the lowest one (550), and then say that’s proof Jet Fuel can’t get anything hotter than 550.
That’s obviously dishonesty. You’re a liar and you mean to be a liar, because you have the USA that much that you will twist anything to suggest 9/11 was an inside job.
But hey, you said, in absolute terms, that jet fuel couldn’t get to 550. Now you say it can. How is it that you can say something is impossible, and then laugh that it is possible?
It’s because you are a dissembler who hates the greatest country on the face of the Earth.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 2:51 pm
Dustin – that is a douchey sock puppet.JD (85b089) — 1/18/2011 @ 2:51 pm
It’s great stuff.
Tomato puree, ground beef, macaroni, celery seed, etc.Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/18/2011 @ 3:06 pm
The dark humor of this pases when we realize that not only Loughner but much of the Taliban, like those that held David Rohde, believe this garbagenarciso (6075d0) — 1/18/2011 @ 3:24 pm