(Ventura) Payne Stewart's jet

wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

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


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

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

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

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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

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

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




David E. Powell wrote:
It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding via
communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector planes to
meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that to Sept.
11,
those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed had
worked for the enemy.

Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.

Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the usual
traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most airliners
cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there) there was not
the
same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were in
the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them down,
plus
trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.



How's that Kool-aid taste?

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


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



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

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

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

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

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.

David E. Powell wrote:

It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding via
communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector planes to
meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that to Sept.

11,

those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed had
worked for the enemy.

Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.

Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the usual
traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most airliners
cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there) there was not

the

same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were in
the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them down,

plus

trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.



How's that Kool-aid taste?

"Vandar" wrote in message
news
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


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



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

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

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

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

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


I agree with this challenge.

Vandar wrote in
news
Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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


*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.

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

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

David E. Powell wrote:

It flew for hours across the country, and crashed when it ran out of
fuel. So trackers would have time to verify it was not responding
via communications calls, contact nearby air bases, and vector
planes to meet up with the high-flying private jet. Contrasting that
to Sept.

11,

those hijacked airliners had a much shorter time between hijack
reportings and first impacts. By the time Flight 93 crashed, air
defenses were getting some cohesion and fighters were up. However,
things had gone so fast before that point that confusion and speed
had worked for the enemy.

Also, trying to find one plane at high altitude on a fixed course is
easier than trying to find several going low and fast on headings
opposite from their scheduled ones after doubling back.

Finally, the very scale of 9/11's attacks and effects on air travel
really amplified confusion. With Stewart, one jet high above the
usual traffic patterns (His jet flew at a higher ceiling than most
airliners cruised at, thinner air for less resistance up there)
there was not

the

same confusion as with trying to deal with all airliners which were
in the air on Sept. 11 after the first planes hit, and get them
down,

plus

trying to coordinate numerous scrables from several air bases.



How's that Kool-aid taste?

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
news

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:



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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some huge
qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and 9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes required -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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

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

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

Vandar wrote in
:

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
news

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:



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



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

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

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

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


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

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

You're as sharp as scissors.

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

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

Go ahead, expose my political agenda. Be explicit.

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
required -

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

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

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

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

Cite?

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

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

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

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

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

I think I see chalk on your back.

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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

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

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

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

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

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

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
:


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


Vandar wrote in
news


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:



wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:




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



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

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

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

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


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

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


You're as sharp as scissors.

And you aren't.

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

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


Go ahead, expose my political agenda.

That's your job.

Be explicit.

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

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
required -

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


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

It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.

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

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


Cite?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I think I see chalk on your back.

Do you also hear echoes in your head?

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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


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

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Vandar wrote in
:

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
:


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


Vandar wrote in
news


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:



wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:




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



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

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

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

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


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

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


You're as sharp as scissors.

And you aren't.

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

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

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


Go ahead, expose my political agenda.

That's your job.

Be explicit.

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

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

Explain it. In detail. Now.

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
required -

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


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

It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.

Cite. Now.

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

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


Cite?

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

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

Cite. Now.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Explain. In detail. Now.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I see chalk on your back.

Do you also hear echoes in your head?

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

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

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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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


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

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
label something as bad and run from it.

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

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

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

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

The conspiracy theorists post their own
information for the world to see.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

You're just making yourself look foolish.

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

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
:


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


Vandar wrote in
:



Hiram Thair Mark wrote:



Vandar wrote in
news



Hiram Thair Mark wrote:




wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:





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



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

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

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

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


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

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


You're as sharp as scissors.

And you aren't.


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

Frustrated?

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

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


Go ahead, expose my political agenda.

That's your job.


Be explicit.

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


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

I do.

Explain it. In detail. Now.

That's your job.

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
required -

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


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

It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.


Cite. Now.


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

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


Cite?

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


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

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

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

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

Cite. Now.

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

You can't.

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


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

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


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

How about you post some proof to back your claims?

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


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

Explain. In detail. Now.

You tell us.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

I think I see chalk on your back.

Do you also hear echoes in your head?


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

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

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


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


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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


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

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
label something as bad and run from it.


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

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

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

Prove you aren't a child molester.

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


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

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


The conspiracy theorists post their own
information for the world to see.

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

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


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

Your credibility and honor does.

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

Prove it.

We'll stop right here until you can.

Vandar wrote in
:

Hiram Thair Mark wrote:

Vandar wrote in
:


Hiram Thair Mark wrote:


Vandar wrote in
:



Hiram Thair Mark wrote:



Vandar wrote in
news



Hiram Thair Mark wrote:




wrote in news:1159450575.244405.112630
:





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



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

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

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

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


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

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


You're as sharp as scissors.

And you aren't.


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

Frustrated?

Annoyed. Slightly aroused.

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

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


Go ahead, expose my political agenda.

That's your job.


Be explicit.

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


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

I do.

Explain it. In detail. Now.

That's your job.

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

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

*That's* why there was apparent confusion... not because of some
huge qualitative difference between the Payne Stewart event and
9/11.

Some people just won't deal with facts.

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


Funny how the 9/11 Truth Movement - no 1990s-style scare quotes
required -

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


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

It's been clearly demonstrated through facts, repeatedly.


Cite. Now.



Blank space is not an acceptable cite.

Cite. Now.

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

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


Cite?

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


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

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

That said:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/W...adeCenterBuild
ingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

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

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

Cite. Now.

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

You can't.

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

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


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

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


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

How about you post some proof to back your claims?

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

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


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

Explain. In detail. Now.

You tell us.

That's your job.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Cite?

I think I see chalk on your back.

Do you also hear echoes in your head?


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

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

You lack understanding of both basic physics and humor.

Maybe you should redo 8th grade. It's never too late.
Sorry dude, Jesse is a wacko, but Bush is still a failure who
allowed a disastrous attack on the U.S.


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

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

Hundreds? I challenge you to name 25.


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

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

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


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

I refuse to facilitate terrorism.

Yeah... terrorism that you have zero evidence exists. Again you jusat
label something as bad and run from it.


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

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

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

Prove you aren't a child molester.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The conspiracy theorists post their own
information for the world to see.

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

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


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

Your credibility and honor does.

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

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

Prove it.

We'll stop right here until you can.

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