tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4779388724581002469..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: The Iraq WMD Non-HoaxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48474964044584724162011-05-11T21:00:44.330-07:002011-05-11T21:00:44.330-07:00"RKU said...
Here's a somewhat relat..."RKU said...<br /><br /> Here's a somewhat related question. Did the Israeli government ever take proud credit for the deliberate attack on the Liberty, and the slaughter of so many defenseless American military personnel in international waters?"<br /><br />Here's a somewhat related question. Did Al Capone ever publicly take credit for the Valentine's Day Massacre? (answer: No) Did any government ever indict him for it? (answer: No) Was he responsible for it? (answer: Yes)Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52786762469117427792011-05-11T20:58:09.850-07:002011-05-11T20:58:09.850-07:00"RKU said...
""Mr. Anon": I c..."RKU said...<br /><br />""Mr. Anon": I can see why you don't often post links, given that the ones you post here don't even make your case for you...Actually, there are any number of videos in which Osama bin Laden supports the attacks on 9/11. This one for example""<br /><br />Well, if you (or anyone else) actually reads the Margolis column, you can see he expresses considerable skepticism for the "official" 9/11 theory."<br /><br />I did read that column, from the link you provided. The passage I quoted above came from it. It does not support your thesis.<br /><br />"He's also actually met Bin Laden, and describes all the tapes in which Bin Laden allegedly took credit for the attacks as "clumsy fakes.""<br /><br />How often did he meet him, and for how long? Were they bosom pals? I don't necessarily see where he is in a position to judge this or that video as being fake.<br /><br />"And in that other link I provided, Bin Laden explicitly denied any role in the attacks just after they occurred."<br /><br />And why might he have done that on September 28th, 2001? Gee, I don't know - perhaps he was getting nervous - nervous that we were preparing an invasion, that pretty much the whole world (including Russia and China) stood behind us and gave us carte-blanche to do what we liked in Afghanistan, and that the Ummah had not risen up as one against the infidel, as he had hoped. And, as I pointed out, there are other videos - like the one I linked to - in which he praises those who carried out the attacks. That's not a fake either - it's from an Al Jezeera interview. You can find a higher-res version of it on You Tube. It's translated into german, but he says the same thing as in the English translation.<br /><br />And again, I don't understand why you place greater stock in one particular pronouncement of Osama bin Laden - a sworn enemy of the west, regardless what you think he may or may not have done - than in that of George Bush. I don't trust George Bush either (your great friend on the illegal immigration issue I might add). But I don't see why he's less trustworthy than bin Laden. Your naive trust in religious fanatic warlords is quite touching.<br /><br />Anyway, given that there is no credible physical evidence in support of the 9/11 fantasists claims, it's quite beside the point.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12303836365105775712011-05-11T19:14:36.693-07:002011-05-11T19:14:36.693-07:00"Mr. Anon": I can see why you don't ..."Mr. Anon": <i>I can see why you don't often post links, given that the ones you post here don't even make your case for you...Actually, there are any number of videos in which Osama bin Laden supports the attacks on 9/11. This one for example</i><br /><br />Well, if you (or anyone else) actually reads the Margolis column, you can see he expresses considerable skepticism for the "official" 9/11 theory.<br /><br />Margolis is a pretty prominent journalist, with a great deal of regional expertise, and has written a couple of books on Af-Pak issues over the last two decades. Therefore, I was rather surprised when he came out as a 9/11 "skeptic" a year ago, and it made quite an impression on me. He cited a lot of points which sounded reasonably persuasive to a non-specialist such as myself.<br /><br />He's also actually met Bin Laden, and describes all the tapes in which Bin Laden allegedly took credit for the attacks as "clumsy fakes." And in that other link I provided, Bin Laden explicitly denied any role in the attacks just after they occurred.<br /><br />Why would a terrorist mastermind deny his role in his greatest success? I honestly can't remember the last time any other "terrorist" leader ever did such a thing.<br /><br /><i>Why do you consider that exculpatory in his case? George W. Bush - in every single interview he ever gave - never claimed involvement in or responsibility for the events of 9/11. Benjamin Netanyahu - in ever single interview he ever gave - never claimed involvement in or responsibility for the events of 9/11. Why is the total absence of any confession by them not considered exculpatory by 9/11 conspiracy fantasists?</i><br /><br />Well, I can actually think of a few reasons why Bush or Sharon (who was relevent Israeli leader) wouldn't have publicly "taken credit" for 9/11, even if they were guilty. Among other things, they weren't "terrorist leaders" who were sworn enemies of America.<br /><br />Here's a somewhat related question. Did the Israeli government ever take proud credit for the deliberate attack on the Liberty, and the slaughter of so many defenseless American military personnel in international waters?RKUnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88419984384984677832011-05-11T06:45:43.750-07:002011-05-11T06:45:43.750-07:00@RKU
I can see why you don't often post links...@RKU<br /><br />I can see why you don't often post links, given that the ones you post here don't even make your case for you. From your Margolis link:<br /><br />"I remain uncertain that Osama bin Laden was really behind the attacks. Much circumstantial evidence points to him and al-Qaida, but conclusive proof still lacks. One thing is certain: the attacks were planned and mounted from Germany, not Afghanistan. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one an Egyptian and a Lebanese."<br /><br />This doesn't seem to prove the point you try to be making. And it certainly isn't supportive of the whole G.W. Bush / Israel / "false-flag" conspiracy point of view.<br /><br />"Also recall that Osama Bin Laden himself disclaimed any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and denounced them as being contrary to Islamic law."<br /><br />Actually, there are any number of videos in which Osama bin Laden supports the attacks on 9/11. This one for example:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXX-ZouPf10<br /><br />Did he plan them? Probably not - he was an impresario of terror, not the stage director. As to your claim that, in one interview, bin Laden disclaims responsibility: Why do you consider that exculpatory in his case? George W. Bush - in every single interview he ever gave - never claimed involvement in or responsibility for the events of 9/11. Benjamin Netanyahu - in ever single interview he ever gave - never claimed involvement in or responsibility for the events of 9/11. Why is the total absence of any confession by them not considered exculpatory by 9/11 conspiracy fantasists?Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62065968470958973182011-05-10T20:28:45.263-07:002011-05-10T20:28:45.263-07:00Pants on Fire:
Yeah, the Iraqi WMD threat was sol...Pants on Fire:<br /><br />Yeah, the Iraqi WMD threat was sold as ongoing programs that might put anthrax spores or nerve gas into the hands of Al Qaida agents in the near future. Everything I've read says what we found were occasional leftovers from the older Iraqi WMD program, back when Saddam could afford such luxuries, and posed no threat.<br /><br />It was very clear that the reasoning went from desired conclusion (we're gonna invade Iraq) to justification (Mobile bioweapons labs, rape rooms and plastic shredders, Quday and Usay, Al Qaida links to Saddam, too-thick aluminum tubes, yellowcake). <br /><br />I have to say I was disappointed to see that they didn't work in any stories of Kuwaiti babies dumped out of incubators. (That atrocity story was used for the previous war.)none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19980835004869688812011-05-10T08:59:05.457-07:002011-05-10T08:59:05.457-07:00Well, as the media reported, they turned out to be...<i>Well, as the media reported, they turned out to be Israeli Mossad agents, though I suppose they might have been Mossad agents who also hoped to someday become journalists.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I think it's safe to assume the Mossad is listening when you're talking to an Israeli journalist. Maybe not accurate, but safe nonetheless. Not that a similar assumption would be bad vis-a-vis journalists from many other places...<br /><br /><i>but as I recall, some translations indicated that he at least strongly implied that he was involved.</i><br /><br />I strongly suggest you "poison tree" anything downstream from the MEMRI tributary.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36546114671725736072011-05-10T05:05:41.007-07:002011-05-10T05:05:41.007-07:00"Mr. Anon": I am not aware that this sta..."Mr. Anon": <i>I am not aware that this statement has any truth other than your contention that it is true...Short of some proof of you claim, I have to treat it as if you had said: "And remember that Johnny Carson admitted to being the Zodiac Killer".</i><br /><br />Well, normally I never tend to provide "links", but I'll make a special exception in this case.<br /><br />(1) Here's a claimed excerpt from a CIA translation of a Bin Laden interview given in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which I'd previously mentioned in a comment:<br /><br />www.counterpunch.org/dinh05042011.html<br /><br />(2) Eric Margolis, a prominent Canadian foreign affairs newspaper columnist specializing in Af-Pak issues who has written several books on this subject over the last 25 years, says exactly the same thing:<br /><br />www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis205.html<br /><br />(3) Immediately following 9/11, the American government promised to provide extensive evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, but never ended up doing so. Thus, the case linking Bin Laden to 9/11 is arguably much weaker than that for Saddam's WMD. The latter theory was supported by quite a bit of supposed evidence, e.g. the Niger Yellowcake and Curveball's testimony, although it was totally fraudulent and ridiculous. The former basically had none.RKUnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39852425949738025052011-05-09T22:04:02.873-07:002011-05-09T22:04:02.873-07:00"RKU said...
Also recall that Osama Bin ..."RKU said...<br /><br /> Also recall that Osama Bin Laden himself disclaimed any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and denounced them as being contrary to Islamic law. If he'd actually been behind the most successful terrorist attack in world history, why would he pretend he wasn't?"<br /><br />I am not aware that this statement has any truth other than your contention that it is true. I don't speak arabic, so I can't trasnlate the videos he released shortly after the events, but as I recall, some translations indicated that he at least strongly implied that he was involved.<br /><br />Short of some proof of you claim, I have to treat it as if you had said: "And remember that Johnny Carson admitted to being the Zodiac Killer".Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10160017847322012872011-05-09T20:49:46.415-07:002011-05-09T20:49:46.415-07:00To last anon with 4 posts filled with links re: WM...To last anon with 4 posts filled with links re: WMD in Iraq.<br /><br />You have very poor reading comprehension or are an outright liar to argue WMDs were found in Iraq justifying the invasion.<br /><br />Looking over a few of your posts, the most authoritive is the 2006 Fax to the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf" rel="nofollow">Intelligence Committee</a>. You'll note:<br /><br />* They only found 500 shells/containers throughout the entire country after years of searching. All had degraded mustard and sarin gas despite exhaustive searching and were determined to be manufactured before the Initial Iraq invasion. These were considered remainders due to an oversight during the massive destruction of all WMD equipment, factories and armaments per the first invasion peace settlement..<br /><br />* The rest of the points use weasel words in lieu of any facts to lessen the embarrassement ("assumed", "could", "would", "possiblity" and "desire"). There is nothing buy attempted CYA.<br /><br />The final word was given in 2005 by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War" rel="nofollow">Iraq Intelligence Commission</a>:<br /><br /><i><br />The United States effectively terminated the search effort for unconventional weaponry in January 2005, and the Iraq Intelligence Commission concluded that the judgements of the U.S. intelligence community about the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction and an associated military program were wrong.<br /></i>Pants on Firenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54614186614520322442011-05-09T20:25:35.726-07:002011-05-09T20:25:35.726-07:00"None of the Above": Assuming the whole ..."None of the Above": <i>Assuming the whole story of Israelis filming high-fiving each other is true, an alternative is that they were journalists or wannaby journalists, congratulating one another on getting career-making footage of the biggest news event since the fall of the Berlin wall.</i><br /><br />Well, as the media reported, they turned out to be Israeli Mossad agents, though I suppose they might have been Mossad agents who also hoped to someday become journalists. <br /><br />Recapping a bit, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that at the very least Mossad had direct advance knowledge of the timing and nature of the 9/11 attacks, and that this knowledge had been distributed to significant numbers of Mossad agents based in NYC (and obviously to the senior Israeli government leaders as well). Does that mean Mossad was *behind* the 9/11 attacks? Not necessarily.<br /><br />But consider this. Since I'm not a "conspiracy nut," I do not believe that the top ranks of the CIA or the FBI or the NSC or the NSA had advance knowledge of the attacks. Nor do I believe this of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since Bush reacted by continuing to read this stupid goat story, he's certainly in the clear. I've never heard claims that the intelligence services of any other major country had foreknowledge of the attacks.<br /><br />So, according to all available evidence, the only two groups of people who definitely had advance knowledge of the impending attacks were the plane hijackers themselves...and the Israeli government together with the members of its Mossad intelligence service. Overall, this seems like a very useful nugget of information to keep in mind when attempting to disentangle the complex details and conflicting theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.<br /><br />Also recall that Osama Bin Laden himself disclaimed any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and denounced them as being contrary to Islamic law. If he'd actually been behind the most successful terrorist attack in world history, why would he pretend he wasn't?RKUnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85502109427661522972011-05-09T19:22:59.376-07:002011-05-09T19:22:59.376-07:00http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/arti...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content<br />/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news<br />/worldnews/middleeast/iraq<br />/8082447/Wikileaks-Iraq-war-<br />logs-claim-Iran-supplied-<br />chemical-weapons-to-Iraq.html<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/projects<br />/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf<br /><br />http://www.nypost.com/p/news<br />/international<br />/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_<br />AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85319748181977987772011-05-09T19:16:04.843-07:002011-05-09T19:16:04.843-07:00http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082447/Wikileaks-Iraq-war-logs-claim-Iran-supplied-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq.html<br /><br />Oh, look! More about the WMDs which were "not found" in Iraq! Golly!<br /><br />Here is an illuminating historical account of when Saddam Hussein didn't use WMDs. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack<br /><br /><br />What exactly is a "WMD", anyways?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction<br /><br />Hm.<br /><br />Apparently a bottle of this is.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin<br /><br />But this is not.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhAydMLv6AA<br /><br />However, this guy has been accused in these U.S. court system of having a WMD in his pants.<br /><br />http://www.elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2578%3Abreaking-news-us-grand-jury-indicts-umar-farouk-abdulmutallab-for-using-weapons-of-mass-destruction&Itemid=54<br /><br />So apparently there were no WMDs found in Iraq. They were instead found in someone's underpants. And also in various munitions factories and silos and bunkers in..."Babylonia"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51644709579482161572011-05-09T18:58:57.349-07:002011-05-09T18:58:57.349-07:00http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_...http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf<br /><br />http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html<br /><br />Really, WMDs were not found in Iraq? Fascinating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80003036491840002382011-05-08T09:55:58.035-07:002011-05-08T09:55:58.035-07:00James:
In particular, the 9/11 attacks relied on ...James:<br /><br />In particular, the 9/11 attacks relied on the fact that all our techniques for dealing with hijackers assumed they wanted to negotiate, land the plane, get flown to Algeria or Cuba or someplace. Everyone following "the book" that had been built up from the previous decades of experience with hijackers played right into the hands of the 9/11 attackers, who had no intention of surviving the hijacking. <br /><br />Another way of putting this: Before 9/11, the assumption when someone hijacked a plane was that the only lives at risk were the passengers on the plane. They were the hostages, and the goal was to get the plane on the ground and negotiate or storm the plane to save as many of the hostages as possible. <br /><br />The hijackers used the "book" against us. They knew we'd be thinking "how do we keep these lunatics from murdering any more passengers?" rather than "how do we keep these lunatics from murdering thousands of people on the ground by crashing their planes into them?"<br /><br />Given that, they didn't need help from the FAA or Air National Guard or the airport screeners or the flight attendants or anyone else. We didn't understand what game they were playing until they started hitting buildings with planes. Once we understood, the passengers on one of the planes were enough to stop the attack. (And that plane was also being tracked by a fighter jet that probably would have shot it down if necessary.)none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48052734213717821492011-05-08T09:41:14.450-07:002011-05-08T09:41:14.450-07:00Assuming the whole story of Israelis filming high-...Assuming the whole story of Israelis filming high-fiving each other is true, an alternative is that they were journalists or wannaby journalists, congratulating one another on getting career-making footage of the biggest news event since the fall of the Berlin wall.none of the abovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85638439332493461092011-05-08T09:34:35.360-07:002011-05-08T09:34:35.360-07:00"Yeah, that would be SO much easier. And cost..."Yeah, that would be SO much easier. And cost-effective."<br /><br />Obviously it would if you believe the 9/11 story, grasshopper.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88315253741968942992011-05-08T08:08:07.177-07:002011-05-08T08:08:07.177-07:00Try as I might, I simply can't come up with a ...<i>Try as I might, I simply can't come up with a non-sinister explanation for this particular detail, though just how sinister is subject to interpretation.</i><br /><br />Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest they were tracking the terrorists, knew their timetable and (at least roughly) target, and were cheering the event heralding the WoT?<br /><br /><i>And this is regardless of whether they knew anything about the attack beforehand or not. If they did know, it obviously makes a mockery of Israel being America's bestest ever ally (rofl), but their behavior can be explained easily enough even without their foreknowledge of the impending attack.</i><br /><br />So what were they doing up on that roof with video cameras? Seems to me their foreknowledge of the attack is pretty much written into the story.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11007672285293135822011-05-08T07:47:28.899-07:002011-05-08T07:47:28.899-07:00That's the point. The word can be used to mean...<i>That's the point. The word can be used to mean something very dangerous or something not dangerous at all and the same dishonest people knew they could use it with one meaning initially to scare people into the war</i><br /><br />Hmm, why am I reminded of the "racism" accusation?<br /><br /><i>The existence of people debunking what they see as dumb ideas on the internet is not much evidence of astroturfers/paid shills invading the discussion.</i><br /><br />Gotta say "ditto" on that one. I've railed against the "whitey did it" conspiracy theory of black failure many times. I bet I even beat the whole house up once or twice.<br /><br /><i>Something like 40% of the American public believes that 9/11 was a "conspiracy", but not a single pundit has ever even hinted at any doubts.</i><br /><br />It's funny that I don't give much of a crap about this conversation either way. I guess there's a limit to every man's appetite for "conspiracy theory." Maybe there's a "conspiracy theory" to be found there, heh; feed a man enough McDonald's and he won't have room for steak.Svigorhttp://majorityrights.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74754198806349425932011-05-08T04:25:15.960-07:002011-05-08T04:25:15.960-07:00You've probably never heard of Richard Butler,...You've probably never heard of Richard Butler, right?<br /><br />And you were, what, teenagers during the Clinton years? Really, have you heard of the 1990's? Did the world come into existence in 2000 for you? <br /><br />I remember 1991 like it was yesterday. Hey! Newsflash! Australian military were in Iraq too! Australian weapons inspector Butler, the best of them, only one who did the job,led the show.<br /><br />'Reality'? Does this word have a different meaning in parts of the USA? Say around American colleges? I think so. <br /><br />I wish GWB and Cheney (and Bolton and Rumsfeld) were leading Australia, instead of what we have. You sure don't deserve them.brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55786584690675477092011-05-08T01:37:01.647-07:002011-05-08T01:37:01.647-07:00The only evidence for the five Israelis in questio...<i>The only evidence for the five Israelis in question being elated at the event is one semi-anonymous woman (her name is given as Maria) who made the complaint to the police. I don't blame her for doing it - five guys in a white van filming the towers on that day would be suspicious. But we don't really know if they were laughing about it. It's often difficult to distinguish emotions - people sometimes giggle nervously when faced with some awe-inspiring event.</i><br /><br />Weren't they also reported to have been high-fiving each other? <br /><br />My explanation would be that, being israeli spies, they immediately realized what the political implications of the attack would be with respect to Israeli interests, ie Israel would get a boost. "Stupid Arabs inadvertently just gave us a shot in the arm!" And this is regardless of whether they knew anything about the attack beforehand or not. If they did know, it obviously makes a mockery of Israel being America's bestest ever ally (rofl), but their behavior can be explained easily enough even without their foreknowledge of the impending attack.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39369302955817761592011-05-07T23:46:13.570-07:002011-05-07T23:46:13.570-07:00"Truth said...
Apparently neither do tra..."Truth said...<br /><br /> Apparently neither do trained demolition engineers. For years they've taken months to wire buildings with explosives to implode them, when they could have just melted the girders with hot jet fuel."<br /><br />Yeah, that would be SO much easier. And cost-effective.<br /><br />Go water your car, nitwit.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62603404936716189592011-05-07T23:44:40.037-07:002011-05-07T23:44:40.037-07:00"ben tillman said...
They also needed to..."ben tillman said...<br /><br /> They also needed to get through security to be able to to board the planes and get the government's air defense system to stand down. These things are much more difficult to accomplish without inside help."<br /><br />Our air-defence system did not "stand down". Planes were scrambled to intercept the jets, but they did not receive orders to shoot them down. Who would readily give such an order? What pilot would readily follow such an order? I don't know about you, but I'm kinda glad that USAF pilots are squeamish about shooting down civilian aircraft.<br /><br />It may also surprise you to learn that we don't have much of an air-defence system and never have - at least not to protect cities and the civilian population. For most of it's history the primary mission of the Air Force was to protect the Strategic Air Command and its nuclear retaliatory capabilities.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48619425885723053302011-05-07T23:38:23.501-07:002011-05-07T23:38:23.501-07:00"Anonymous said...
BTW, when Deets talks..."Anonymous said...<br /><br /> BTW, when Deets talks about maximum air speed I think he is saying at sea level. The jets you and I ride across the US in cruise at higher speeds at much higher altitudes where the atmosphere causes less resistance."<br /><br />Yes, that's what I said.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51762764887522578582011-05-07T18:30:23.032-07:002011-05-07T18:30:23.032-07:00"So, what are you saying - that he is blowing..."So, what are you saying - that he is blowing the lid off the conspiracy which he is a part of?"<br /><br />Well maybe, or Deets is just one more source of dis-information. What I think is interesting about 911 and JFK and now the death of bin laden is the variety of stories that spring up about what really happened. I've heard the psychological explanations that this is because these are "traumatic" events, which might be so, but I think it may just as well be that the official stories don't seem "real" enough whether its 3 buildings collapsing into dust (and making the recent lessee an even richer man), a magic bullet or running a world wide terrorist network without even "read only" internet access (or has this now changed?). Some of these alternate stories might be attempts to make sense out of the event and others (if official story is not true) could well be planted by the perpetrators, whoever they are, to divert and confuse. (To go back to 911, one thing I find interesting is the FBI has apparently never charged bin laden with 911 despite at least 2 confession tapes? I guess his guilt is just too obvious to bother with the legal part). <br /><br />BTW, when Deets talks about maximum air speed I think he is saying at sea level. The jets you and I ride across the US in cruise at higher speeds at much higher altitudes where the atmosphere causes less resistance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25188890473778149032011-05-07T17:48:41.205-07:002011-05-07T17:48:41.205-07:00"Like most "truthers" you don't..."Like most "truthers" you don't understand how gravity - the force which brings down buildings - works."<br /><br />Apparently neither do trained demolition engineers. For years they've taken months to wire buildings with explosives to implode them, when they could have just melted the girders with hot jet fuel.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.com