Danner’s ‘The Age of Rhetoric’

I apologize for neglecting lies.com lately. My attention in the last month has turned from the general to the very, very specific; I started a new blog, and have been focusing way too much of my attention on it. The chances that a reader of this site will be interested in it seem fairly small, but here’s a link anyway, for the idly curious: The Sutro Forest Birdcam Blog.

Even so, an occasional item on the antics of the Failure-in-Chief can break through the fog of birdy obsession that surrounds me, and here’s one now: From author Mark Danner, a commencement speech delivered recently to some graduates at UC Berkeley: The Age of Rhetoric.

Danner offers a powerful argument as to the nature of the reality we, and the Bush administration, are inhabiting these days. It’s very, very good. Which is to say, very, very depressing. But important to read and understand, I think.

Sigh. I wonder what the birdies are up to?

243 Responses to “Danner’s ‘The Age of Rhetoric’”

  1. enkidu Says:

    I like the bird feeder with the spherical anti-squirrel cage.
    Tho I wonder how effective that is?

    Isn’t Sutro Forest (the one in SF) composed mostly of Eucalytus trees? Naughty non-native species that burn like crazy (a ridge of eucalyptus beyond our south 40 went poof late last year). I hear the park service is trying to rip em all out of public places. That should take generations!

    We have a big planting bed full of some white and pink flowers (don’t know what kind, they came up spontaeously after we moved in and renovated). All last year before we redid the deck a pair of hummingbirds would come to drink at exactly our meal hour. The boys loved it!

    More sporadic visits now, even tho we have a dedicated hummingbird feeder.

  2. ymatt Says:

    God is that ever a good article, and it’s almost disappointing that he chose to narrow it to just the administration.

    The Age of Rhetoric extends to business where corporations have collectively decided that it’s often easier to compete with invented realities of words (rather than with real invention and work), backed by a system of laws that they’ve slowly designed to allow it. It extends into the chuches where hate is preached in pursuit of power, under the guise of righteousness. And it has pulled a shroud over science, when science contracticts the rhetoric of any of those groups, political, corporate, or religious.

    I think this is perhaps a better way of looking at the subject of Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason”. It’s much easier to simply ignore reason than it is to assault it. You will never hear reasoned criticisms of the administration refuted — instead they will cast doubt on the motivations of the critic, or simply define the issue such that the criticism becomes irrelevant. It’s how things are done in the new Age.

  3. shcb Says:

    rhet•o•ric (rět’ər-ĭk)
    a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
    b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
    c. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
    d. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
    2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
    3. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
    4. Verbal communication; discourse.

    I would say 1d fits this article well. Do liberals learn only half of history, or do they learn all of it and just choose to ignore half of it?
    So let’s get a few facts out of the way, please let me know if any of the bulleted items below are factually wrong.
    • When Bush gave his speech on the Lincoln, major military operations were over, divisions of tanks were no longer rumbling through the desert, the rest of the fight would be door to door, street to street fighting for a long time, as it has been, and as the president said in his speech. Read the whole thing, you might be enlightened.
    • Altering the landscape for a photo op is nothing new, remember Iwo Jima, Macarthur’ landing, or who can forget AlGore’s trip to my humble hometown of Denver. His schedule didn’t allow him to be here at peak runoff time when the Platte River flows heavy and fast as his advanced team had seen on a scouting mission. So when they returned a few days before Gore to set things up they found nothing but a trickle of water in the river. Water officials agreed to slow the flow down a bit before and after the event allowing them to open the flood gates for a few hours while Gore gave his speech. The same amount of water was released over the course of the week as prescribed by regulation and treaty, and Gore got his photo op, no harm no foul. Unlike Clinton’s people cutting down trees and throwing them over the side of the Grand Canyon.
    • We are a Republic, not a Democracy
    • We use an Electoral College to determine the election of our president, not a popular vote, the popular vote is just a point of reference. Article 2 Section 1
    • Florida law stated that the election results have to be received at the Secretary of States’ office 7 days after the election 17:00. Section 102.112, Florida Statutes
    • Federal law states election rules (see above) cannot be changed after the election.
    • The Florida Supreme court ignored the two points above and US Supreme Court rectified this situation with a 7-2 vote
    • The 5-4 vote stopped the recount
    • While it is rare for the president to be elected with less than a plurality of the vote, it is not unprecedented. It is also not unprecedented for the race to be close in the popular vote, and a landslide in the electoral vote. In the 1968 election Nixon won by a 22% margin in the electoral vote and a .8% margin in the popular vote. Didn’t matter, on Wednesday morning Nixon was the most powerful man in the free world and Humphrey was cleaning out his desk at campaign headquarters, there are winners and losers.
    • This country was founded on a principal of a number of individual states banded together for a common defense and mutual prosperity. State powers and federal powers being separate.
    • Some offices of government were to be elected by direct democracy in individual states with numbers determined by population, The House Of Representatives. The Senate was to be appointed by those representatives in numbers that would be equal with all states, giving small states more power in the senate and less in the house. The president was to be elected using a combination of the two. Other offices were to be appointed by the president, judges, ambassadors, and cabinet members. All designed to keep ultimate power from one area or the other, kind of cool, huh?
    • It doesn’t matter if the president wins by one vote he has all the power due him under the constitution, same with the congress, the only risk you take when the electorate is so evenly divided is loosing the next election.
    • The US spends about one third the worlds military spending, nowhere near more than the ROW combined.
    • There is no evidence the administration was anything less than honest about it’s belief there were WMDs in Iraq, or that Sadam intended to make nukes as soon as sanctions were lifted. At least I haven’t heard of any here, and I have asked for some reasons on numerous occasions.
    • The Downing Street Memo was a report of notes taken at a meeting where someone else recounted a meeting he had with Bush administration members, not Bush about what the writer’s impressions of what the intentions of the Bush were.
    • All the DSM said was Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq no matter what the WMD intelligence showed, showing there were more reasons than just WMD.

    There are a lot of facts listed above in direct opposition to Mark’s assertion in his article, I’m sure you can get me an a couple technicalities, but the bulk of my assertions are correct, he is basing his opposition on a pile of rubbish. I find it queer that Mark refers to this administration using the tactics of a Nazi when he is using the same tactics as Joseph Goebbels, tell a lie enough and it will become the truth. Now if Mark, or the rest of you don’t like war and have a better solution to winning without surrendering, fine, let’s hear it. All this guy does is regurgitate unsubstantiated bile for 10 out of 12 pages and then base his opposition to this war and this administration on those lies, without an alternative. I use the word lie advisedly in this case, I looked up his bio and he is certainly intelligent enough to research these points. And since most of his points are getting close to being a decade old, he has had the time.

    What is wrong with a leader trying to rally the troops and the population, engaging in rhetoric if you will, you didn’t mind when Cindy Shehan tried to rally the troops against the war, in fact you applauded the event.

    His “reality based community’s” main objective is surrender, not just in this war but in every war. If his “reality’s” only purpose is surrender, then power will make his reality it’s bitch, the slave can only be freed by his master, therefore it is better to be the master and release your bitches after you have vanquished evil than to surrender without a fight and join the slaves. Then who will vanquish evil? And evil will never free slaves.

    Mark makes some good points in the middle of the piece about the media roll and the enemy using the media. He makes the statement that the enemy is exploiting our strengths, here he is wrong, the enemy is exploiting our weaknesses both tactically, and in the media, as any enemy does. But mostly they are exploiting you, if they can get enough folks to join your side in America, you can win this war for them this is the way the tactic of terror has always been played, if you can’t defeat your enemy’s army head to head, “encourage” the civilian population to surrender. Mark also says the enemy preferred to fight not with tanks, nonsense, they simply don’t have tanks. Their preference would be to fight us with B-2 bombers if they could get their hands on them. As far as I can tell, we are killing them at a rate of about 10 to 1, they know they can’t keep that kind of ratio up for long so they are using whatever tactic they can with whatever weapon they can get their hands on, and you guys are handy and reliable, and no training or maintenance is required.

    The tactic of IED use with shells and explosives laying around was very effective. Then the Americans hardened their vehicles and the cheap IEDs were not very effective except against the civilian population. So more powerful shaped charges are being imported from Iran, and their success is on the rise again, so we have changed our tactics again with “the surge”, the enemy will adapt to this as well and so on and so on.

    For the most part, Mark repeats all the lies, distortions, and exaggerations you guys carp on about on a daily basis, mostly unsubstantiated. I got a kick out of the guy, don’t remember his name, who criticized me for muddying the argument with facts. Mark also uses facts unrelated to the discussion in many cases, sometimes for character assassination, other times just to confuse things a bit. I can see why you guys like him. He shows he has a pretty good grasp on politics but not on military tactics.

    Did you guys hear the Iraqi population finally had enough, stood up to the bad Arabs and fought them bravely for a couple days before calling in the Americans for help. How cool would that be to make a 911 call and have a couple Spookies and half dozen Apaches and Warthogs over head in a few minutes. Good news for those in the world who aren’t ready to surrender, bad news for those who are.

    Pray for our troops

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    Relevant to the “nature of reality we, and the Bush administration, are inhabiting these days” the is this breaking news story:

    A report about an American reporter arrested for asking an unfavorable question to a republican candidate. Police threaten to transfer reporter to a secret detention facility. The comments after the video are insightful too, especially the one containing the comparison to 1940’s Germany and the parable about cooking a live frog by turning up the heat gradually.


  5. ymatt Says:

    I give up. Birds it is.

  6. shcb Says:

    Ah come on Mat, you can enjoy both. You guys keep bringing it up. Just give me some facts to back up your assertions, I can’t just let this stuff go without replying.

  7. enkidu Says:

    I will use your own words (with one crucial change) to describe your rather lengthy diatribe: “All this guy does is regurgitate unsubstantiated bile for 10 out of 12 pages and then base his support for this war and this administration on those lies”

    I can’t find any reference to Clinton cutting trees or me wanting to surrender or any of the garbage that is your extended jingoistic blather.

    Your whole “I’ll be the master while I save you slaves from the evil brown people!!1!1!” schtick is sickening. Put down the gun there cowboy, you have done way too much damage to America, the Constitution and the world already.

    The Eye-raki people want us the hell out of their country. Same with the propped up government we installed after we invaded. Say how is the hunt for Osama bin Forgotten going? Dead or alive? Terrorist events are up the world over. Heck of a job bushie! Is there anything this incompetent bunch of neo-conmen freaks haven’t screwed up?

  8. enkidu Says:

    I couldn’t even hear the questions properly, but arresting a credentialed reporter for asking questions is indeed pretty damn Gestapo. Then the whole ‘we are charging you with espionage for having a camera and a microphone at a presser’ is beyond ludicrous. Truly fascism has come to America, proudly wearing its cross lapel pins and thuggish naziism on its brooks brothers sleeve.

    What next? I feel sure shcb would torture this sap within an inch of his life and probably beyond. What next? Knock his house down with a bulldozer and sow salt in his fields? Round up the libs n queerz n brown folk and… just so long as proudly ignorant rural dipsh!ts get to feel macho and pertektid-like.

  9. shcb Says:


    I know my piece was long, but the lying little pinhead gave me so much to work with. Yet again you say Bush lied without an example. The signing ceremony I was referring to was the Grand Escalante-Staircase National Monument. In 1996 Clinton took 2 million acres over by executive order, removing something like 8 billion dollars worth of low sulfur coal off the market without congressional debate. I can’t find a reference to the trees either, might have been a rumor, I’ll give you that one, it was bar far the most minor of points anyway.

    I thought my slave analogy was quite good, must have touched a nerve, you just can’t come to grips with Arabs hating us for who we are can you? You can’t have my gun second amendment and all. I’m quite proud of my western heritage, good solid folks, the people that built America.

    Osama is neutralized or at least marginalized, that is good enough for now. Read up on island hopping in WW II. As far as there being more terrorist incidents, make a timeline of the opposition to the war and I’ll bet the incidents go up in relation to the fervor for surrender, and why not, you guys are winning for them right now.

    I wouldn’t torture, or arrest or even pummel the “reporter” I would have just got in his face and called him a sniveling little moron, but that wouldn’t be politically correct.

    Yup, we’re all ignorant here in flyover country, glad you’re not bigoted.

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi Enkudo,
    Sorry you couldn’t hear the video, this one taken by a different camera at the same event is far superior and hassome amazing footage of Luke telling the officer’s his rights and putting them on notice that they will be prosecuted if they persist (they did and they are.)

    shcb, you sure you got your US military spending right, seems by your figures that you forgot to add in a few things like the cost of veterans affairs programs, debts costs on borrowing for military spending, the cost of private contractors performing “security” which would have been conducted by the military in prior decades (might be included in your figures), R&D expenditures for military programs, nuclear programs related to military,… all these (?) and more have been moved off the military books so that the military does not look like the bloated pig it is in your economy.

    You guys no longer even debate Guns vs Butter issues, your reality now is a Guns vs crumbs debate.

    So how much did you neo-cons say the war would cost? Wasn’t someone fired for suggesting it would be in the $100 billion range while your propoganda machine was raging full throttle about it paying for itself? Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to pay for your war in Iraq with their natural resources (yes it is theirs not yours, despite your proposed oil revenue law)?

    All that war spending (how much have you spent on the war? how many peoples lives have been destroyed? how many new terrorists are there and how many more terrorists are there in the world now compared to in 2001?) and you cannot make a more than highly debatable argument that the world is a safer place now than before. How does the war costs compare to development and aid spending? Would the world be a safer place if that war money was spent towards resolving social problems and gross inequities that make 3/4 or more of the world feel like slaves to the rich countries? We’ll never know, that kind of spending on fixing problems has never been attempted, America’s idea of solving problems is to go places to kill people and blow things up.

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    Forgot to include whether or not you included spending on covert operations including national security spying and your own salary in the disinformation unit? Oh yeah, after ballooning for several years those costs were hidden / taken off the books so that no-one except perhaps a few in the oversight committee (assuming they are not being lied to) get to see the real figures. let’s change that reality to Guns + secret funds vs. crumbs

  12. shcb Says:


    The figures I cite are just apples to apples numbers from all the different countries, in places like China there is even an asterisk saying it is just a guess. As usual you are only looking at half the picture, sure there are ancillary costs, but there are also benefits; jet engine development GPS, many emergency room techniques, helicopter evacuations etc. all these things came out of the necessity of war.

    I don’t know how many more or less terrorists there are now than before, they don’t have id cards or even uniforms. I do know for a fact the terrorists that are dead aren’t terrorists any more. If the rest of the world feels bad because big bad America is better than them, get off your lazy asses and get to work. This is a competitive world, get rid of the socialistic anchor around your neck and out produce us, out think us, out work us, “oh poor me” just makes you poor and mean. Almost a third of our GDP goes to social programs, only 4 or 5 percent to military. Knarly-the KING of overstatement. If I did work for the government as an undercover guy, it would be giving out information not disinformation since most everything I say is based on facts, the rest is opinion based on those facts, you are the disinformation KING.

    Any further disputes of the facts refuting Mark Danner’s piece?

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    No, you do not know if terrorists are dead all you know is that people are dead. Fact is, just like Vietnam the army has strong reasons to label the dead as former terrorists.

  14. shcb Says:

    I believe that was one of the primary purposes of the Geneva conventions, the military must wear uniforms so you know who to shoot. If more civilians get mistakenly killed because one side or the other doesn’t abide by that rule, it is the side wearing civilian cloths that is at fault. Blame the right people, we are the good guys, the Arabs are the bad guys, pretty simple really.

    The other thing to remember with this type of guerrilla warfare is the enemy tends to blend into the population one day and come out and fight the next, so the civilian you kill today may have been a combatant yesterday and visa versa, it gets very confusing and many more innocents are killed. I don’t have a remedy, I just know where to point the blame. This is simply a tactic of vastly inferior military, and a very effective one.

    Don’t forget, they attacked us on Sept 11, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Marine barracks, Madrid, London subway, London bus attack, African embassies…… if they stop, we will stop.

    The purpose of war is peace, on the victor’s terms.

  15. Steve Says:

    I wish the shcb’s of this country would have lost the argument much sooner than they did. I understand Matt’s desire to just move on.

  16. shcb Says:

    We would all like to just move on, but if you leave a task half finished, you just have to finish the job at a later date, at a much higher cost.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    Ever heard of false flag attacks or r u too narrow minded to consider that possibility? You might benefit from educating yourself about the motives for and signature characteristics of false flag attacks both foreign and domestic. Either that or wait about 40 years or so for documents that might be released which might allow us to know the truth.

    Until then, just keep on being led, unquestioningly, into endless wars by your heroic leaders (such as the queer fellow who donned a jet fighter’s suit to fly out to an aircraft carrier just offshore San Diego for a photo op and a speech to an adoring brainwashed audience who will cheer wildly for the end of major combat operations and the beginning of an endless occupation to suck hundreds of billions of dollars (getting closer to a Trillion now isn’t it?) out of taxpayer pockets and into the hands of the likes of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc. So what if these heroic leaders have nothing to lose and oodles of cash to gain from instigating world conflicts with their overwhelming military force fed by the lives of wasted American youth.

    Cost of military. You seem to say that your statistics are only a guess, and they fail to include the costs of nuclear weapons development etc. That’s the closest I’ve seen to honesty from you about your statistics. I notice that your percentage of GDP that goes to the military has crept up from the 2% or 3% in earlier posts on other topics and now you admit it is 4% or 5%. You might be starting to see the light. Also, there was a reason why military officials wanted to express military spending in percent of GDP terms to hide certain aspects of the spending, maybe I’ll share that when I recall it or find the source.

    You say “All these things came out of the necessity of war.” Perhaps so, but how much sooner would these fabulous inventions have been made benefits if they were focused on R&D for the benefit of humanity instead of the killing of humanity, and if R&D dollars and research on life enhancing projects were not diverted to military purposes? Oppenheimer and Einstein, for only two, had much to say about that. Warmongers argue that wars spur invention, but the truth is that when people put their mind to inventing that’s what spurs invention.

    “This is a competitive world.” One would think so. History suggests that is so. In the past, those peoples who did not have strong means to defend themselves were over-run and often exterminated by stronger peoples with superior military tactics. That was before the war to end all wars and rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII and the development of the UN and the end of the cold war, all steps in the right direction. If you do not believe that there can be a better way, you are a pessimist who condemns the world’s children to endless war (just like your neo-con leaders.) You have fully bought into the old fashioned “I win you lose” paradigm, just like the school bullies in your memories that have shaped your frame of mind so that you now are incapable of appreciating much less considering the possibility of viable cooperative models of human and nation interactions.

    Thankfully, for those that still can imagine such a world there are remnants of peaceful societies around the globe that remain – usually due to their isolation. While often (usually) poor, in general they are culturally rich, happy, and the value of relationships are celebrated. Perhaps certain aspects of some of these societies can provide more enlightened models of behavior than is apparent in your philosophy. See: http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/

    “Get off your lazy asses and get to work.” That is another incredibly ignorant / arrogant statement from the SHCB (short, hairy, creepy bugger). Most of the rest of the world does more in a day to scrounge up enough to eat for their family than you might do in a week, and they never get vacations (unless you count death as a vacation.) The willingness of people around the world to work, very hard, at near slave labour wages is part of the reason why so much of America’s manufacturing has gone, and service industries are going, to the Chinese and East Indians. And you have the audacity to call people in less developed countries lazy.

    You and other government shills falsely claim that your “opinions” are based on facts, when that is no more true than the rest of your recklessly right wing rhetoric. The time and energy that you expend doing back-flips to defend your government is beyond anything a regular person would do, and yet you try to convey yourself as a regular guy operating a machine shop in the Midwest. Your first post and many other posts back when TeacherVet (RIP?) was assisting you (in your training?) It defies credibility that you are as you say you are and not one of those people who are on the government payroll to influence public opinion in public debates. Heck, your government even has agents wasting their time scoping out church based peace groups.

    “Any further disputes…?” I have objections to virtually all of your first post but there is nothing in it for me to it is not our responsibility to set you straight (I for one have an income to earn)

    Oh, and a few comments about the reporter who was arrested for asking Ghoulanis press secretary an embarrassing question and refusing to be ignored:

  18. shcb Says:

    Since we have gone over all this umpteen times, I’ll just touch on a few items. The phrase you were grasping for at the end of your post is “ I am under no obligation to prove a negation”, but that is my line. You see I am asserting Bush did not lie about WMD, I can’t prove he didn’t do something he didn’t do. You see the onus is on you to prove he did lie, or at least offer some evidence.

    In this world without war you want to live in, how would you deal with evil people? If your logic holds, should we get rid of police? If the criminals didn’t feel threatened by the cops there would be less of them. If the police would just give the criminals one section of town, maybe they will leave the rest of us alone. Do you think that might work? If we didn’t have to pay for police, courts, jails, etc. think of all the beautiful paintings we could hang in our museum, since there are no criminals, we don’t even have to lock the doors, or all the homeless we could feed. There would probably be enough left over for the government to give us all an extra week off to bond with our families, we could call it “peace to all week”.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Einstein Jewish? If there had been no WWII wouldn’t Hitler have killed him? Just finishing the equation, utopia is easier if you only consider one side of the argument

  19. shcb Says:

    I had never heard the term “false flag” attack before, I looked it up, thanks, never too old to learn something new. But if you are again referring to your 911 conspiracy nonsense no, I don’t think it is applicable here. I’m sure it is being used in our fight against the Arabs, but the administration didn’t use it to get us into this war, the risk reward ratio would not justify it.

    I am noticing you and the other conspiracy nuts I know are similar to overly religious people. There has to be an answer to everything, when there is no easy answer, or it is an answer you are uncomfortable with you blame it on some conspiracy or another. It just bugs the shit out of you that some hayseed in flyover country might be smarter than you or may be right about the Arabs or that war has some usefulness. So you invent that I must be someone I am not, a covert government agent sent to infiltrate a blog with what, 10 people on it. Now you can live with that explanation, its ok if someone is smarter than you, just so long as it’s not a hick. No bigotry here.

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, evidence of a WMD Lie:
    : Trailers Of Mass Destruction, “You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons….They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.* And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons(!), they’re wrong. We found them.” –WP, “Bush: ‘We Found’ Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, ” May 31, 2003

    *At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: “U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons.” There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA’s finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. –Politex, 08.09.03
    Here’s another about IAEA:
    “President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”

    Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy “for a long period of time.”

    All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. –10.22.02, Washington Post

    From another website:
    What the Bush team said:

    Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
    Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

    Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons
    George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002

    Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons
    George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

    The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
    George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

    And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
    George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002

    Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.
    Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002

    Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” and “upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents…
    George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

    Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
    George W. Bush January 28, 2003

    We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
    Colin Powell February 5, 2003

    We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
    George Bush February 8, 2003

    Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.
    Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003

    So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
    Colin Powell March 8, 2003

    Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
    George Bush March 18, 2003

    We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
    Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

    There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
    Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

    We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
    Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

    We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
    George Bush April 24, 2003

    Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
    Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

    There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
    Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

    We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
    George Bush May 3, 2003

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb comments about evil people are too silly for a response.

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    Einstein, Hitler and WWII – it is common interpretation of the victor’s history that hitler had to be restrained, einstein agreed with that for christsake, that has nothing to do with my point. America had such moral authority in the world and a sranglehold on military power which, used judiciously could have made the world better,
    could have pushed humanity to more enlightened approaches to solving problems (reducing crime, a.k.a. terrorism & dealing with rogue leaders)
    but instead the neo-con thugs wasted that opportunity in an orgy of war
    and a race to the bottom of immorality (encouraging torture, espousing aggressive use of nuclear weapons, establishing permanent military bases in Iraq and around the world, etc.)
    but shcb tries to twist that into something akin to einstein wanted to kiss hitler

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    false flag – “you looked it up” Well, that’s just great, now you think you are the expert. what a joke.

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, trying to demean someone by sticking them with a label of “conspiracy nut” is acting like a traitor:

    This is what I call a nutty conspiracy theorist:

    Someone who actually believes Osama bin Laden conducted the attacks of 911 even when the FBI says there is not enough evidence to make that case,

    and that 19 Arabs with boxcutters outwitted NORAD’s air defenses,

    anyone who ignores discordant facts like these: (A) July, 2001: Secret Service moves the president from his hotel in Genoa Italy due to warnings of suicide skyjackings. (B) September 2001: Secret Service DOESN’T move the president during REAL suicide skyjackings. (This is one very sticky little point out of a great many.)

    anyone who has no problem accepting that WTC 1 and 2 both overbuilt steel and concrete towers can pancake onto themselves without the lower floors providing any resistance so that they fall at freefall speed (Despite NIST now disavowing itself of the pancake collapse theory),

    and that fires and falling debris hitting one side of WTC 7 could make that 47 story building fall symmetrically exactly into it’s own footprint like a textbook demolition again at freefall speed, I would go on but let’s look at WTC 7 closer:

    “WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] ” Yet shcb believes WTC7 fell due to Arab hijackers crashing planes into WTC 1 and 2.

    Who in their right mind could believe that crazy conspiracy theory despite hundreds of other obvious shortcomings such as these:
    “There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes and their names were not on any passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they actually could have boarded the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?” All the other passengers are accounted for…

    But that wasn’t shcb’s point, his point was that supposedly I am upset if some country hick is smarter than me. What an asshole to accuse me of that. I am sure many rural inbred dweebs are actually much smarter than I am, and even a few of the normal looking ones might be too. Actually I’ve met a few that are quite impressive and humbling when you get to know them. No, I suspect shcb is not who he says he is for the reasons I cited, not for the reasons contained in shcb’s bullying accusations.

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, trying to demean someone by sticking them with a label of “conspiracy nut” is acting like a traitor:

    This is what I call a nutty conspiracy theorist:

    Someone who actually believes Osama bin Laden conducted the attacks of 911 even when the FBI says there is not enough evidence to make that case,

    and that 19 Arabs with boxcutters outwitted NORAD’s air defenses,

    anyone who ignores discordant facts like these: (A) July, 2001: Secret Service moves the president from his hotel in Genoa Italy due to warnings of suicide skyjackings. (B) September 2001: Secret Service DOESN’T move the president during REAL suicide skyjackings. (This is one very sticky little point out of a great many.)

    anyone who has no problem accepting that WTC 1 and 2 both overbuilt steel and concrete towers can pancake onto themselves without the lower floors providing any resistance so that they fall at freefall speed (Despite NIST now disavowing itself of the pancake collapse theory),

    and that fires and falling debris hitting one side of WTC 7 could make that 47 story building fall symmetrically exactly into it’s own footprint like a textbook demolition again at freefall speed, I would go on but let’s look at WTC 7 closer:

    “WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.] ” Yet shcb believes WTC7 fell due to Arab hijackers crashing planes into WTC 1 and 2.

    Who in their right mind could believe that crazy conspiracy theory despite hundreds of other obvious shortcomings such as these:
    “There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes and their names were not on any passenger manifest. Several have turned up alive and well and living in the Middle East. The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they actually could have boarded the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?” All the other passengers are accounted for…

    But that wasn’t shcb’s point, his point was that supposedly I am upset if some country hick is smarter than me. What an asshole to accuse me of that. I am sure many rural inbred dweebs are actually much smarter than I am, and even a few of the normal looking ones might be too. Actually I’ve met a few that are quite impressive and humbling when you get to know them. No, I suspect shcb is not who he says he is for the reasons I cited, not for the reasons contained in shcb’s bullying accusations.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    weird that posted twice… the server must have thought it was pretty good…

  27. knarlyknight Says:

    FALSE FLAG (did you look this one up shcb? if GWB instead of JFK was in charge, this might have actually been followed through with!)

    Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960’s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba

    Source: google operation northwoods yourself or go to:


  28. knarlyknight Says:

    And do you still think that false flags are the realm of “conspiracy nuts”?
    Educate yourself:

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    I understand ymatt’s desire to move on too. But that’s the problem, these neo-cons NEVER give up. Win one argument with them and they start 12 more.

    shcb’s technique is just like the rest of the neo-cons. Let fly with the backhanded insults, no-matter how accurate, because what people mostly remember about that is that the opponent is on the defensive. Then the opponent loses either way: if they let it go then people assume it might be true, if the opponent counters that insult or accusation then it wastes their energy to deal with substantive issues and distracts everyone from the real points at hand. Karl Rove’s basic strategy in a nutshell.

    When most normal people get fed up and walk away, they take that as a victory and assume control of the state.

    Freedom requires constant vigilance.

    Americans became complacent and the Repugs or neo-cons asserted a stranglehold over politics and that is why reporters are now being arrested when they assert their rights to ask questions. Dan Rather said he was afraid to ask tough questions prior to the Iraq war in fear of jeers from fellow journalists. Despite the Bush criticisms in the media now, it is actually worse now. It is dangerous to have questions in America now:

    Thankfully, more and more people are starting to ask questions, the most prominent (such as the structural engineers, military, architects, pilots, etc.) are listed here:

  30. shcb Says:

    Sorry you spent so much time working on all that, we have all conceded not as many WMD’s were found as we thought, but that just means we were wrong to varying degrees, it still doesn’t mean anyone lied.

    Why are my comments about evil people silly? How would you deal with them without war, or on a smaller scale police? Seems like a reasonable question.

    I’m sure Einstein would have preferred the nuclear bomb never be developed, we all would, but Germany was developing it at the same time. Einstein kissing Hitler? I’m still scratching my head on that one.

    False flag isn’t that difficult a concept to understand.

    I can piss you off about as bad as anyone, can’t I?

  31. NorthernLite Says:

    Birdcam is cool.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    NorthernLite, Yes, birdcam is pretty cool.

    I notice SHCB has not commented on it – bet he would be more interested if the cam was upgraded with a pellet gun.

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    lol – WMD’s in Iraq an issue of varying degree? You mean like totally completely wrong from what was claimed is just some minor degree of error. pffff.

    Want to know why your comments were silly? First, you falsely projected that I had suggested a world without war was possible now, when what I actually was suggesting clearly was that America has failed miserably by taking their huge moral and military superiority and wasting it with bullying at the UN, launching an unnecessary war, condoning torture, proposing that USA would adopt a nuclear first strike policy, etc. rather than taking a mature, insightful, and intelligent approach to the problems at hand in order to move towards a more peaceful world.
    Second, it’s because the context of the discussion was about rogue states, and you were adopting a local police analogy as if that was the same.
    With rogue states you have societal considerations far beyond the single rogue dictator, you have other national alliances and geo-political realities with potential escalations, etc.
    With the criminal you have a relatively self-contained problem, even with the tentacles of organized crime.
    Different tools are needed.
    Diplomacy does NOT work with a rapist; and, when any one country uses their military on the world stage like a private police force that too has a dubious record of poor results. Ordering the military to subjugate a nation (using your analogy as if that is like you would order a police officer to make an arrest) is far more dangerous and has a high potential for disaster (e.g. Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, France in Vietnam, Americans in Vietnam, Brits in Afghanistan last century, Soviets in Afghanistan, and perhaps now the US (plus their pathetic coalition) in Iraq, and the Brits in Iraq way back when in the last century.
    Perhaps all those debacles were caused because moronic leaders acted as if world geo-politics was as simple as a game of cowboys and injuns.

    Einstein v Hitler – yes, that was totally vague, sorry. I had originally mentioned einstein and oppenheimer as they had regretted that R&D efforts mainly go towards warfare rather than social goods.
    Shcb said that einstein was jewish and, without WWII, Hitler would have killed Einstein; this supposedly demonstrated that (a) Einstein only considered one side of the equation when regretting that R&D efforts went towards warfare (i.e. Utopia is easy to envision if you ignore the evil people) and that (b) shcb’s position that spending most all of your R&D efforts on warfare rather than social goods was right and necessary.
    SHCB’s stretched my original statement (that Einstein regretted R&D being diverted to war) so far as to falsely imply or suggest that I had said (or that Einstein had said) that Einstein wanted no military R&D; and that was as big a stretch as if shcb had said that Einstein wanted to kiss Hitler.
    In other words, no-one is considering only one side of the equation shcb, you are simply falsely revising my statements in order to argue against strawmen.

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    Oh my god, you have got to watch this freaky conspiracy theorist, I wonder if anyone has ever been so out of touch with reality about 911!


  35. shcb Says:

    There’s nothing wrong with that analogy, if it fit the situation perfectly it would be an example not an analogy. You just don’t like it because it would hurt the credibility of your argument.

    I’ve got a lot to do this summer, so I’m going to take a little break from the blogs, I’ll probably pop in from now and them, but you guys can have your soap box back. Just remember, everything you know is wrong.

  36. enkidu Says:


    Yet another case of ‘The Law’ getting way too aggressive. So it is now illegal to record a government employee arresting a citizen because it violates the officer’s rights? wtf? I suppose that is one way to stop people from videotaping Rodney King style beatings. I can hear shbc now “he #$(%&*!^ deserved it!”

    Knarly and northern: please don’t think all Americans are proudly ignorant xenophobes who want nothing more than endless war to prop up their illegitimate Rethuglican mis-leaders. In 08 it’ll go to either Obama (please!) or Hillary (puhlease) and then we can start fixing this fucking mess. I have nearly lost hope that the Congress has enough spine to end dumbya’s folly.

    tv/shcb (I have a feeling they are the same moron) does represent a sizeable fraction of the US population (generally centered in the south and the plains states) who deny science, deny reason, deny reality and just keep right on praying that bushco will bomb Iran to get their Rapture going. 25% of Duhmurkkins are so farking stupid they think the Sun goes around the Earth. You and I may call these people idiots, but dumbya calls em his base.

    hey shcb have you made your hajj to the Creation Museum in Kintucky yet?!?! It’s full of dinosaurs n stuff! yeeeehaw!

  37. shcb Says:


    Actually, I’m agnostic, so no hajjing for this guy. So you think if a Obamma is elected and he decides to ignore the Arabs they will go away? It is possible, maybe all they want is to be left alone. For the record, what chance do you give it? I say there is a 5-10% chance they will not mount more attacks on American interests after we surrender. What say you?

    Better pray for Obamma, Hillary has enough sense to know this war must be fought, and by the time Soros gets done with his mud slinging machine pointed at her, Hillary won’t care about the far left any more than I do. Obamma however will be in its eternal debt.

    I’ve asked this before, is there any circumstance that would require preemptive war? If so what bar would another country have to cross?

    Deny reality? Deny science? Deny reason? You guys don’t even think we are at war! You believe the 911 conspiracy nutcasses.

  38. leftbehind Says:

    Enkidu heard about the Creation Museum from his Dad and his “Genocidal Republican” friends. What a disappointment they were all too short for their heads to reach Dino’s hand, thus barring them from riding “L’il Noah’s Turbo Ark.” It’s been some sad days at the compound since they got home, let me tell you.

  39. knarlyknight Says:


    Thanks for the post about the proudly ignorant xenophobes. We have a few of them up here too, actually our current Prime Minister fits that description well and is trying to lower the quality of public debate to the pathetic level of much of your R wing thuglicans (e.g. to paraphrase an earlier shcb argument: do you support the troops or do you want to wake up in the middle of the night with an Arab holding a knife to your throat?)

    I note shcb’s trying to beat some dead horses with questions about how to justify war (I think the UN has addressed that already) and seems to want to debate whether a democratic president will result in more or less false flag terror attacks in your country. Instead, I think we should revise your earlier suggestion and try to figure out whether the right wing neo-cons are misguided, narrow minded, self righteous pedophiles or whether they are bloodsucking pathological fraudsters who secretly envy Bush for his closeness to the male prostitute named Jeff Gannon, see: http://www.americablog.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html

    Also, thanks Enkidu for the Brian Kelly item, the arrest seems like another in a spate of attempts (by ?) to suggest to independent minded Americans that the consequences of exerting their constitutional rights against heavy handed law enforcement acts will be expensive, time consuming and scary as hell. On a personal level, if faced with the choice of doing as authority says when it seems wrong to you or raising questions or resisting or even recording the event, you are being conditioned to respond as sheep.

    Dicktater at 911blogger had this to say about the arrest:

    “The Rights guaranteed in the First Amendment are INDIVIDUAL Rights. Of this there is no question, unless it is by tyrants. That means that each and every one of us INDIVIDUALLY enjoys the UNALIENABLE Right to Freedom of the Press. Create your own blog, web site, newsletter, whatever. Post your work as news. Put your face and name to it. MAKE YOUR OWN FANCY PRESS CARD. Stand on you Rights, like Matt Lapecek did in New Hampshire last week and sue them for violating your UNALIENABLE Rights if they do so. You only have those Rights you are willing to defend. Hold them accountable. Take their houses, take their cars, take their kid’s college funds. Hit them in the only place that they have feelings left, their wallets.

    A video recording leads to felony charge for an 18 year old. They charge him with a felony that they believe will seem allowable under the law and then will push him to plead to a lesser charge. Somebody in Pennsylvania please get this kid a copy of the Constitution because in his schooling it was obviously never covered.”

  40. knarlyknight Says:

    Enkidu et al, you might have objections to a few small parts of this new video (32 min.) but to ignore the sum of the remaining parts is to live in denial:


  41. knarlyknight Says:

    I say “denial” in my previous post due to a recent scan of the interesting perspectives at http://www.awakeninthedream.com

    Anyone with even the tiniest ability to be introspective (that excludes shcb) will be able to appreciate to some degree the ideas presented in the newest article there: “Denial: the 51st State”.

  42. shcb Says:


    I actually agree with you about the Brian Kelly thing with a couple stipulations, I would like to see the police car video before passing final judgment. With freedom comes responsibility, if these two kids were out trolling for a cop to make a video of, they should be punished, the police have a tough enough job without worrying about someone trying to trap them with 15 seconds of edited tape. We already have one Michael Moore, we don’t need another. I would have preferred the kid to have said to the officer “I am taping this stop” then I think your first amendment rights argument would have more weight, remember none of our constitutional rights are absolute, yelling fire in a theater etc. I hate to see the law used in cases like this, assuming for the sake of argument, these kids were baiting the police for a video, and their parents did nothing to punish them, I would rather someone meet them in a dark alley and explain things to them than make case law. If it was as innocent as they say, then I agree the police overreacted and the captain, or whoever is over these officer should have handled it with an apology to the kids, case closed, no courts needed.

    The things I wish to debate are debatable, if you have the courage.

  43. enkidu Says:

    so these teens “were out trolling for a cop to make a video of”
    uh huh

    and (typically) your solution is to “someone meet them in a dark alley and explain things to them” Would that be your garden variety GOOPer torture or just a standard issue GOOPer master/slave beating? I know how much you want to play massah to us poor dumb brown folk (shall I quote your ridiculous ‘we are the master’ fantasy again?). By your twisted (and sick) ‘reasoning’ Rodney King was trolling for his beating as well, eh?

    Hey lefty nice to see you posting! How is your unit in Iraq doing? Did you get my care package? What?!?! You haven’t joined up to get your legs blown off for dick cheney’s folly? Drag your pimpled fat ass down to the recruitment station or please shut the fuck up.

  44. knarlyknight Says:


    Touche on all points.

    BTW if the kids were out trolling for cop mistreatment to film that’s fair game as long as they are within the law. If cops can’t deal with kids or wannabe movie producers (a very positive activity for kids) in a constructive way then they are not qualified to be in a position of authority. Heavy handed law enforcement just like heavy handed military intervention has short term effects but breeds long lasting resentment and desire for retribution.

    I’d suggest that the goals of police when dealing with wayward youth and transients or others who they may see on the streets is that (a) when you need us we will be here to defend you no matter what your class status, (b) we will always act with the utmost restraint & respect for you as a person, (c) we will do our job to effect order in the city through the enabling tools (laws) in place, (d) any complaints about us will be dealt with thoroughly and transparently.

    If the police are pushed to the limits by some punk and there is no imminent public safety issue, I expect the police to (a) attempt to defuse the situation intelligently without threats of force and help the punk see his errors, (b) warn of what force will be done to bring him/her into line, (c) exert such force up to the limit of the law but not to cross that line. To cross that line is to enter into a police state model such as experienced by east germany under the communists, most of Europe under hitler, and
    America under Ghouliani (oops I am getting ahead of myself.)

  45. leftbehind Says:

    Enkidu – what’s wit all the hatin’ playa? Me loving you like I do and you and you repaying me with all this rambunction and hostility? Don’t I work hard for you? Don’t I do my best to bring out the best in you and make you shine like the bright little diamond you are? If it weren’t for our partnership, you might actually have to say something of substance from time to time, or let what’s in the back of your head rattle around a minute or two before it busts out your mouth. You and me dawg…Batman and Robin…the Green Hornet and Kato…Chuck D and Flava Flav. I’m there for you.

  46. leftbehind Says:

    …and “GOOPer” – man, that’s some good-ass shit. You and I have torn some threads to pieces with good ass shit like that. We get these crackers so fucked up they don’t know what we’re even talking about, which is some funny shit, since we aren’t really talking about anything. Don’t throw away the good times, Baby!

    I meant to ask though, haven’t your Dad’s “genocidal Republican friends” noticed he ain’t white yet?

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    that’s serious shit lefty. u all sweetlike … inviting ol’ enkidu down to the pond cuz below that ‘ol black water you got a croc on a leash.

  48. shcb Says:

    Kid and Knarly,

    I don’t recall mentioning race anywhere, does someone have chip on their shoulder? I believe in judging people by their character and actions, not skin color, just as Dr. King said. I believe I went to great lengths to say IF they were trying to trap police. i also said it was up to the parents first and formost to tell their children this was unacceptable. Failing that, like Hillary I think it takes a village to raise a child.


    I’m not going anywhere, this is too much fun and these guys are so left they are easy, Matt is the only one so far that is a chalenge. I just have a lot to do this summer, we have a daughter getting married in a couple weeks, and I will be in China for a week or two on business first part of July, and the lawn needs to be mowed so I just don’t have time to do normal research. I have a higher bar for facts than most of these guys, so this takes time. Now I can’t keep up with them on “feelings”, wishful thinking or overstatements, but I have the facts down cold.

  49. knarlyknight Says:

    High praise indeed…for oneself. Sewer rats think pretty highly of themselves too, just like fellow Repugnantons “you’re doing a heckuva a job brownie”

  50. leftbehind Says:

    “Repugnantons” (Repugnicans?) – That’s some good-ass shit, too. You better hope Enkidu don’t beat your white ass to the copyright office on that one.

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    & leave my *ss out of this unless you want a serious stink.

  52. enkidu Says:

    Rethuglicans pretty much covers it.

  53. enkidu Says:

    Here is what passes for ‘humor’ amongst Rethuggle presidential candidates:

    “I have just come out of six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat Party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape” Huckabee said. Way to make a Holocaust joke! And mix in the Iranian hostage thing to help ramp up the drive to bomb bomb bomb Iran. Show your true colors much?

    On Imus’ radio show (yet another racist elitist white man who should be unemployed). No surprise there.

  54. leftbehind Says:

    Are both your parents black, or just one of them? If your Dad’s black, how does he express his “genocidal racism? Is it just that he has beef against white people (and, hey doesn’t everybody?)

  55. leftbehind Says:

    …and I agree that the understated simplicity of “Rethuglicans” has yet to be topped on this, or any other blog. “Demoncrats,” which is also yours, is a hot one too. Why are you giving this stuff away? You could sell material like that to “the Family Circus” for high dollar. It could be one of those cute sketches when the kids mis-hear things the adults say and come up with their own, riotous versions of grown-up words. “Pscetti and Meatballs”…”Rethuglicans”…”I Fell on the Slidewalk”…

  56. knarlyknight Says:

    Rethuglicans it is then.

  57. leftbehind Says:

    It just sounds better. It sounds so…I don’t know, “juicey juice.” It conjures up such a strong image of Jeffy Keane and his cute little lisp…you can’t help but smile when you say it. Just like you can’t help but smile when you say, “smock.” Smock. Smock. Smock.

  58. leftbehind Says:

    …and those Morticia Addams-looking girls who shop at Hot Topic could be “Gothug”…

  59. enkidu Says:

    gee lefty, obsessed much?

    you forgot my fav
    “please keep your bible out of my wife’s uterus, thanks!”

  60. leftbehind Says:

    Now you and I both know black girls don’t go for that kind of shit.

    “Gothug’s” still better – Marilyn Manson’s already stolen it for his new video:


    Speaking of Youtube, I was looking for some video I had posted of my tank and I think I found your dad having a laugh at the expense of his “racist Republican” friends.


  61. enkidu Says:


    synopsis, guy legally riding a bike is harassed and tased by overzealous cops. Obviously he was out trolling for it! Maybe shcb and his posse of microcephalics would be kind enuf to take this eco-terrrrist to a dark alley and ‘splain some things to him. His name is Orsak, that sure sounds muslimaniac enuf to earn him a whuppin! Or maybe some Abu Griab style ‘hijinks’

    bet my last dollar the cop is a Rethuglican

    and I do hope this guy sues them for millions (and that moron’s job, and his dumbass rookie partner)

  62. enkidu Says:

    ahhhhh, there’s a good hypocrit for you, typical GOOPer
    selling quantities, not just a bit of ‘temporary weakness’ or ‘the bottle made me do it’… hey maybe that William Jefferson (D) scumbag can claim the bottle made him hide all that cash in his freezer!

    Giuliani South Carolina chairman indicted on cocaine charges

    Ravenel is Giuliani’s South Carolina state chairman.
    COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) — South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, a former real estate developer who became a rising political star after his election last year, was indicted Tuesday on federal cocaine charges.

    Ravenel and another man were accused of distributing less than 500 grams of the drug starting in late 2005.

    Ravenel is also the state chairman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign.

    Ravenel started his political career in 2004, funding his own campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. He finished a close third in the Republican primary.

    Ravenel was founder of the Ravenel Development Corp., a commercial real estate development company. His father, Arthur Ravenel Jr., was a powerful politician from Charleston who served eight years in the U.S. House and is a former state representative and state senator.

    So today it comes out 911Rudy911Ghouliani911 was booted from the Iraq Study Group because he didn’t show for a single damn meeting. Too busy raking in $11 million in a speaking tour talking to crowds of gullible 25%ers…

    And his good ol boy SC state GOOPer chairman is a coke dealer…

    for heaven’s sake what is next? he likes to dress in drag?!?!
    oh wait… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&NR=1

  63. leftbehind Says:

    What’s all the hate regarding Ghouliani expressing pride in his alternative lifestyle? I though you supported Gay marriage, Inky Black. When was the last time a gay man tried to stick a book up your wife’s crack? You and yer Daddy the black Klansman gonna git them fags? Yew gonna run them Nancy boys outta Kintucky. How intolerant! I shutter to think what havok you might wreak in the Tenderloin with a tank!

    Remember Stonewall and stay black!

  64. leftbehind Says:

    I’ve come to expect this kind of ignorance from whites, who have never suffered under prejudice themselves and really don’t understand – but you, as a member of a minority group yourself, should know better.

    It’s things like this that make me weep for what could be.

  65. leftbehind Says:

    It’s lucky for your friend on the bike that he was not transgendered. These people you and your Christian morality hold up to such ridicule often fair far worse in the hands of the law:

    On November 21, 2005 in San Diego, California, transgendered Vanessa Facen stopped breathing during a melee with sheriff’s deputies Facen, 35, was in the custody of San Diego police after being found naked and bleeding inside her neighbor’s home on November 17th. While it is unclear as to why Facen became violent while in police custody, signs indicate that it was her treatment by officers — who insisted on treating her as male while in custody — that contributed to her actions.


    On 13 August 2001, Jeremy Burke, a transgender man, was refused entry to his partner’s
    home by a housing authority security guard who cited a policy that residents must come
    down to the lobby to admit a visitor. He reportedly attempted to explain that his partner
    was ill and needed the medication he brought for her. According to Jeremy Burke, the
    security guard then shoved him into the elevator. Approximately 15 minutes after he
    arrived at his partner’s apartment, three police officers came to the door, entered the
    apartment and pulled Jeremy Burke out of a chair. They allegedly carried him into the
    hallway, and started punching him in the face, chest and eyes. His head was reportedly
    slammed into the floor and wall. The police report — which consistently uses the wrong
    pronouns, referring to Jeremy Burke as a woman — alleges that he attempted to strike
    and later to bite one of the officers, but was subdued. He was arrested on charges of
    assault, battery, resisting arrest and trespassing and taken to the police station, where he alleges he was subjected to humiliating and transphobic verbal abuse and medical neglect.
    Jeremy Burke was vomiting bile and blood for several days after the beating. After three
    days, he was taken to San Francisco General Hospital where it was discovered that his
    kidneys were injured from the beating and he was bleeding internally. Reportedly, his
    black eye and bruises were visible and documented. All charges against him were
    eventually dropped, except that of trespassing.

    Patti Shaw, a transgender woman, was arrested following a domestic dispute in 2003. She had undergone sex-reassignment surgery and had been issued with identification that had been legally corrected to reflect her gender. However, the authorities determined that they had no procedure for changing her gender from male to female in the court’s criminal record system and reportedly placed her in a male cellblock. In the courthouse cellblock male prisoners allegedly subjected her to systematic sexual harassment – including verbally abusing her, lifting up her skirt, exposing their penises and masturbating in front of her; they also reportedly sexually assaulted her. The guards allegedly did nothing to intervene and protect her.

    Several youths drove by a Latina transgender woman in their car in 1999, stopped, and
    attacked her, stabbing her and beating her with a baseball bat. When Los Angeles Police
    Department (LAPD) officers responded, they reportedly focused on determining the
    woman’s “real” gender. They demanded her driving licence, which identified her as female, but refused to accept this documentation. Officers allegedly demanded that responding paramedics examine her to confirm that she was male. The paramedics refused to do so. Police also reportedly harassed witnesses to the crime, many of whom were also transgender women, inquiring about their immigration status.

  66. knarlyknight Says:

    Hey Enkidu,

    Thanks for the greencycles blogspot. While I’m sure to agree with shcb’s likely explanation that them cops were just a couple bad apples, I will also likely disagree with where he’d go next: that them cops just got a little carried away just like at Abu Ghraid but not so bad, see they weren’t so bad… and besides if they really were being held up from an important call then “Orsak” deserved what he got anyway…

    Sadly, there’s a fair chance that Orsak will go broke fighting this and end up squished by the state like a bug.

  67. enkidu Says:

    Well, I am not quite ready to believe (or is that Believe?) that the gun’mint demoed the WTC, but this simulation (and what was left out) is convincing me that this was an inside job more than any of knarly’s links. tho you should keep em coming u krazykanucs! =) I can be convinced with better data.


    So these guys made a simulation of a jet whacking into the WTC. Well, that was quite a bit of damage. However, notice how you get very few sequences where you see the size of the entire building vs the area where the impact occurred. Forgive me if I make a common sense observation, but the impact snapped a double handful of columns, and the resulting fires weakened many more. The core of that building was far too massive, far too redundant a mesh to have simply disintegrated like it did.

    Only three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Ever. WTC1, WTC2 and the one Julie Ghouliani ‘pulled’ (had to throw that in there as a shout out to sister lefty). Those towers were designed to take the impact – and resulting fires – from the biggest airliner of the day, and then some. A bomber smacked into the empire state building: it did not collapse into a pile of rubble. Check out the much more dramatic Madrid skyscraper fire. No pile of rubble.

    Actually I just spent several minutes using The Google and found that there have been many fires in steel frame buildings. This quote seemed very interesting to me: “It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?”

  68. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi Enkidu,

    One of the architects described the WTC steel layout as being designed like a screen window, so that if an aircraft struck it would be like a pencil going through the mesh. The remaining structures could more than sustain the existing load. The video of him describing it is more convincing than my description.

    There are now over 100 architects and structural engineers questioning the official conspiracy theory (OCT) with regards to the collapse of the buildings. I think you can find them and their individual questions on one of the scholars for 911 truth sites.

    You’ve identified a few troubling questions about the 911 OCT. There are hundreds. Debunkers try to pick a few to answer in support of their silly theory, or to cast doubt on the validity of even asking such questions, and then suggest that the hundreds of other questions aren’t worth dealing with. Sadly for them, debunking the basis for a few questions, or casting doubt on some of them, or refusing to answer them does not qualify as an adequate defence of their OCT. Discarding a few does not invalidate the many. In fact, discarding the many does not even invalidate the few.

    Regarding the simulation, don’t hang your hat on it too closely. If I recall the debate about it on 911Blogger.com correctly, the consensus was that it generally supports, via an animation, the OCT. Although it is billed as being a scientific work, it is simply a highly detailed animation of the scientific work of others (e.g. NIST) whose accuracy in regards to the collapsing towers has already been highly criticized and “debunked”.
    Refer to the 911 Victim’s families petition for a new enquiry, delivered to Congress in the past month.

    There are also disagreements in the accuracy of the animation.

    I think the biggest smoking gun lies with building 7, which was overbuilt, sustained asymetrical damage from falling debris to a lesser extent than other buildings (WTC6?), had very small fires RELATIVE to raging infernos in other skyscraper fires (e.g. Madrid), WTC7 fires were RANDOM, yet the 47 story building collapsed symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint in a manner experienced demolition experts describe as an expert demolition. Demolition of a building is not easy, if it could be done with a few whacks with a wrecking ball and some arson to simulate what happened to WTC7 then the demolition industry has been run by fools for its entire history.

    You may be interested to go to 911Blogger.com and read the comments about the Purdue university simulation. There is a search engine on the site, but if you cannot find the right blog entry let me know and I’ll find the link.

  69. leftbehind Says:

    Sister Lefty says “hi,” too Inky Black. Cute slip, but your homophobia’s showing. You and yer daddy run them nancy boys up the hollar yet? Would’t want them Janey’s ‘fectin the chillins with that AIDS. We just got rid of one Jerry Falwell, too bad to see you geared up to take his place.

    Why is it that black men, such as yourself, have a harder time with homosexuality than do whites? It’s one of the only issues currently on the cultural plate that many whites approach more progressively than do many blacks. Why does an alternative sexual preference bring out the “thug” in you the way it does? Who’s the conservative now?

  70. leftbehind Says:

    You might want to actually answer this one in other than your typical “Lil Abner” level prose, as it might be of interest and service to many of the posters here, the majority of whom are white, and have probably never gotten a chance to discuss this issue with an African American. “Don’t Hate – Create.”

  71. leftbehind Says:

    …and Knarlyknight, here’s something you can fixate on during lulls in 9-11 conspiracy “scholarship.” Here’s the REAL reason William Cooper was killed:


  72. leftbehind Says:

    ..but Inkydoo, you should definately go to THIS site first:


  73. knarlyknight Says:

    Just checked, they’re talking about the Purdue thing now:


    A couple comments:

    “I don’t see al-Satami’s passport in their simulation. Or did he chuck that from the cockpit window just prior to impact? ;-)”

    “For RAW Story, this is pretty good. Hope it is a sign of better things to come from them. The sim should be shredded as it is pure junk science/cartoon nonsense, but RAW has never gone this far into questioning the OCT, so it is positive in that respect.”

  74. shcb Says:

    Just a few common sense points:

    [Only three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Ever. WTC1, WTC2 …
    Actually I just spent several minutes using The Google and found that there have been many fires in steel frame buildings. This quote seemed very interesting to me: “It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?”]

    You are comparing buildings with fires alone and not buildings with fires and massive impact damage.

    [Those towers were designed to take the impact – and resulting fires – from the biggest airliner of the day, and then some.]

    Evidently not.

    [A bomber smacked into the empire state building: it did not collapse into a pile of rubble. Check out the much more dramatic Madrid skyscraper fire. No pile of rubble.]

    A 767-200 weighs between 80 and 157 tons depending on load, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building was slightly over 10 tons. The fuel capacity of a b-25 was 811 gallons, a 767-200 is 23,980, almost 30 times the fuel.

    Damn those facts, they sure get in the way.

  75. knarlyknight Says:

    that link was silly, is your National Enquirer late today?
    Also, there is no lull in 911 news. New information comes out almost daily, although I suspect the current work on molecular signatures of thermate in the WTC dust being conducted and peer reviewed by chemists and molecular physicists will be beyond your level of comprehension except to the extent that you think you can ridicule it based on your position of ignorance and blind obedience to what your Masta’s have told you is the truth of 911. Nothing to see here boy, git along now.

  76. knarlyknight Says:


    there are many much better places to get “facts” than from your data bits couched in opinion.

  77. leftbehind Says:

    New information comes out on Bigfoot and UFO daily too, and I’m sure the adherants to those clownish apparitions are certainly as smug as you are about yours. Conspiracy theories are the final havens od charletans and fools, and nothing you or your buddies in the black helicoptor crowd have come up with on this 9-11 thing has done much to convince those of us who dwell in consensus reality otherwise. Now run along, the “Hour of the Time’s” on and you wouldn’t want to miss it.

  78. knarlyknight Says:


    Buildings with massive damage? “Massive” is a relative term, absolutely the planes were huge but the buildings were built to a tolerance that would more than handle the a huge airplane (they were built to withstand a collision with the planes of the day and to withstand hurricanes.)

    Your logic is classic DENIAL* (see below)

    The buildings stood by themselves for a while. They stood for an hour, proving they could well support their weight. Then they fell. Something at that point casued them to collapse. Your OCT says it was the fire. Where is the proof? Carted away ASAP to be recycled in China, destroy the evidence. Approximately 0.4% of the steels was retained for further study, but none of the “interesting” peices we see in some pictures with molted metal dribbling down cut lines that very, very, very closely resemble thermate cut lines.

    * DENIAL:
    ” The common debunker (shcb) positino seems to be that 9/11 was simply an anomalous event. That’s it. They put away their thinking caps, and proclaim the original architects and other experts wrong because, in a wicked case of arguing from the consequent, the buildings fell.”

    “That is, instead of recognizing that the buildings should have stood, debunkers simply say, “The buildings fell; therefore, the architects were wrong.” ”

    ” Anyone can invent a series of just-so arguments to explain why the buildings may have fallen, but the fact of their falling does not necessarily mean the architects were wrong.”

    ” So when you say “who can argue with the building designers,” the answer is, “the debunkers can.” What someone clever should do is make a computer simulation that manipulates the data such that the plane crashes could have produced another absurd result, like having the interior of the towers collapse but leave the perimeter standing. We need to demonstrate that the simulation (a) can be made to show many results, and (b) does not account for the cumulative evidence we have (eyewitnesses, explosions in the basement prior to impact, squibs, CD expert testimony, etc.). “

  79. leftbehind Says:

    …but if you do, don’t worry. I’ll bet Inky’s dad’s got the podcast on the ipod in Watch Tower 3 Bravo.

  80. knarlyknight Says:

    laughedbehind, with his own comments, has given ample evidence to the truth of my earlier statement that 911 news (research by scientists and those obtaining witheld info from government through FOIA and other means) is “..beyond your level of comprehension except to the extent that you think you can ridicule it based on your position of ignorance and blind obedience…”


  81. knarlyknight Says:


    I don’t think enkidu was trying to suggest that the 1945 bomber crash into Empire state building was the same plane or very similar to the jumbo jets that crashed into the WTC. You just constructed a strawman, shcb.

    Obviously there are differences between the two crashes: e.g. the WTC crash involved bigger planes but the way the towers were designed and constructed (there were advancements in structural engineering, and the availability of stronger and better concrete and other building materials) between when the Empire State was built in 1929 and the WTC construction in the 70’s was also significantly different. Enkidu’s point was that a plane crashing into a building causing great damage is not a de facto reason to expect the building (and surrounding buildings) to collapse in a near SYMETRICAL manner at near free-fall speeds.

    Maybe shcb could turn his attention to finding better examples of what happens when planes crash into buildings for comparison with the WTC catastrophe. Either that or he can continue to waste space with strawman arguments such as that two separate aircraft crashes (temporarily and quantitatively) into two separate buildings are, according to shcb’s meticulous researching of the “facts”, are actually two different aircraft crashes.

    I look foreard to shcb’s plane/building crash examples. By the way, I’ve seen the fighter video “vapourizing” into a re-inforced concrete wall, that was a learning experience. However, the re-inforced Pentagon walls did not hold up like the wall in the video, and although most of the Pentagon plane virtually vapourized apparently some paper evidence and DNA from all the passengers on the flight survived.

    On a different subject, if all the passengers on the pentagon plane were accounted for by DNA evidence (so therefore the hijackers couldn’t have been impersonating a fictitious passenger), yet the hijackers weren’t on any of the passenger lists, how did they get on the plane?

    Never mind. Instead, let’s just have a full impartial INTERNATIONALLY RUN investigation into the government’s 911 conspiracy theory and other possible hypothesis.

  82. knarlyknight Says:

    “The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it; that was the largest plane at that time. I believe that that building could sustain multiple impacts.”
    Mr. Frank A. DeMartina, WTC Construction Project Manager

    “The airplane we were envisioning was the largest airplane of its time. We designed the buildings to take the impact of the Boeing 707 hitting the building at any location.”
    Mr. Les Robertson, Head of WTC Structural Engineering Group.

    More (with respect to a response to the Purdue animation) here:

  83. leftbehind Says:

    Knarlyknight – There’s very little here beyond anyone’s comprehension, really. You’re just doing what conspiracy theorists always do. You just found some internet sources (it used to be the shortwave radio when I was a young UFO enthusiast,) that provide you with scientific-seeming information that you don’t really understand, then repeat it to us hoping that we don’t understand it either and will accept it on that basis. I can’t form a credible argument based on structural capabilities of buildings, melting points of various metals, etc., because I’m not an engineer, an architect or a metalurgist – but neither can you, because you’re not either. You’re just doing what you accuse everyone else of doing – you’ve decided, based on your predispositions, what you believe, you’ve found a source that seems to back it up in what you perceive to be accurate, technical terms, which are ultimately too far outside your own skill set to judge accurately. There’s no need to get all high and mighty about that.

    If there was a wealth of ironclad evidence of anything you are trying to establish, this debate would be carried on publicly on levels higher than either your’s or mine – it wouldn’t be (practically) the sole domain of internet bloggers and podcast hosts. The Bush administration can’t manage to pull panties over the head of some guy in Iraq without the entire world knowing about it, but you expect me to believe that somehow the US Government managed to blow up two skyscrapers in one of the world’s biggest cities, not to mention blow a hole in the Pentagon, and nobody knows about it but a bunch of conspiracy theorists on a weblog? It would take a conspiracy of silence involving literally hundreds if not thousands of people on all levels of society to pull a job like that, yet no one has come forward with any information or proof, and the media, who practically jizz all over the newsroom at any opportunity to defame the administration has either uncovered nothing regarding one of the biggest stories in human history, or are all so complicit with a power structure they can’t stand that they won’t report it. Do you honestly believe for a second that if Dan Rather had even an inkling that any of this were true, that he would have wasted time with that bogus National Guard memo? Do you think this Scooter Libby nonsense would even be newsworthy if Terry Moran had a line on the story that could not only bring down the President, but make him a journalistic God and millionaire? Of course, I’m forgetting that all the media are either a) tools of the administration or b) silenced in their terror of the Shadow Police – but isn’t that the line every conspiracy theorist falls back on in the end – “You can’t trust anyone but me and my dubious sources, because everyone else but us has been bought off. Every supposedly credible source in the whole world outside myself and some guy who runs a website in his Mom’s basement are too afraid to tell the REAL TRUTH”

    Besides all this, if the Government were actually powerful enough to pull off the destruction of 9/11, the very nature of their power would make 9/11 counterproductive. If they were already so in control of our society, from the street level to the highest offices of the military, business and the public sector, their control would already be so complete, so total, that something like 9/11 would be the last thing they would have to do. In simple terms, if you are so powerful you can destroy two of the world’s biggest buildings and cover your tracks that completely, you’re powerful enough to start a War in Iraq without having to blow up the World Trade Center to do it. You’re already powerful enough to establish whatever totalitarian regime you wish, without having to blow up the World Trade Center to do it. If you’re powerful enough to blow up the World Trade Center witout fear of reprisal, you’re powerful enough to make damn sure there are weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq when you need there to be WMDs in Iraq. Nobody knows what you do to prisoners in Iraq when you’re that powerful. Nobody knows Gitmo even exists when you are that powerful. Rolling Stone magazine doesn’t publicly criticize your foriegn policy when you’re that powerful, and Michael Moore would be Michael Who? in some hole somewhere.

    Why bring attention to yourself if you’ve already consolidated that much power undercover? Give the people bread and circuses. Give them peace, or at least easy victories, and they will ask no questions. Blow up the World Trade Center and, as you yourself are an apt example, people will ask questions to the point of making up questions to ask. For the World Trade Center to come down as you suggest it did, the Police State would already have to be in place, and would have had to have been going swimmingly in secret for years – why risk such total control for no good reason. Unless the real Paul McCartney’s body were hidden in a gold chest in the World Trade Center parking Garage…or maybe somebody figured out that the studio where they filmed the fake Moon landing was down there, or maybe Ron-Za got loose from Area 51 and something had to be done…

  84. leftbehind Says:


  85. NorthernLite Says:

    Roddy Piper rules.

  86. leftbehind Says:


  87. leftbehind Says:

    A government plot to destroy the World Trade Center could not have been a spur of the moment action. It would have been planned for years before its execution.

    On March 4, 2001….6 mos. before 9/11… “The Lone Gunmen” series aired on FOX TV. The pilot episode of this X-Files spinoff was about a commercial airliner having its navigation system hijacked and being flown into the World Trade Center via remote control by a covert group within the US government in order to create an alleged terrorist attack on the US.
    This pilot episode was filmed between March 20 – April 7, 2000, 19 months before 9/11.

    If a group within the government, powerful enough to destroy the World Trade Center with complete atonomy were able to do so, and to almost completely block the flow of information regarding the event, why would they allow something this close to reality to be shown on national television only a few months before they were planning to act? I thought they controlled the media. I thought Fox was a propaganda arm for the Big Power Machine. What gives?


  88. knarlyknight Says:

    Don’t take my word for it, refer to the neo con song sheet for why they did it:

    PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in Section V entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”, includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”

    Signed off by all the war criminals just prior to 2001.

  89. leftbehind Says:

    Which is basically as sinister a statment as you care to make it. It’s the same thing as me saying “I’ve got a nice house here, and it will continue to be a nice house unless someone burns it down.” Looking forward to potential trouble from outside or fermenting a fiendish plot for world domination?

    I’ve answered enough of your questions for one day kid, let’s have a look at how you tackle the issues I brought up. I’m sure we would all like to explore your psychological landscape together. What’s the big picture? How, specifically, am I wrong? Who’s really out to get you, and how are you and and Liberty Legion going to save us all in the end? C’mon, Rowdy Roddy – show us. Let us see the world through your dark glasses for a little while.

  90. leftbehind Says:

    …for instance, if the PNAC is such as super sinister outline for the fourth reich, why do we even know about it? Shouldn’t it be under dark glass, defended by the Emperor’s private guard in the Fortress of Darkness? Every lefty blogger worth his Berkinstocks has already posted at least portions of it years ago. More people have read it than have read “Howl” – don’t you think such an obvious outline for a totalitarian take over of everything would be more carefully concealed? If it was leaked to the public, isn’t that more damning to the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory? I mean, how are we to believe that any group of people could keep a massive undertaking like 9/11 under wraps when they can’t even secure one lousy document – especially when that document is supposed to be the layout for the entire scheme? How does it help the Grand Conspiracy to have every college kid on the internet quoting huge sections of the World Domination Manifesto right out in the open? If these guys are evil enough to kill over 3000 people in one day, why didn’t they just go ahead with the handful of eliminations it would have taken to keep the document out of the public eye in the first place? Certainly, such a document would be a “for your eyes only” sort of tome, with a limited number of people authorized to even see it. With limited access, it would be easy to figure out who would leak it, and probably stop them before they could do so.

  91. leftbehind Says:

    I guess Dick Cheny was too busy with his studies at Evil Genius School to watch “Mission Impossible.” “This PNAC will self-destruct in 60 seconds…”

  92. knarlyknight Says:

    Wow Lefty, you’ve really taken a lot of questions and run full out to construct some mighty wild conspiracy theories, I had no idea you had such a vivid imagination. Thankfully you can disprove all that you construct or attribute to others as constructing. Well done man.

    PNAC is old news, I was surprised I had to point it out to you but evidently you were toying with me. Of course it is not likely to be a super sinister master plan for the Fourth Reich as you suggest, but it is something, it may just be a public acknowledgement that `we`re all in this together` or the like, obviously it is not a contract with the devil literally signed in blood.

    Skeptics say, take a look man, something is there and it says THIS is what the neo cons identified as being required – nay wanted – to get to where they wanted to go, and once they got into power the cards just sort of fell into place. You could call that coincidence number 666 to occur in relation to September 11, 2001 if you want, I just call it a little evidence of motive. That distilled all your questions into the central theme of your post: why would they do 911 if they had so much power already? The answer is that they did not think they had enough power as proven by the PNAC document that dealt in part with achieving that power through a new Pearl Harbour. But of course you can`t recognize that as a legitimate reply and have to resort to juvenile ridicule of self-destructing documents.

    By the way, what is your “leftbehind” handle supposed to mean, perhaps you envision yourself as a Mark Wahlberg in Shooter?
    http://www.shootermovie.com/ Ooops, wrong side – you’re the blue team right?

    Also, you came on this site recently speaking jibberish right up to June 20, then on June 21 you turn into Hannity AND Colmes? Jekyll and Hyde got nothing on you baby.

    Never seen so many straw men in one place.

    As for all your questions, it’s great to have someone as logical as yourself looking at all the conspiracy shit and saying “Man, it just doesn’t make sense!” You`re right, all the assumptions you`ve made in your conspiracy theories above do not make sense.

    So at that point you got to ask yourself, “well if that doesn’t make sense, what does..`

    That`s where the journey begins my friend.

    But you got to get control of your vivid imagination and stop making so many assumptions.
    Learn some of the techniques of your own CIA with respect to black ops and false flag operations.
    Figure out how sophisticated the science of social engineering has become since it was invented in the early decades of the twentieth century.
    Examine what events happen in the world vs. what gets reported in the mass media generally.

    Ask yourself – in light of what you`ve learned from studying the above rather than under the spell of those who want to discredit those who they label as conspiracy nuts in order to discredit them prejudicially – why so many intelligent people and very intelligent people actively question govt versions of past events and justifications for military conquest. Snap quiz true or false: Iraq was to be a quick, pay-for-itself military intervention to remove a perceived (or manufactured) threat to American security but now there are something like 30 permanent US military bases being built there plus an embassy like no other in the world and a presence anticipated to last as long as oil remains under the sand. True or False?
    sorry i digressed.

    As for conspiracy nuts, here are a few:

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great
    publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion
    for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if
    we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more
    sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty
    of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination
    practiced in past centuries”–David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
    in June of 1991

    “David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day’s work… In the world of David Rockefeller it’s hard to tell where business ends and politics begins” . Bill Moyers

    “We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media.
    We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them”–Time Warner spokesperson.

    “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis added], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

    “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the
    scenes.”– Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.

    “The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.” President John Fitzgerald Kennedy – In a speech made to Columbia University on Nov. 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination .

    “For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from it’s original
    assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy making arm of the government.” —
    President Harry Truman

    “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”– U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.

    “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson

    “It was not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread to the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.” The Writings of George Washington 1798 letter.

    In a June, 1992 exclusive and published interview granted by President George H. W. Bush to Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the White House press corps at the time:
    “George Bush, what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?”
    “Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us.”

    “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.” – Albert Einstein

    “There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free” – Goethe

  93. knarlyknight Says:

    By the way, that last quote was provided by a man who recently came to realize there is more to the story than he was being told.

    His story here:


    The amazing thing is that 99.9% of the people who become informed about 911 and change their position go from the government`s official conspiracy theory to a questioning of that theory. Few if any ever go back to supporting the government`s conspiracy theory that Osama outwitted NORAD.

  94. leftbehind Says:

    I knew the Illuminati was going to enter into this somewhere.

  95. leftbehind Says:

    Are you familiar with the fine work of fellow soldier Francis E. Dec, Esquire?


  96. shcb Says:


    [there are many much better places to get “facts” than from your data bits couched in opinion.]
    I haven’t a clue what you are saying here, if you are saying I am basing my opinions on facts, mundane or otherwise, I guess guilty as charged. Using data bits to form opinions is the essence of an INFORMED opinion. You also throw probability and common sense into the mix to make a rational decision. Since anomalies do occur, there is always the chance you can be wrong, but odds are you will be right many more times than wrong.

    I didn’t create a straw man argument, for that to be the case I would have had to have misrepresented his argument, I misrepresented nothing, I minimized the effect of his exaggeration with pertinent facts. “A bomber smacked into the empire state building: it did not collapse into a pile of rubble.” Nowhere in that statement does it mention the plane was 10 times bigger with a capacity of 30 times more fuel. I also forgot to mention the speed difference, a 767 is 2 .3 times faster than a 767 (cruise speed) if I recall my physics right, force increases by the square of speed, multiply by the size difference, and you get the World Trade Center getting hit with 53 times more force than the Empire State Building. That kind of disparity is relevant. Your example of the 707 is more reasonable, a 767 is only 1.5 times the size of a 707 and they both fly at the same speed, to make anything but a passing mention of that fact would be nitpicking, but 53x is very relevant. No straw man. Also Colonel William Smith was trying to miss the building, the Arabs were aiming for the middle of them.

    And of course there is no empirical data to back up a 707 hitting a building like there is a B-25. Now that we have the data of the 767’s hitting buildings we can tweak our models to get the same results as we saw on 911, look at what the model required for the collapse and see if it is probable. We then run the B-25 crash through the model and see if it fits. This would still be pretty speculative since we have a sample size of two. There have been smaller crashes involving fighter jets and small aircraft but to my knowledge none on this scale. So we are quite possibly creating a new science here.

    [e.g. the WTC crash involved bigger planes but the way the towers were designed and constructed (there were advancements in structural engineering, and the availability of stronger and better concrete and other building materials) between when the Empire State was built in 1929 and the WTC construction in the 70’s was also significantly different.]
    I’m not sure that is a logical assertion. Yes, materials and designs were made better significantly in those 40 years. I am not a civil engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, if a product (a building in this case) is performing adequately, new improvements and techniques usually go into areas other than making something stronger, less weight, easier to produce, cosmetic differences, that sort of thing. The day to day function of a building has not changed, people still take up the same amount of space, the wind and snow loads are the same etc. The fact that the buildings did stand long enough for a total evacuation except for the people caught in the initial blast and those above the flames is testament that the buildings could stand a direct hit from a 707. Also remember the buildings were designed with asphestos insulation but was replaced with an inferior product above the 60th or so floor, so the original design was compromised marginally, but that is probably getting a little nitpicky. A properly designed ship for instance doesn’t have to be unsinkable, just slow sinking enough to get people into the lifeboats.

    Leftbehind, thanks for your dissertation of rational thought on the scope of what it would take to pull this off, I have tried many times with these guys to say similar things, of course they just ignore you and then say we are in denial, I’m not in denial, I know who did it. One point to add that I made many times is that the president has the power under the constitution to wage war wherever he sees fit, within reason of course, attacking Sweden wouldn’t fly, but Iraq would. After ignoring so many UN resolutions for so long there was plenty of moral and legal justification. Why take such a risk when you don’t have to? None of these guys has even attempted to answer that question.

    If I were going to make up a conspiracy theory that I thought might be possible, it would be a small group of moderately high level officials and agents working for the CIA that colluded with Osama. They would give him information, and training help, maybe finances. In return he would supply the zealots. From that you could work in the explosives to be somewhat plausible if you can take over offices or floors for renovation so the walls could be removed and replaced over a period of months or years. End of story. The problem with that is that it doesn’t fulfill the ultimate goal of bringing down the president or exonerating an enemy sworn to our demise. If this conspiracy were correct war against Arabs would still be justified, we would just need to also bring traitorous conspirators to justice as well.

    To reach those goals, we have to bring in the cast of thousands that include everyone from the president to stock brokers and a ship full of sailors (Pentagon was hit with a missile from where?). But this is where conspiracies not based on facts always fall apart, anytime a roadblock is hit a parallel conspiracy has to be constructed to get around the blockage, the conspiracy gets bigger and more convoluted. At some point credibility and plausibility suffer irreparable damage.

  97. knarlyknight Says:

    Please note that casting severe doubt or even disproving one particular “theory” does not disprove every event. E.g. if you disprove a likely strawman such as what hit the Pentagon, that does not prove that the textbook CD collapse of WTC 7 was due to asymmetrical damage and fire.

    Alleging that 911 was a vast government conspiracy involving even as you suggest stockbrockers shows a gross and fundamental misunderstanding how espionage (and terrorism) is conducted. Ever read John Le Cariie? For a simple (overly simple) overview that might help you get up on the learning curve a little, there is this:

    “…, through their positions of access in the military command structure, a very small group of people would have been able to appropriate these technologies to carry out the attack. While the attack is engineered by a core of only a dozen people, vast numbers of people facilitate the attack and cover-up, for the most part unknowingly, by simply doing what they normally do in their positions: promote and protect their agencies and the status quo. The public at large participates in the cover-up by failing to question the attack and instead believing the relatively comforting myth of bin Laden.
    This scenario contrasts with Professor A.K. Dewdney’s Operation Pearl, which requires large numbers of insiders. One of the most persuasive arguments made by defenders of the official story is that an inside job would have involved a conspiracy too large to keep concealed. Attack Scenario 404 provides a counterexample.”

  98. shcb Says:


    You are absolutely right, knocking out one major part of a conspiracy doesn’t eliminate the possibility of the conspiracy, but it does tear a huge hole in the credibility of the conspiracy as a whole. I am simply piecing all the parts you have provided over the past few months and looking at the whole. If your theory was plausible you would have stopped at the point it started to loose credibility, the stock brokers for instance, saying they invested and divested in a timely manner around 911 shows they had information they could have only received from the conspirators. The group just got larger. Sure security guards, police, construction workers and such can be manipulated by a small group but there is a chance one of them will get wise so even their number needs to be minimized. Remember a clerk stopped the murder of many soldiers just recently.

    I’ve asked this before without an answer (surprise, surprise), if you were going to go to all the trouble of setting charges in a high rise and then blame the resulting tragedy on Arabs, why all the airplanes. Why not just blow the building and blame the Arabs? It would be a credible scenario since they had tried it once before, you could just say they got it right this time.

    Just for the record does that mean you are backing away from the missile at the Pentagon? (Hint; it’s too late now, this is another place you should have thought through and distanced yourself from at the beginning.)

    Of course I’m probably wrong about this since I’m too stupid to understand espionage on even the most rudimentary level.

  99. knarlyknight Says:

    Show me where I have ever said that a missile hit the Pentagon.

    You are lying to suggest that I said that. I don’t know what happened at the Pentagon. The pilots who analyzed the recently released FAA flight data records cannot reconcile the recorded path with the OCT flight path and impact angle, the alleged pilot was incapable of making the complicated maneuvers, there was an incomprehensible 360 (?) degree spiral prior to impact providing ample opportunity for ground to air action, there has been much debate about the size of the impact hole, and of course there is all the fragile DNA evidence from EVERY passenger recovered whereas the plane and contents were for the most part vapourized. Plus the hijackers weren’t on the passenger list. Plus all the video tapes were seized by the FBI MINUTES after the impact and only a few useless frames have been released. All those raise questions, but as for theories as to what happened how the hell am I supposed to know? And how the hell can you be so sure it happened just the way your nice little government tells you it happened?

    Scenario 404 gives a fairly good perfunctory explanation of why you guys like to focus on the Pentagon attack.

    Why all the trouble to hijack the airplanes?
    1. It adds 100 times the psychological impact (a New Pearl Harbour is lame without the planes, it would be little more than another Oklahoma City bombing);

    2. it could be problematic trying to explain how a group of Arabs had the necessary access to secured WTC locations over an extended time period and where they could have purchased the large quantities of thermate necessary to cut the steel in so many places (much easier to blame it on hijackers);

    3. it really would NOT be too much trouble for the CIA or ISI or any other security agency to enlist a bunch of patsy’s to take part in what they think is a security “exercise” or a simple hijacking, and the technology to remotely control the planes was readily available;

    4. the disruption to civil aviation and hysteria instilled by press coverage of the hijackings provides pretexts for instituting draconian security measures – just one example is the no fly lists – to further erode your liberty and privacy that freedom loving Americans used to cherish and would have otherwise resisted losing.

  100. leftbehind Says:


    This is worth watching, and will explain a lot of what’s being discussed here for those who are understandably puzzled as to where a lot of this conspiracy stuff originates. The speaker is Alex Jones, and his rather long-winded speech serves as an introduction regarding the Illuminati, Starbucks and Nikelodeon. You might want to fast forward a few minutes, as Jones rattles on way too long before getting to the meat of the matter.

    Here’s a similar video:

  101. shcb Says:

    I only save my work, I don’t save the whole thread, but here is a portion of a response I sent to you on 5-15-07.

    [Actually KK, I’ve already answered all those points, you never answered some of mine though; where did the missile come from? Naval ship? Land based? Who fired it? Military? Why did it not explode? Or did it only explode out and not up?]

    1. most of the people in the buildings got out, if the buildings collapsed without warning the loss on life in the building and on the street would have been enormous, maybe 10,000? Just a guess, OKC was what 122? Just a little more than OKC.
    2. Why? You blame the thermite on Sadam, he is the real target in your conspiracy, right?
    3. Who installs the remote control? More folks involved. If patsies were enlisted for an “exedcise” wouldn’t their supervisors be notified, wouldn’t they tell their wives? It is only an exercise after all. Nothing sinister is happening.
    4. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to get a few regulations passed. A simple hijacking or two would do the same thing without loss of life.

    You’re loosing my friend. Think fast, fire from the hip. Call me stupid again, that always works, make some disparaging remarks about my place of birth (LaJunta, Colorado) melon country, mostly Mexicans and Japanese, not many whites, does that make me a minority?

  102. knarlyknight Says:

    As your responses are often non-sequitors, your writings about missile conspiracy theories have little to do with what I have said.

    To score cheap points, you imply that I said that a missile struck the Pentagon and that I am now backing away from that position.

    Either prove that I made such a statement in a previous post or apologize.

  103. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty, you never answered to what your “handle” refers.

    And WOW you sure found some crappy material on how leaders manipulate society. Secret markings on Starbucks cups, LOL, is THAT what you think this is all about? Come on man, you are smarter than that.

    In contrast, here’s a recent item that sheds a little light on past government abuses. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that, since these guys have about a godzillion times greater budget now than they did then and less oversight, they may still be up to their old tricks or worse, much worse…

    (Start of paste)
    The US Central Intelligence Agency is to declassify hundreds of documents detailing some of the agency’s worst illegal abuses from the 1950s to 1970s.

    The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.
    Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.
    It is “unflattering” but part of agency history, CIA chief Michael Hayden said.
    “This is about telling the American people what we have done in their name,” Gen Hayden told a conference of foreign policy historians.
    The documents, dubbed the “Family Jewels”, offer a “glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency”.
    The full 693-page file detailing CIA illegal activities was compiled on the orders of the then CIA director James Schlesinger in 1973.
    He had been alarmed by accounts of CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal under his predecessor and asked CIA officials to inform him of all activities that fell outside the agency’s legal charter.


    Ahead of the documents’ release by the CIA, the National Security Archive, an independent research body, on Thursday published related papers it had obtained.

    These detail government discussions in 1975 of the CIA abuses and briefings by Mr Schlesinger’s successor at the CIA, William Colby, who said the CIA had “done some things it shouldn’t have”.

    Among the incidents that were said to “present legal questions” were:
    • the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
    • assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba’s Fidel Castro
    • wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
    • behaviour modification experiments on “unwitting” US citizens
    • surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
    • opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet
    Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China

    The papers also convey mounting concern in President Gerald Ford’s administration that what were dubbed the CIA’s “skeletons” were surfacing in the media.

    Henry Kissinger, then both secretary of state and national security adviser, was against Mr Colby’s moves to investigate the CIA’s past abuses and the fact that agency secrets were being divulged.
    Accusations appearing in the media about the CIA were “worse than in the days of McCarthy”, Mr Kissinger said.
    Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229750.stm
    I hope this sends shivers down the spines of those helping cover-up the true events of 9/11 !!!
    (End of Paste)

  104. shcb Says:

    Well, what else would I have been referring to last month? Perhaps I was referring to a link you offered, if I was that is still your doing. This is one of the reasons I don’t use links much, I don’t want to be responsible for someone else’s work.

    Found it! This is close enough, you can read the rest in the archives, no apology necessary.

    knarlyknight Says:
    May 14th, 2007 at 1:10 am

    Why was the hole in the Pentagon only about the size of a scud missile?

  105. knarlyknight Says:


    My listing of 24 examples of questions out of hundred of questions referred to in the link as examples of unanswered questions, is enough for you to attribute my supposed belief in a particular theory.

    That does not cut it. I never said that I thought a missile struck the Pentagon or that I do not think a missile struck the Pentagon. What I have always maintained is that the evidence does not fit the explanations that the American public is sold.

    911research’s scenario 404 provides an interesting hypothesis as to why the Boeing hole was smaller than expected, I doubt it is plausible but it makes more sense than most other explanations so far.

    Anyone questioning the context and shcb’s near TOTAL MIS-REPRESENTATION of my long-standing position can find the archived original post about half way down this page, just look for the May 14, 2007 post of 1:10 am.

    It also contains a link to many of those other 911 questions as well.

  106. shcb Says:

    Do you realize how silly you are sounding? The government said it was a plane, the nuts say it was a missile. You now say you don’t believe either, I’m confused, what else is there? And yes, by all means read the whole post everyone (I think the body count at this point of a long thread is about 4 including me and you.) I trust the jury will find in my favor.

    So let me ask you point blank what do you think hit the pentagon and who was controlling it. Preemptively, I know you don’t know for sure, I don’t either, I’m just asking for your educated opinion base on what we know or think we know.

  107. shcb Says:

    One other point, you cut and pasted that from another site, you didn’t just provide a link. If you didn’t agree with a missile hitting the Pentagon, why did you consciously include it? Or not at least disclaim that line?

  108. knarlyknight Says:

    What do I think hit the Pentagon? I really do not know, but it seems foolish to jump on any one theory given all the conflicting evidence and contrasting witness statements, the withheld evidence, the lack of flight trajectory alignment with the flight data readings, etc. and all the other questions about the events of that day.

    Also, given who we are dealing with it is nearly impossible to take any statement at face value. E.g. Bush and Rice said at the time that no-one had any idea that terrorists would crash planes into buildings, despite the fact they must have known that just that scenario was being played out in one of the concurrent war game simulations that day and that Bush was rushed out of a building in Italy months earlier due to just such a threat.

    Why did I include that question when I posted it? Because the questinos did not say that a missile hit the pentagon, it only suggested (strongly) that that might be a good alternate theory because the hole was about the right size for that. The point of the question is not that it *had* to be a missile, the point is that it is this huge glaring question mark and further investigation is warranted. Especially since you have an incapable pilot making stunning manouvers in a very complicated aircraft that experienced pilots say would be very difficult to control, contrasting witness accounts (but you got ear plugs for that), and a refusal to release Citgo, Sheraton hotel, etc security videos that should have captured the approaching airliner and impact.

    If it was a missile they’ve had nearly 6 years to perfect inserting of a plane image into the video, so why haven’t they released it now? Probably because debate on this point diverts attention, just like you have done, from the real smoking guns of 911.

  109. leftbehind Says:

    Is this thing on?

  110. leftbehind Says:


    Leftbehind is a reference to the Biblical notion of Rapture, and the pop/trash novels in the “Left Behind Series.” If all the good little kids get to go to Heaven at the end of the world, the Left Behind are all us kids too are too stubborn, argumentative and irritating to go with them. “When there is no more room in Hell, the assholes will walk the Earth…”

  111. leftbehind Says:

    Now, as for the Illuminati question: If the illuminati have nothing to do with any of your theories, why did you bring them up on this thread. Also, if Alex Jones is such “crap,” why does that “911blogger” site you rattle on about incessantly include links to his site, via the link you provided on this thread? Why can I stream his radio show from 911blogger.com, via the link you provided on thisa thread? Why does the Zeitgeist” video you reference on this thread contain excerpts from Alex Jones’ “Terrorstorm” video? Why did the story you referenced regarding the reporter who was arrested at the press conference originate at “The Jones Report,” which is Alex Jones’ site (accessed courtesy of 911blogger.com, via your link on this thread?) If Alex Jones is crap, most of your argument is crap, since so much of it leads back to Alex Jones.

  112. shcb Says:

    Typical liberal, when pressed they have no opinion on a subject they have written or regurgitated volumes. You can’t be a good egg all your life at some point you have to hatch or rot. When there are only two viable solutions to a problem, and neither is desirable liberals will criticize but offer no third alternative. Pick one or shut up!

    If it wasn’t a plane, and not a missile, then what. Take a stand wimp.

    We don’t always have all the information we would like but we make a decision or form an opinion based on what is available at the time and then adjust later as more info is available. At some point we may have to eat crow and admit we were wrong. That is what growing up is all about.

    Your last paragraph, remember earlier today, “this is where conspiracies not based on facts always fall apart, anytime a roadblock is hit a parallel conspiracy has to be constructed to get around the blockage, the conspiracy gets bigger and more convoluted. At some point credibility and plausibility suffer irreparable damage.”

  113. leftbehind Says:

    Here’s Alex Jones predicting 9/11 in July of 2001:


    Here’s Alex Jones predicting World War 3:


    Here’s Alex Jones’ secret videos of a Satanic Ritual at Bohemian Grove (hear the devil’s bagpipes!)



  114. leftbehind Says:

    is this thing still on?

  115. leftbehind Says:

    Go to Youtube and look up “Alex Jones Bohemian grove” for Jones’ super secret, grainy videos of a spooky Satanic ceremony conducted by “some of the world’s best known and influential leaders” at Bohemian Grove. I keep trying to post links, but they’re not posting for some reason.

  116. leftbehind Says:

    You can also find videos of Jones’ seer-like predictions of 9/11 (in July 2001, yeah right) and World War Three. You’ll also find out why vaccination is a government plot against Christian Patriots. The Firesign Theatre could not have made this guy up.

  117. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi, thanks Lefty for filling me in on leftbehind. Much appreciated.

    I had no idea you were such an Alex Jones fan. In case you missed it, here is the conclusion of one of his reporters about the Purdue Simulation:

    “So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory. ”


  118. knarlyknight Says:


    “Take a stand wimp” you say?

    I have. My stand is that there is not enough information to make a decision upon.

    That is a brave stand as it is rebelling against your mud slinging and intelligent because it places a stake in firm ground. If that pisses you off to the point that you have to start calling me names like “wimp” (thanks though for the “liberal” compliment) well, so sorry for you.

    At this point in time, if I had to guess, I would probably take out a dice and and say: 1 or 2 it’s a missile, 3 or 4 its a Boeing, 5 its a different drone plane, 6 it is something we haven’t thought of yet (like maybe shcb farted nearby).

    But to tell you the truth, I haven’t paid much attention to the Pentagon lately because there really isn’t much data about it lately except the recent AMAZING release of irreconcilable flight data (See pentagon link at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ )

  119. knarlyknight Says:

    This is much more interesting than the Pentagon:


  120. leftbehind Says:

    I think it’s pretty clear who the Alex Jones fan is. I don’t think his press agent could have given him more exposure here than you have.

    Then again, who couldn’t love this guy?


  121. leftbehind Says:

    And what ever you do, DON’T GET VACCINATED!!!


  122. shcb Says:

    So, your position of the Pentagon is you have no position. Since your non position is at odds with the current government you hate, you are courageous?

    Ok Captain Courageous, BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE NOW do you think anyone, cabinet level or above had prior knowledge of 911.

    ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE NOW do you think anyone in our government helped the Arabs plan or execute any phase of 911.

  123. enkidu Says:

    to paraphrase you: typical Rethuglican!
    You completely missed the crucial operative component of my statement and then proceed to dismiss my statement based on an incomplete reading of the sentence (I bolded the important bit for you):

    “(enkidu) “Only three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.” (shbc) “Actually I just spent several minutes using The Google and found that there have been many fires in steel frame buildings.”

    well duh! I am saying I have been unable to find a single example of a steel frame building completely collapsing due to fire. A great example of this is the much more intense fire in the Madrid skyscraper. Also, I’d like to know how a fire in the top 20% of the tower would make the whole bottom bit implode? Run this sim again – for the entire building – and show how the fire actually made the whole thing collapse into a heap

    As to the whole Ginormous Grand Conspiracy (therefore it just couldn’t be a conspiracy!) idea… well I think that it wouldn’t take thousands of drones. Just a dedicated group of Rethuggle extremists. Perhaps as small as a dozen or two… perhaps even fewer? The towers were having some very mysterious renovations and after hours access just before 9/11… you don’t need to plant thousands of charges, just enough to cut the bottom out from under the mesh.

    So who has the motive? Cheney (motive: $$$ and power) Who has the means? Cheney (these morons think Ollie North is a great Duhmerkkin Hero) Who is the most secretive vice president ever? Cheney. Who had his finger on NORAD’s button (so to speak) on 9/11? Cheney. Who screams “go fuck yourself!” on the Senate floor? Cheney (had to throw that one in for the whole “u libs aint polite-like!” bullshit).

    Frankly after watching that Purdue simulation, I was MORE convinced it was an inside job. The simulation showed a plane hitting a huge mesh of steel. The top 20% of a huge tower of steel mesh. The Purdue simulation most certainly does NOT show how that impact demolished the entire tower.

  124. enkidu Says:

    oh and lefty…
    you were almost making sense there for a moment.

  125. leftbehind Says:

    Enkidu – what do you know about steel frame buildings? Do they even have steel frame buildings down there in Fag Bash Flatts? If so, the place seems suddenly nothing like the quaint little burg your dad described in his letter to the “Iron Dream” newsletter. Ah, the rush of progress…

    In any case, I’m glad to see that you and Knarly are on the same page on this conspiracy thing. You’ve needed a friend around here for some time, and Knarly now has somebody to spend time with at the airport while you hand out literature together. Say hello to Mr Larouche for me when you boys get to the moon, now!

  126. leftbehind Says:

    …and, not to scold, but everything I wrote would have made perfect sense had you been practicing with that phonics program your Mother and I got you for Christmas. You’re going to have to bone-up on your studies or you’re going to get even more behind. There’s more to life than those silly videogames and that awful heavy metal music you blast your ears with!

  127. leftbehind Says:


  128. shcb Says:


    I agree with you, I can conceive a small group of highly trained men setting charges to bring a building down. As I said earlier that is where I would stop. During these discussions you guys have said insurance company stocks were manipulated, the Pentagon was hit with a missile, the planes were flown remote control there was gold in the vaults that was stolen, on and on. Again I ask, why the planes? Just blow the buildings. If you need to cover the blast with the planes why not just the WTC planes, why take the chance of a screw up with the Pentagon and the Whitehouse/Capital (flight 93). There just seems too convoluted for highly trained people, I would think they would want to keep it simple. Just the covert demo of two huge building would be a nearly impossible task.

    On the other hand, coordinating say 8 or 10 hijackings with the hope of at least 1 hitting it’s mark would be so much more conceivable. Throw in a religious fanaticism without the greed of a heist to bond the men and it can be done. You see the Arabs plan was simple, well planned, used the enemies equipment, the weapons were easy to procure locally, and it worked because it was so simple.

    I believe Cheney said those words in the cloak room, not on the floor. I don’t think Cheney needs the money or lusts for the power, his money is in a blind trust so he wouldn’t know for sure if his actions were going to make him money anyway.

    Ollie is a great patriot.


    I sometimes get confused which of you say what, sorry. I don’t know if there has ever been a crash of a plane with this much fire in a large building before, so I don’t know how much good looking at past fires is. Also, you said only three steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire, but these buildings collapsed due to fire and structural damage not just fire, I don’t think that combination was present in the Madrid fire. A building can be designed to accommodate fire. Sprinkler systems can control the fire to a point, insulation will keep the heat from the steel that sort of thing. But in this case damage to all those system was caused by the crash, not to mention the general structural damage.

    So I pose the same three questions I posed to Knarley;

    1. do you think anyone cabinet level or above knew about 911 prior
    2. do you think anyone in our government assisted the Arabs in any way
    3. do you think the Pentagon was hit by a plane or missile.

  129. knarlyknight Says:


    You’ll find most all of the answers that you seek in “Crossing the Rubicon”. Among other things, it established from fully documented sources the means, motives, and opportunities of the *suspected* perpetrator(s) in a more logical and fact based manner than anything I’ve seen you (or me) write.

    Shcb, what’s with all the questions? Getting tired of the same old answers from your prisoners at Guantanamo? Oh yea right, Colorado…

    I want answers to questions. There are hundreds of legitimate questions but I`d settle for answers to about 50 choice ones. I want nothing to do with accusing people of crimes until we get answers to those questions. And I demand answers to those questions because without those answers there may be people responsible for the deaths of firemen, police and thousand of others on 911 who are laughing at people like you who unwittingly support their crimes.

  130. knarlyknight Says:

    Since you are fixated on the Pentagon attack, of which there is a dearth of information, here is another Pentagon theory to acquaint yourself with: http://www.911blogger.com/node/9549

    I will answer your question about whether it is a missile or a Boeing if: you tell me how many surface to air anti-aircraft installations protected the Pentagon on 911 and why they did not automatically respond to a kamikaze jumbo jet; you show me ALL the videos from security cameras in the area that were confiscated by the FBI minutes after the explosion; and show me the FBI witness database that catalogues how many witnesses said they saw or heard (a) a missile, (b) a huge jumbo jet (c) a SMALL jet and the catagorization of those witnesses with totals of the numbers of each with respect to the occupation/affiliation of the witnesses (it appears so far that media and pentagon affiliated witnesses report seeing flight 77 while virtually all non-government non-media witnesses report seeing something else.) This information should be readily available from your government, so once they give it to you and allow you to share it with me, then I will tell you if it was a missile or a Boeing or something else.

  131. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty, I`m getting tired of all your insults and your failure to understand the difference between the messenger and the message.

    Just because a trusted source for news reports upon something does not make it true (hell no, look at the media bandwagon for war and the virtual LACK of investigative journalism) and just because a wild man like Alex Jones reports on something does not make it false or true.

    You and shcb are 99% of the time utterly unable to take in and evaluate information without a totally prejudicial filter that ensures remaining ignorant while thinking you are smart. Hence we see retarded insults about passing out flyers and intentional posting of crappy, unrelated videos hauled up from days past solely to discredit the MESSENGER, but that does nothing to address the messengers valid messages.

    Also, the South Park cartoon might have been funny on t.v. but it is an ultra-stupid thing to post in the context of these posts.

    Unfortunately, such tactics has worked well on Americans, because up to now most Americans have been too stupid to see that those neocon and Rovian (ReThuglican) tactics of belittling opponents and destroying reputations are hallmarks of thugs. The tactics are emotionally appealing to people who cannot think for themselves and who want to follow someone who seems tough, just like what often happens in schoolyards, prisons, or any lawless enclave. Or a nation scared silly by near constant news reports of terrorists.

    After being dumbed down so long by ___ (that would be a long essay), I doubt most Americans are smart enough to turn their backs on people who use ReThuglican tactics, but I hope to be wrong about that.

  132. knarlyknight Says:

    I’d never seen this video before, and was surprised at how much 911 coverage I had never seen before.

    It can be seen online at http://www.911revisited.com/

    Was planning on watching just a minute but it kept getting better and at the 2 min mark I had a good sense I would watch much more of it since most of those two minutes was footage I had not seen before.

    The 10 –11 minute mark shows Governor George Pataki being interviewed at ground zero on September 21 while fires burning beneath. He described most all of the towers concrete had been “pulverized” into a fine dust spreading over Manhattan and beyond (not broken into pieces from the fall – the implication should be clear to most anyone.)

    It was not mentioned, but by the 15 minute mark it was apparent to me that so much of the news reporter commentary about the towers coming down like controlled demolition have been expunged/erased from the re-broadcasting since then, seemingly an attempt to erase it from public memory.

    I hadn’t noticed the explosive flashes at 18:33 and 18:51 19:17 19:52 22:27 before and they are not mentioned on the video but they now look very suspicious.

    Also not mentioned (in the beginning parts that I watched) were the pyroclastic flows. Falling buildings create lots of dust but not pyroclastic flows like those seen from the explosions of WTC 1 and 2.

    The most surprising was how many good videos of the WTC 7 collapse there were. I had no idea there were so many different views of it collapsing as I`d only ever seen two or three. Some good perspectives!

    They make a mockery of the shcb theory that as they fell WTC 1 and 2 conspired to demolish the relatively distant WTC 7 over closer buildings that suffered greater beatings by WTC 1 & 2.

    If it aint a Silverstein, it aint gonna fall on 911.

  133. knarlyknight Says:

    “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.”
    ~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder – Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

    Watch online at http://www.911revisited.com

  134. knarlyknight Says:

    (also building 7 had big pyroclastic flows)

  135. leftbehind Says:

    The problem with conspiracy theories is always that, to a great extent, the messenger becomes as important as the message. If you take as truth that something awful has happened, but that it cannot be proven to the satisfaction of most people, and the only people who advance the theory are either fringe characters (I’m being polite) or find themselves closely aligned with fringe characters as a matter of necessity, the outre nature of messengers really puts the theory at question into question. This is especially true when we are asked to believe that everyone, outside a small cadre of people with extreme ideas with whom we are reasonably uncomfortable, is actively lying to us to keep the reality of events occluded. When told that the only people we can trust are either people like Alex Jones (or Steven Quayle, or William Cooper,) or people who call on them for the foundation of their arguments, it is not illogical to question the entire theory on the basis of the messenger. The question becomes “okay, who do I trust: the social consensus, or an extreme Christian radio host who also tells me that vaccination is a fascist plot, AIDS can be proven to be a deliberately manufactured – when it cannot, and that the President of the United States and scores of other world leaders take part in Satanic sacrifice rituals at Bohemian Grove?” Until the evidence in this case becomes so compelling that a number of more mainstream figures take up the cause and present hard evidence that is less subjectively interpretive and circumstantal, this issue will go nowhere.

    This has far more to do with the credibility of the source than with the intelligence of the audience. Afterall, Francis Dec thought the masses were too dumb to understand whatever he thought he was saying, too.

  136. shcb Says:


    All the questions really has little to do with this subject. This was just an exercise. After listening to liberals on talk radio since before Clinton was elected I have noticed a pattern develop, they refuse to take a stand. They have no problem criticizing, but offer no viable solutions. When I say talk radio, I talking about more intelligent shows than Rush’s. and don’t worry, you’re in good company, Nina Totenburg , Molly Ivans , Dan Rather, they all answer questions the same way you do, “well, I really don’t have the all the information to have an opinion on that” to which the conservative interviewer will say “I’m just asking your opinion using the information available at this time” only rarely is an opinion offered, and if one is offered it is usually dripping with conditions.

    My theory is that liberals just hate to be wrong, I think it is part of what makes them liberals, just like being tough to the point of being a little mean is part of being a conservative “rethuglican” note I have never argued that term, there is some truth to it. Also, conservatism is based on the belief that humans are imperfect and infinitely different in their abilities and goodness, and there isn’t much you can do about that. You can’t solve every problem, only mitigate them. Liberalism strives for a perfect world, at all costs, since perfection is the goal there is no room for failure even small failures, so there can be no chance of being wrong now or in the future. A tie is better than a loss, if you don’t take a stand, you can never be wrong, you can never be right either. But that is alright because liberals only seem to care about desirable outcomes, not actual outcomes.

    If you were to ask a conservative whether a plane or missile hit the Pentagon, he would say “a plane” simple, to the point, if later on there was enough evidence to support a missile, he would just say “oops, I was wrong” since perfection is not the goal, and the most logical answer at this time is a plane. This is why liberals should never be trusted to make hard decisions, because they won’t make any decision. In real life, you rarely have all the information you need to make a perfect decision, you just do the best you can and try and make the problem a little better, then you react to that outcome with your best guess and so on.

    So thanks guys, you performed as expected, now that you realize you walked right into my trap and failed miserably you will try and save face by finally answering my questions, but you won’t be able to help yourself and give me a straight answer, you will set al kinds of conditions on your answer, oops, gave away my next trap. Well since I just gave that away, you’ll probably just resort to name calling. There is no way you will ever be able to say “good job Rick, we took that one hook, line and sinker”

  137. shcb Says:

    Oh, by the way Knarly, all those things you want me to provide before you will answer my simple question, I don’t have that info, and can’t get it. but I will be happy to answer my own question; BASED ON INFORMATION I HAVE AVAILABLE NOW it was a jet driven by Arabs with a whole bunch of dead Americans in the back.

  138. shcb Says:

    one last thing before I go to bed, you are always telling me I am following my government blindly, how do you know the people you are following are not lying to you? Just a thought.

  139. knarlyknight Says:


    Talk about “conspiracies” all YOU like, the issue is the unanswered questions.

    It does not matter if the messenger is Anderson Cooper or Alex Jones, if either of them has a good question then UNbiased people want to hear an answer that fits with the reality of all the evidence.

    The government’s official conspiracy theory has so many holes it is a joke. The grimmest fairy tale yet told to America is exposed to the light of day in DEBUNKING 911 DEBUNKING; read it or shut your eyes and continue in your nightmare.

    It’s obvious a real investigation has not occurred, all you got was an investigation led by a Bush insider who directed the whole show as to what would be investigated and what would NOT be investigated.

    You did not get a real investigation with a budget commensurate with investigating the largest “terrorist” attack on American soil, not 1/10 of budget spent to investigate the Clinton / Monika scandal.

    You got a long delayed to commence, hamstrung investigation with a final report that left more questions than it answered and that created more questions with its faulty analysis (e.g. excluding consideration of 2 weeks of molten metal at ground zero.)

    Looks like you were asked to engage in wars that will not end in your lifetime (by the way that is a Cheney that’s an administration paraphrase quote not an Alex Jones quote.) Enjoy your future, courtesy of the neocons.

  140. knarlyknight Says:


    I agree, liberals hate to be wrong but that really only applies when the stakes are high. Perhaps it is because they take a dimmer view of killing than do conservatives (unborn excluded).

    You are saying there are only two types of people down there.

    (1) Liberals who would rather not embark on a strategy of death and destruction until they are sure it is the right decision, and (2) Conservatives who like to kill people and blow things up ASAP based on hasty conclusions from the evidence at hand NOW. You seem to favor that that lynch ‘em fast then turn their guns towards the next atrocity mentality.

    This has given you Afghanistan and Iraq at a cost approaching a trillion dollars, and perhaps more hijinx to come in Iran – doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, you “are an empire now” and you “create your own reality” to quote an early neo con admin mouthpiece.

    Your comments about whether conservatives or liberals make better decisions is too simplistic. You talk about any decision to be made as if it is whether to buy another beer or not.

    But a person needs to know why the decision has to be made and why there is urgency to make the decision.

    Is it because some BOORISH talking head is trying vainly to put artificial pressure on another person to try to score some cheap points by demanding a GUESS about a critical issue…
    or is it because, although there is no immediate opportunity an action needs to be taken to prevent the possibility of failing in properly addressing that opportunity,
    or is it because there is suspected opportunity,
    or is it because there is a real and imminent opportunity that will be lost if a decision is not made…
    (to translate into your mentality shcb, just replace the word opportunity with the word threat.)

    About your Pentagon missile demand. I thought wrongly that you were smart enough to figure it out: if given an artificial demand from a neocon supporter on a silly website for an immediate decision based on the information available NOW about what struck the Pentagon I would provide an indication of the probabilities and say `ROLL THE DICE!` That would be my decision.

    In the real world, unless you are a fool you would decide missile or plane in consideration of what actions would be taken as a result of that decision and other pertinent factors. This is not the real world and your silly right wing neo con traps (to use your OWN word) where you forever hold a person accountable for what they GUESSED no matter how many times they said it was a guess and not a belief, well I am not playing your stupid game.

    You say it was a plane with Arab hijackers, while millions of people around the world do not know what the hell hit the Pentagon because of the conflicting evidence. Do you realize what you have just proven yourself to be?


    Yup, SHCB espouses the THEORY of an Arab CONSPIRACY – by a single Saudi Arabian rogue ex-CIA asset (Osama) and his evil Arabic henchmen – to compile a group of Arab misfits, get them trained at US flight schools on tiny aircrafts to be horrible pilots, and convince them to SNEAK on to a jumbo jet, gain control of the plane with a boxcutter kinfe (that fits the crazy wild-eyed Arab stereotype perfectly!) without allowing any of the flight crew to key in the established 4 digit alarm code for such an emergency, and despite incredibly complicated piloting controls, manage to fly around for long periods of time in the most heavily protect airspace in the world before making breathtaking maneuvers (that shame most experienced jumbo jet pilots) in order not to crash into the recently upgraded low occupancy side (rather than any of the other 4 non-reinforced heavily occupied sides) of the nerve centre of the most sophisticated and powerful military in the world.

    You have yourself one heckuva conspiracy there, shcb.

    Never mind that the CIA and FBI had these guys traced nearly every step of the way, in your mind your conspiracy theory is true becasue your FBI and CIA are incompetent.

    By the way, your commander in chief claims to make decisions based on his hunches and advice from god, which is good if you want to drill dry holes in Texas in the 1970`s or invade countries on false pretexts, or turn vast good will the world over towards your country into disgust and pity, or… etc.

    Yes, as you say, the conservative might jump to a conclusion quick and then later if wrong say “oops, sorry about all that “collatoral damage“ in your country… we really did think it was a hijacked aircraft but turns out it was a missile from false flag black operation all along and by the way who are you going to buy the coffins from for all those dead children in that school we just bombed…“

    Maybe conservative is a misnomer, considering the hastiness of decisions and that some of the most rightwing radical policies on the planet and wildly reckless spending come from this supposedly conservative administration.

    Did you take a look at the political compass site I provided earlier? It would be nice to hear that you have evolved enough to think about politics in more than one dimension (right or left). I would be interested to hear whether you and Lefty are rated above, below, right, or left of Hitler.


    Your one last thing about following blindly… Yes, it is apparent that you follow blindly due to your neocon type comments and close minded refusal to consider some information from people who are not government approved sources or that have other unrelated non-mainstream (aka silly) ideas on other topics (Bohemian grove, UFOs etc.) and I think your government misleads you a whole lot more than you want to acknowledge.

    So you ask me how do I know that the people I follow are not lying to me too? Well, first, I am not following anybody. On 911, the Truthers are the only ones doing any real investigation and I try to keep informed about that, but that does not mean that I am following them or believe them. I would like to see some government analysis that makes sense and is not instantly shredded by valid counter points. I do not visit Alex Jones sites unless referred from elsewhere, and then I read it wary of his overzealous slant but can usually see the unflattering truth about government that he has exaggerated (but that is then NOT REPORTED ANYWHERE ELSE except to report on the exaggeration while hiding the underlying truth.) Similarly, I keep apprised of what is on the Rense.com site while recognizing that 90% of it has to be viewed with a grain of salt. So I disbelieve or am skeptical about most of what the sites I read are telling me. Unfortunately, that also applies to newspapers.

  141. shcb Says:

    All that and still no answer. Maybe it is just my western heritage where a man’s handshake is his contract but if fellow can’t be trusted for 90% of what he says, I don’t think I would trust the other 10%.

  142. leftbehind Says:

    …of course it’s not about “conspiracy” it’s about unanswered questions…regarding a government conspiracy to blow up the World trade Center.

  143. leftbehind Says:

    …and the last time I checked I think I was somewhere Southwest of Adolf Hitler. This could be in error, depending on whether or not those were really his ashes in that envelope in the Kremlin. If not, he just might have made it to South America after all, which would put me to his Northeast, but I’m only guessing. I wonder what Alex Jones has to say about one…

  144. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ve given you my answer a half dozen times about the Pentagon. You are just too thick to understand. Here it is one more time, please read it slowly so you get it. I have no friggin idea what happened there, the likelyihood of it being one thing is much the same as it being one or another thing given the information that I have seen.

    As for planes that hit WTC 1 and 2, no question based on the info I have seen there had to be other people involved besides the alleged hijackers in order for events to transpire as they did. Crossing the Rubicon makes a very compelling case it was Cheney. I have seen no evidence more compelling than that suggesting otherwise and information since then only makes the case more compelling. But I don’t want to say he did it because I do not want to be a victim of a hunting accident.

    Also, shcb I would like to correct an impression. When I said you were a full-on conspiracy theorist for claiming that a bunch of misfit arabs destroyed a side of the Pentagon despite reams of conflicting evidence, I was only making sure you get what you wanted to give had I stated a definitive opinion on the subject without sufficient evidence. I hope you realize that you have bought in, hook line a sinker to one of the biggest conspiracy theories of our time. Whether it is true or not remains to be seen.

  145. knarlyknight Says:


    Thank you for acknowledging it is about the unanswered questions about the arab (or arab/Saudi government or arab/US government or arab/Taliban or arab/Mossad/ISI/CIA or solely the neo-cons) conspiracy to blow up the world trade centre, the Pentagon, and potentially other unknown targets (but not the president whose location was well publicised that day.) However, it is also about the crimes of suppressing and destroying evidence and putting the cleanup crews into harms way for weeks on end without adequate protective equipment, and the failure of your government and the media to adequately investigate all such matters.

    Also, thanks for your comment on the political compass, how do you feel about your placement on the compass, do you think that is about the right placement? (Myself, I don’t think I should be so close to Ghandhi, I have much too strong a sense of retribution for that placement and I would like to consider myself more of a capitalist than that…)

  146. leftbehind Says:

    I’ve generally considered my politics to be most in line with those of political dissidents like Ed “Kookie” Burns and Ernest T. Bass.

  147. knarlyknight Says:

    Hi shcb,

    Here’s some new information for you about the Pentagon airliner.
    It seems to contradict many assumptions that figure so prominently in your Conspiracy Theory.

    Start (by Gareth Williams)- – >
    Raw data has confirmed the accuracy of the NTSB animation that was acquired by a truth group member under a FOIA request from the NTSB last August. This information is incredibly useful as it categorically shows that the plane was nowhere near the 5 light poles that were reportedly ripped from the ground by Flight 77 – a claim that appears in the Official 9/11 Commission Report.

    Another astonishing discovery is that the data also confirms that the last figure of altitude given was 273 feet above ground level. (The pentagon is 71 feet tall). This is from radio altitude so it’s accurate to within just several feet.

    … At the speed the plane was moving this puts Flight 77 2 seconds away from the face of the Pentagon. At that point the height was such that the plane could NOT have nosedived fast enough to have hit the face of the building where that hole was seen: the gravity forces at the acceleration required would buckle and simply cause an airframe to break up.

    Analysis is ongoing (the spreadsheet of data is about 4 million cells of data long) [by patriotic volunteer experts, NOT by shcb’s beloved government] but it does confirm that the flight path does NOT match up to the damage leading up to the Pentagon.

    Interestingly the path DOES match up to eyewitness testimony, some of whom saw two planes and cemetery workers have reported that they saw a jet fly over the Pentagon at the time of the blast.

  148. leftbehind Says:

    If anyone wants to read the rest of Gareth Williams’ article, here it is on the site where it first appeared, Alex Jones’ “Prison Planet.”


  149. leftbehind Says:

    Interested parties are also directed to Alex Jones’ Myspace page. If you have trouble finding it, just access it from Gareth Williams’ page here:


    This is cool and informative as well:


  150. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty, quit wasting my time with irrelevant links. You must be 12 years old.

    If anyone wants to see the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) video of flight 77 (it is a cool!), and the analysis of the FAA data that supports the NTSB video go to:


    Both the video and the data set from show that THE FLIGHT PATH DOES NOT MATCH what the 911 COMISSION REPORT says was the flight path.

  151. leftbehind Says:

    How are my links irrelevant? My last three were, for example, a link to a complete article you yourself had already excerpted, a link to the myspace page of that article’s author and a link to a video by the guy who runs the website from which the article originates (as does much of the information you have cited on this thread.) This all seems pretty on-topic to me.

  152. leftbehind Says:

    This is irrelevant to the present conversation:


  153. leftbehind Says:

    This, cosidering this guy is the major source of information you’ve cited here, is of the utmost relevance:


  154. leftbehind Says:

    …just kidding – the one in the middle just LOOKS a lot like Alex Jones:


  155. leftbehind Says:

    “…but Alex, what about the Mark of the Beast?”


  156. leftbehind Says:


  157. knarlyknight Says:

    Who would have guessed that SHCB would turn out to be a CONSPIRACY THEORIST and Lefty would self destruct into a pre-occupation with Alex Jones?


    I do not fear 911 Truth

  158. leftbehind Says:

    I’m preoccupied with Alex Jones? I wonder if Alex Jones repeats what Alex Jones says as much as you do.

  159. leftbehind Says:

    But what’s wrong with that? It’s not like he’s some kind of nut who believes the 9-11 attacks were the work of a luciferian, illuminati secret society that controls the american government and much of the world via a cashless society control grid which started around 640AD and orchestrated or at least had a hand in most major world history we know of today.

    Uh oh.

  160. leftbehind Says:

    You were saying something about the Illuminati earlier in the thread, weren’t you, Knarly? Would you care to elaborate on that point for us?

  161. leftbehind Says:

    is this thing still on???

  162. leftbehind Says:

    I’ll save you the search. Look up “Alex Jones Order of Death” on Livevideo.com (my links aren’t posting again for some reason) and he can tell you what to think about the Illuminati.

  163. knarlyknight Says:

    The following is all from news reports that shcb and Lefty might call reliable.

    Quite a conspiracy out there in the mainstream news, eh shcb?

    I watched 7 minutes, very intriguing so will watch the rest another day.


  164. knarlyknight Says:

    Here is a prediction from the producer, let’s see if it holds out:

    “Also download it to your computer and reupload it if you can. They will soon delete it but they can’t delete everyone!”

  165. leftbehind Says:

    The disclaimer at the beginning of the video says a lot.

    I wonder who REALLY did it. Was it the Far Right…or the far RITE?!?!?!

  166. shcb Says:

    I didn’t watch the whole video, but I did watch a minute or two, I had seen it all before so I couldn’t see how it was going to change anything. I would like to see a comprehensive timeline of the whole conspiracy, has anyone seen one somewhere. So far all I have seen is a bunch of fragments, I think it would be interesting to see if someone could put it all together to the point that it would even make a marginally believable movie, let alone reality.

    Well, at least Knarly implicated Cheney, my dentist had less trouble pulling my tooth. So do you think the guy in the movie thinks a missile hit the Pentagon? Just kidding. I didn’t bother with the political timeline, it required registration and I don’t want to be getting a bunch of Libertarian junk mail. I read the rest of the web site and it was pretty obvious the true libertarian was going to be on top and since their philosophy is too rigorous for most people, they are irrelevant in a two party system.

    We’ve done these three dimensional political continuums before, and while they are fun, they soon get to convoluted because there are overlaps in all the philosophies and at some point it gets too confusing. I didn’t like their oversimplification of fascism either. I’m guessing the way the questions were posed, you ended up being a libertarian or a fascist.

    The best we ever came up with was a simple line that wrapped around the back rather abruptly like a lopsided bracelet with the anarchists, left and right in the back. This puts the middle of the road, undecided, I really don’t care about politics fence sitters that determine our elections front and center. Sigh….

    yea, what was it with that disclaimer? the guy seemed pretty proud of his work to not stand behind it. hmmm, maybe he is Knarly’s kin?

  167. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb watched a minute or two of a 90 minute video and decided he’d seen it all? That’s arrogance and a closed mind for you. I counted about ten different topics in the first 7 minutes alone.

    There are lots of timelines. This one is good.

    911 Timeline
    The Most Comprehensive Minute by Minute Timeline on 911
    by Mark R. Elsis

    Also, Michael Ruppert was the first to compile a comprehensive timeline. This one is still relevant (revised Sept 4 2002.)

  168. shcb Says:

    to taste the ocean one needs only a gulp

    thanks for the timelines, I’ll look at them tonight

  169. knarlyknight Says:

    If shcb had read “Crossing the Rubicon” he wouldn’t have to display his ignorance (“I would like to see a comprehensive timeline of the whole conspiracy”)

    “Crossing the Rubicon” lays it all out. That book is the most comprehensive timeline there is.

  170. shcb Says:

    I guess timeline is the wrong word, I am looking for more of a flow chart of who would be involved and how they wolud have had to interact for this conspiracy to all come together. up to and including Cheney. tying the Pentagon missile and the shapped charges and all.

    If I have time tonight I will try and put something together for how the arabs would have done it. since their plan was fairly simple.

    I looked at the 911timeline site and now I see where you get so many of your distorted facts.

  171. leftbehind Says:

    Michael Ruppert – investigator, author, burglery suspect – is an interesting figure. I think his is the first website I have ever been to where the moderator felt compelled to devote an entire page to allegations of mental instability levied by his ex-fiancee and former employers.




  172. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, very interesting figure. I respect his intelligence but not his self inflated ego or some of the judgments he has made. He’s been playing with fire for a long time and he has been burned to a crisp. It is now exceedingly easy to discredit or ridicule the person, not so easy to dispute the items he had discovered as a pioneer in 911 Truth, nor to argue with his conclusions based on fully referenced sources in CROSSING THE RUBICON.

    A reward of $10,000 was offered to anyone who could find an error in his timeline made in 2002. About a year later a claim was found that he could not substantiate (about a government official –I forget who- having a very unusual meeting with executives from all the major news networks in the week (?) prior to 911) and so the reference was deleted from the timeline, the wronged party (never identified) asked the $10,000 to be donated to charity and there has not been any errors proven since then. The rest of the timeline remains, undisputed.

    You won’t hear anything new from Michael Rupert: after writing his accusations about Cheney in Crossing the Rubicon he succumbed to a series of very unfortunate events culminating in the sudden onset of a life threatening illness after which he publicly declared he will no longer continue with his political writing. He is undergoing medical treatment in Canada.

  173. leftbehind Says:

    Medical or mental?

    An honest question: does it never occur to you that if someone suffers from psychological problems, he or she might not be the best source of information regarding a topic where none of the evidence cited ever really proves anything conclusively? When entering a field of study, as you have, which requires you to suspend your disbelief regarding more or less subjective analysis of vague evidence and documentation which may or may not conclusively say what you’re being told it says, do you never ask yourself whether or not the eccentricity of the so-called expert might just call his or her analysis into question? At what point do you ask, as Obi Wan Kenobi asked Han Solo in a fantasy tale very similar to the one you and I are discussing here, “who is more of a fool – the fool, or the fool who follows him?”

  174. leftbehind Says:

    Just a side note, but this is probably the longest thread I have ever seen on this blog, and is most definitely the stupidest, unless you count that one thread where all the hip hop guys came aboard to argue with one another aobut Limp Bizkit when JBC posted that Eminem video a while back. Even I’m ashamed that this has gone on so long.

  175. knarlyknight Says:

    or the fool with mind shut to all but who he follows?

    Show me where Rupert is wrong about Cheney, and I will dismiss that part of his argument.

    Show Rupert where Rupert he is wrong in his 911 timeline and you may still be able to collect your $10,000.

  176. knarlyknight Says:

    I show you where neo-cons are wrton in their conspiracy theory and you keep believing that part of the theory. So it is you who follows the neo-cons, and it is I who wants the truth. Why do you fear the truth?

    I do not fear 911 truth.

  177. knarlyknight Says:

    Here is a recent statement by the former head (?) of the FAA which strikes at the heart of Cheney’s deception and provides further insight into flight 77 Pentagon.

    start paste:

    Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

    Mineta says Vice President Cheney was “absolutely” already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58– after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

    Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

    End paste

    Have not watched it yet but I believe it was an Alex Jones reporter who got Mineta to make the statement on camera.


  178. leftbehind Says:

    Go figure.

  179. leftbehind Says:

    Here’s a contest for y’all. Let’s see who can identify the voice heard in this video:


  180. shcb Says:

    Knarly, do you ever think about what you are saying before you say it? So you are basing your accusations that the vice president was involved in the deaths of 3000 people because he was where he was supposed to be 45 minutes after the first attack? Your gripe is that someone said it was 9:25 instead of 9:58? Ever heard of dyslexia? Maybe Mineta saw 9:25 instead of 9:52. I hope you are never on a jury.

    So I read a bit of the pilots for 911 truth or whatever. Took me about two minutes to find a glaring flaw. Maybe it is just a typo, or maybe they are lying sacks of shit, I don’t know. And since I don’t know for sure they aren’t lying sacks of shit I really have no opinion on whether they are lying sacks of shit. I should probably read more of your stuff, it usually doesn’t take long to find the errors. So the maneuver that can’t be made;

    [The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That’s 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots] these numbers work no problem here.

    [Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes] See the problem? He traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes, and then went 5 miles in 3 without changing speed? So do the math he would be traveling about 120 MPH to travel 5 miles in 3 minutes. The takeoff speed of the 757 is 160 mph so I would think stall speed would be in the 120 range. 5 miles in 330 degrees is about a 7/8 mile radius plus the mile down. So we put this all into our nifty aircraft turn calculator and we get a 25 degree turn angle at 1.1 g’s not all that radical (this was at 180 mph so our inexperienced pilot can keep control of the plane. At 400 mph this would require a 70 degree turn at almost 3 g’s, still possible but not probable. The 400mph turn would also only take 41.8 seconds (360deg).

    So let’s see if this fits. Our boy has gained control of the plane, he flies it for the most part as the dead pilots left it. 400mph, he probably doesn’t have much knowledge of navigation, just compass points, he is for the most part flying by dead reckoning, his partner shouts that he has missed his mark, the Pentagon is over there. He throttles back, cranks the yoke and puts the plane into a sloppy turn, not being accustomed to rudder controls since most of his practice has been on video games in his living room. The plane looses speed quickly, he puts it in a 12 degree dive (that’s all, I drew it up in Autocad) and turns the plane for the building. He aims the plane for the center of the building as he has been instructed since the outer wall is hardened but the inner walls aren’t but he is in danger of overshooting his mark so in a move of desperation he tips the plane into a dive, remember he is only going between 120 and 180 mph at this time. By this time the plane is essentially stalling and uncontrollable, it falls like a rock, in the last second he has enough speed to regain enough control to skip the plane into the side of the building. At close to 500mph, not pretty, but effective. Tell me where I am wrong.

    Preemptive, I know I am not an expert, but I can do math. So what they say is partly true, they just leave a big gap for you to fill in yourself, but I don’t have an opinion on that since I can’t read their minds.

  181. knarlyknight Says:


    re: Cheney – I said “strikes at the heart ” & “provides further insight” into Cheney’s deceptions, and that was in reference to the new statement by Mineta.

    Then you twist that and attribute it as my centerpeice and then proceed as if that is all the evidence there is against Cheney and imply that, since it is not conclusive, he must be innocent. Well, no-one said he was guilty based solely on that (enormous) contradiction in witness testimony. I said it provides further insight into Cheney’s deception.

    In his defence, you want to excuse Cheney by accusing the Secretary of the FAA as having dyslexia? One might expect that both Cheney and Mineta would know whether they were in the command centre when the plane hit the building in which the command centre was located.

    The head of the FAA makes it perfectly clear in testimony to the 911 Commission about the dialogue and actions that he witnessed between Cheney and a military commander in the command centre and that dialogue was about Flight 77 approaching minutes and seconds before the crash. That’s one amazing case of dyslexia.

    Seems that anything that doesn’t fit with your conspiracy theory must be explained away by a coincidence, incompetence, dumb luck, incredible luck, and now add to that list: DYSLEXIA! You really are an amazing conspiracy theorist! Before embarrassing yourself on this further, I suggest you read Crossing the Rubicon for a fully laid out case (as the facts were known circa published October 2004).

    Regarding the flight path, I have only two observations (criticisms?) to offer about the flight path aspect of your Conspiracy Theory. (By the way, we all thought there was no communication with the aircraft, so Sherlock, how’d you know everyone but the terrorists were dead?) My observations on your flight path is that:

    (a) if the aircraft was in a stall and fell like a rock until enough velocity was attained to pull the 757 out of the fall at the last second, how did he manage to pull the JUMBO JET to near level flight at the last “SECOND”? (I didn’t realize 757’s could be so nimble)

    (b) if the aircraft “skipped” into the Pentagon, why was there no indications of this on the lawn, highway, or any other surface (excluding the light poles which were apparently clipped off at some height above the road surface)?

    If you are sure you are correct in your calculations, I salute you because that would be valuable input and I would like to hear the response you get from pilotsfor911Truth. Please advise them ASAP. Pointer for the wise: try to avoid calling them “lying sacks of shit”, that kind of talk just reflects poorly on you.

  182. shcb Says:

    The flight path stuff is just a possibility to see if something reasonable fits the data, the stall stuff is based on my limited knowledge of flight, I think 2000 feet is enough to start to recover from a stall, depending on how serious it is. I believe I read somewhere, maybe Popular Mechanics that the plane hit the ground first. I would call the pilots LSOS to their faces. They knew exactly what they were doing, that is too glaring of a mistake. Did you notice how they carefully crafted the sentence, saying the plane “began” its turn at 400mph, if confronted their excuse would be that the government won’t give them the speed of the plane in the turn and a new conspiracy will start all over. If they had been wanting to get the truth out, they would have used my example and shot holes in it since it fits their numbers. Just one example of how I believe you are the one being lied to.

    What’s the deal with you guys going after Cheney now? Giving up on Bush? “Cheney, the shadow president” does sound more sinister.

  183. leftbehind Says:

    Knarly – Where, if I may ask, do you live?

  184. leftbehind Says:

    just the city or region – I’m not trying to get a specific address for Black Ops, or anything.

  185. knarlyknight Says:

    So now it is Shcb who is FULL of disclaimers about his own work. Apparently shcb does not think his work is worthy of sending to the pilots for a fact check.

    I think that says it all, but in case not, I submitted his flight path Conspiracy Theory (without naming him) for some additional review. I doubt many people will waste their time with shcb’s sloppy calculations, but if any criticisms get posted you can see them here:


    shcb, it is bizarre that you would quote “Popular Mechanics” after their obvious hit piece about 911Truth was shown to be a complete and utter scam. So yes that was probably where you read that the plane skipped into the Pentagon. Refer to “Debunking 911 Debunking” by David Ray Griffin for the point by point annihilation of their obviously malicious “article”.

    Available here:

    Lefty, You forgot that Cheney was offered as an EXAMPLE of a person about whom a case has been made for involvement in 911 planning.

    There is evidence against others and an investigation would be expected to bring many more facts to light about them.

    Your ridicule and insults of posts past simply reflect back on your strange mix of maliciousness, arrogance, ignorance and insecurity.

    You and shcb seem fixated on The Conspiracy Theory; I want release of the “classified” evidence and a proper review of all the evidence through an international / independent investigation. Questions need answers.

    I do not fear 911 Truth.

  186. leftbehind Says:

    I never mentioned Dick Cheny – That’s between you and shcb. I just asked what I hoped to be an innocuous question.

    Here’s another questino that won’te get answered: What dog does “Popular Mechanics” have in this fight? What motive would they have for publishing a “malicious hit piece?”

    And where do you live?

  187. leftbehind Says:

    I mean, I’ve never thought of Popular Mechanics as being a particularly “malicious” publication. Come to think of it though, whoever wrote that article on “How to Replace Your Exhaust Crossover Pipe” a few issues back was being kind of a jackass…

  188. leftbehind Says:

    Where’s you say you were from again?

  189. enkidu Says:

    wow – talk about rhetoric

    I think knarly and northern are both from Canada. They are exposed to less of the overwhelming US corporate neocon drum beat. The US military spends billions every year influencing the media – including outright bribes/payoffs to groups like The Rendon Group and other psyops propaganda. The military industrial complex encourages a state of fear and denial to better suck trillions of dollars from the taxpayer. All the while shouting loudly of the cross, sword and flag.

    Unless you are a real extreme nutter like looneylefty, then shouting is ok cuz of the Bush-Derangement/Tourettes-Syndrome (supporters of the worst president in our lifetime do tend to be a bit thin skinned, yet quite loud and impolite ;-)

    Big Dick had (and still has) motive, means and plenty of opportunity. It only takes a double handful of Ollie Norths to let 9/11 happen. No… make it happen.

  190. leftbehind Says:

    Good thing you’re here to answer Knarly’s questions for him, Inky. A friend in need is a friend indeed!

  191. knarlyknight Says:

    Enkidu – cheers.

    Lefty, the “dogs” Pop Mechs have in this fight are well laid out elsewhere. I have no more time to explain things that are right there for you to see if only you hadn’t built that ten foot brick wall in front of your face. If you can see around that, then Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin is sure to lay it out, likely in a PREFACE to the anihilation of Pop Mechs lame and obvious misinformation piece.

    I see coconut has left a supportive message for you on 911Blogger

  192. knarlyknight Says:

    enkidu – I found this brand spanking new item on 911blogger to be funny:

    We all know by now that many of the alleged hijackers made no efforts to conceal their identities or activities as they moved about the country before 9/11, even though a number of them were already on terrorist watch lists, or were being closely monitored by programs like Able Danger.

    This point is really hammered home by something a friend of mine turned up not too long ago: in a document from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial there is a listing of real name usages by various hijackers. Among these, which I find quite hilarious, is the fact that Atta’s e-mail address was mohammedatta@hotmail.com. Ziad Jarrah likewise used his real name, ziadjarrah@ab.com. This latter e-mail address raises further curious questions: currently ab.com is the domain for Rockwell Automation, a major defense contractor. Whether this was their domain name back in 2000 is something which will require further investigation, so if anyone can find that out, please bring it forward.

    then later a Correction:

    slight typo on my part:

    mohamedatta@hotmail.com, not mohammedatta@hotmail.com

    And yes, archive.org does confirm that ab.com was controlled by Rockwell Automation since at least 1996. Boo-yah. Busted.

    That is just another little tiny piece of the puzzle that raises eyebrows about the Conspiracy Theory that shcb likes to base his entire political reality upon.

  193. leftbehind Says:

    is thing on !?

  194. leftbehind Says:

    Your answer regarding my Popular Mechanics question is no answer at all. What interest does Popular Mechanics have in covering up the destruction of the World Trade Center?

  195. leftbehind Says:

    Do you even have an answer?

  196. leftbehind Says:

    Maybe Enkidu can answer for you.

  197. leftbehind Says:

    Popular Mechanics is published by the Hearst Corporation as is Good Housekeeping? Is Good Housekeeping involved in this cover-up too? What about those government patsies at Marie Claire?

  198. leftbehind Says:

    Hearst also owns King Features Syndicate, the newspaper comics ring that publishes such pro-illuminati propaganda as “The Family Circus” and pro-militarist brainwash such as “Beetle Bailey.” The pagan motifs which run rampant through “B.C.” and “Hagar the Horrible” are more than enough to raise the eyebrow of any observant illuminati watcher.

  199. shcb Says:

    Thanks for posting that for me Knarly, that will be fun to see what they say. I always try and be honest and add disclaimers so folks know my bonifides or lack there of, but I will always answer a straight question, especially if I have commented on the subject in the past. If you ask me comment on Paris Hilton’s new shoes, I will be forced into a no comment.

  200. shcb Says:


    I went to the site you copied my post to, lots of good comments for the short time it has been there. They seem to be more concerned with the fictional part of my post than the more factual but that’s ok. I was more making the point that the 330 degree turn was not only possible but very probable, this seemed to be the pilots for 911’s main thrust with this being an impossible move. If the plane skipped or ran into the building without hitting the ground is not that important to my point. I just read it somewhere, it may have been Popular Mechanics or it may have been Wiki, no matter. I was just using the fictional part as an illustration to test the common sense probability of my calculations. Of course details were probably different in reality. I didn’t see anyone that disputed my math, I guess there was one guy, but he offered no conflicting calculations. I’m not registered over there so feel free to post this if you like.

    Thanks again,

  201. knarlyknight Says:

    That is correct. My answer is no answer at all. I directed you to a place where you might find the motive you are looking for, but I’ve read the PM analysis of the strawman conspiracy theory arguments they constructed or cherry picked due to their obvious weaknesses and then criticized instead of addressing the difficult questions.

    There you go again, looking for another Conspiracy Theory, this time about PM.

    The fact is that whether a motive us uncovered or a Conspiracy Theory developed about why PM made such ridiculous claims, it does not change the fact that they made those ridiculous claims within a blatant hit piece. I’ll defer any further questions you may have on this topic to David Ray Griffin, I believe he has answered them fully.

    Can you honestly say to yourself that you do not fear 911 Truth?

  202. leftbehind Says:

    Yes, I can honestly say I don’t fear 911 Truth, and I think if you were not afraid of what consensus reality has to say about your version of that truth, you wouldn’t hedge your answers so much when asked to make a conclusion. I asked you what motive Popular Mechanics has in helping cover up 9-11 I A-S-K-E-D Y-O-U. I don’t want to be redirected to some nutty website or another. I don’t want to know what some conspiracy geek on some kooky website has to say about it. I would like you to state, for the benefit of those of us here on this planet, what you think. I would like you to make an educated guess, if nothing else. You think shcb and I are “sheep,” but at least we can answer a direct question when asked.

  203. leftbehind Says:

    Are you really from Canada?

  204. knarlyknight Says:

    Not worth my time to repeat it all here, take a look at the D.R. Griffin book it gives you an EASY to follow, point by point destruction of the PM fallacies.

  205. leftbehind Says:

    This is like a comedy sketch…

    Will DR Griffin tell me if you’re from Canada or not?

    Will DR Griffin explain to me why his own publisher has called his book “spurious and based on questionable research?”

  206. leftbehind Says:

    “Hey, Knarly, did you wipe your ass this morning?”

    “Well, I don’t really have enough information to make an informed statement on that, although I do have suspicions I can’t get into right now. Why don’t you consult the “Twilight of the Anal Empire” by H.M.S. Pinefore. you can find a link to it at 911jackwacker.com.”

  207. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ve struck a nerve with Lefty by not answering his questions about my place of residence and the motive for PM to help cover up 911 and he responds with juvenile emotional taunts. Well Lefty, in answer to your first question: it really doesn’t matter where my residence may be; and as for your second question: I can think of a few Conspiracy Theories (since you like them so much) for you to consider as to why PM would publish their hit piece :
    1. maybe they thought it would be an appealing take on the subject and help sales;
    2. maybe Condi or Bush gave someone important at PM a BJ;
    3. maybe they are deluded Conpsiracy Theorists who confuse objectivity and impartiality with taking the word from well massaged government sources;
    4. maybe the editor and staff that were fired prior to the article were principled, honest folks and the people who replaced them would do what they were told;
    5. maybe somebody paid somebody some big bucks to publish the hit piece (there is Ample proof of your government’s related activities of cash pay-offs to reporters for the proper story & spin);
    6. maybe it was actually a satirical piece of fiction and nobody understands their sense of humor;
    7. maybe they did it as a “devil’s advocate” type of act in order to inspire true patriots into digging deeper and solidifying their opposssition to the official Conpsiracy Theory;
    8. maybe they did it just to help you to sleep at night.

    Okay that’s more than a few. But I don’t think it was any of those. I just think they are idiots.

    Excerpt from Amazon.com’s review section:

    “I just finished reading Mr. Griffins book. I read Popular Mechanics book before hand and there is no comparison. Popular Mechanics’ book reads like a childrens book compared to Griffin’s. He cites everything, brings out testimony and evidence that the PM guys just dont even mention at all.

    There are too many examples to give. Buy this book. Buy PM’s book. [Or get them from the library if the USA still has public libraries with enough copies of new books in them for people to actually get a copy of what they want in a timely manner]. Read them both. Then you will understand how pathetic the official story is and you will understand the deception and the outrageous ommissions from the official account. PM does a complete white wash. Read [“Debunking 9/11 Debunking”]


  208. leftbehind Says:

    Could you provide some examples of the Government paying cash to reporters for favorable coverage?

    If the editorial staff was fired in favor of people who would “do what they are told,” who are those people? The Hearst Corporation? Is the Hearst Corporation complicit to 9/11?

    If the entire staff of a major American magazine were summarily fired to facilitate the publishing of one article, don’t you think someone would report that story outside DR Griffin?

  209. leftbehind Says:

    …and, for the record, I doubt anyone at Popular Mechanics is an idiot, at least on mechanical matters. I’ll wager that the copy boy at PM has a higher mechanical aptitude and knowledge-base than, you, I, or almost any theologian such as Griffin.

    Are there any girls in Canada?

  210. shcb Says:

    One other possibility, PM could be right

  211. leftbehind Says:

    Has any news agency outside those we might consider part of the “9/11 Truth” circle expressed significant doubt regarding the PM “hit piece” ? If not why not? Have any such agencies investigated the firing of the PM staff over the 9/11 article? Doesn’t that seem odd, if they haven’t, considering that the people fired, en masse, were writers and journalists?

    Are the publishers’ (i.e. the Presbyterian Church) remarks regarding Griffin’s book part of the same phenomenon that facilitated the PM white wash? What is the Presbyterian Church’s motive in helping cover up 9/11? Are they involved as well?

  212. shcb Says:

    I went over to 911 blogger. I backed away from my position? No I didn’t, I was just trying to bring you dweebs back on track. The point of my post was that a plane traveling 5 miles in 3 minutes is not going 400 mph, you all fixated on whether the plane skipped or not, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Good lord, you are one frustrating individual. if anyone is left listening, go to http://www.911blogger.com/node/9643 and then my post from June 27, 2:22 to put this all in context. But good tactical move, a little ruthless, but hey all’s fair in love and war.

  213. leftbehind Says:

    shcb – you’ll find that lot of these “9/11 Truth” types have a pretty finite vocabulary of buzzwords and constructed scenarios they hang onto for dear life, and only stray from reluctantly and briefly. Whether or not the plane “skipped” is one of these. It’s an intrinsic pitfall of arguing a theory nobody can actually prove, and which does not hold a great deal of water with the unconverted. Have you ever tried arguing with anyone from the Watchtower Society? They do the same thing.

  214. knarlyknight Says:

    There is no possibility that PM is right in their overall conclusion to dismiss 911 Truth. PM is correct in their irrelevant objections to their strawman theories they constructed or took in part from radical (and mostly disavowed) elements of the 911 Truthers and that is the heart of it being a “hit piece” rather than anything remotely resembling an impartial examination.

    So now you have backed away from flight 77 skipping into the Pentagon?

    It sounded so good at first, it sorta pulled all the elements of that wild ride together into a “shoot from the hip” attack that just might have been a remotely plausible flight path for your Conspiracy Theory!

    Now your theory is so much less plausible since it means the utterly rookie pilot had to pull the Boeing 757 out of a “fall like a rock” flight path at the last second and maintain a near level flight at an altitude about half a light pole above ground as it approaches the Pentagon. Nice control Hani! That is just one more in a long series of improbable events in your official Conspiracy Theory. Or “coincidence theory” as many people call this highly suspicious version of events (e.g. NORAD just happened to be pre-occupied that day leaving their perceived highest value targets open to a prolonged attack.)

    So, when were you going to reveal your flight path Conspiracy Theory to Pilotsfor911truth? Oh right, it is not worthy.

  215. knarlyknight Says:


    It is okay to be frustrated with me, to lash out a bit and to get mad. You may be undergoing an internal struggle to maintain a faith that your government (& courts and the 4th estate) exists solely to act like your surrogate father to protect and enrich your life.

    Yes, there has been a virtual blackout of any 911 news in the major media, except for blatant hit pieces and personal attacks. Why is that? Yesterday Kevin Barrett’s letter about this issue (911 media coverage) was published by the Capital Times in Madison Wisconsin, see

    Re: PM – Their mechanical IQ is almost totally irrelevant. Relevant areas are physics, structural engineering, logic, architecture, airline procedures and protocols, legal reasoning, political science & geo-politics, the objectives and range of activities of various state security agencies like the ISI, Mossad and CIA, etc.

    Mechanical engineering barely comes into it at all, unless perhaps they were to report on the control systems that were available to fly airliners remotely (I don’t recall them mentioning that.)

    Why should I provide you with examples of gov’t paying reporters cash for favourable coverage? I said I do not believe in those Conspiracy Theories. If you think that such a Conspiracy Theory has some merit, then go research those reporters yourself, and you might start your list way back in the 1940’s with William Lawrence of the New York Times who is now under investigation for winning a Pulitzer prize under false pretenses because he was also being paid by the US government to simply parrot what they told him to say about the atomic bomb.

    Maybe another to consider is how the press is taken over before a coup in foreign countries, for example documents were (not so recently) released about the US involvement in overthrowing the elected prime minister and installing the Shah in Iran in the 1950’s, e.g. “The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing newspaper editors, owners and columnists and reporters. Within a couple of weeks, he had 80% of the newspapers in Tehran on his payroll and they were grinding out every kind of lie attacking Mossadegh.”

    I’d suggest Jeff Gannon’s ample visits to the White House is a more contemporary example, but the favours, if any, that he received likely were not all in cash but rather in some sort of enhanced exposure for his career and the benefits might not only have been in exchange for favorable news “coverage”.

    But that is your Conspiracy Theory, not mine. I said I do not believe it. The neo-cons and Karl Rove are much too honest to attempt to bribe reporters, and the CIA would never get involved with anything as underhanded as that, besides I doubt they have a sufficient budget for it what with all the wonderful redistribution of your tax dollars into public infrastructure, health care, grants for higher education, extended maternal and parental leaves, and other humane benefits available generally available to people in Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, England, Norway and Sweden.

    Also Re: News Coverage, A brand new review of the BBC’s highly publicized program on 911 has been completed. I have not seen it yet (1 hr 20 min.) but it seems to have good reviews:

  216. enkidu Says:

    pundits and reporters taking government payoffs?

  217. enkidu Says:

    to say nothing of fake new reports (cough war coverage! cough)

  218. enkidu Says:

    or maybe you like fake journalists?

  219. enkidu Says:

    it is called The Google
    try it

    and stop visiting conservapedia for your special short bus ‘facts’

  220. leftbehind Says:

    Nice try Inky, but I’ll still have to give you a “C.” You’re talking about one guy, and he’s not a reporter, nor should his punditry constitute news coverage. Paying him was a shitty thing for the Bushies to do, and probably illegal, but it hardly backs up the extensive web of deceit Knarly is trying to establish. Ditto for Jeff Gannon, who was a reporter, but he was still one guy, and hardly stands as evidence of a all-encompassing plot. Besides. most of people’s beef with Jeffy Gannon was that he was involved in gay porn, and a lot of us, who aren’t as homophobic as you are, are not so bothered by that. As for the “packaged news items,” those are typically called press releases, and it’s shitty journalism to publish one verbatim – but that is ultimately the decision of the press arm in question. I guess its a poor commentary on that media elite you liberals think is so wonderful if they reach the public without the proper investigative journalism being applied.

  221. leftbehind Says:

    And Knarly – I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I’m really not mad at you, and I’m trying not to seem cross. This is a game, and should not be taken so seriously.

  222. shcb Says:


    No I’ve never sparred with someone from the Watchtower Society, never even heard of them, but I’ve led such a sheltered life in this small town north of Denver called Brighton, oh no, I just spilled the beans, please don’t send your goons to find some guy named Rick in Brighton Colorado. I drive a white Ford F-150, all that information narrows it down to about 500 people. Now if I drove a Volvo in this farm town, you would have me pegged. So what is the Watchtower Society’s cause?

    I try and use common sense with my decisions so I’m right much more than I’m wrong, to the point of being kind of boring, so I don’t mind being proven wrong every now and then. But these guys just can’t seem to handle even taking the chance of being wrong.


    One of the guys at your other blog made the comment that the path of the plane made a much larger circle so the speed was higher, The article specifically said 5 miles, but I can see how they may have been meant the target was 5 miles away, 5 mile diameter, so I ran the numbers again with the plane maintaining 400mph through the turn. The numbers are a lot closer, 2.5 minutes to complete the turn plus the 5000 foot drop would bring it to about 3 minutes. The turn angle of the plane would increase to 38 deg instead of the 25 deg and the g’s would increase to 1.3 from 1.1. The calculator says a civilian craft should not exceed 70 degrees banking so the 38 is well within that range of a controllable flight, the dive angle would also be less. And remember Tex Johnson rolled a 707 twice in 1955 without incident in a 1 g barrel roll so the plane can take it. Most roller coasters generate 3-4 g’s with a couple in the 5-6 range. It wouldn’t have been a fun ride, but it is certainly possible. Even in a negative g situation you don’t start to “red out” until something over 2 g’s so this is either a tight, slow turn or a large fast turn either would be conceivable and fit the 5 miles and 3 minutes parameters.

    Ok Knarly, you can have the skip, the Pentagon is over a quarter of a mile across, for this discussion, it doesn’t matter if the plane hit a couple hundred feet in front of the building, the side of the building or a couple hundred feet inside the building. There, happy? Now refute the 330 degree turn was impossible.

  223. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, exactly: it’s a game… if you are a psychopath. If not, you might want to get at the truth as to who murdered 3000 people on 911.

  224. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb –
    So you’re still working on that conspiracy theory of yours? Seek help!

    (Like, perhaps ask someone from Pilotsfor911truth to help you with finding the faults, you aren’t going to like anything I have to say about the 330 degree turn anyway.)

  225. shcb Says:

    Now, see how that is done, I have a weak point my opponent is fixated on, so I concede it with reservations. Now I have taken it off the table forcing my opponent to focus on my strong point. I know that won’t happen with you, but it would work with a normal opponent.

    It was your source. I didn’t bring it up. If I confront them that will be between me and them.

    What conspiracy? I’m just analyzing their numbers. You may be right, Cheney may have been orchestrating the whole thing from the woods in back of the White House on a Radio Shack short-wave radio. “hello Tokyo, Tokyo are you there?”

  226. shcb Says:

    we know who murdered 3000 Americans, Arabs, remember, they admitted it, they cheered! (not all Arabs but a whole bunch of them)

  227. knarlyknight Says:


    Refer to my original comment on the flight path aspect of your Conspiracy Theory, of
    June 26, 2007 11:30 pm:

    “Regarding the flight path, I have only two observations (criticisms?) to offer…”

    The first, the nimbleness of the 757, was addressed at 911blogger.com/node/9643 and so I stand corrected.

    The second, that the plane skipped, you have conceded.

    That leaves me with no further comment. If you want further comments, seek it elsewhere.

  228. shcb Says:

    ok, so you agree the Pilots for 911 were wrong, and won’t use them for a source anymore?

  229. knarlyknight Says:

    No, but I will agree that YOU have issues with the professional pilots’ analysis. Until you resolve those issues, and in the absence of more compelling analysis, I will continue to favour the pilots’ assessment of the FAA data and the NTSB video over your “fuzzy math” reckonings.

  230. shcb Says:

    Ha ha, ok, as you wish. I don’t think I used much over about 10th grade math, even by todays standards. Pi times diameter isn’t exactly “fuzzy”. In the back of your mind one of your trusted sources is shakey, what about the rest? Mission accomplished!

  231. leftbehind Says:

    Knarly – oh, aren’t we the serious little man! Reality check: we’re talking about the US Government blowing up the World Trade Center. Having a serious discussion about the Government blowing up the World Trade Center is like having a serious conversation about the Martains building the Hoover Dam. You don’t actually believe any of this…do you? If so you should stop spending so much time on 911blogger, and log on to eharmony from time to time. You really need a girlfriend.

    Shcb – the Watchtower Society is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and you can’t win with them either. I admire your presistance in this matter, but you’re wasting your time. If Knarly isn’t pulling our leg with all this, he’s too thick a brick for you to crack. Maybe later in his life, when his hormones calm down, but not now.

  232. shcb Says:

    I know, but it’s good sport. It’s like catch and release fishing, there is really no point in it but it’s good exercise.

  233. leftbehind Says:

    Actually, I feel kind of sorry for picking on him so hard. It’s kind of like when your too young to know better, and some jerk friend of yours starts picking on another kid, and everybody laughs. Then it goes on too long, or kid has some really sad problem and its not funny anymore, but it just keeps going on and on.

  234. knarlyknight Says:

    Aah, now you are starting to get it too. I’ve always taken ALL sources with a grain of salt. I’ve been harping on this for a long time: Question the source regardless of the source, on the merits of the information. Do not disqualify information simply because others call the source of that information bad names. Also, do not disqualify information simply because it does not fit into your pet conspicracy theory (OCT).

    There are GOOD reasons for the saying, “Question Authority!”

    And also, even if a particular Conspiracy theory seems wildly implausible given all the other data, that does not mean it is false, it just means another hypothesis that fits the data sets better is more LIKELY to be true. So, just because the government’s version of events for 911 is full of holes does not mean it is wrong, or that all of it is wrong (like you have always accused me of saying the OCT is false because it doesn’t fit all the data.)

    That is why you could never get me to say I thought that no plane hit the Pentagon. We have not seen all the evidence, plus the witholding of the evidence and destruction of evidence (normally a felony I believe) creates added suspicion and another layer of circumstancial evidence that the government’s version of events is bogus, and increases the probability that another theory fitting the evidence better is the truth. Increases the probability…

    So you poking holes in other theories do not make them false any more than all those holes in the official conspiracy theory make that false.

    What determines the Truth (or as close as one can get) is when you have a real impartial UNENCUMBERED investigation, that is reviewed by third parties experts. You know, like the scientific method, a.k.a. the nemesis of the PM 911 method.

    That is why pilotsfortruth is already closer to the truth on the topics they examine than the Bush appointed 911 Conspiracy Commission Report ever was.

  235. leftbehind Says:

    “…ha ha, you fools! Since I was actually arguing all sides of the debate at the same time, I was right the whole time!”

  236. shcb Says:

    You’re right of course to a point, but at some point you have to be smart enough to realize when something may be ever so slightly possible but it is highly improbable. I see this in manufacturing. You have a problem with your process, so several people divide and conquer the problem by developing and executing several tests independently or concurrently. You then look at the data and see which approach makes the most sense. Invariably someone champions their idea way too long, past the time an unbiased observer would say the idea is bad. This wastes time and resources of the group. Now you don’t throw all the data away, it may be useful later on a different problem or it may answer questions that arise in a more viable idea or process, but at some point that idea dies a merciful death. Your 911 conspiracy died about the second day after it was unveiled. And the bigger it got the deader it got.

    I have been harping on the Pentagon because it has the most holes in it. And since you guys have made this a full ¼ of your argument of the 911 conspiracy disproving it punches a huge hole in your theories as a whole. If you guys had been smart, you would have said “yup, the Arabs did the Pentagon just like the government says, at the behest of the government.” But that would have implicated the Arabs and a secondary purpose of your conspiracy is to help the Arabs, because you are afraid of them or because you want to avoid war at all costs, I don’t know, but the result are the same, you are standing up for our enemy, shame on you.

    The mistake you guys made was setting your sights too high, you wanted Bush and nothing less, somehow you had to work the path to him. This made it impossible from the start since there was simply no reason for him to be involved in something so dangerous when he can legally and morally send soldiers to Iraq with the stroke of a pen.

  237. shcb Says:

    one last thing, you don’t want an unbiased investigation, you want the most biased of investigations, you want one that produces your outcome and nothing less. Anything else will always be deemed biased in your mind.

  238. knarlyknight Says:


  239. shcb Says:


    I’m not as crass as you, since I don’t have all the information, and since i obviously can’t read Knarly’s mind I have no opinion on that subject. That is also why I won’t pass judgement on whether his sources are lying sacks of shit or not.

    I just realized something, I just wrote several thousand words on something I have no opinion on, maybe I am as dumb as Knarly says.

  240. leftbehind Says:

    Let the record show I have never used the phrase “lying sack of shit” on this, or any other thread. I have not shown some of knarly’s sources undue respect,but I have never called any of them “lying sacks of shit.” In Alex Jones’ case, I used his own words via numerous Jones-produced videos, to show a pattern of sensationalism and to establish his standing as a fringe character pushing extreme and spurious notions (illuminati, etc.) In the case of Michael Ruppert, I called attention to his rather outre relationship with the law and noted with some amusement the debate (Ruppert himself acknowledges) regarding his mental health. With DR Griffin, I repeated criticisms first expressed by the man’s own publisher, and expressed my believe that a theologian such as Griffin might not be as astute an authority on matters of mechanics and related physics as a writer for Popular Mechanics. Nowhere in any of this did I curse anyone, or outright call anyone a “liar,” even as I questioned each man’s veracity and reliability. I’ve encounter these men and their work long before I started popping off about them here. I feel that, since I have studied this matter and their opinions about at least as much as I believe Knarly has, my criticisms are as valid as his defenses.

  241. leftbehind Says:

    And I really don’t think that I am that crass. I just have a very combative and unconventional sense of fair play; if you act like a joke around me, you’ll be treated like a joke, and I have no great difficulty with making myself a joke towards that end. It must be said that I generally stay away from the good kids and only horseplay with the one or two people who are clearly jerking around as haphazardly as I am, whether they see it that way themselves or not. Serious people having serious discussions in serious terms leave little room for jokers like me to disrupt the flow. It’s when things have already gotten childish or silly (“rethuglicans”) that I’m able to drag the tone down to its sad conclusion. The sorry state of contemporary political discourse, or at least the plethora of reactionary poses that pass for political discourse nowadays, breeds and nurtures shrill, misdirected people like Inky and Knarly and myself, and feeds our delusions of moral mission, our clannish xenophobia and our lycanthropic hunger for a pound of the other guy’s flesh. You might as well get used to us.

  242. shcb Says:


    I hope that wasn’t directed at me, I was just kidding. I’m all for rational, reasonable discussions, if there is even an ounce of credibility I will debate it reasonably. I have demonstrated that many times on these pages. But at some point you have to call a spade a spade.

  243. leftbehind Says:

    No, that wasn’t directed at you. I was just having a Rudger-Huer-on-the-roof-in-Blade-Runner moment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.