It was probably more that he expected people to just be wowed by his claims and not indulge in the pesky habit of asking for real evidence. Saying "it's in my video" doesn't cut it around here, and neither does making baldfaced, unsupported claims. But he just tossed out randomly generated claims and expected an uncritical audience to just accept, or ask softball questions. Typical truther.
I also think he was dismayed at being hit with actual data; recall how he dismissed my posting of Gravy's summary of witness statements by sarcastically telling me to go buy the 9/11 Commision Report (why buy it, I don't know,
given that it's frikkin' available for free...). He totally missed the fact that those witness statements were taken from a variety of sources, and not from the 9/11 Commision Report. Which is something he should've figured out had he actually read either the report or Gravy's links.
Note, too,
his nonexistent defense of his inaccuracy regarding sonic booms, as well as his complete glossing over of the summary of evidence totally refuting his Pentagon claim. There's a great opportunity to say "No, these witnesses are wrong for this reason", but he chooses to be indignant instead.
Anyway, another case of much heat but no light. Someone who indulges in typical dodges and does his best to keep things unspecific is normally a run-of-the-mill charlatan who has no real evidence.
Mancman or tj15: Are his vids worth a point-by-point refutation, or is it just the same old crud regurgitated?
From Mancman's post, it seems like it's the latter.
, but OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration for you non-Yanks) did in fact do some sampling:
may be acting like he's breaking new ground, but the fact of the matter is that he's only recycling old and very tired myths.
