• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?

One thing I have learnt from reading the conspiracy parts of the wider forum (many years a'lurking) is that in conspiracy land "not totally impossible" means the same as "so it definitely happened".

Bringing the E into JREF.

I'm not sure the fake pole shot into the taxicab, which was towed into position during the chaos of the Penagon impact, supervised by Rumsfeld himself, even qualifies as "not totally impossible". It's the sort of delusion that likely involves severe mental illness, or really heavy drug use, or both.
 
I'm not sure the fake pole shot into the taxicab, which was towed into position during the chaos of the Penagon impact, supervised by Rumsfeld himself, even qualifies as "not totally impossible". It's the sort of delusion that likely involves severe mental illness, or really heavy drug use, or both.

And that is a story that no one can beat
And to think that he saw it on Mulberry Street S Washington Blvd!
 
Found this ad on motherjones:

attachment.php


A search for "Abraham Broom" directs me to a book by a Michael Burns about WTC7.
 

Attachments

  • funnyasshit.JPG
    funnyasshit.JPG
    42.1 KB · Views: 527
calling it 9/11 truth to spread lies? What about calling it Critical Thinking

While trying to keep up with the grandkids building computers, looking for parts and ideas - and building this https://www.alternate.co.uk/p/o/t/A...ase_Full_Tower_Black__Cube_case@@tqx60012.jpg

The 802 case has been built, and the is a real borg computer case... (truth, actually followed the CE post down the rabbit hole and found this 9/11 truth stupidity along the way - computer stuff is real too)

anyway, found an example of ironic stupidity

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/2767-war-games-on-9-11

A site called Critical Thinking has 9/11 truth nonsense. Critical Thinking (CT), A perfect name for propagation and regulation of 9/11 truth lies.

http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/component/search/?searchword=9/11&searchphrase=all&Itemid=435

Search for 9/11 has over 100 entries rehashing the standard 9/11 truth false claims to support the lack of "critical thinking'. Truth are lies, critical thinking is failed speculation, in the world of 9/11 truth. 9/11 zombie syndication.
 
I just talked to a lady on Facebook who had posted this:
Lady said:
Despite the controversy over who and what caused the 9/11 attacks, the simple FACT that Bush had prior knowledge and did nothing thus; the government is responsible. Against strong warning from national security, he chose to do nothing. Good day.
On which I commented:
me said:
Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information.
What, specifically should Bush have done?
To which (or rather to a reply of a reply) she replied by uploading a facsimile of a security memo, dated 4 December 1998, declassified 12 July 2004, with the following content:
memo said:
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing To Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

Reporting ___ suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, inculding aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abt al-Rahman [and others] ... same source ... said Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and...
To which she added the following commentary:
Lady said:
it was very specific. Please read this. I can't paste it. The 2004 threat became a real threat in 2011 and the CIA advised Bush. He and his cabinet ignored it.

Ok - I never thought I'd see the day that I'd run into a Truther who doesn't even know the decade in which 9/11 occurred!! :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
I just talked to a lady on Facebook who had posted this:

On which I commented:

To which (or rather to a reply of a reply) she replied by uploading a facsimile of a security memo, dated 4 December 1998, declassified 12 July 2004, with the following content:

To which she added the following commentary:


Ok - I never thought I'd see the day that I'd run into a Truther who doesn't even know the decade in which 9/11 occurred!! :eye-poppi

One of the things I keep coming back to with the whole "AQ/UBL are going to hijack planes" thing is that before 9/11, a hijacking usually involved flying a plane back to an airport to get some sort of ransom. No one ever equated "hijack" with "turn planes into missiles" before that day.
 
One of the things I keep coming back to with the whole "AQ/UBL are going to hijack planes" thing is that before 9/11, a hijacking usually involved flying a plane back to an airport to get some sort of ransom. No one ever equated "hijack" with "turn planes into missiles" before that day.



And that's even in the report that was quoted: "including aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abt al-Rahman [and others]"

How do you obtain a person's release by proactively crashing all the hijacked planes?

And that ignores the fact that the memo is dated 4 December 1998, so it was almost three years prior to 9/11, which means it was basically useless as warning.
 
You might want to check out the hijacking of Air France Flt 8969 in 1994. The hijacking was broken up and the Eiffel Tower was the target.
 
This is a recent one, on this very forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12819617#post12819617



The demolition charges meant to bring down the building, were set off hours before the building collapsed, thus not bringing down the building. :D
Now THAT is controlled demolition!

He is claiming it was pre weakened... which is fine... But there is no evidence of this as the building was being surveyed inside and out all day until they removed personal after they determined head was warping the structure which the consultant to the FDNY deemed it likely to collapse. He was correct.
 
He is claiming it was pre weakened... which is fine... But there is no evidence of this as the building was being surveyed inside and out all day until they removed personal after they determined head was warping the structure which the consultant to the FDNY deemed it likely to collapse. He was correct.


Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports
that document the consultants proclamations?


A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in
the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate
the collapse into a desired perimeter.
The preamble explosive events are designed to shift the centers of gravity
of the building's loads before the actual implosion. Theoretically the implosion preamble could be
extended over a period of minutes,or hours,or days,or weeks.
Stealth is essential if the perpetrators wish to escape culpability. The preparations for the three
towers implosions may have begun
months before 9-11 by removing bolts from critical connections and partially
torch-sever critical columns all years in advance. A slow motion preparation
for demolition emulating a terrorist attack would conceal the plan nicely.

Achieving all of the goals, financial ,political, investigations of past criminal actions ect. of all of the conspirators and
evade detection would be the ideal outcome especially, if you could frame enemies for the destruction.
 
Last edited:
a fine example

Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports that document the consultants proclamations?


A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate the collapse into a desired perimeter.
The preamble explosive events are designed to shift the centers of gravity of the building's loads before the actual implosion. Theoretically the implosion preamble could be extended over a period of minutes,or hours,or days,or weeks.
Stealth is essential if the perpetrators wish to escape culpability. The preparations for the three towers implosions may have begun months before 9-11 by removing bolts from critical connections and partially torch-sever critical columns all years in advance. A slow motion preparation for demolition emulating a terrorist attack would conceal the plan nicely.

Achieving all of the goals, financial ,political, investigations of past criminal actions ect. of all of the conspirators and evade detection would be the ideal outcome especially, if you could frame enemies for the destruction.

Excellent example of the fantasy version of 9/11, and ignoring who did 9/11, 19 murderers. Who is the scapegoat for your fantasy version of 9/11.

What is funny, most likely your plot would have started fires all those years before 9/11, trying to pre-weaken columns in the WTC complex, waiting for 19 idiots (who are almost as gullible as 9/11 truth followers/believers) to hijack four planes to cover up the pre... lol, I can't finish, your post is on topic, and a winner.

What is troubling, 9/11 truthers believe this is possible, which to me means 9/11 truthers are capable of doing idiotic things like this. Kind of like projection.
 
Why can't the conspiracy just be hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into buildings? Bin Laden and KSM were the original architects and engineers.

And how is destroying an empty office building terror?
 
Fonebone, that's all ad hoc. It's speculation because you've closed your ears off to the other more natural explanations in advance. The conspiracy theorist MO.

There was no demolition of the WTCs on 9/11.
 
I just talked to a lady on Facebook who had posted this:

On which I commented:

To which (or rather to a reply of a reply) she replied by uploading a facsimile of a security memo, dated 4 December 1998, declassified 12 July 2004, with the following content:

To which she added the following commentary:


Ok - I never thought I'd see the day that I'd run into a Truther who doesn't even know the decade in which 9/11 occurred!! :eye-poppi

You wrote:

"On which I commented:

Originally Posted by me
Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information.
What, specifically should Bush have done?"

Are you really serious?

First, Bush was told on August 6, 2001, that there was surveillance of buildings in Manhattan consistent with (using hijacked aircraft to target these buildings) aircraft hijacking. Anyone with a brain would immediately have known from this information, that the buildings in Manhattan that were to be attacked, would have been the WTC Towers.

After this briefing Bush said "OK you have covered your ass, now!"

Why would Bush have said this? What was Bush thinking, that the CIA was covering their ass from? Did the CIA know that the President was going to do absolutely nothing to stop this huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US, and Bush knew they were providing him with enough information on this attack, that he would be forced to defend the CIA after this attack took place. Does this explain why the President said; "OK you have covered your ass, now!"

John Ashcroft, his AG, was so terrified a being on an aircraft that might be hijacked, that he no longer flew on US commercial aircraft in the US after July 26, 2001, for AG business. This was just after Tenet briefed him on the information he gave Condoleezza Rice the week before.

The statement "Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information.What, specifically should Bush have done?" is that old chestnut that makes no sense.

Bush could have asked what the CIA knew about any attack aimed at the US, or any al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US. He could have had the FBI send a cable to all FBI agents who were part of the 56 Joint TTFs and the New York criminal agents on the Cole bombing, asking them what information they had on any al terrorists they were aware of, that were inside of the US. Bush could have had the NSA translate all al Qaeda telephone conversations, in real time, instead of taking several days to translate these conversations.

Instead, President Bush did what? President Bush did absolutely nothing! President Bush did nothing to stop this attack, when he was aware that this inaction by his administration would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans in a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack. I repeat, he did absolutely nothing to stop this attack.

But what is even more horrific is that we now know that Bush and the CIA knew mush more than was revealed by the 9/11 Commission. Tenet and the CIA were told on August 22, 2001, that two al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill massive numbers of Americans. On August 23, 2001, Tenet was told, that Minneapolis FBI had the INS arrest a person, who they thought was a terrorist, trying to learn how to fly a B747 without even having a private pilot's license. In spite of knowing about this attack and knowing two al Qaeda terrorists were already in the US, to take part in this attack, Tenet and the CIA completely refused to help the Minneapolis FBI get enough information to get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions. This act that prevented the Minneapolis FBI Agents from finding Ramzi bin al-Shibh's Western Union money wire transfer until after the attacks on 9/11 had already taken place.

It is clear that just this action by the CIA plus the fact that the CIA had warned absolutely no one who could have stopped these attacks, allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Even though Tenet claimed he had not talked to the President in all of August 2001, he flew down to Crawford for a 6 hour meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, just after he had become aware of Mihdhar and Hazmi and of Moussaoui, had another meeting with him on August 30, 2001 and 6 more times, met with the President, before the the attacks on 9/11. It is impossible to believe that Tenet had not given Bush the information he had, that the al Qaeda terrorists were just about to carry out a huge attack that would use commercial aircraft to attack the WTC Towers, the Pentagon and the US Capital building.

Again, people who claim that "Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information." is a statement that from what we now know, is beyond stupid!
 
Last edited:
First, Bush was told on August 6, 2001, that there was surveillance of buildings in Manhattan consistent with (using hijacked aircraft to target these buildings) aircraft hijacking. Anyone with a brain would immediately have known from this information, that the buildings in Manhattan that were to be attacked, would have been the WTC Towers.

This a lie. The August 6, 2001 brief says no such thing:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

This covers the full accounting:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

The State Department issued a travel warning in July, 2001 for the Middle East and Mediterranean saying that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack commercial jet liners. It has been pulled from the DoS online archives but it can be found in newspaper archives. To my knowledge the background for this travel warning was never follow up upon by the Commission or anyone "Looking for the Truth" which is weird since it is the ONLY US Government warning where there is any specific mention of hijacking planes. But the DoS clearly felt the hijackings would occur off-shore.

As for what Bush could have done? The CIA was embargoing its intel on Al Qaeda. The guy who briefed the President, including the bin Laden brief, couldn't get more information from CIA 9 hours AFTER the attack without making threats.

Bush's policy toward Al Qaeda prior to 9-11, 2001 was identical to Clinton's policy which was all hot air.
 
He is claiming it was pre weakened... which is fine... But there is no evidence of this as the building was being surveyed inside and out all day until they removed personal after they determined head was warping the structure which the consultant to the FDNY deemed it likely to collapse. He was correct.

I quite liked my description of this post from another thread, you I'm reposting it here:

Not only that: fonebone has claimed that these explosives not only survived the fires, but that some of them were set off hours before the collapse, thus somehow helping to bring the building down so it doesn't look like CD, whilst simultaneously not bringing the building down and sounding just like CD.
 
A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in
the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate
the collapse into a desired perimeter.
The preamble explosive events are designed to shift the centers of gravity
of the building's loads before the actual implosion. Theoretically the implosion preamble could be
extended over a period of minutes,or hours,or days,or weeks.
Stealth is essential if the perpetrators wish to escape culpability. The preparations for the three
towers implosions may have begun
months before 9-11 by removing bolts from critical connections and partially
torch-sever critical columns all years in advance. A slow motion preparation
for demolition emulating a terrorist attack would conceal the plan nicely.

Achieving all of the goals, financial ,political, investigations of past criminal actions ect. of all of the conspirators and
evade detection would be the ideal outcome especially, if you could frame enemies for the destruction.

This just keeps getting better.
Do you have any real-world examples of explosives being set off in a building weeks before it was eventually brought down?
Can you foresee any possible safety issues with this procedure?
 
Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports
that document the consultants proclamations?


A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in
the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate
the collapse into a desired perimeter.
The preamble explosive events are designed to shift the centers of gravity
of the building's loads before the actual implosion. Theoretically the implosion preamble could be
extended over a period of minutes,or hours,or days,or weeks.
Stealth is essential if the perpetrators wish to escape culpability. The preparations for the three
towers implosions may have begun
months before 9-11 by removing bolts from critical connections and partially
torch-sever critical columns all years in advance. A slow motion preparation
for demolition emulating a terrorist attack would conceal the plan nicely.

Achieving all of the goals, financial ,political, investigations of past criminal actions ect. of all of the conspirators and
evade detection would be the ideal outcome especially, if you could frame enemies for the destruction.

Maybe not a podium (competition is fierce) but a decent entry in this thread regardless.
 
Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports
that document the consultants proclamations?


A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in
the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate
the collapse into a desired perimeter.

And where in this deliberate sequence of events that must be executed in the exact order is the step that involves flying planes into a couple of buildings?
 
There is not reason to believe that a traditional demolition would have been planned if someone wants to destroy a large structure. All they would likely want is for the structure to experience enough destruction to make it unusable.... and then it could possibly be repaired or have to be demolished.

The problem with CD proponents is that there is nothing to indicate that any type of engineered destruction was involved. The over arching events make no sense. Why would planes be hijacked and then CD used? What was the target of the plane which came down in Shanksville? No un-exploded CD devices were found post 9/11 in any government buildings or major "symbolic" targets. This seems to strongly suggest that hijackers were the main show...

We also could see that hitting the Pentagon would not / did not completely destroy it... as the twin towers were from the plane strikes. This suggest that the objective was not necessarily complete destruction... but getting a strike and causing the obvious damage that a plane crash would cause.

We did learn that the twin towers design was strong enough to take a plane strike but not to resist unfought fires and that the egress was inadequate to get all the people out of the buildings. Evacuation was successful at 7wtc because it began early before the fires made it impossible.
 
And where in this deliberate sequence of events that must be executed in the exact order is the step that involves flying planes into a couple of buildings?
Ahh, good point. So, Fonebone is suggesting that the towers were pre-weakened in such a way that just a tiny, inaudible bit of explosive could trigger the collapse. However, the impact of an airliner (or the impact of the debris from WTC1, in the case of WTC7) did not break this delicate equilibrium.

:D
 
I ran into a guy ,on the internet, the other day that seems to think Osama Bin Laden never existed.

I didn't really dig into it, where do you even begin?
 
Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports
that document the consultants proclamations?


A planned deliberate controlled demolition has a sequence of events that must be executed in
the exact order the demolition engineering designers designated to orchestrate
the collapse into a desired perimeter.
The preamble explosive events are designed to shift the centers of gravity
of the building's loads before the actual implosion. Theoretically the implosion preamble could be
extended over a period of minutes,or hours,or days,or weeks.
Stealth is essential if the perpetrators wish to escape culpability. The preparations for the three
towers implosions may have begun
months before 9-11 by removing bolts from critical connections and partially
torch-sever critical columns all years in advance. A slow motion preparation
for demolition emulating a terrorist attack would conceal the plan nicely.

Achieving all of the goals, financial ,political, investigations of past criminal actions ect. of all of the conspirators and
evade detection would be the ideal outcome especially, if you could frame enemies for the destruction.
Fonebone, your hypothesis appears to use what is known as "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ", aka "making up **** to exactly explain carefully selected events in such a way as to not have to admit you have no support for your argument "
 
Last edited:
Fonebone, your hypothesis appears to use what is known as "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ", aka "making up **** to exactly explain carefully selected events in such a way as to not have to admit you have no support for your argument "

Ah, (s)he is a "student" and wishes to "learn". That is why the continual dialog of the Truthers. :rolleyes:
 
Does this consultant to the FDNY have a name? Do you have a link to any reports
that document the consultants proclamations?

I do not have a name, but he is mentioned in the terrific testimony of EMS Division Chief John Peruggia:

At that point I went back into the building (WTC 7). I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
 
You wrote:

"On which I commented:

Originally Posted by me
Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information.
What, specifically should Bush have done?"

Are you really serious?

First, Bush was told on August 6, 2001, that there was surveillance of buildings in Manhattan consistent with (using hijacked aircraft to target these buildings) aircraft hijacking. Anyone with a brain would immediately have known from this information, that the buildings in Manhattan that were to be attacked, would have been the WTC Towers.

After this briefing Bush said "OK you have covered your ass, now!"

Why would Bush have said this? What was Bush thinking, that the CIA was covering their ass from? Did the CIA know that the President was going to do absolutely nothing to stop this huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US, and Bush knew they were providing him with enough information on this attack, that he would be forced to defend the CIA after this attack took place. Does this explain why the President said; "OK you have covered your ass, now!"

John Ashcroft, his AG, was so terrified a being on an aircraft that might be hijacked, that he no longer flew on US commercial aircraft in the US after July 26, 2001, for AG business. This was just after Tenet briefed him on the information he gave Condoleezza Rice the week before.

The statement "Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information.What, specifically should Bush have done?" is that old chestnut that makes no sense.

Bush could have asked what the CIA knew about any attack aimed at the US, or any al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US. He could have had the FBI send a cable to all FBI agents who were part of the 56 Joint TTFs and the New York criminal agents on the Cole bombing, asking them what information they had on any al terrorists they were aware of, that were inside of the US. Bush could have had the NSA translate all al Qaeda telephone conversations, in real time, instead of taking several days to translate these conversations.

Instead, President Bush did what? President Bush did absolutely nothing! President Bush did nothing to stop this attack, when he was aware that this inaction by his administration would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans in a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack. I repeat, he did absolutely nothing to stop this attack.

But what is even more horrific is that we now know that Bush and the CIA knew mush more than was revealed by the 9/11 Commission. Tenet and the CIA were told on August 22, 2001, that two al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill massive numbers of Americans. On August 23, 2001, Tenet was told, that Minneapolis FBI had the INS arrest a person, who they thought was a terrorist, trying to learn how to fly a B747 without even having a private pilot's license. In spite of knowing about this attack and knowing two al Qaeda terrorists were already in the US, to take part in this attack, Tenet and the CIA completely refused to help the Minneapolis FBI get enough information to get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions. This act that prevented the Minneapolis FBI Agents from finding Ramzi bin al-Shibh's Western Union money wire transfer until after the attacks on 9/11 had already taken place.

It is clear that just this action by the CIA plus the fact that the CIA had warned absolutely no one who could have stopped these attacks, allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Even though Tenet claimed he had not talked to the President in all of August 2001, he flew down to Crawford for a 6 hour meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, just after he had become aware of Mihdhar and Hazmi and of Moussaoui, had another meeting with him on August 30, 2001 and 6 more times, met with the President, before the the attacks on 9/11. It is impossible to believe that Tenet had not given Bush the information he had, that the al Qaeda terrorists were just about to carry out a huge attack that would use commercial aircraft to attack the WTC Towers, the Pentagon and the US Capital building.

Again, people who claim that "Such was the situation for the Bush White House: No actionable information." is a statement that from what we now know, is beyond stupid!

Wall of text based on a lie.
 
You wrote:

"On which I commented:

Originally Posted by me

John Ashcroft, his AG, was so terrified a being on an aircraft that might be hijacked, that he no longer flew on US commercial aircraft in the US after July 26, 2001, for AG business. This was just after Tenet briefed him on the information he gave Condoleezza Rice the week before.
A total lie.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Tenth Public Hearing
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Washington, DC
Hart Senate Office Building
CHAIRED BY: THOMAS H. KEAN

MR. BEN-VENISTE:
Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question which has been frequently put to members of this commission....At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment.

ATTY. GEN. ASHCROFT: Let me just indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel. My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C. on the 3rd of September, before the 17th -- before the 11th attack, on commercial aircraft. I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel, continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing10/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-13.htm
 
A total lie.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Tenth Public Hearing
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Washington, DC
Hart Senate Office Building
CHAIRED BY: THOMAS H. KEAN

MR. BEN-VENISTE:
Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question which has been frequently put to members of this commission....At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment.

ATTY. GEN. ASHCROFT: Let me just indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel. My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C. on the 3rd of September, before the 17th -- before the 11th attack, on commercial aircraft. I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel, continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.


http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing10/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-04-13.htm

Agreed, nowhere in the text of the hearings does Ashcroft indicate he didn't travel by commercial aircraft because he was terrified. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't but those hearing did not produced that word.
 
Agreed, nowhere in the text of the hearings does Ashcroft indicate he didn't travel by commercial aircraft because he was terrified. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't but those hearing did not produced that word.

Actually if you read on in that particular testimony, it becomes clear that Ashcroft flew commercial when he was traveling personally, but used government aircraft when flying for his job:

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

Not because he was terrified but because there was apparently a concern with his security people traveling armed.
 
clueless blog remains up as a legacy of woo

One of the top examples of stupidity, and a legacy of online woo. JM Talboo can't figure out Hulsey's report is flawed.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

How does JM Talboo explan his failure to engage critical thinking skills on 9/11 issues to his grandkids.
 
Late contender:One of our resident Truthers posted in the Ukraine Scandle thread comparing 9/11 Truthers to the whistleblower on the Ukraine....
 
Late contender:One of our resident Truthers posted in the Ukraine Scandal thread comparing 9/11 Truthers to the whistleblower on the Ukraine....

he has no clue the whistleblower is trump. trump is a conspiracy theorist.
 
A guy names Ray Kraaijenhagen on Facebook just presented me with this chain of ... well, "thought":

1. Someone said on a hijacked plane: "We have a bomb"
2. That bomb something something (he couldn't say) uhm plane crashing high into South Tower, apparently (there is no coherent thought here)
3. That bomb was "strong enough to blow the windows out in the lobby area"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911...09141636120&reply_comment_id=2718265348267166

:eye-poppi
 
A guy names Ray Kraaijenhagen on Facebook just presented me with this chain of ... well, "thought":

1. Someone said on a hijacked plane: "We have a bomb"
2. That bomb something something (he couldn't say) uhm plane crashing high into South Tower, apparently (there is no coherent thought here)
3. That bomb was "strong enough to blow the windows out in the lobby area"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911...09141636120&reply_comment_id=2718265348267166

:eye-poppi
That was some sort of record for persistence of apparent stupidity. Plus desperate derailing diversions.

For a person who was being spoon fed explanations of the qualitative physics and the basis of quantitative application by at least two persons who are highly qualified at the relevant applied science. Both of whom can remain anonymous to prevent any embarrassment. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom