CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Flight AA77 on 9/11
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
Mr. Benshoof,
As predicted, every single aspect of this "gotcha" simply evaporates with AT MOST about 30 minutes of real research.
You are wrong, again and again and again.
And yet, here you are, ten years later, still offering distortions, repeating lies (of others, but nonetheless, you must take responsibility for repeating them), and offering disrespectful, baseless (& provably incorrect) vulgarities about the true victims.
You have proven yourself to be the antithesis of a skeptic. You are doing all of the above, very publicly, because you are foolishly credulous & an incompetent researcher of readily-available information.
You really should be ashamed of yourself. On many levels.
I choose not to spoon feed you the right answers. But I will give you a giant head start on correcting your errors.
I have highlighted in red the statements that you've made that are simply, provably wrong.
I'll give you a chance to look up the conclusive, public-domain corrections to your nonsense, like I would treat a very young student.
After you lazily refuse to put in any real effort at finding those answers, then I'll embarrass you by posting them here (if others have not already) in a couple of days.
I HIGHLY recommend that you go back to primary sources of information, eschew biased quote-mined snippets, and keep things in context.
We do NOT agree.
Mr. Olson was not confused about which phone was used.
Her phone calls to him lasted ~13 minutes 15 seconds. He was on the phone for this time, less the amount of time it took to put her thru to him.
Solicitor General of the US.
You gave it approximately zero thought.
Your "wonderings" are irrelevant, especially since you follow them up with zero effort at finding out the answers.
The FBI provided conclusive evidence to both the 9/11 Commission & to the Moussaoui trial that the phone call did happen. 4 phone calls, actually.
Olson's call was not the only call from AA77.
Your conclusions are irrelevant. Because they are lazy, baseless & wrong.
He did know.
And wrong.
The 4 phone calls did occur.
Provably.
And this is just plain stupid.
And provably wrong.
Wrong.
And this is just plain despicable.
And stupid.
And wrong.
Wrong.
Sensible peoples' minds do not wonder.
YOUR mind wonders.
But can't bother to put in trivial effort to look for answers.
So you spew despicable JAQ-offs.
There are no possible implications.
Because everything that you've offered is simply wrong.
The only implication is that you make bets on nonsense with no intention of paying off.
You may not think the plane had seat back phones.
You're wrong about that, too.
You might be pretty sure about the only phone call, too.
You're wrong again.
Wrong again.
The 9/11 Commission was explicitly informed of all of the above by the FBI.
If you'd bothered to read the report, you'd know this.
Your research skills are non-existent.
Likewise, your skepticism.
___
I note that you've stated (to someone else) that you are a carpenter. In other words, completely unqualified to pass judgment on the report of structural engineers regarding failure mechanisms, thermodynamics or mechanics.
Typical.
The less truthers know about some subject, the more certain they are that the experts are wrong, and that they are right.
What would you think of a 12 year old kid who had never once swung a hammer instructing you that you're doing everything wrong in building that deck?
___
I also note that you simply refuse to answer about 90% of the questions put to you. But you appear to think that you can alleviate that rudeness with transparent, insulting faux-civility.
Polite people do not ignore the questions put to them.
In short, you are just a much a polite individual as you are a skeptic.
As predicted, every single aspect of this "gotcha" simply evaporates with AT MOST about 30 minutes of real research.
You are wrong, again and again and again.
And yet, here you are, ten years later, still offering distortions, repeating lies (of others, but nonetheless, you must take responsibility for repeating them), and offering disrespectful, baseless (& provably incorrect) vulgarities about the true victims.
You have proven yourself to be the antithesis of a skeptic. You are doing all of the above, very publicly, because you are foolishly credulous & an incompetent researcher of readily-available information.
You really should be ashamed of yourself. On many levels.
I choose not to spoon feed you the right answers. But I will give you a giant head start on correcting your errors.
I have highlighted in red the statements that you've made that are simply, provably wrong.
I'll give you a chance to look up the conclusive, public-domain corrections to your nonsense, like I would treat a very young student.
After you lazily refuse to put in any real effort at finding those answers, then I'll embarrass you by posting them here (if others have not already) in a couple of days.
I HIGHLY recommend that you go back to primary sources of information, eschew biased quote-mined snippets, and keep things in context.
We do NOT agree.
Mr. Olson was not confused about which phone was used.
Her phone calls to him lasted ~13 minutes 15 seconds. He was on the phone for this time, less the amount of time it took to put her thru to him.
Solicitor General of the US.
You gave it approximately zero thought.
Your "wonderings" are irrelevant, especially since you follow them up with zero effort at finding out the answers.
The FBI provided conclusive evidence to both the 9/11 Commission & to the Moussaoui trial that the phone call did happen. 4 phone calls, actually.
Olson's call was not the only call from AA77.
Your conclusions are irrelevant. Because they are lazy, baseless & wrong.
He did know.
And wrong.
The 4 phone calls did occur.
Provably.
And this is just plain stupid.
And provably wrong.
Wrong.
And this is just plain despicable.
And stupid.
And wrong.
Wrong.
Sensible peoples' minds do not wonder.
YOUR mind wonders.
But can't bother to put in trivial effort to look for answers.
So you spew despicable JAQ-offs.
There are no possible implications.
Because everything that you've offered is simply wrong.
The only implication is that you make bets on nonsense with no intention of paying off.
You may not think the plane had seat back phones.
You're wrong about that, too.
You might be pretty sure about the only phone call, too.
You're wrong again.
Wrong again.
The 9/11 Commission was explicitly informed of all of the above by the FBI.
If you'd bothered to read the report, you'd know this.
Your research skills are non-existent.
Likewise, your skepticism.
___
I note that you've stated (to someone else) that you are a carpenter. In other words, completely unqualified to pass judgment on the report of structural engineers regarding failure mechanisms, thermodynamics or mechanics.
Typical.
The less truthers know about some subject, the more certain they are that the experts are wrong, and that they are right.
What would you think of a 12 year old kid who had never once swung a hammer instructing you that you're doing everything wrong in building that deck?
___
I also note that you simply refuse to answer about 90% of the questions put to you. But you appear to think that you can alleviate that rudeness with transparent, insulting faux-civility.
Polite people do not ignore the questions put to them.
In short, you are just a much a polite individual as you are a skeptic.
Last edited:
Well it appears that Mr Benshoof is simply the last in a long, long line of Truthers who were going to come here, teach all us debunkers a real lesson, smack us around for a little amusement & then retire to the adoration & accolades of Twooferdom ...
... only to have his plan go terribly awry.
No problem, of course. Simply beat feet & pretend he didn't get his ass handed to him.
Repeatedly.
Some search for twoof these clowns are on.
tk
... only to have his plan go terribly awry.
No problem, of course. Simply beat feet & pretend he didn't get his ass handed to him.
Repeatedly.
Some search for twoof these clowns are on.
tk
Last edited:
Well...
... let's give him a chance. He has been given information that
Plus, I'm not clear if he's following this thread at all, as it was split from the CD = Free Fall one where he originally posted and he hasn't posted anything since then here. Nor in the other one.
Pg, I am all for giving anyone who behaves with sincerity & honesty an absurd, unreasonable number of chances. And then yet a few more.
I am kind of sick & tired of Truthers pretending to be sincere and purely motivated by a search for truth, only to spend a couple of hours (or far more) finding out that their sincerity was a sham from the start.
I'm willing to give Mr Benshoof a chance. He's had about 30 chances thus far. How many people's questions has he answered to date? By my count: zero.
My BS meter is on overload.
But we'll wait & see. Time always tells. So it will with our latest guest.
I'll put up a post that'll make sure he's not merely lost.
Tom
I am kind of sick & tired of Truthers pretending to be sincere and purely motivated by a search for truth, only to spend a couple of hours (or far more) finding out that their sincerity was a sham from the start.
I'm willing to give Mr Benshoof a chance. He's had about 30 chances thus far. How many people's questions has he answered to date? By my count: zero.
My BS meter is on overload.
But we'll wait & see. Time always tells. So it will with our latest guest.
I'll put up a post that'll make sure he's not merely lost.
Tom
Last edited:
