Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I've been active in the 9/11 truth movement in Northern California for a couple of years, and I've never heard of Philip Jayhan. I've never heard of Conspiracy Con either, which, like Jayhan, the author informs us is in Northern California.
And what's the first argument that this Jayhan is supposed to have given the author here? Why, he saw some flashing thing when one of the planes was about to crash. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Of course, people in the habit of going to something called, and something obscure as, Conspiracy Con are apt to be suspect.
Let's get real for a minute. It took me years, as it did so many others, to catch on to how 9/11 was a false flag operation -- because my first inclination was to assume that those motivated to do this would've had too many obstacles to surmount to undertake and get away with something so audacious.
But careful, duplicable research by many brave and brilliant scholars has shown that there's simply no way the official story can be true, and that, applying Occam's razor, a false flag operation makes far more sense than any alternative explanations so far offered up by anybody.
And these important findings have been systematically excluded from the mainstream media, including Salon. Instead the public only ever hears about what occasional wackos and flakes have to say about 9/11, the better to discredit the search for 9/11 truth.
Clearly the black smoke indicates a low oxygen fire, when the color of smoke is determined by what is burning, not how hot it's burning.
The black smoke is unburned carbon, indicative of a lack of oxygen.
This effect can be clearly seen when lighting an oxyacetylene torch, when the acetylene is first lit without the oxygen the torch emits copious quantities of black smoke and a yellow/orange flame.. Turn on the oxygen and adjust it to the proper setting and the smoke completely disappears and the flame turns to a blue color.
A summary: You have not a clue what you are talking about and is painfully obvious to anyone who does.
Not to imply I think the WTC was purposefully demolished, just that I know you are ignorant of combustion physics.
Bill Owen further proves his cluelessness, as well as his refusal to update his prejudices:
One of the biggest flaws in the official story is the lack of fighter cover that day. Andrews AFB is only 13 miles from the Pentagon. On Sept. 11, they had 150 interceptors there. The first plane was identified as hijacked at around 8:25 AM EST, the last plane did not strike the Pentagon until 9:38. Simple question. Where were the interceptors?
One of the biggest flaws in the troofers' world-view is the lack of real understanding of military matters. Simple (and already well-known and repeated) answer: Andrews wasn't (and isn't) the base from which the DC area is defended; Langley is, and it's a bit further away than Andrews. Also, at that time, the Air Force did not have orders, or protocols, to shoot down civilian aircraft in their own country's airspace. What part of "the military can't respond quickly to something it doesn't expect and didn't have orders or plans for" do you guys not understand? This is a simple fact of human organizational behavior, and you shouldn't have to be the son of two bureaucrats to understand it.
Hell they just killed 1.2 million Iraqis, basically for oil, Israel and empire.
And the Iraq war benefits Israel...how? Did you make even the slightest effort to figure that out? Or did you just settle on the easy default-position of "the Joos get rich no matter what happens"? This sloppiness alone raises serious doubts about your ability to process complex information. And you're calling Manjoo "sloppy?"
And speaking of Israel, what was that bit about alleged Mossad agents alegedly high-fiving each other in a public place near the site of a secret operation they had just completed? Gimme a break -- even the IRA were more discreet than that. The entire troofer movement is riddled with paranoia, immaturity, ignorance of how real people function in the real world, and just plain shameless bigotry.
Just wondering - what happened to my letter on this article?
It's ok - still there. (Don't want to get paranoid!)
Understanding "military matters"? WTF? America was under attack and you tell me it was bureaucratic matter? Do you really believe that?
And even if Langley is your AFB of choice - it is only 150 miles from DC - at Mach 1.6 it would take about 6 minutes to get to Washington. Same question. Where were the interceptors? They had well over an hour. And do you really believe that when the commandant at Andrews got the call, "America is under attack!", he said, "Sorry, not my sector, you will have to fill out a 532a form in triplicate, and fax it to me?" That's astounding.
What about the air defenses at the Pentagon. Why were they not activated?
And aren't you the guy who thinks that that a 707 and a 757 are hugely different in size? Yeah, you are. They are not - as my table showed. And I am still waiting for you, with your astounding grasp of the facts, to explain your statement that aviation fuel, circa 2001 is more "powerful and explosive" (is that a scienterrific term?) than av fuel circa 1966.
As for Israel I did not say Mossad did the job, simply that they were there, and were celebrating. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Try reading the link and perhaps your posts will be a little more informed brother, as, at the moment, I see the angry ravings of somone, who obviously has done, at best, a few hours research on the subject, which, as others have pointed out is enormously complex and not accessible to a casual perusal, especially by someone who is as low functioning as yourself.
I said the war was for oil, empire and Israel. You focussed on how Israel benefited and then you immediately segued, like a fool and bigot, in calling me an anti-Semite. Thanks!
Criticism of Israel, is NOT anti-Semitism. Why do you confuse the two?
And as to how this benefited Israel, here is what Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu said. (you've heard of him right?) "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)".
Since then, using that sympathy and the numerous precedents set by America, Israel has erected the Apartheid wall (illegally) expanded its "settlements", walled in Gaza, illegally attacked Lebanon, killing several thousand civilians in the process, bombed Syria, etc etc. All of this without a word or whimper from America, because they do, and have done the same things themselves.
What is a "troofer" anyway? Do you mean "truther"? Seriously you should learn to spell. Or is just a juvenile name calling thing? Either way you do yourself no credit.
If you have specific arguments that negate some the theories as proposed by Prof. Jones, or Dr. Griffin, I would be glad to address them. If you want continue with the name calling and the specious nonsense about "more powerful and explosive" av gas, well, like most of the people on this thread, I will just ignore you as you clearly have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
