Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary’s remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington

Monday, December 27, 2004 Posted: 9:54 PM EST (0254 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the “the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.”

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

“Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy” asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/us_flight93_memorial

Personally, I think it’s a load of BS that they’re doing this to people and that they’re even building a memorial in the first place.
What a HUGE waste of tax dollars

They weren’t lucky.

They were perfect.

http://nlc.natca.org/OLD%20files/MM%20Feb%2099%20senate%20test.htm

I’m starting to think you are a 5 year old kid. You have not answered any of my questions and that photo you linked to is bullshit. That part did not come from a 767. That is proven in Loose Change. Also that picture does not have any of the parts I mentioned. Tell me where the wings, engines, fuselage, seats, luggage, and ground damage is in that picture. You are either among the most gullible people there are or you work for the federal government and are trying to convince people it was not a inside job with the flimsiest of evidence. Once you take off the tinfoil hat you might see the truth.

“You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered.”

***********

With apologies to Wm. Cowper, proof of absence is not absence of proof. Your “questions” were answered many times by many sources as we directed you to in this thread. I will not go through everything with you, but suffice to say it is incredibly easy to convince someone who is already willing to believe what you have to say. BTW if you want to see debris of the 767 that hit the Pentagon, go here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_13.html

You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered. You just keep going back insisting 911 happened the way the gov’t says it did. Please explain to me what you want for proof when you ignore legitimate questions and refuse to watch the docs I recommended. All these docs can be seen on the internet so you don’t have to spend a dime in ordering them. Listen: 911 In Plane Site and Loose Change lay out the facts that don’t jive with the official story. Why no plane debis from a 757 in front of the Pentagon? What are the pods attached to the planes that hit the trade towers. What’s the flash you see right before the planes hit the towers. These are all seen on video taken by the major networks. Both films cover facts not covered by the other and some facts are covered by both. Terrorstorm educates you about gov’t false flag operations and the reasons for them. Fabled Enemies shows just who benefitted from 911 and the gov’ts responsible. Israel did have a hand in 911. Just google ‘Dancing Israelis’. We already know they attacked the US once when they attacked the USS Liberty. Look it up. Google it. They didn’t only attack the USS Liberty they got away with it with help from our gov’t. They did it once and got away with it, what’s to stop them from doing it again? Hell they just attacked a aid ship in international waters with a former US Representative aboard and nothing happened. Israel is a rogue nation and will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Back to 911. Mespo and others like him– I challenge you this. I challenge you to watch the docs I recommended and then come back and say you still believe the gov’t story. Until you see the evidence I have seen there is really nothing more I can say or do. You asked for evidence, I just gave you many sources. Now go look at it and tell me how you’re going to de-bunk it. And don’t forget to tell me how a plane can create such a small hole at the Pentagon and vanish.

“On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg.”

“Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision”
(Seattle Times, 2/27/1993)

“Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

“BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.”

However, the 707 has a 77 mph higher cruise speed; F=mV

“On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection.”

My mistake, that one requires a bit of a lead in via discussion of the actual treason Arnold planned, i.e. removing the defenses of West Point, and a discussion of just how crucial of a part the loyalties to Washington and Washington’s, how shall we say, “Unforgiven” like adherence to discipline played in winning the war.

Per the similarity between the treasonable design of Arnold and the
the flight paths of those four planes and just how PERFECT they were in making their way to holes in the primar radar before turning off their transponders, I suppose I could think of one cinematic simile.

Have you ever seen “Star Trek II, Wrath of Kahn?” If so, do you remember the scene where Spock and Kirk are reacting to the first crippling hit by Reliant?

Spock: “They knew exactly where to hit us.”

Trouble is, we don’t have a Washington or Kirk asking

“Yes, but who knew and why?”

SIYOM,

Bob

On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg. Unfortunately all the 1960′s analysis data was lost in the collapse. Technically he was correct that the energy from the impact would not topple either tower, however the resulting damage to the structure, the loss of fire retardant materials along with the compromise of the sprinkler system did. BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.

On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection. Washington and his ancillaries may have been wrong about Arnold based on his history, but I see no evidence they conducted an extensive investigation. Rather, like some of our WTC theorists,he just relied on good ol’ common sense–to his detriment I might add. They should have read the fine print on those brokerage ads that past performance is no guarantee of future success–or loyalty it seems.

Patty C 1, January 4, 2009 at 6:56 am

Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.

How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.

You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!

Although astounded, I expected some of the stated “beliefs in” the incredible because the majority of people worldwide still “believe” in an anthropomorphic god who observes their every move and hears their every thought–a belief which is immeasurably more untenable than the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

That is the inherent problem with “beliefs” v. facts. To “believe” is to have faith without evidence. “Beliefs” are allowed in the ‘brainstorming’ phase of opinionated thought; however, such ‘emotional and/or spiritual senses of certainty’ must forever be barred from all rationalizations of events that must be founded on statistical certainty to ‘verify’ the legitimacy of facts in any of life’s happenstances.

“I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.”

Mespo,

When you adopt an argument or series of arguments as your own, you bear the burden of defending those arguments as if you had made them yourself. Accordingly, you bear the burden of explaining away contradictory evidence presented, and dispensing with accompanying counter-arguments, TO THE EXTENT THAT REASON ALLOWS.

I put an emphasis on reason simply because argumentation runs afoul when one becomes over zealous in achieving the goal of argumentation, i.e. winning the assent of the audience & opponent(s).

I’m sure your attempt to form a coherent counter-argument to those who toss up piles and piles of ‘tidbits’ without any rational structure must be frustrating. However that does not license you to engage in ad hominem & ridicule.

How many clients have you had that walked into your office and stated the facts of their complaint in a perfect element by element of each law structure? Unless it was a fellow attorney, I’d say it never happened. So what did you do? You listened to all of it; wheat and chaff. And then you did what? That’s right, whether your motive was financial or a simple feeling of moral obligation, you sifted through it all to see if there was a case.

And yet, here I stand as a fellow attorney, attempting to inform you of a how a certain story is metaphysically impossible while hanging my hat on each and every element of applicable laws, of both society and physics, only to have you make comments about tin foil hats and ‘conspiracy theories.’

My question is why.

I have an idea, which is why I asked you to revisit the story of Andre & Arnold and put yourself in the shoes of George Washington. Sometimes Mespo, you have to go against the advice of those you trust the most and ‘do the right thing.’

Furthermore, if the Culper gang and the officers at Tappan one held the belief that Arnold, a celebrated war hero, could never commit treason, well, I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.

SIYOM,

Bob

P.S.

FYI, I never considered the collapses of the buildings to be anything more than a secondary or tertiary argument indicative of ‘inside help.’ The primary tell of a ‘treasonable design’ can be shown in the flight paths of the planes and where the alleged novice pilots chose to turn off their transponders. These guys weren’t good or lucky; they were F’n perfect.

While I was eagerly awaiting your reply to my previous posts, I came across this:

“My “minions” and I think you bear the burden of proving your extraordinary and defamatory claims with extraordinary and convincing proof. I see all innuendo, coincidence, ad populum argument, and a person believing –and desperately wanting to believe– the worst about his Country with nothing more than a preconceived notion fitting a warped value system. Should you be serious you, like every citizen, may appear before the Special Grand Jury and present your “proof.” Let’s see if your fellow citizens reward you with indictments or those funny aluminum hats.”

Mespo,

Are you advising those who question the official story, which has been said to read like ‘good fiction’, to bring their complaints to a sampling of the American population; nearly half of which STILL believes Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11?

Perhaps it would be better to advise Vince to bring his concerns to a judge who does not engage in outcome-determinism merely to re-confirm his ‘preconceived notions fitting a warped value system.’ After all, if the ‘American People’ did that, why they’d ridicule anyone who dare threaten to disrupt their dogmatic slumber with such awful things like facts and evidence proving they’d been resting on little more than ipse dixet assertions and baseless arguments from authority.

I guess you still haven’t figured out why I asked you to review what happened in Tappan, NY 1780.

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”
**********
I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.

There’s a lot of questions that you have no answers for and so far no one seems to. In fact no one wants the questions asked and I can see why. They’re scary questions. Hard questions. And I don’t think anyones going to really start asking them for another 5 or 10 years. Maybe longer. But sooner or later, when cooler heads prevail and time has removed the natural barriers to them, they will be asked. And hopefully answered.

You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!”

Once more your bipolar view of everything limits your thinking. I either assert or I don’t, or I allow room for the possibility thereof. I don’t assert multiple dimensional theory but I allow for the possibility of it.

I don’t assert M theory but I allow for the possibility of it. And I don’t assert the theory that some Israeli faction had a role in 911, but I allow for the possibility of it, as I do for many theories that have a degree of plausibility to them. You don’t have to agree or disagree with something to acknowledge it. The juries still out for me on what happened, and the notion that Israel would have something to gain from dragging the US into a war against arab nations is certainly not a ridiculous notion. Theres motive so of course its a possible theory until proven otherwise.

Of course instead of addressing the specifics you asked for that I gave you, you instead just post another rant, calling me boring and alluding to my stupidity. Thats because you can’t answer the two questions I gave you hours ago, so you’d rather bury them in a tirade of haughty superior bullshit.

What’s boring to me is closed minded individuals who mock and ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of the truth, particularly when there are clearly many schools of thought on the subject which are held by a wide and diverse group of scholars, experts and those involved in the events.

One quick reminder:

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

The burden is upon he who affirms, not he who denies.

Did you know you have a proclivity for denying the existence of evidence contradicting ‘the official story?’

BTW, the world is still waiting for that white paper promised by Tony Blair and Colin Powell PROVING that Bin Laden & Al Qaeda did what they say they did.

Funny how the FBI doesn’t attribute 9-11 to Bin Laden in its Most Wanted poster.

SIYOM,

Bob

Once again you failed to address anything I said in support of my assertions. You simply ignored them as if you were engaged in pathological science.

That aside, allow me to quickly address the following:

“To engage directly, I see no reasonable way that the NIST report can be called unfalsifiable. In fact, it was tested by outside consultants who reviewed every assumption and retested its conclusion. This fact alone refutes that argument completely. Numerous scenarios were proposed and tested and some, like fuel fires, were ruled out. This to me is the essence of the scientific method. I saw no rush to judgment either since the process took two years to complete not weeks or months.”

Mespo, the certain folks in NIST charged with delivering the 7 year old botched abortion known as ‘The Final Report on WTC 7′ were faced with families demanding a new and better detailed & reasoned report; combined with the fact that their faces were turning red with embarassment for taking nearly a decade to explain something, as you would say, so simple and explainable.

Here’s a physics professor voicing one of his objections to NIST’s disregard for the scientific method:

“The nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC 1) was about 100 meters from WTC 7. For building 7 to come straight down at nearly freefall speed without explosives frankly strains credulity and leads us
to search for a better explanation.

Accordingly, several careful studies were performed regarding the collapse of WTC 7.17 I wish to call attention to this footnote in a paper by Professor Kenneth Kuttler:

“any further analysis of WTC7 should include all floors (not just “floors 8 to 46”) and

conservation of momentum considerations.” Now why would he say this about including all the floors in further analysis work, and not “just floors 8 to 46”? Dr. Kuttler’s paper points to a NIST solicitation. After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7:

“Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center
Building Seven.”

We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way
to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?”

(link omitted, awaiting moderator)

BTW, I found your comparison between 707′s and 767-200′s to be incorrect and outright misleading.

The difference between 707′s and 767′s per total mass and maximum force of impact (P=MV) is negligible and I’d be glad to show you why later. However, you characterized the design of the WTC as ONLY being able to withstand a 707 traveling at landing approach velocity. This is incorrect.

Here’s what the folks at Worthington, Skilling, i.e. the firm that Leslie Robertson & co worked for, said about the design of the Towers as far back as 1964:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

Leslie Robertson, et. al. would repeat this claim in numerous interviews and documentaries for the next 40 years when making comments such as he “designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.”

SIYOM,

Bop

You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!

Waynebro:

“Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations? Yea, that’s crazy huh?”

**************

“What I say is simple: Prove it!”

lol, so I take it reason is not the way this Cicero learns?

One more time.

I don’t need to prove it Flavius. I didn’t assert it.

I merely challenged your dismissal of it as tin foil hat fodder.

When Bush and the FBI come out and say Bin Laden did it and are back looking for him again because he was responsible, then let me know. But in the meantime, as long as the FBI and the White House are both wishy washy on not only whether he did it but whether or not they’re even looking for him, I’m going to have to reserve judgment until someone can provide me with some real answers.

All I’m saying is there’s easily a reasonable doubt to the “official story”. If this were a real court of law I would think a judge would be compelled to concur with me. There’s a “reasonable doubt”. And until the questions are answered, instead of stifled, I’ll reserve my judgment for something more tangible than your precious NIST report. If that earns me a tinfoil hat in your book then so be it. I’ll wear it prominently on my noggin with pride.

“Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations? Yea, that’s crazy huh?”

**************

What I say is simple: Prove it!

Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations?

Yea, that’s crazy huh?

I mean, what possible motive could Israel have for drawing the US into their war against the Arab nations?

See, your two conclusions are just that. Your two conclusions. There are many possible players here and many possible conclusions, from complicity to incompetence to just looking the other way. There’s lots of questions. You just don’t like people asking them.

Think I’m wrong? Then answer Vince’s question about why Bin Laden is not wanted for the 911 events, but for the embassy bombings.

Then you can explain to Vince why the govt, our govt, the one who’s story you are in here selling, flew dozens and dozens of Osama Bin Ladens family out of the country without any interrogations or serious questioning, just TWO days after 911.

Explain those two things. Just those two.

My “minions” and I think you bear the burden of proving your extraordinary and defamatory claims with extraordinary and convincing proof. I see all innuendo, coincidence, ad populum argument, and a person believing –and desperately wanting to believe– the worst about his Country with nothing more than a preconceived notion fitting a warped value system. Should you be serious you, like every citizen, may appear before the Special Grand Jury and present your “proof.” Let’s see if your fellow citizens reward you with indictments or those funny aluminum hats.

Apparently you people are in a complete state of denial. You cannot admit that our gov’t would kill 3000 of it’s own citizens in a false flag attack to justify going to war and taking away our Constitutional rights. Have any of you pro-gov’t dstory people even seen any of the films I recommended in my last post? I doubt it. Seems your only sources for your belief are the gov’t itself, the PM article and the NIST report. None of these entities answers the many questions surrounding this event. There has been strong evidence found indicating it was a controlled demolition. Thermate residue was found at the towers site. Thermate is only used for controlled demolitions. Witnesses at the Pentagon say they smelled cordite. Cordite is a rocket explosive. It would not be found on a commercial plane. BTW you people don’t seem to want to talk about the Pentagon. Please explain how a plane can hit the Pentagon and leave no plane debris? No engines, seats, luggage, wings, fuselage, landing gear. Nothing, zilch. Plus teh hole in the pentagon is way to small for a 757 to go thru but the right size for a missile. Also if you look at the towers going down in slow motion you can see explosions below the blast wave. Please explain that. Most people who know anything about this event have discarded the NIST report, the PM article and the gov’t itself to be bogus. The 911 truth movement has much more evidence to support a inside job. The 911 truth movement has many more physicists, engineers, and other educated people on their side than the gov’t has. Even Ray McGovern, who worked at the CIA, I think for 24 years, says it’s a inside job. Bin Laden is wanted by the FBI for African embassy bombings but not for 911. When asked why they say there is not enough evidence that supports that he did it. The gov’t has been told that about 1/2 of the hijackers are alive and well, yet they do not update the hijackers list. They can’t because if they do it will be evidence they know it’s a inside job. And please explain to me the 5 israelis that were caught filming the towers and celebrating as it happened. The cops caught them, released them to the feds and they let them go back to Israel where they said on TV they were sent there to document the event. They were MOSSAD agents. What I say is all documented. It is not made up. I believe our gov’t and the gov’t of Israel were behind this. It would not be the first time Israel attacked the US and blame the attack on a enemy. Look up USS Liberty. It’s really amazing and pathetic to see how gullible so many people in this country are. I guess if the gov’t says it’s so it must be. Watch the films I recommended and then come back and say it was 19 arabs.

As for referencing Ryan as that’s the crux of doubt on the issue is laughable. You ignore so many events, so many issues, like the FBI agent who was silenced for speaking out pre 911 on Muhammad Atta and the others taking flying lessons on Jets without landing lessons. What was her name? Rawley? I honestly don’t remember. Because unlike your attempts to paint me as such I’m not a “conspiracy theorist” and I don’t have a never ending wealth of data at my fingertips to debate you with on the topic. I “read” the data, I didn’t memorize it. I don’t obsess over it.

The current “official story” is full of holes. NIST never bothered to look for any actual evidence. After all against objections of so many investigators Bush ordered the site plowed under before any real investigation could take place. They cited safety reasons of course, which whenever cited causes the general population to emit a collective “ahhhhh” as their eyes roll over backwards in their sockets, but clearly there was ample evidence to demonstrate the last thing the officials were concerned with was worker safety. They still aren’t.

And as for what we “all saw happen”? If you remember correctly several announcers were speculating that the buildings were felled, as was most people watching at home, because that’s what it looked like. That’s what we saw. That’s what our eyes told us. The fancy computer simulations are there to tell us we saw something than what our eyes showed us.

No Mespo, sorry, but there’s so many holes in the official versions of the events as well as the cover ups and attempts to cover up, the stonewalling, the destruction of evidence. There’s certainly ample reason to doubt the official story.

As for the two possible conclusions you demonstrate limited thinking. I’ve thought of literally dozens of possible conclusions, perhaps hundreds. The truth is often not black and white and that’s why waiting for real investigations to occur is important. Of course even then we may never find out. After all Bush successfully buried the evidence.

Anyway all I can say what I told you a day ago. I don’t know and I don’t think you do either.

***********

Well I am not sure fired is the right word. Clearly the FBI took over the investigation (displacing NTSB) of this mass murder pursuant to federal law since it was, after all, a crime scene. I did however consider the claims of those people reprimanded for statements saying it couldn’t have happened the way most of us saw it happen. And I reached two possible conclusions: First it either was because Bush was hiding the biggest criminal cover up in the Nation’s history with literally thousands of eyes watching his every move from Boston to Bangkok, or second, it was because the “investigators” was reckless and jumped to a judgment without sufficient knowledge gleaned from a comprehensive analysis of teh event by various pertinent disciplines. You either believe that one guy has all the answers or you don’t. Put me in the camp of the skeptics. After reading about Kevin Ryan’s (the UL Lab director for Water Quality) letter disputing the conclusions without any authority from Underwriters Laboratories, I think I am on the side of the angels here. I have seen too many experts like Ryan climb out on limbs created by their incredible egos. I find them more humble and circumspect in packs.

mespo, I agree. The ‘Incompetence Theory’ is a good one and I’ll stand by it.

“Thanks, Patty C.”

Yea by all means lets thank her.

Lets thank her for declaring that instead of walking into a thread where I’ve said absolutely nothing to her and just calling me ignorant and a high school drop out and not worth of arguing with such lofty educated professionals like herself like she did here today, and on several other occasions, she’ll now only walk into threads where I’ve said nothing to her and tell me to “stick a fork in it”.

That’s so much more reasonable.

I really enjoy her constant unprovoked insult attacks along with her incessant proclamations of her own lofty moral and intellectual superiority. She must be superior because she’s always telling me so. She’s indeed a legend in her own mind.

Yes, thanks.

Thanks a lot.

I just read that editorial this afternoon and thought it captured the essence of the last eight years perfectly. If the present really does ride the shoulders of the past, Obama best look out for the bottom of the coffee table to avoid hitting his head. Maybe we have a new metaphor. Perhaps the past is now the dwarf and the present the giant!

“Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.

How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.

You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!”

-

Lest anyone think you’re as superior as your constant protestations to the fact would indicate.

Oh and its’ “your” ignorance.

Not “you” ignorance.

I did read the editorial, though I was more interested when I heard the the Republicans had become “winers.” It turns out that he thinks that they are just “whiners,” far less interesting. The best GOP winer was Sen. Tower, but there are some in close competition on both sides of the aisle.

I have to ask you to dial down on the personal attacks, Patty C. While I recognize that a culinary devotee might gravitate to expressions about shutting pie holes, there is a civility rule on the blog and everyone’s views are welcomed equally. As one of our founding (and most valued) bloggers, I really need you to help maintain the decorum of the blog — and continue to fork over proven recipes with poignant observations!
———-
Forgive me. Dialing down.
Next time, I’ll convey my displeasure by telling Waynebro aka Bartleee/Cromagnum Man to ‘stick a fork in it’!

I agree with mespo most of the time and this is no exception.

I offer this Oped by Paul Krugman entitled ‘Bigger than Bush’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1

You believe Bush.

I don’t.

But we can always debate something else.

Its what Bush does, and for the life of me I cannot imagine why you’d think he’d do any different here. Perhaps the possible answers are just “too big” for most people to deal with. After all, imagine the ramifications if there was any sort of skulduggery with regards to 911. Of any sort.

But feel free to cling to the NIST report Bush prepared for you. Its your call. But you might some day considering asking yourself why at no time did the NIST investigation even bother to test for explosives.

You also might ask why Bush fired the original investigators. You might also ask why the office with Cheney’s documents was destroyed, when no other buildings were. You might ask yourself all sorts of things. You might, but I doubt you will. I on the other hand will wait until these and so many other answers are forthcoming. Answers NOT included in your precious “NIST” report.

In the meantime, feel free to mock the fact that I took three comments to respond to your one. I only do it because I’m usually working on something when I blog so I can’t always finish a thought when I want, but I know it gives you and one or two others in here great pleasure in declaring it a sign of my obvious inferiority so have at it.

Ah, the reference to “‘so-called’ common sense” was directed at the utter foolishness of that term (which refers to something not too common or particularly rational) and not at you. I thought that was fairly clear from its context, but if it wasn’t I apologize for that.

“You won’t even concede there is a much evidence on the side of the NIST report as perhaps there is against it. An you should know that most people will disrespect your conclusions if all you have is some as populum argument that other people believe it and therefore so do you.”

No, I won’t concede to letting you force me into defending a position I don’t hold.

Your straw arguments about “all you have” are just a pathetic attempt at ignoring the actual details of some of the doubts I presented above to the existing data. I told you what I found troubling with the data but you ignore it, and instead try to compel me into defending a position that you find easier to debate.

…well, not actually debate but easier for you to declare them nutjobs and move on.

Like the neoconservatives you begin your debate by mocking and dismissing anyone with an opposing view or doubts in your theories as “crazies” and kooks. Then you invent “anger” and “hurt feelings” for me or anyone who refuses to capitulate to your position.

No ones angry. No ones feelings are hurt. I just refuse to capitulate to your position or your mockery of anyone who won’t.

“Waynebro:

It’s hard to argue with a guy who’s determined to be insulted no matter what you say or what you didn’t do.”

So you’re saying that you wouldn’t think I was insulting you if I referred to your “so called intelligence”?

Your “so called” status as an attorney?

Your “so called” honesty?

Your “so called” integrity?

I think what’s bothering you is not your fabrications about my determination to be insulted but my ability to recognize your carefully gilded insults when you deliver them.

It’s hard to argue with a guy who’s determined to be insulted no matter what you say or what you didn’t do. That’s sort of my problem with your “questions” about Bldg. You won’t even concede there is a much evidence on the side of the NIST report as perhaps there is against it. An you should know that most people will disrespect your conclusions if all you have is some as populum argument that other people believe it and therefore so do you.

“WAYNEBRO:

I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.”

Statements like this constitute the “respect” you’ve shown my “POV” on this thread. You talk to people who disagree with you like you’re talking to children who are in need of your wisdom. Here, lets examine your respect for my position.

You said – “I accept your doubts “BUT” they’re based on “supposition and so-called common sense”.

Wow. If that’s what passes for respect with you then I’d hate to see your disrespect. My common sense is my common sense. Not my “so called common sense” as your so called “respect” for my position dictates.

People, intelligent people, educated people, experts, have serious problems with the NIST conclusions. They’re not moonbats. They’re not nutjobs. And they’re not as your partner Patty declares, “ignorant”. They’re real people with real questions and doubts and until there is real investigation (meaning where real investigators are not FIRED for stating conclusions not acceptable to the Bush administration) then the jury will still be out for us. Sorry that doesn’t fit in with your conclusions and you’re welcome to your conclusions. But you should not disrespect others simply for not sharing them.

“My real bile was reserved for the crazies who actually believe the government is in league with aliens and somehow precipitated this mess”

Bile’s a good choice of words.

How many people do you actually think believe the government is in league with “aliens”?

Not many I’d imagine. But statements like that do go a long way towards silencing anyone with questions or doubts on the issue by pushing them all into your neatly wrapped “nutcase” package.

“Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.”

Nor is fabricating “anger” and attributing it to the other person a substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.

“I think you have me mistaken for someone else.”

Nope. Pretty sure I got the right Mespo.

************

I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I have shown your POV noting but respect on this thread. Bob and I get a little testy but it’s a professional courtesy thing to bare our teeth once in a while. My real bile was reserved for the crazies who actually believe the government is in league with aliens and somehow precipitated this mess. Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.

“On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.”

Was Cicero a large white breasted fellow with ridiculously large overbite? All I see is the shark.

As for how I “like” it, I’d be more impressed if you demonstrated the wherewithal to use your own photo, so I can at least see the face of my antagonist. I know it’s easier to hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard but since you asked.

I’d invite your insulting and self proclaimed superior sidekick Patty to post hers but I paid a lot for this monitor.

“WAYNEBRO:

I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation.”

Well thanks for your concern Mespo. Its quite touching.

However to curb your fears you can rest assured regardless of your close and valuable friend Patty’s declarations of my lack of education, and my wholly “unprofessional career” and of course my complete and utter ignorance, I am, believe it or not, perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

In fact in my 17 years as a data engineer and security consultant I’ve actually submitted information for the NIST “SP” (Special Publication) papers, and even helped work on a few, not to mention consulting on technical books like the famous “INTERCONNECTIONS” (don’t bother, it’ll be over your head) and other technical materials and papers. So believe it or not, and not to dissuade your fanciful imaginings of me being a 20 year old living in his moms basement, I actually possess the capability to examine data for myself, and even know a little bit more about it than I let on.

As for your obsession of my using the word “embers” all I can say is if you can’t see the symbolism there then perhaps relaxing your sphincter a little might let you loosen up and recognize the comparison there. In fact, perhaps this definition of the word from Wiki will help you see the similitude.

“Embers are the glowing, hot coals made of greatly heated wood, coal or ‘other carbon based material’ that remain after, or sometimes precede a fire.”

See? It’s easy when you’re not focusing on trying to mock peoples intelligence. However, it is not my intention to permit you to coerce me into defending Bob’s positions even though you keep trying so hard. As I’ve stated to you repeatedly now based on the facts available I simply don’t know what happened on that morning. I also am quite confident that neither do you, based on your grasping to a poorly written, inconclusive and often convoluted report submitted to NIST based on some really creative computer modeling.

As I said earlier, the facts do not support the Bush administrations theories, regardless of what well respected agencies he attempts to funnel them through. There are questions out there. Real questions, and dismissing those asking questions by relegating them to the “conspiracy theorist” crowd is a tactic of the Neoconservatives.I’m sorry you feel its a tactic warranted here, but as you said, to each his own.

Advice is judged by results, not intentions.
–Cicero (Ad Atticum)

As Cicero said, To each his own.(Suum Cuique)

I like the choice. Fits you well. After all, it was Cicero who stated “Our thoughts are free.” He also stated “The wise are instructed by reason; ordinary minds by experience; the stupid, by necessity; and brutes by instinct.” He would have used trolls for brutes, but the term did not exist at the time.

I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation. That apparently hasn’t happened to you but referring to proven impacts as “embers” does your argument no credit and places you closer to the category of those who have made up their minds of something nefarious without the willingness to say so and then go about attacking contrary evidence without any real basis except to say its a priori knowledge which of course it cannot be. I hope you are not hiding your true opinion behind the mantle of unreasonable “doubts.”

On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.