Mysterious deaths of people involved in 9/11

[spooked911]

Good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Something like this-- I always wonder if I should bother posting in General Discussion, but then figure it will get moved here soon enough and probably won't get to many new open-minded people.

[spooked911]

1. The names in the video and others that should be added

In the video:
Barry Jennings
Beverly Eckert
Kenneth Johanneman
Michael H. Doran
Christopher Landis
Bertha Champagne
Paul Smith
Deborah Palfrey
Major General David Wherley
Salvatore Princiotta
David Graham

I would also add to the list:
Michael Zebuhr
http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com/2006/09/case-of-michael-zebuhrs-murder-intro.html

Hunter S Thompson
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/20/184048/084

Daniel Pearl
http://www.911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pearl,Daniel.shtml

Dan Wallace
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/01/dan-wallace-rip.html

Prasanna Kalahasthi (widow of flight 11 passenger)
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Prasanna_Kalahasthi.html

Katherine Smith
http://911review.org/Storage/Katherine-Smith-9_11.html

[SDuderstadt]

3. You might want to add my great-aunt Ruby to the list.

She was about to go public with what she knew about 9/11. She was 89. Of course, the coroner ruled her death was from "natural causes". How convenient.

More of your silliness, dude. Simple question: if the "perps" are going around offing people who could expose 911, how come you're still alive? After all, aren't you close to busting this thing wide open?

[spooked911]

5. not that close

not when people like you refuse to do anything about this

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

117. Think everyone needs to hear about this and be reminded about it ...and ...

I think there will be many more --

[spooked911]

7. also, without a doubt, many of those deaths are suspicious

unlike your 89 year old aunt

[SDuderstadt]

9. I knew it would go right over your head, dude...

if you read the Snopes entry on the "Clinton Body Count", any death can be portrayed in such a way as to make it appear "suspicious". I was poking fun at your silliness, dude.

[spooked911]

27. nothing went over my head

and while much of the Clinton body count is probably bogus, there also is more truth in it than you would want to admit.

But regardless, these 9/11-related deaths ARE very suspicious.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Let me make sure I get this straight, dude

"there is more truth "in the "Clinton Body Count" list than I "would want to admit"??

Would you care to point what "truth" in that list that I appear to be overlooking? On second thought, dude, I've had enough of your paranoid "no-planes", "mini-nukes" bullshit to tack on your inability to recognize RW Clinton smears when you see them. If you have any hard evidence that Clinton had anybody murdered, please run...don't walk...to the U.S. Attorney for your area.

Again, I implore you to quit embarrassing liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU with your goofy bullshit. I'm done, Spooked.

[spooked911]

46. do some reading on drug running in Mena, Arkansas

thanks

[SDuderstadt]

47. What does that have to do with Bill Clinton, dude?

He was governor of the state. Does that mean he was involved?

[spooked911]

58. He knew about it

no doubt

[SDuderstadt]

59. Nevermind...

Spooked. I forgot what passes for cause and effect to people like you.

[spooked911]

4. also

William Cooper
http://freedomforall.net/william-cooper-murdered-by-police-too-close-to-the-truth/

[jberryhill]

23. You think there was some "mystery" about William Cooper's death?

An armed militia supporter with an outstanding warrant for aggravated assault who had vowed to kill any law enforcement officer attempting his arrest?

Yah, gee, what a surprise he got into a shootout with them.

[spooked911]

28. it was the timing that was suspicious-- shortly after 9/11

and that he had predicted 9/11.

But yes, "mysterious" isn't the right word.

[jberryhill]

31. It was more than THREE YEARS after 9/11

For a heavily armed far right nutjob, he must've been one slow mover if he couldn't share his secret intelligence received at his ranch in the desert in the span of three years.

[spooked911]

45. no, it was not three years later-- it was less than one month later

http://freedomforall.net/william-cooper-murdered-by-police-too-close-to-the-truth/
etc

[SDuderstadt]

158. Milton William Copper

Listen to this nutjob and decide if Spooked's endorsement is warranted.

Spooked....I have a serious question....did you follow this whackjob?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaqS5fJ6t1I&feature=PlayList&p=8F164298EA7BDF5B&index=38

Listen to the part where Cooper claims Timothy McVeigh never actually died. LOLOLOLOL

Now, Cooper is going on and on about " no autopsy was performed when McVeigh was executed"

God, what a fucking idiot...LOLOLOLOLOLOL

"supposably".....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
"Hitler was a socialist".....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dennis from Indiana calls to say, "I've got the Indiana cremation code in front of me"....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"Cooper insists that JFK was shot by his driver with a .45 cal handgun".......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You should really listen at 55:00 to hear how scary Copper really was....no LOLOLOLOL

[spoony]

80. HST eh?

If that's based on what was quoted in your link, it's not very convincing. Lots of people, including most DUers, knew Bush was giddy over the idea of perpetual war with the Muslim world. And what about his death was "mysterious"?

[spooked911]

82. there are some better links

http://futureofthewhirled.com/hunter_s_thompson_killed_because_he_was_about_to_expose_a_wtc_coverup_and_a_dc_pedophilia_ring

Certainly, his suicide was unexpected, and odd:

http://www.mackwhite.com/archive46.html

Supposedly he was working on a book about 9/11 and the WTC "collapses"

[SDuderstadt]

89. Jesus, Spooked....

do you think an unexpected suicide is out of the ordinary? Are most, or even many, suicides expected?

More importantly, dude, do you really think Sherman Skoknick is a reliable source?

[sylvi]

99. LOL

It reminds me of this exchange in the movie "Fletch."

Dr. Dolan: You know, it's a shame about Ed.
Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.
Dr. Dolan: He was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but... the end was very... very sudden.
Dr. Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.

[spooked911]

106. you read the part how he was on the phone with his wife

and didn't say anything about killing himself?

[Bolo Boffin]

109. Oh, so he violated that physical property of the universe

in that men who are contemplating suicide will always mention it when on the phone to their wife... :eyes:

[spooked911]

113. um, yeah--

nothing strange about quietly taking his life while he is on the phone with his wife.

What a strange world you must live in.

[SDuderstadt]

115. I see, Spooked...

now you're an expert on suicide...

LOLOLOLOL

[Bolo Boffin]

120. My goodness, the words you put into my mouth

Of course it's strange to commit suicide quietly while on the phone with his wife. However, it's possible. There's no law against this happening.

You believe nukes were used to bring down the towers and you don't think someone could commit suicide while speaking to their wife and not mention it?

And my world is strange?

[William Seger]

2. YouTruth

... the World's Largest Collection of Stupid.

[spooked911]

6. yes, let's just make a blanket statement and ignore everything in the video

also, let's totally ignore things like the bogus case the FBI has for the anthrax attacks

[SDuderstadt]

10. Jesus, Spooked...

prove that a single one of those deaths was "suspicious" and linked directly to 9/11.

There are days when I am convinced that Snopes exists solely to counteract your mountain of bullshit.

[Subdivisions]

48. What makes Snopes such an authority of everything? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

51. What do you think? n/t

[winyanstaz]

70. I agree....

Especially after I sent out a warning against using plastic around our food or in microwaves and my sister said snopes said it was safe.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Yeah...

you know more than Snopes.

LOLOLOLOL.

[KDLarsen]

11. Not a very good hit-team

I mean, all of those people died AFTER they had made a statement. Of course, the twoofers are probably happy that they died, because now the words can be twisted indefinently, without the nasty chance of the origin actually making a contradictionary statement.

[SDuderstadt]

14. KDL....

could I politely ask you not to use the term "twoofers" anymore? How about just plain "truthers" (irony quotes are okay)?

[BeFree]

15. What is a twoofer?

Am I what you call a twoofer?

[SDuderstadt]

16. It's a special kind of "woofer:"...

it's used for the bass parts of music.

[zappaman]

12. Also need to add the passengers and crew

who were obviously taken somewhere and killed since no planes actually hit the towers, the pentagon, or the ground in PA.
Keep digging, SPOOKED911...almost there...

[winyanstaz]

17. prove they did.....

prove the passengers dna or body parts were ever found.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Are you now denying that body parts were found at...

all three crash sites?

Fucking unbelievable.

[winyanstaz]

19. nope....its unbelievable your cannot read better than that.

I said...prove that any of the dna belonged to the passengers.

[SDuderstadt]

21. They did, dude....

unless you're now claiming that the DNA ID teams are "in on it", too.

Simple question: have you done any independent research into these issues?

[winyanstaz]

52. so where is the link? thanks :)

[SDuderstadt]

53. Jesus...

how is it that so-called "truthers" are so ignorant of the facts around these issues?

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2778

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

http://911review.org/Wget/www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/releases/afip.htm

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=armed_forces_dna_identification_laboratory_1

[winyanstaz]

69. Well I do have a problem with those links...

If 9-11 was an inside job..and someone high in the government ordered the jets to stand down on 9-11...why should or would anyone with half a brain take the word of the pentagon?
Why do you keep on taking the word of the government or main stream media when you know damned well they lie to us?
Never mind...I know why.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Well, of course you do...they're from the "evil government"

Bad news, dude. Where do you think you would get news about DNA ID of the crash victims other than from a governmental source, since that's what governments, among other things, do?

[winyanstaz]

78. You are wrong..I do not think everyone in the government is evil...

But I do believe there is a secret group that runs things..the "shadow government", and I have trouble accepting that I am being told the truth by a government that repeatedly lies to us. Especially with a story so full of holes you could fly a passenger jet through it.

If a secret group inside the pentagon was in on the attack..of course they would have access to some dna of the victims and even body parts......it doesn't PROVE they got the remains from the site however or even that it was not an inside job..

I also have trouble accepting that just because someone in authority tells us something..that makes it God's truth..expecially when its the party I think did the crime.

You are, of course free to think what you want..but if there isn't a cover-up going on then why not allow an impartial outside investigation into all the facts? It would stop a lot of fears..mine included...

Unless there is something to hide there should be NO problem in allowing a new investigation to go forth. Isn't that what they tell us?

[SDuderstadt]

79. "If a secret group inside the pentagon was in on the attack..of course they would have access to

some dna of the victims and even body parts"

You know, dude...it's impossible to reason with your magical thinking. When you have some hard evidence of this hypercompetent "secret group", someone might believe your bullshit. Don't you think before you yammer on and on about a "new investigation", you ought to master the details of the ones we've already had? It's obvious you haven't because of the incredibly stupid questions you ask.

[winyanstaz]

81. Is that so? Well here is a question for you.

How the hell did Thermite end up in the rubble of the buildings on 9-11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

and then there is this

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/explosive-evidence-wtc-was-too-hot.html

and this:

http://www.hawkscafe.com/040506.html

and lets not forget these 400 scientists opinion either..

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

[SDuderstadt]

90. Dude...

here's how far off your "sources" are:

'Pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Absolutely false. In the "jargon" of controlled demolition, to "pull" a building means to attach cables to a relatively low building and pull it over on its side. This is why your delusions are not supported by any controlled demolition expert, all of whom are laughing at the silliness of the proponents who claim the WTC buldings were brought down by CD.

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

Download the clip (1 MB)
America Rebuilds documentary, 41 minutes in

Dude, this is why you're regarded with such derision here. Maybe you should stop volunteering to be the "designated pinata".

[winyanstaz]

102. Pull is used when detonating a building in controlled demolition...

According to demoliton experts..they use it all the time.

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation.

Full article at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Nope.

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

111. There is not a SINGLE reference to "pull" used in the manner...

you're claiming at your link. This is just more of your bullshit.

[zappaman]

24. Investigators did match DNA

However, maybe they were coerced by BUSHCO and forced to say that.
I wonder how many of those "DNA experts" have suffered mysterious deaths, hmmmm?
Man, some people just have active imaginations, don't they?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Nice strawmen, dude...

BTW, enjoy your short stay here.

[Kesha]

25. As we say over here...

"Everone puts on the pair of boots which fits."

I would be interested in your opinion about the sudden death of Mr Jennings, though.


Cheers,
Kesha

[SDuderstadt]

26. I'm not interested in your opinion about anything...

get the picture?

[BeFree]

30. Dude, what happened?

ETA link. Click this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=281737&mesg_id=281763

[SDuderstadt]

32. I wasn't talking to you, BeFree....n/t

[Kesha]

33. Quod erat demonstrandum...

It`s obvious that you don`t take up a position on topics
which are debatable as soon as they are based on facts.

The time of death of Mr Jennings, for instance.

It`s also obvious that your attempts are permanent tries to
play down unwanted info and facts.

And, just to remind you:
This is a discussion forum, not a platform
to spread ad hominems. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Telling you I'm not interested in any of your opinions...

isn't an "ad hominem", dude. It's also interesting that Barry Jennings' family doesn't regard his death as suspicious, nor did Jennings ever believe "9/11 was an inside job".

Please point to all these ad hominem arguments from me, dude. Take your time.

[Kesha]

35. Dude, you`re way to self-centred...

The topic of this thread is not "SDuderstadt`s personal sensitivities".

Back to topic: Care to provide a link to corroborate your statement on
Mr Jennings?

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

done. Got it?

[Kesha]

37. Du hast das nicht verstanden...

LINKS

Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Done...

got it?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Do you realize how stupid that is?

My proof is the absence of any statements from Jennings' family alleging anything other than natural causes for his death. Similarly, you can falsify my claim by producing any statement Jennings ever made in which he said he believed "911 was an inside job".

Take your time.

[Kesha]

39. He just doesn`t understand it...

A LINK is like a footnote in a scientific paper.

Feel feel to distribute your personal opinion across the World Wibe Web. That`s your given right.

However, your opinion is no evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

How am I supposed to provide a link to statements that have never been made? Think.

Are you today's "designated pinata"?

[Kesha]

42. Now it`s getting crazy

You are citing Jennings family with statements that have never been made??

Dude. Take an outtime. Too much 9/11 is bad for your health.

[Kesha]

41. Besides the fact that:..

I didn`t ask for negative proofs:

"You're asking me to prove a negative. Do you realize how stupid that is?"

I just asked for a link to Jenning`s family.

...I would like to state that the whole aggressive war against Iraq was based on
"proving a negative".

Stupid, indeed.

Glad my gov kept us out of this war.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Yeah, you did, dude...

read what I wrote very carefully.

[Kesha]

44. I did

Still missing the facts you`ve promised.

[Subdivisions]

49. Please provide substantiation for the following statement made by you:

It's also interesting that Barry Jennings' family doesn't regard his death as suspicious, nor did Jennings ever believe "9/11 was an inside job".

Please provide a link to the Jennings family statement showing that they do not regard Barry's death as suspicious and which explains Jennings' disposition with regard to the events of 9/11. Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Jesus...

please provide any statement you have in which Jennings indicated he thought 9/11 was am inside job or that his family regarded his death as suspicious. Have you guys ever heard of an inference?

[Kalun D]

54. Desperate Backpedal

It's good your rickety Official Conspiracy Theory tricycle has a backpedal on it there SDude, or you'd be SOL. LOLZ!!!

[SDuderstadt]

55. Read what I actually wrote, dude...n/t

[Kalun D]

56. Better Yet

I'll copy and paste it for you...

""Have you guys ever heard of an inference?""

If you can't link to facts, just claim you "inferred" the facts.

Careful SDude, rickety OCT tricycles are highly unstable in the backpedal direction.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Dude....

if my point was that Jennings' family has never alleged there was anything suspicious about his death and that Jennings never said he believed "9/11 was an inside job", specifically, what kind of evidence should I provide other than to note that they never said any such thing? Duh. If you have evidence that contradicts my claim, by all means, provide it.

Why do "truthers" have so much trouble with nuance? Do you see the difference between "Jennings said 9/11 was NOT an inside job" and "Jennings never said 9/11 was an inside job"?

[Subdivisions]

60. Yes, I've heard of an interence. I infer that

9/11 was an inside job. I infer that a faction of neocons, namely PNAC, orchestrated the entire plan and then executed it.

[SDuderstadt]

61. And they laid out the blueprint for it...

in a book for everyone to see well before the attack? How likely is that?

I know it's tempting to believe PNAC did it but, until you can determine how they might have done it and provide hard evidence of it, you won't find many people buying it.

Could we at least agree that a "false flag" would have been far more complicated to pull off, for obvious reasons? Do you understand how it would have required far more people to pull off?

[Subdivisions]

62. I would prefer a probable cause investigation aimed directly at them. The

problem with providing hard evidence is that they controlled both the operation and the evidence. And, yes, a "false flag" would have been far more complicated to pull off. However, that does not dismiss the possibility that it was pulled off.

I'm pressed for time right now, but when I get a chance, I will roughly outline how I think it was accomplished. Don't look for it today, I'll be busy and it will require a refresher in some areas. I'll post it as an OP when I can get to it and get it done. So, please don't hound me about it.

[jberryhill]

63. "when I get a chance, I will roughly outline how I think it was accomplished"

It's been a busy nine years...

[Subdivisions]

64. 9/11 is not my life. In fact, it's a back-burner issue for me. You're comment is irrelevant. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

66. That makes little sense...

if you had hard evidence that PNAC did it, wouldn't you make that a front-burner issue? I would make it my life's work and I would not rest until they were brought to justice.

I think Berryhill is spot on.

[SDuderstadt]

65. If they "controlled the evidence", what are the...

grounds for probable cause? Frankly, that's where you lose me and, I would think, most other rational people.

[Subdivisions]

67. Ok, nevermind then. See ya around GD. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

68. Sub...

seriously...can't people sharply, yet respectfully, disagree? That, to me, remains one of the big issues here. "Truthers" cannot regard every hard question asked by sincere "worthy opponents" as an affront or this will never go anywhere.

Frankly, I am getting tired of accusations by "truthers" (not you) that I am "defending war criminals". It's a tired old rhetorical trick that poisons the debate. I'm open to "possibilities", but I want to see hard evidence. What's wrong with that?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

75. I'd love for you to show me precisely where...

I have "defended mass murderers or war criminals", dude. Simply disagreeing with your goofy bullshit isn't tantamount to defending anyone like that.

So, make sure to show me specifically where I've done what you accuse me of. Take your time.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Well, apparently Britain did not read "Mein Kampf", dude...

I seem to recall them fighting AGAINST Germany and Italy. Duh.

[Kesha]

84. exactly

Britain fought back.

That`s our role these days. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Dude...

your post said that Britain was supposed to ally with Germany and Italy. If they were, as you claim, allies, why would Britain fight back?

[winyanstaz]

83. well 'follow the money and you will find a few trillion reasons why...

starting with the missing three trillion in missing pentagon funds..announced the day before 9-11..

Then the billions made from the insurance pay-off for buildings that would have cost a fortune to remove the asbestos from...

Then the trillions made from the endless wars by the war machine..

Add to that the power stolen from the people over their own lives regarding loss of civil rights...and the now dictatoral type powers bestowed upon the office of the President via the anticonstitutional patriot act......

And don't forget to add the profits for the oil companies...or the chance to build that billion dollar natural gas pipeline ....
the list goes on...
and you cant see a reason?>??
Are you blind?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Y'know...

you're really fucking brilliant, dude. When you get pushed into a corner with questions you can't answer, you go straight into your wind-up doll act, trundling forward and spouting pure, unadulterated CT bullshit. Do you bother to fact-check the bullshit you spout? Hell, forget fact-checking...do you ever bother to apply even a degree of critical thinking to the nonsense you pass on?

Let's take your goofy claims apart, piece by piece. Let's start with your silly "missing funds" claim. Okay, pop quiz. What is the total budget for the United States government? Give up? For FY '09, it was $3.5T, so it's reasonable to assume it was less than that for FY '01. On the basis of that, do you really expect people to believe that an amount nearly equal to the entire U.S. Budget was "missing"? Is that, in fact, what Rumsfeld even said. And the answer, of course, is no. Here's what Rumsfeld actually said, dude:

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...

In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.

Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...

Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...

The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.

They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.

Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.

Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

So. first of all, the total is $2.3T, not $3T...and did Rumsfeld say it was "missing"? No, he said it can't be tracked properly because of antiquated computer and accounting systems. You just threw in the word "missing" to make it sound like the money was stolen.

Beyond that, think this through. If he was really trying to get away with "stealing" that sum of money, why the fuck would he ANNOUNCE it? Us your brain, Winyanstaz.

Next is your remarkably stupid "insurance" claim. We shouldn't have to tell people not to believe CT claptrap like this, but:

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

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

Now, I've got a question for you. Have you actually READ the reports from the investigations that have already been conducted? If you haven't, why should we waste money on a new investigation you won't be happy with, either? Let me end with a challenge. If you want to have some credibility here, quit parroting previously debunked CT nonsense. Take your time.

[winyanstaz]

91. nice dance...but that still didnt explain the thermite....

[SDuderstadt]

94. Dude...

prove where the dust that was "analyzed" came from and take note of of the fact that thermite is common around welding. Duh.

[winyanstaz]

95. As my son works in a welding shop...I can say..your wrong again.

Secondly, this was found by professors of good standing at the Bringham Young University and Cambridge University. Both have no interest in covering up anything.

Third..this was a form of thermite ONLY found in high grade MILITARY use.

Fourth if you had done any research or even bothered to read the links you would also have known all this already.
duh......

Now run along and stop making excuses for whomever it was that attacked us on 9-11.

P.S. I am sure you are aware are you not that there are now 12 towns on the east coast that are united in asking for a new investigation?

[SDuderstadt]

101. Oh, your son works in a welding shop.....

Why didn't you say so before? Why, on the basis of that, I wouldn't even try to debate with you with your son working in a welding shop and all. What was I thinking?

Oh, wait....he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about either. From Wikipedia:

Railways
It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. However, defects such as slag inclusions and holes are often present in such welded junctions and great care is needed to operate the process successfully. Care must also be taken to ensure that the rails remain straight, without resulting in dipped joints, which can cause wear on high speed and heavy axle load lines.

A thermite reaction, when used to purify the ores of some metals, is called the thermite process, or aluminothermic reaction. An adaptation of the reaction, used to obtain pure uranium, was developed as part of the Manhattan Project at Ames Laboratory under the direction of Frank Spedding. It is sometimes called the Ames process.

Copper thermite is used for welding together thick copper wires for the purpose of electrical connections. It is used extensively by the electrical utilities and telecommunications industries (exothermic welded connections).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Oh, but this was "found" by professors of "good standing" at BYU and Cambridge who would have no reason to "cover-up" anything. Oh, wait, that's not exactly true either. From Wikipedia:

In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

I wouldn't call being relieved of your teaching duties as being in "good standing, dude. Beyond that, you know there are dozens of "professors of good standing" on the other side of this issue, right? Let me list just a few of them off the top of my head, then you be sure to tell me what reason THEY would have for participating in a cover-up.

Zdenk Bazant
Frank Greening
Christoph Hoffmann
Voicu Popescu
Mete Sozen

Take your time, dude.

So, where did the dust that Jones & Harrit "analyzed" come from? Oh, from some people who claimed they collected it after 9/11. Hmmm. And, where was it up until the time it was analyzed? Is there some evidence of the chain of custody? Oh, wait...of course, you don't care about trivial things like a chain of custody when it supposedly proves "9/11 was an inside job", right? And where was their "study" published? Oh, that's right...it was "published" in a joke Bentham pay-for-play "scientific journal". Simple question, dude. Why couldn't they get it published in a reputable journal? Why did the editor of the Bentham Journal resign after she learned that the "study" had been published without her knowledge/

Oh, but it was a super duper top secret "military" thermite. Oh, wait...the authors actually refer to it as "active thermitic material", whatever that is. Does that sound credible to you? Oh, wait...I forgot...EVERYTHING sounds credible to you because you don't bother to fact-check stuff and your critical thinking skills are, to put it politely, "M.I.A.".

So, you're up to 12 towns now. Cool. Let us know when you've reached enough critical mass to force a "new investigation". That should give you PLENTY of time to actually read the reports from the investigations that have already been conducted.

Are you today's "designated pinata"? Doesn't it get embarrassing to continually make stupid claims that you don't bother to fact-check?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[winyanstaz]

71. I agree...exactly...

Why do people take the word of the people that may well have done the crime?

[Kesha]

73. That`s it.

We don`t need to answer questions.

They do.

[Twist_U_Up]

87. If this thread alone doesnt prove to everyone ....

about certain posters agendas, nothing ever will.

[SDuderstadt]

88. And, precisely, what would that be, TuTu?

And, while we're at it, dude, what's your agenda? To embarrass liberalism with goofy, unsubstantiated nonsense?

Is this just one of your hit-and-run forays into the discussion where you malign the motivation of anyone who disagrees with you?

[Twist_U_Up]

92. My agenda mr. dude man ?

Well, exposing your lack of credibility and your inability to really back up anything you have to say.
You live in a world where evidence does not matter, where reason does not matter - you make preposterous statements and never back them up.
And then you complain when people call you on it.
People like you are a dime a dozen in the charlatan research field.

Your attitude is despicable and your behaviour is abhorrent.
To outwardly show so much contempt for your fellow man is repugnant.
Findng satisfaction in dragging others down is nauseating.

So Mr. dudeman let the adults ask questions, you just go back to your delusions that the evil terrorists are going to take your rights away.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Congratulations on packing the most strawmen...

into one post that I've ever seen!

Did you mean for this to be unintentionally ironic?

[Twist_U_Up]

98. truth hurts those who have a heart.....

you really need to take your anger and two dollar words else where.

[SDuderstadt]

100. How you can confuse people laughing at you with...

anger is hard to comprehend.

[Twist_U_Up]

104. You need new material dude man. Dry and stale.

Might wanna kick the one liners up to at least the third grade level.

[SDuderstadt]

105. If I "kicked them up to the third grade level"...

they'd be even more over your head. People are laughing at you, dude.

[spooked911]

107. a little projection there, Duderstadt?

give it up, loser.

[SDuderstadt]

112. No, dude....n/t

[zappaman]

96. hilarious!

Accusing the dude of living "in a world where evidence does not matter (and) where reason does not matter" is exactly the world in which the "truthers" currently reside.
Please show me the evidence that proves there weren't 4 planes hijacked and commandeered by Islamic terrorists that flew into buildings. Plenty of evidence showing they did...like ACTUALLY WATCHING THOSE PLANES FLY INTO BUILDINGS!!!
8 years later and nothing has come out to show otherwise, so who is living in the world where evidence and reason doesn't matter?

[Twist_U_Up]

97. Such an imagination

no doubt driven by a need to gain attention.

[zappaman]

108. you're right

I must have imagined those planes flying into those buildings.
Thanks for setting me straight!

[spooked911]

114. it's called greenscreen

probably the most common video special effect in the world.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Jesus, Spooked...

you're still trying to convince everyone that the eyewitnesses that were actually on the scene at the WTC didn't actually see the planes slam into the WTC???

This is why people laugh at you, dude.

[zappaman]

119. mass hypnosis would explain your so-called witnesses

same reason people believe we went to the moon.
in fact, there is no moon.
we've been under mass hypnosis all our lives!

[zappaman]

118. greenscreen

really?
I've worked in video and effects for 25 years and NO ONE uses greenscreen anymore.
Even in 2001, it was on its way out cuz it looks so terrible.
Not to mention EVERY SINGLE NEWS OUTLET ON THE PLANET would have to be in on it.
Epic Fail.
Try again.

[greyl]

121. I can't ever hear or see "greenscreen" without thinking of the Step Brothers DVD commentary.

You're quite incorrect about the end of green screen's use, though.

[zappaman]

122. It's used sparingly

mostly on low budget.
do you believe greenscreen was used to make us believe planes flew into the WTC?

[greyl]

123. "Sparingly"? You mean relative to CGI?

You mean like lens flares in Star Trek? ;)

"Used sparingly" is a wishy washy statement.

Were LOTR or Dark Knight low budget movies?

[spooked911]

124. Really? No one uses it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k&feature=player_embedded

As far as every news outlet being in on it, you're wrong.

There was only one or two feeds that showed the 2nd hit live.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Except there are other videos captured by eyewitnesses...

which show the second plane strike, Spooked. Unless you can explain how the "perps" somehow altered this footage and the people who shot not coming forward, your goofy "no-planes" bullshit bites the dust.

This is why rational people laugh at you here, dude. Again, I plead with you to quit embarrassing liberalism, the Democratic Party and DU with your "no-planes" nonsense, dude.

[zappaman]

126. Wow

the level of denial is huge here. Guess you don't understand the quality of special effects and how they are produced.
Tell you what, guys. Make a convincing video of a plane striking a building. Let's see how you do. When finished, see if you can get it on the air. We'll have millions of people judge it.
Do you really seriously believe that NO ONE at any of the networks questioned why they were running a fake video? My God, there would have to be literally thousands and thousands of people who would be in on it. And that does not even account for the thousands who ACTUALLY SAW the planes impact.
Spooked, you really shame everyone who lost someone that day. My friend lost a cousin on the second plane. It pretty much tore his family apart.
To deny that there was no plane is the equivalent of denying the holocaust. Yes, it is. It is a shameful, dishonest, disgusting, hurtful action and you really should stop.
You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for your goofy "no-planes" theory.
ZERO.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Seconded...

the goofy "no-planes" bullshit is patently offensive to those who lost loved ones that day.

What I can't quite figure out is why EVERYONE...skeptics and "truthers" alike...doesn't roundly condemn this nonsense when it shows up here. It is disgraceful.

[Kesha]

128. It just doesn`t make any sense

I´m not sure what flew into the North Tower or into the Pentagon,
but it`s beyond any reasonable doubt that a real plane flew into
the South tower.

It even doesn`t make any sense to "simulate" this crash, as this crash
was meant to be caught by live TV cameras and other witnesses. Logic tells us that the easiest
way to produce this effect is simply using a real plane.

[zappaman]

129. Logic?

So what does logic tell you hit the first tower and the pentagon?
Please use logic and tell me what you come up with.
And Spooked, aren't you scared the same nefarious people who got to everyone in that video, may come after you?
How is it you are still around when you...and you alone...have figured out their brilliant green screen attack?

[SDuderstadt]

130. My theory is Spooked....

doesn't really exist and is really a CGI.

[Kesha]

132. Reality is reality

Just provide evidence.

[Kesha]

131. Logic...

There is no proof that AA11 hit the North Tower.

Neither by Video or anything else. I still miss any evidence. Your turn.

No doubt that an airliner hit the South Tower thoug.

[SDuderstadt]

133. More "truther bullshit"....

ever heard of the Naudet video?

Simple question: Why don't you bother to fact-check your bullshit before you post it, dude?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

[Kesha]

134. Dude... we are talking about logic.

Give us any kind of evidence that a Boeing flew into the North Tower.

There is none.

[SDuderstadt]

135. I just showed it to you, dude...

duh.

[Kesha]

140. No, you did not.

As simple as that.

Refering to your own statements is no evidence. Evidence is something like a
positive identification of the plane. What you are doing is just repeating
a certain CT mantra.


It`s your turn. Pictures, videos, parts with serial numbers, forensic results, every
hard evidence will do. That`s not rocket science, Dude... just the normal post-crash
procedure.

[SDuderstadt]

141. Dude...

you previously concluded that a plane hit the second tower on the basis of a video that clearly shows a plane hitting it. But, when I show you a video of a plane hitting the first tower, you reject it?

WTF? This is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

[Kesha]

144. That`s not what I have written...

When or where did I write that I reject the video of a *real* flying object hitting WTC 1?
In fact, I wrote that I`m just not sure, what type of aircraft hit. And you know that.

Just stop using ad hominens, that does not work. My inbox tells a different story
about who`s taken seriously and who`s not. But that`s not the topic of this
thread. If you prefer to discuss Russian grammar, you should spent more time on
other websites.

So please, quote correctly and stay on topic. The usage of links is also a nice
attitude which you are still lacking. Basics.

[SDuderstadt]

145. No one cares what's in your inbox, dude...

And, please show me all these "ad hominems" I have used, dude. Be specific. Take your time.

[Kesha]

147. That`s wrong... and irrelevant for this discussion

Talk facts, not fiction.

Stop misquoting others. I thought it has been said before,
when you start insulting or try to ridicule the person rather than the theory it means
you have already lost.

You may link the post in which I said that "I reject videos of the first impact" though. As long
as you don`t provide proof for your chimera, you`re just ridiculing yourself.


Just to remind you... the topic was "no planes" or "real planes", and I strictly believe that two
real planes flew into both towers. Their type/model/identity is questionable, as therr is no
physical evidence that it was flight 11 or 175. Unless you provide it, Dude.
That`s the problem, not your OT imaginations about the status of other`s Inboxes.

[SDuderstadt]

148. No one cares what you think, dude...

and merely being critical of someone (especially when the criticism is deserved) is not an "ad hominem".

So, where did Flights 11 and 175 go then?

I'm done with your silliness, dude.

[Kesha]

149. You`re just pretentious... but that`s not your problem

Ok...

You`ve quoted me wrong:
Provide a link to my alleged "rejecting video of the first impact".
If you can`t, you have ridiculed yourself again.

You also don`t provide links which proof any kind of physical evidence for debris of flight
11 / 175. The simple answer is that there isn`t any proof for it at the WTC site. A
simple fact.

So much on sillyness, CT methods and lack of evidence. Answering my simple question with a
non sequitur won`t you get you nowhere.

So ist das Leben...

[SDuderstadt]

150. Done, dude...

D
O
N
E

Get the picture?

[Kesha]

151. No :o)

You are...

No links, no evidence, nothing, nil.

This means that you`ve knowingly quoted me wrong (Mods? DU rules?).
This also means that you don`t have any evidence that the real flights 11 / 175
crashed into the WTC towers.

Quod erat demonstrandum,
and as I have predicted.


@Spooked: As you can see, you don`t need this no-plane garbage to proof that
the Emperor is naked...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes


Plot:
An Emperor who cares for nothing but his wardrobe hires two weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others.

The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.


That is fitting perfectly, isn`t it.
The Dude is naked.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Dude...

can you point to any post where I even "quoted" you, let alone, "misquoted" you?

P.S. The quotation marks are a hint.

Here's a quote from me: "Done".

[Kesha]

156. Sure, here`s the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=282391&mesg_id=283298

And yes, you`re done.

You qualify as a perfect Suppenkasper. Just lies, no links, no proof.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Dude...

you previously concluded that a plane hit the second tower on the basis of a video that clearly shows a plane hitting it. But, when I show you a video of a plane hitting the first tower, you reject it?

WTF? This is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

that isn't "misquoting" you. That isn't even "quoting" you. You need to withdraw your false accusation, dude.

Quoting someone looks like this: Kesha said, "xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxx".

Asking you a clarifying question isn't "misquoting" you, dude.

[zappaman]

137. ok

let's play your game.
what DOES logic tell you happened?
please provide a logical scenario.

[SDuderstadt]

138. I hope you saw the sign that read:

"abandon all hope (as well as logic and reason) all ye who enter here" before you tangle with "Kesha". It's like a logical black hole dealing with him.

[zappaman]

139. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath then

oh well...

[greyl]

136. Now, all of THAT you are quite correct about. ;) nt

[spooked911]

142. It's hard to deny that the physics were unreal. That's one issue.

There's also evidence of video fakery with the 2nd hit videos. Do some research and think for yourself.

I'm not denying that your friend's cousin died in a horrific attack on 9/11. Just that I don't think they died hitting the south tower. So spare me your emotional appeal and accusation of holocaust denial.

What's with this remark-- "You have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for your goofy "no-planes" theory."

Are you a SDuderstadt clone?

Anyway, the denial is with you, I'm afraid.

[SDuderstadt]

143. Dude....

your explanation for how the live witnesses only THINK they saw a plane hit the second tower because they "got confused by watching TV later" is one of the reasons why people laugh at you and you have zero credibility here. It's bad enough that you embarrass DU with your bullshit, but for you to claim that the rational people confronting your irrationality are "in denial" is patently offensive to anyone who lost a loved one that awful day.

If your aim is to discredit and marginalize the entire "truth movement" with your outlandish nonsense, I'd have to say you're succeeding beyond your wildest imagination, no pun intended. I'd almost love to see you spout your "no-planes" bullshit in front of a group of family members, as I think the phrase "reality check" could take on a whole new meaning for you.

[zappaman]

146. no, you do the research

show me the evidence that there was video fakery.
there is none and this is lunacy.
I'm not saying you are a holocaust denier, so don't twist my words.
but yes, it is the same as denying the holocaust.
let's see you try and tell this crap to my friends face.
it would be the same as a holocaust denier trying to flog their lunacy on a relative of someone who died in the holocaust.
what's the difference?

and since she died on the second plane, by saying there was no plane, you are saying something else happened to her.
what is that exactly?
please provide evidence.

denying reality is not something I like to do.

[spooked911]

153. I *have* done the research -- there is abundant evidence

and you can see the evidence at my blog.

I'd be happy to show the evidence to any one who is interested, even face-to-face, if you want to arrange that.

Of course something else happened to her than crashing into the WTC south tower, but I have no way of knowing exactly what.

[SDuderstadt]

154. Why are you regarded so derisively then....

Spooked? Why is no one signing on to your bullshit? Why does the "truth movement" shun you?

[zappaman]

155. you have "no way of knowing what" happened to the passengers

really.
you stand behind that statement?
you really have no way of knowing?
incredible.
I've seen your blog.
what I haven't seen is any evidence that something other than 2 planes hit each of the towers at the WTC, 1 plane impacting in PA, and 1`plane hitting the pentagon.
please direct me to what part of your blog provides your so-called evidence.
meanwhile, the world is laughing at you...