lol Deuces. Based on no piloting experience whatsoever, he's determined that guys who practiced on a flight simulator wouldn't be able to pull off the amazing piloting feat of crashing into a building.

What about that guy who flew a plane into an IRS building? No Earthly way that could happen, right?

What does that have to do with 9/11?

Just another instance of the U.S Government being honest with us.

(sarcasm)

The 9/11 commission report has been thoroughly discredited from all angles, including by the members of the commission themselves. When you cite that report you are not citing a credible source.

I have no doubt that Scoggins tried his best. Under any LIH plan, the people on the front lines are going to be hindered, despite their doing their jobs to the best of their ability. That's true no matter what degree of LIH. The fact is that your saying that with an hour heads up our military can't defend itself from a non-military plane which they know is hijacked and are tracking. That's a tough sell but you keep trying- don't let reason hold you back now.

There are a lot of intelligent people who believe LIH. As I stated before about half of New York City believes LIH. Furthermore there are plenty of idiots and psychos who believe in your conclusions. I try to debate on the facts because I estimate that they are in my favor. You try to debate by labeling because your arguments are lame.

I do zero research? I think it's clear I have done some homework. When I say I "haven't really looked into" something I should specify that I am speaking from the view of my standards which tend to be higher. So while I haven't rigorously looked into the details of the real time defense of the attacks, you can be pretty sure my knowledge base is comparable to or bigger than just about anyone ITT.

Jiggs probably has more facts handy than I do. But, among the official story truthers, they haven't shown much collected knowledge of the uncontroversial facts. When pressed they usually are shown to be wrong, paste something they haven't read, start calling names, or just shut up. The official story truthers have typically put a lot of misguided faith into the scope and substance of the commission report. When they go to redeem that faith however they find that account is busto.

There are probably many actual conspiracy nuts out there who know far more hard facts about 9/11 than I do- they just can't put them together to form valid conclusions. So the amount of reading of facts someone does is not as important as their logic, which is another reason your criticizing me for doing "zero research" is lame.

So it has nothing at all to do with 9/11?

Well, there goes all the irony on the internet. It was a good run boys but there's no more irony to be had here.

I'm gonna make a non-random hunch that you either have a profound reading disability, have a mild to severe psychological problem, or think you are the master of all trolls.

Which confirms it's the Gingerbread man.

Holy ****. And you accuse others of not having reading comprehension. Why do you think Scoggins agrees that everything that could be done was done? What evidence do you have that it wasn't?

Dude, you do zero research. You read almost nothing that you comment on. You said earlier ITT that the plan of Northwoods was to kill people... You don't make arguments, you just have feelings, and the closest you come to providing evidence is throwing out links. When they dont show the evidence you hope they do (which is always) you criticize people for pointing that out. You are the ultimate clown face.

Is this serious or are we just trolling now?

Yours is a completely invalid comparison. For one thing the IRS attacker had been licensed to fly for 16 years. He owned the plane he flew into the IRS building and so we assume he had a decent amount of experience on that plane. The hijacker pilots (at least two of them) however, learned to fly small single engine planes over the course of 6 months and spent two days on simulator of a jet plane- they had never actually flown a jet plane before 9/11. So the experience levels don't compare.

The actual planes themselves don't compare either. The IRS guy didn't fly a huge commercial passenger plane into the IRS building. He flew a small single engine airliner.

You chose some broad categories to make a comparison that is ignorant of the most relevant facts. I never claimed people can't fly planes into buildings. You might as well just paste a link to someone stomping an iphone to contradict my supposed assertion that "people can't break things" lol.

I supported the Northwoods claim with citation. I'm not going to entertain the idea that I do zero research further than what I say here: I give links, I discuss the specific points contained therein, and I do the same for citations other people post (which is more than I can say for most official story truthers). Of course, in the view of someone like you who has no consideration for evidence (in your view it doesn't matter that significant eyewitness accounts are destroyed) I suppose you can just come up with any conclusion that you find emotionally satisfying and run with it.

Yea a journalist who wrote a book. Even money you typed "operation northwoods kill people" into google to find it. You knew nothing about what the actual operation entailed.

LOL doofus, tell me why it matters that he destroyed that tape or STFU about it. Were they not around to give testimony after that? Do we not have the record of what lots of ATC did on the day? Also, what are you alleging here? ATC LIHOP right?

You cant even keep your ridiculous assertions straight.

Bottom line, the U.S Government was behind the 9-11 attacks. Its really not that hard to see.

For a lot of people it seems to be a mental block they need to get over, its like their brain wont allow them to grasp the concept.

Yes I assure you its possible, not only that it is a scientific certainty. For the love of God wake up and open your eyes.

Yeah those pesky journalists with all their research and interpretation nonsense lol. I actually even said where I originally heard about northwoods which was a talk by James Bamford on c-span years ago. But why would it matter where I got my citation from anyway?

In your view a source's validity hinges not on the qualities of the source itself but on the path someone took to find the source. This is another example of your sucky views.

What am I alleging? I am alleging obstruction of justice and tabling some other possible charges.

It's hard for me to tell you why it matters when people interfere with investigations by destroying evidence without feeling like I must be talking to a child. Do you understand we don't know what was on the tape so we don't know what might have been significant? They were a somewhat independent source of information from first hand witnesses involved the real time response. The historical value alone is huge. The fact that you see nothing wrong with their destruction shows almost incomprehensible ignorance. Since you find your beliefs only in the herd maybe the fact that the New York Times reported it would convince you that it's a story, not a conspiratorial factoid.

I honestly cant tell if you are this thick or if you are diliberately being obtuse.

You know NOTHING about where that guy got his information from, while I, on the other hand, quoted from THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.

Goddamn you are bad at this. The problem is you have no idea how to evaluate the merits of evidence.

So... argument from ignorance. Yea. Thought so.

The first hand witnesses who responded in real time were available after that tape was destroyed. But in conspiracy land the fact that we dont know what was on it means it was a smoking gun. You can't tell me why its significant, because it isnt. Unless you are trying to tell me the people in that room were threatened to shutup or something, there was literally nothing on that tape that we couldnt have gotten later.

Again, you have no idea how to evaluate evidence. But its ok. Your smugness while being so ridiculously bad at this is making it way more fun.

All you are doing here is going further down into your conspiracy rabbit hole. Now there was a conspiracy o shut up the ATC... im sure you will have fun having feelings about this for awhile.

Northwoods, tho.

You are going to the mat to defend operation northwoods, an explicit false flag operation designed to start a war in which your own countrymen would die in large numbers, in the context of a discussion about government responsibility for 9/11. Now tell me again who is being thick? You are basically revealing yourself as an inhuman war monger. It's like your trying to argue against affirmative action and it slips out that you're a skinhead.

I missed the part where you linked to the document, and also where it said that no one would be killed during operation northwoods. I actually do know something about where the journalist got his information. And you have yet to explain how the deaths from the anticipated war don't count. Were you expecting an invasion of Cuba to go off without a death?

Well I know that evidence should not be destroyed, so that means I have a better idea than you about how to evaluate it.

You claim that these guys couldn't based on absolutely no experience on you part whatsoever. You've discounted the possibility offhand guys with rudimentary flight skills could fly a plane into a building.

Amazingly, none of the thousands of commercial pilots in the world have come to the same conclusion. Not a word from any of them. Are they all in on the conspiracy?



The central problem with all of Deuces posts is this: if it's just so obvious that event X couldn't have happened, why did these conspirators try to make it look like X happened?

Ex: If it's just impossible for these guys to fly a plane into a building, why didn't the CIA/Cheney/Lizard People who invented the whole thing have one of the guys be an experienced pilot?

If it's clearly, obviously impossible for an ID card to survive a plane crash, why did they plant an ID card?

Why was this elaborate conspiracy intentionally created in such a way that uninformed spectators like Deuces could clearly see through it all instantly?

LOL. Your "scientific certainty" is essentially "It's too hard for foreign devils to have done so the white man must have done it." Essentially, you're, wait for it...



RACIST!

LOL I told you ur goalpost shift isnt going to fly. You said the operation called for people to be killed. This isn't true.

Go to wikipedia, click on the footnotes, and you can read from the actual pages of the document. Its a matter of public record. This isn't difficult for anyone who actually cares to know. I am "going to the mat" because its just another example of how you don't actually give a **** about any of this. You'd rather make up a story in your head to sustain your erection, and pretend you are fighting the good fight.

Keep arguing from ignorance, keep not reading the things you comment on, it provides my daily dose of lulz

Also, thanks for confirming you have no idea why the destroyed tape is relevant but some guy destroyed it thinking he was supposed to when he wasn't so OMG SECRET GOVT CONSPIRACY!

All of this seems to operate off the flawed assumption of a demand-constrained forecasting model. So, no.

Watch the excellent presentation by Steven Kopits at Columbia Univ.

It is a supply-constrained equation that has oil bouncing off a $100-110 ceiling, and even that has advanced societies failing. The consumer absolutely can not afford oil prices any higher for any sustained period of time. Meanwhile, the oil majors absolutely can not maintain production volume unless the price IS higher. Despite all the nonsense we hear from the "no problem" contingent, we are not yet witnessing a decline in demand. All the "available" oil is taken up at $100. If there was a decline in demand and we were not supply constrained the price would have dropped. This seems to fool most people for some odd reason.

No, the one MAIN issue with nukes is: There is not enough uranium to expand the industry. Hasn't been for decades. THAT is why none have been built. And before you say it, thorium remains the "energy source of the future" and always will be.

Further, nuclear won't move freight, won't fertilize crops, won't create pavement, rubber, plastics, lube computer chips, etc. etc. etc.