"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Some people just have too much time...

To display their ignorance and their desire to maintain it. I recently criticized the Rosie, for her silly 9-11 comments on her blog. Hardly surprising, though rather entertaining, is that someone took exception to that and made repeated comments disagreeing with me.

It's rather funny, when someone complains about my calling their tactics conspiracy lunacy, and then they go right on and provide even more evidence supporting what I said.

So, for the entertainment of my reader, I'm going to bring this particular individual's latest comments into a post. You can see what preceded here.

The looney tune's original comments in regular font, my replies in bold, interspersed throughout.


conspiracy lunacy?

Yes and thanks for providing more evidence of that.

are you claiming that the government and mainstream media should never be questioned and they offer 100% truth and accuracty 100% of the time. And everyone in authority is to be trusted 100% of the time and to do otherwise is indulging in "conspiracy lunacy"

Nope, never said that, red herring 101, look it up.

That is what you are implying by anyone who has sincere and good intentions about finding out the truth about 911 which even you would have to admit is a noble thing to do.

The search for truth is noble. The problem is, you've spent all this time making your previous vacuous statements and then tossing out this drivel, much of which has been answered by a link I provided in a previous post.

I am not sure what role the government had in 911 and the wtc fall.

You say this and then go on to throw the typical yadda ya out there, and demonstrate you haven't even bothered to do an elementary search for answers even on my blog.

But I do know the building clearly did not look like it fell from fire. I have eyes. I know it looks like it fell from explosives.

Nope. Take some time to actually go through the images here.

From the author:

Put it all together, then, and the “squibs” appear after WTC7 has begun to fall, as floors sag across the building, and at almost exactly the same time as this effect causes other windows to break. As these also appear to eject more material than the “squibs”, then the most plausible explanation is they’re nothing more than windows breaking as the building falls.

The BBC report is to say the least a little odd.

Only if you're desperate to find conspiracy. As I already said in reply to another Rosie supporter:

John, I've seen the video in question. News reporters make mistakes all the time, even more so under stressful conditions. Considering that firefighters pulled away from the building because it was so dangerous it's not surprising that a live report, during a traumatic event, would have such an error. Your silly tactics are typical of conspiracy lunacy.

Video of firemen telling people to get away from the building because it was about to "come down" is a little odd.

Because they should wait until an unstable structure is actually falling? Remind me not to have you run a safety program anywhere.

Larry silverstein saying he and the fire cheif decided to "pull it" ( I don't think Larry was referring to the firefighters as "its" do you?)

It can easily refer to pulling the operation. You really are desperate to maintain this conspiracy aren't you? More here on this  pull it yadda ya. You fail again.

Most suspiciously of all however is the government immediatly sending all the rubble to Asia to be recycled immediatly without any investigation of the molten steel.

Nope, wrong again. As noted here.

Many of the sites who talk about this like to emphasise the “speed” of the recycling operation. For example:

...the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them...

Sounds suspect, right? But it’s also untrue. First, the steel wasn’t entirely cleared from the site until May 2002, not perhaps as quick as the claims suggest.

The author goes on to quote an investigator:

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

Just the fact that a building that size was completely demolished from several relatively small fires is odd enough to warrant an investigation into the cause. don'y ya think?

Not sure which building you're referring to here. So I'll reference several items.

WTC-7 fires were not small

A number of claims against the WTC towers being brought down by the fire alone are dealt with here. The author also has numerous links regarding the WTC towers demolition here. He includes links to both sides of the argument as well, so don't get your panties in a twist about bias. You look silly enough without flopping into the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

Yeah I do to but not the governement.

Except your assertion about the recycling is false and leaves this conclusion unsupported.

Why dosen't the media EVER mention the mysterious demolition of building 7?

Because it ain't so mysterious.

Ever see it replayed on mainstream network tv? me neither?

Already dealt with in WTC-7 fires were not small and the several links at that article.

Why in the world would a president who's country has been attacked to this degree not want a thorough and complete investigation?

Your one support for this conclusion, ie the recycling, has been show to be in error.

There are hundreds of questions like this and either

So? There are answers for each one of these.

1. You are completely brainwashed. 2. You have a 75 I.Q. or lower. or 4. Your benefit financially, politically or otherwise from perpetuating this nonsense. Unless you are a complete moron which you might be you are equal to a Nazi sympathizer.

And there you go, flopping into the ad hominem fallacy and/or you need to get some help with your Freudian projection problem.


Dork boy, having a serious OCD issue with tossing his ignorance on my blog, added this comment, before I finished this post.

as I am sure you are well aware of you sound like the fool. Saying that 911 has unanswered questions does not equal a conspiracy theory


Even more hilarious, while I was putting this post together, he replied again.

you won't even "approve" a comment that raises questions that you can't respond to with an insult. I really hope this administration has your back for all the disinformation and insults you are spewing at anyone with a brain. good luck with your payoff Mark. And if you are doing if for free that is even worse. You should be getting some reward for your contribution to stifling the truth. Bye Mark. Good luck. And by the way Mark "Mr. Pro-life" on a different subject ( of which you are woefully wrong and ignorant) Who is going to take care of all of these unwanted babies that you want to force women to have that are created in THEIR bodies and come out of THEIR vaginas. Not yours. Are you going to take care of them? How many babies have you personally adopted? A couple I hope. How much money do you contribute to help raise these babies to teen mothers and those that cannot afford to raise them. Alot I hope. Douchebag loser.

Yes, that's right, I didn't approve the comment yet, because I was preparing a post replying to it in detail. Pardon me, for not realizing that not meeting this twat's schedule means that I am unable to offer replies. I guess my taking more than 26 minutes, which is the time between his blah blah that I've replied to above and his waaaa! about my not approving his comment, is certain proof that I'm an agent for the administration. Damn! I blew my cover. Sorry Karl, I guess I'll have to do that other job we were discussing over that excellent dinner you prepared yesterday.

I wonder if he'll try to "debate" me on being prolife? That ought to be hilarious considering what we've seen thus far.


Filed under: 9-11 Conspiracy nuts

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, , stikNstein... has no mercy, Overtaken by Events, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog,, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: -- -- -- --
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: