25 US military officers challenge official 9/11 story

[BleedingOrange]

I like how you ignore the point I was making and imply if I don't agree with your position I'm not using my brain. I posted an article that addressed the main points of the original post. LA posted a counter. I showed that the counter used a deliberately misleading statement to try to prove the PM article wrong. I told LA to find a better article because the one he was using was flawed. So far you have not addressed how the follow-up article was very misleading and by your reply's looks like you didn't bother to read the PM link. I didn't post my background to say I know all, but to show that I do have experience in the area. If you want to prove that the counter LA posted is correct then you need to show that 1 of those 67 scambles was against a civilian aircraft over the US. If you can't, than the counter is not reliable and that is the point I'm making. I have never stated that scrambles are different for external or internal threats.

[ak1971]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

AK 1971

I posted a real link to the authentic 84th RADES radar data from 9/11.

You just discredited yourself by posting a phony link -- ZERO

Congratulations! I will studiously ignore your posts in the future.

MHG

Awesome the nutbag has me on ignore! the link was for tin foil. I suppose you use alot of it. I was doing a PSA if you will for those stupid enough to listen to you. They may need it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The fact is that - a scramble is a scramble. This is a routine procedure -- well known to both NORAD pilots and the FAA. You would do well to move beyond that ridiculous Popular Mechanics rag to some serious research.

Bingo.

This point seems to keep sailing right over the heads of the Bush faithful.

[BleedingOrange]

The fact that the counter you posted uses flat out deception keeps flying over your head. I was more than willing to consider information you provided to support your claims but since you refuse to address the issue, further posts is a waste of time. I wonder if your reading comprehension is that low or you just don't have the integrity to admit that one of your sources was wrong.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

A few years ago the ownership of Pop Mechanics changed. It became a bought and paid for disinfo platform.

Everyone and everything that doesn't square with gaffney's take on 9/11 (sick, twisted, perverse and fact-free as it is) is "disinfo".

Saves gaffney a lot of "work" (and much more ridicule) to make such statements.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Funny how you cherry pick the parts of the original article you want to contest and ignore the rest.

You cite a spurious hit piece in Popular Mechanics in an attempt to discredit one of the 25 U.S. military officers cited in the original article and completely ignore the testimony of other 24.

This kind of tactic only underscores the inherent weakness of your case.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[W*GS]

It's clear to me that none of these officers have actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, or have done any serious investigation.

One guy says he saw Oliver Stone's "JFK", and that got him started. That's a joke.

Just goes to show that military service doesn't preclude inanity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha!

The two heads of the 9/11 Commission admitted that the Commission's findings were incomplete and/or flawed and that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA - yet W*GS continues to point to the report as if it were unassailable.

That's too funny.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The two heads of the 9/11 Commission admitted that the Commission's findings were incomplete and/or flawed and that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA - yet W*GS continues to point to the report as if it were unassailable.

Not quite the truth of the issue, but you've never shown an interest in the truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”

Summary: More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. Veterans from the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military are quoted.

Full article: http://patriotsquestion911.com/Count...m_Veterans.pdf

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”

Summary: More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. Veterans from the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military are quoted.

Full article: http://patriotsquestion911.com/Count...m_Veterans.pdf

Say LA, since you're so convinced that 9-11 was an inside jobby-job, how come I never see you over at JREF debating the serious debunkers?

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”

Summary: More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. Veterans from the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military are quoted.

Full article: http://patriotsquestion911.com/Count...m_Veterans.pdf

Okay folks, if you hadnt been convinced of the mathematical proof before, just look above and the theory becomes resolved into nicely balanced equalities:

LABF = mhgaffney

so, you can set them equal to one: LABF/mhgaffney = 1

or define them by this identity: LABF - mhgaffney = 0

so,

LABF + mhgaffney = 2 LABF = 2 mhgaffney

[mhgaffney]

The Lone Nut thinks the RANDI forum is where the really serious people hang out.

In fact, it's a board frequented by nihilists and cynics -- people who don't stand for anything.

Nut's "real expert" from RANDI who debated me last winter scammed this board with nonsense. He claimed, for instance, that the chips found in the WTC dust by Dr Steven Jones were actually flakes of red primer paint from the WTC steel.

This claim was checked out and proven to be false. The "real expert" from RANDI got it wrong. Check out Dr Jones's latest video available at
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/

The chips in the dust have the same structure as nanothermite -- developed by the Los Alamos National Lab.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The Lone Nut thinks the RANDI forum is where the really serious people hang out.

In fact, it's a board frequented by nihilists and cynics -- people who don't stand for anything.

Ad hominem attack noted.

Nut's "real expert" from RANDI who debated me last winter scammed this board with nonsense. He claimed, for instance, that the chips found in the WTC dust by Dr Steven Jones were actually flakes of red primer paint from the WTC steel.

This claim was checked out and proven to be false. The "real expert" from RANDI got it wrong. Check out Dr Jones's latest video available at
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/

The chips in the dust have the same structure as nanothermite -- developed by the Los Alamos National Lab.

OK, here are their arguments against "nanothermite" in the WTC debris:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...58#post4659658

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...58#post4659658

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

Can you offer a point-by-point refutation of their evidence or is all you have more ad-hominem attacks?

[Requiem]

Well,

At least he will be able to make an argument for himself, (Gaffney) rather than hiding behind others.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Well,

At least he will be able to make an argument for himself, (Gaffney) rather than hiding behind others.

Umm... what do you call this:

Originally Posted by Gaffney

The "real expert" from RANDI got it wrong. Check out Dr Jones's latest video available at http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/

Is Gaffney making the argument here? Or is he hiding behind Jones?

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Is Gaffney making the argument here? Or is he hiding behind Jones?

Are you making an argument here? Or are you hiding behind Randi?

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by ThyNatural

Are you making an argument here? Or are you hiding behind Randi?

Didn't you just get through telling me that Gaffney makes his own arguments?

Deflection noted.

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Didn't you just get through telling me that Gaffney makes his own arguments?

Deflection noted.

I didn't tell you ****. I was just admiring how black kettle was as compared to pot.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by ThyNatural

I didn't tell you ****. I was just admiring how black kettle was as compared to pot.

This is what you told me:

At least he will be able to make an argument for himself, (Gaffney) rather than hiding behind others.

Then when I pointed out that Gaffney is not making an argument for himself but in fact "hiding behind others" (which is what you accuse me of), you deflect and ratonalize. End of story.

Yes, that certainly is the pot calling the kettle black. Only you're the one guilty of it not me.

[mhgaffney]

You can't have it both ways. The "real expert" on the issue is Jones -- and his independent team of scientists. Not Gaffney. I never presumed to be an expert on Nanothermite.

Have your RANDI experts published a serious scientific paper challenging the conclusions of Jones et al? No.

As of today the following remains the best science regarding the residues - chips -- found in the WTC dust. It continues to stand unchallenged in the arena of published science.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Has Lone Nut even read it? I'm guessing he has not.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

This article speaks for itself.

You will notice this was posted in the Pakistan Daily -- NOT a US paper. What does this tell us? Why is the US press not covering this?

MHG

That you're desperate if you think a Pakistani news source is proof, when no other agency is interested?


Oh, and a story that has been removed.

[DenverBrit]

Also from the same Pakistani source......a conspiracy!!

India involved in suicide attacks in Pakistan
Headlines Monday, September 13th, 2010

Pakistan’s intelligence agencies have received reports that Indian elements may be involved in the spate of suicide attacks in the country and there may be more attacks in the coming days, a federal minister said Sunday.

Federal State Minister for Interior Affairs Tasnim Qureshi said he has ‘concrete evidence’ citing Indian elements’ involvement in terror activities in Pakistan, News International reported.

‘The nation should unite against conspiracies to break Pakistan,’ he said.

In a fresh wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, 73 people were killed in Quetta and 35 died in Lahore in the first week of September when Shia processions were targetted.

Another 18 people, including nine school students, were killed in a suicide attack targeting a police station in Lakki Marwat, a town in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You can't have it both ways. The "real expert" on the issue is Jones -- and his independent team of scientists. Not Gaffney. I never presumed to be an expert on Nanothermite.

Have your RANDI experts published a serious scientific paper challenging the conclusions of Jones et al? No.

As of today the following remains the best science regarding the residues - chips -- found in the WTC dust. It continues to stand unchallenged in the arena of published science.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Has Lone Nut even read it? I'm guessing he has not.

Well Gaff, first of all I have read about Bentham. It is not a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The evidence, which I am sure you are aware of, strongly suggests that it is in fact a pay-per-publish journal that is not peer-reviewed. They even published a paper of completely made-up nonsense for $500 that was submitted to expose Bentham for the fraud that it is.

Jones, in the meantime, has not submitted his paper to a REAL peer-reviewed, reputable scientific journal. Only troofers continue to insist that he has.

And while I have not read Jones' entire paper (I have read some of it), that does not detract from the fact that your only counterargument of those that dispute it is ad-hominem personal attacks. You have yet to address any of the points made in the links above. If you are so sure Jones is right, then you should be able to refute every claim his critics make.

If you can't, how can you say that their claims where "checked out and proven to be false"? Where are these refutations you speak of? Who checked out the JREFers criticisms and "proved them to be false"? How did they do this? You have a link? A reference?

Even I can understand many of their criticisms and find them with merit. Why, for example, did Jones come to the conclusion that he had nanothermite when he did not test the combustion in an airless environment? Nanothermite after all contains it's own oxygen. Combusting it in an environment with available oxygen and then concluding that it's nanothermite is a non sequitur.

And why has he not submitted anonymous samples to various legitimate laboratories across the country for verification? Saying they are all in on the conspiracy makes no sense, as the labs would have no knowledge of what they were testing or who it came from.

And, of course, why doesn't Jones submit his paper to a reputable journal instead of one that will publish anything for money (a proven fact)?

As you often put it Gaff, this all "stinks to high heaven."