Only ONE photo shows alleged Flight 93 debris being excavated . . . and Pat Curley is a moron

On the Jim Fetzer show I did on Feb 11th, Jim and I were discussing how ridiculous it was that a 757 crashed in that empty field in Shanksville. I was mentioning how absurd it was that even though we were told that about 80% of Flight 93 was said to be recovered out of the hole it supposedly made after burrowing underground (even though there wasn't any actual hole visible, but just a crater), only one photo was released to the public that supposedly showed plane debris being excavated out of the ground; a photo of a small rusty-looking engine piece next to a backhoe bucket:

I showed in one of my Hoodwinked at Shanksville episodes that the engine in this photo was not dug out of the ground, but was merely placed in the excavated hole by the very backhoe bucket seen next to it in the photo.




ScrewLooseChange blogger, Pat Curley, apparently caught the show and tries to debunk my claim that only one photo shows any evidence of plane debris being excavated out of ground in Shanksville. He starts out with his well-known infantile name-calling in the blog title to try to character-assassinate me, then posts two photos of alleged recovered Flight 93 debris and asks why I neglected to talk about them.

Killclown on Fetzer

I happened to listen to these two jokers while on a ride this afternoon. I have not listened to the entire segment, but it's laughable how they stick with bogus claims that have been disproven repeatedly. At one point, Killtown talks about how they only pulled one piece of the plane out of the hole in Shanksville, something that looked like a motor.

But of course he neglects to talk about this piece...

Why is that, Killclown?

Well Pat Curley, (or should I call you childish names like "Pat Clown"?), the reason I neglected to talk about those two photo was because I was talking about photos that show plane debris being excavated out of the ground that would offer some evidence to support the official claim that 30+ cars-worth of debris was pulled out of that ground, not photos showing pieces of dirt-free plane debris just lying on top the ground moron.

Calling me childish names and trying to ridicule me for this claim, yet you got it totally wrong. How embarrassing for you. Maybe your Mom and Dad should have raised you to be more mature so they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity to see how their grown child behaves.


Now since you mentioned the other two photos, let's do discuss them:

Exh. GX-P200061 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]

Exh. GX-P200062 (intr'd: 04/11/2006) Photograph of an airplane part found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. - rcfp.org/moussaoui [hi-res]

1. Other than a non-governmental website saying so, what hard evidence is there exactly that these two pieces of plane debris are from Flight 93, or that these two photos were even taken at the Shanksville scene?

All I see are a couple of photos that by themselves don't tell me where they were taken (unlike the photo of the engine scrap where you can see it's taken at the Shanksville scene) and of the pieces of debris themselves, how can you be sure those pieces didn't come from some other plane that crashed, or even from ones that were dismantled?

2. Since we were told Flight 93 crashed into a loose and uncompacted field at a whopping 580mph, how did those two big fuselage pieces manage to escape from burrowing underground when most of the plane, including both its black boxes located way back in the tail section were supposedly recovered 15ft and 25ft under?

3. About the window debris, all of its insulation (including its windows) have been totally stripped away from it and from the bent corners that expose its outside surface, its paint looks to be stripped away from it too.


How do you think it managed to get all of its insulation and paint totally stripped off of it, yet it seems to have landed in the forest(?) while most of the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed underground in the field and that other debris piece you showed seems to have all of its paint on its outside surface intact??? Since the window piece's paint scheme is missing on its exposed outside surfaces, how do you even know it comes from a United Airlines plane?

4. Why does the inside of the window piece look dark and rusty, yet the inside of the other piece you show is practically white?

Inside of window piece (left) looks darker and rusty.
Inside of painted piece (right) look practically white.

Is it also a coincidence that this widow piece looks a bit rusted like the engine scrap piece above that I showed how it was planted?!

5. Can you show me on a map where those two pieces were found?

6. If a government did fake a plane crash, do you think you would be able to spot that it's fake?


See if you can answer these questions without childish name calling, snide remarks, or drifting off topic. Remember, your actions reflect on how well your Mom and Dad raised you.

If Operation Northwoods had been implemented...

If Operation Northwoods had been implemented, do you think the skeptics would have tried to expose it, or tried to defend its official story?


Do you think they would have been fooled by the many rumors spread by clandestine radio?


Do you think they would have figured out that the captured Cubans saboteurs inside U.S. bases were really friendlies?


Do you think they would have been duped by the U.S. burning their own aircraft, lobbing mortar shells in their own base that damaged some installations, sabotaged their own ships in the harbor, and conducting funerals for mock-victims?


Do you think they would have known that Cuba didn't blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay?


Do you think they would have been hoodwinked by the unmanned vessel that was blown up in Cuban waters near Havanna and thought that the Cuban planes and ship that were coming to just investigate the intent of the vessel had attacked it?


Do you think they would have found out that the U.S. air/sea rescue operation of this vessel was a pretend evacuation of remaining members from a non-existent crew?


Do you think they would have been deceived by the fake casualty lists printed in U.S. newspapers that was done to cause a helpful wave of national indignation?


Do you think they would have understood that the terror campaigns in Florida cities and Washington were not committed by Communist Cubans and that Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States were just being blamed for them?


Do you think it would have been obvious to them that the boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida that was sunk, the wounded Cuban refugees in the United States that were widely publicized, the plastic bombs that were exploded, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of documents substantiating Cuban involvement were all done by the U.S. to help project the idea of an irresponsible Cuban government?


Do you think it would have been self-evident to them that the Cuban C-46 aircraft that made the cane-burning raids at night, the Soviet Bloc incendiaries and Cuban arm shipments found on the beach, and the Cuban messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic were all carried out and planted by the U.S.?


Do you think they would have discovered that the harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of U.S. aircraft by Cuban MIGs that air passengers thought they saw were really painted F-86's with U.S. pilots just announcing that they were Cuban and that the destroyed U.S. aircraft were just drones?


Do you think they would have been double-crossed by the hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft trying to make it look like they were condoned by the Cuban government?


Do you think they would have eventually realized that the non-scheduled chartered civil airliner carrying a group of college students off on a holiday enroute from the United States flying over Cuba to Jamaica that radio stations in the Western Hemisphere said had signaled an international "MAY DAY" distress call that it was being attacked by a Cuban MIG was really a drone that belonged to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area that was blown-up via remote control?


Do you think they would have figured out that the passengers that had originally taken off on the CIA group's plane were all boarded under carefully prepared aliases and at a rendezvous point, that they were substituted onto a duplicate aircraft that was painted and numbered at Eglin AFB which then descended to minimum altitude and flew directly into an auxiliary field back at Eglin and that the distress signal that was put out was so foreign radio stations would tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft so the U.S. wouldn't have to sell the incident?


Do you think they would have known that the USAF F-101 aircraft destroyed a over international waters by Cuban MIGs in an apparent unprovoked attack was really never shot down, but was being flown by a pre-briefed pilot who was taking part in a 5-plane air defense exercise in southern Florida and had broadcasted when flying near a Cuban Island that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down and then flew back at an extremely low altitude and landed at a secure base in which the aircraft was met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number and the pilot had performed the mission under an alias and resumed his proper identity and returned to his normal place of business which made it look like the pilot and aircraft had disappeared?


Do you think they could prove that the parts from an F-101 found by search ships and aircraft near the area the USAF jet was presumably shot down were planted by a U.S. submarine?


Do you think they would have subjected themselves to being mocked and ridiculed by trying to convince others that this provocation was not committed by "hostile Cuban forces," but was really a deception plan by corrupt factions in the United States military to deceive the its own people in an attempt to provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba, or do you think they would defend the official story like they are currently defending the official story of 9/11 and belittle anyone who thought 9/11 was an inside job?

'Chippy' bows out of Shanksville debate...again

Chippy calls it quit in our Shanksville debate. Guess he couldn't handle the overwhelming evidence that Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville anymore.

(Oops, did I say that?!)

Shanksville debate with JREFer continues

My debate about Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville with JREFer "Chippy", who had bowed out earlier because of "time constraints", finally continues.

How Conspiracists vs. Skeptics think

Made from Witty Comics.

Challenge to all Skeptics on this 5 year anniversary of 9/11

I issue a challenge to all Skeptics* on this 5 year anniversary of 9/11. Since the 9/11 truth movement keeps growing, it is only a matter of time until the mainstream media and politicians will start calling for a new 9/11 investigation. We in the 9/11 truth movement are confident that the evidence will prove that 9/11 was an inside job and I'm sure you Skeptics are confident that the evidence will prove there was no inside job.

So to prevent any more precious time and energy being wasted trying to prove their side and debunk the others, I challenge all Skeptics to put their money where their mouths are and call for a new truly independent 9/11 investigation.

You'll have nothing to lose (except a few pennies in tax dollars if you're a U.S. citizen) and everything to gain because if you are so sure 9/11 was not an inside job, then a true independent investigation will prove you guys correct and you'll get to laugh at all of us "nutty" 9/11 conspiracy theorists for being wrong this whole time. If the new investigation proves an inside job, then you should be grateful that the real perpetrators were caught who murdered those 3,000+ innocent people on 9/11. Isn't that worth it?

So if you are a person who believes the official 9/11 story and you operate a website or forum, announce on your site that you will support a truly independent 9/11 investigation to once and for all get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy and stop wasting all this time and energy trying to prove each other wrong.

We owe it to all the victims of 9/11 and to their family and friends to solve this matter once and for all.

Call for a new truly independent 9/11 investigation now!

*Those who are skeptical that 9/11 was an inside job. Also known as "OCTs" (Official Conspiracy Theorists), or those who believe the U.S. government's official 9/11 story that 19+ Arabs conspired together to commit the Sept. 11th attacks.

Errors, Ad Hominem Attacks...and X-Files

Here is an amusing little blogpost criticism I just stumbled on about my Flight 93 plume photo evidence being featured in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article the other month. Usually I'd respond with counter arguments, but with this blogpost, I am just going to point out all the errors and ad hominem attacks and uh, well you'll see what the X-Files reference is about afterward.

When the Tinfoil Hats Attack

Ad hominem attack #1: "Tinfoil Hats"

There was a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette yesterday that I found disturbing. It was about a group of bloggers who believe the whole 9/11 attack on America was a hoax from top to bottom. Their so-called leader is a guy who calls himself Killtown and has a blog by the same name.

Error #1: "Their so-called leader"

(I am not a leader in any movement.)


As we have seen from the faked Dan Rather memos and the faked Reuters news photographs, it is smart to be suspicious and on guard against news stories from biased people with an agenda. It is quite another thing, however, to be a paranoid-schizophrenic like "Killtown."

Ad hominem attack #2: "paranoid-schizophrenic"

Error #2: "a paranoid-schizophrenic like 'Killtown.'"

(I'm not a paranoid-schizophrenic -- at least not that I'm aware of. ;-)


Should I be concerned that this Leftist nutcase believes Bush and company blew up the Twin Towers and blamed it on Islamic extremists?

Ad hominem attack #3: "nutcase"

Error #3: "that this Leftist nutcase"

(I'm not a leftist, or a nutcase. I'm a Libertarian and a seedcase.)

Should I care that he thinks Flight 93 was shot down by airforce jets?

Error #4: "he thinks Flight 93 was shot down"

(I don't think Flight 93 was shot down because I don't think it crashed anywhere at all.)

Or that Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon never really existed (it too was a planned explosion by the Bush conspiracists, in this case a missile)?

Error #5: "in this case a missile"

(I've never said it was a missile that really hit the Pentagon, but just that a missile is one possibility.)


No, there have always been multitudes of squirrel-farm refugees. You see them on street corners, giving speeches from soap boxes, warning of impending doom. One faction of these citizens of Kookville believes the earth is flat. Another thinks the moon landings were staged on a Hollywood movie set. Don't get me started on the JFK assassination conspiracists, one of my pet peeves. And, while we're at it, Lincoln's assassination was set up by his own government, RFK's assassination was also done by government conspirators who then shoved a smoking gun into the hands of innocent bystander Sirhan. Who really killed Martin Luther King? The guvmint, of course, just like they did Jimmy Hoffa.

Ad hominem attack #4: "squirrel-farm refugees"


In fact, people like Killtown (whose name should be Kill-Logic) believe that every major event of history, for the past 150 years or more, has been staged.

Error #6: "that every major event of history... has been staged"

(No, I don't believe every major event in the last 150 years was staged.)

It's all a massive conspiracy by a "high cabal" who are pulling strings, fomenting assassinations, starting wars, stealing elections, manipulating gas prices and staging tragedies like 9/11. These people don't need a blog, they need a rubber room and a prescription for thorazine. But do I care? Not much, usually.

Ad hominem attack #5: "they need a rubber room and a prescription for thorazine"


However, the news story above is about a lady in Pennsylvania, Val McClatchey, who photographed the smoke cloud from Flight 93 seconds after it dived into the ground in a field near her home. She was sitting on her front porch and heard the whine of jet engines and then a house-rattling boom.

Error #7: "She was sitting on her front porch"

(Val was not sitting on her front porch at the time of the crash. She was sitting on her couch inside her house (apparently he didn't even read the entire article that triggered his blog response!)

She grabbed her digital camera and snapped the smoke cloud rising from the horizon. The FBI says the picture is the closest thing they've got to a photo of the actual crash.

Enter Killtown and his pack of paranoid losers. Killtown posts on his site that the picture is a "total fraud" and wonders if McClatchey photoshopped it herself.

Ad hominem attack #6: "his pack of paranoid losers"

Error #8: "that the picture is a 'total fraud'"

(No, I'm not saying it is a fake. I'm saying it could be a fake, or it could be real that proves an explosion originating from a different location.)

Worse, he admonishes the news media and any other "researcher" to harangue McClatchey to get to "the truth." The truth, of course, is anything that supports Killtown's paranoid delusions and preconceived conspiracy theories.

Ad hominem attack #7: "paranoid delusions"


The FBI inspected the memory card in McClatchey's camera soon after the crash, finding the photo to be genuine. This doesn't stop Killtown. He theorizes:

"If the smoke plume was photo-shopped on there, then that could mean either that the photo was simply a fraud by Val, or it was a fraud by her and the FBI and/or other government agents since she did mention that the FBI did inspect the memory card from her camera."

Of course, there is an alternative explanation, that the photo was genuine. That possibility is not even considered by Killtown, as it doesn't support his parnoid delusions.

Ad hominem attack #8 (plus misspelling ;-): "parnoid delusions"


Then, after slandering McClatchey as a fraud and a conspiracist, Killtown publishes her address, phone number and email so his "researchers" can track her down (he also provides a convenient map to her place of business).

Error #9: "after slandering McClatchey as a fraud"

(I've never accused her a being a fraud. I only bring up evidence that her photo could be a fake and that she would be a prime suspect if the photo is found out to be a fake.)

In the Post-Gazette article, McClatchey expresses fear for her safety because of this. Yes, her information is already published on the web, but as a real estate agent for people who want to buy homes; it is not published as a "fraud and a conspiracist" and made generally available to leftwing kooks and paranoid schizos. Killtown's focus on McClatchey this way could be interpreted as a physical threat.

Ad hominem attack #9: "leftwing kooks and paranoid schizos"


The Post-Gazette quotes McClatchey:

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

I've written to Squirlie Killtown and asked him to take McClatchey's address and phone number off his blog, but he may need a bit more convincing. Do stop in and let this mental case know what you think.

Ad hominem attack #10: "Squirlie Killtown"

Ad hominem attack #11: "this mental case"


I have been combing the web for clues to Killtown's identity, which I will publish here along with his address, phone number and a map to his house (unless he takes down the McClatchey info first). Killtown is apparently a 31 year old member of Democratic Underground, a group of leftwing extremists on a par with the KOS kids, and apparently lives in Washington D.C.

I haven't ID'd Killtown yet, but anyone who opines as much as he does leaves tracks all over the web, on websites, message boards and newsgroups. Somewhere he said too much and let down his guard, and I will find it eventually. If that doesn't work I can always offer a cash reward to anyone who can ID him for me. Someone will out him, sooner or later.

If anyone out there knows more about this guy, let me know.

Hey Killtown, feel the warmth on the back of your neck? That's my breath.

Take down McClatchey's address and phone number from your site and I will go away.

Tally:

Errors: 9

Ad hominem attacks: 11

9-11!!!

(Cue in the X-Files music.)

Is spiked's Emily Hill stupid, or just 'plane stupid'?

Emily Hill is a freelance writer for UK's spiked who recently wrote another hit piece about 9/11 conspiracists. In her article, she mentions me and my 200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' page that lists over 200 hundreds pieces of evidence found in the mainstream media that points to 9/11 being an inside job.

In her first two paragraphs about me, she mentions a couple 'smoking guns' on my page and calls them "ridiculous" (emphasis mine):

These theories are 'plane stupid' – but popular

Tuesday 5 September 2006

~

Most of these ‘truths’, however, are still stuck at point ridiculous. The conspiracy website Killtown has an itemised list of 231 problems with the official account of 9/11. At number 14 is the apparently telltale sign that Salman Rushdie was banned from US airspace on 3 September 2001. At number 36 it is explained that the ‘Twin Towers were hated, poorly designed money-losers subsidised by the State and weren’t torn down before because of expensive asbestos removal’; so apparently ‘9/11 benefited the owners by efficiently destroying the complex in a way that they didn’t have to pay for’.

In a section titled ‘Fundamentalist Muslims “gone wild”’, Killtown argues that in May 2001, ‘Several alleged hijackers [were] seen at Las Vegas Strip clubs; several also patronised Nardone’s Go-Go Bar; Flight 77 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi hang out at Cheetah’s nude bar; Sept 10 – Atta and two Arab men allegedly spend hundreds [of dollars] on drinks and lap dances at FL strip club the Pink Pony.’ On the evening before the attacks, ‘Four alleged hijackers spend the night looking for prostitutes in Boston’ while ‘Hamza Alghamdi watched a porno in his hotel’. Here, speculation about what the hijackers got up to in their final few days bizarrely turns into speculation about whether they could have carried out the attacks, which then, of course, turns into speculation about who did carry out the attacks. One piece of speculation leads to another and another….

About the fundamentalist Muslims not acting so fundamentalist, Emily seems to say that I'm suggesting that they could not have carried out the attacks because of their previous nights behavior. Maybe she didn't choose the best wording, but I'm not suggesting they could not have carried out the attacks because they were "hung over" from their excessive partying or something, it's just that the evidence presented suggests that these alleged "fundamentalist" Arab Muslims do not fit the profile of fundamentalist Muslims by their "immoral and sinful" behavior leading up to the attacks. I'm sure some skeptics will counter with that since they were about to die for their cause, they felt that it was ok to sin a little bit before they would forgiven by their god for their "heroic deeds" right before they are given their 72 virgins or whatever.

But that is not the kicker of Emily's appalling article. Get this:

Other theories are stuck at point ‘here we go again’. Various websites claim that ‘Jews control the world’ and ‘America has become the Zionists’ whore’. Killtown claims that, shortly after 9/11, Mossad agents were ‘caught celebrating while filming themselves with the WTC burning in the background and [were] later arrested and found with boxcutters, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the attack’. Apparently they were also found with ‘explosives’ and a ‘large amount of cash in their white van’. There is, of course, no evidence for any of this. But who needs evidence when you have bright red headlines and lots of exclamation marks?!!!! With such colorful, capitalised emphasis, it must be true.

First, Emily tries to smear me by throwing me in with the "Jews did it" crowd (whatever that means) and then says something so absurd that I'm wondering if I just woke up with bad vision today. She says there is "no evidence" for the information I listed about the dancing Israeli's at the WTC and their white van. Hmmm. Um, Emily, did you what, think I just pulled all that information out of my ass or something? Did you not see the, um, NEWS SOURCES and HYPERLINKS TO THEM at the end of that 'Smoking Gun' entry where I FOUND THIS EVIDENCE???...

9/11 - Israeli spies caught celebrating while filming themselves with WTC burning in background and later arrested and found with boxcutters, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the attack, explosives detected, and large amount of cash in their white van (ABC, The Forward, Bergen Record)

Is Emily really that stupid that she couldn't even read or see the links to the sources where I found this evidence? Now she might not like or agree with this evidence stated in these news articles, but for her to say that there is "no evidence" when theses multiple mainstream news articles are littered with evidence about the Israeli spies at the WTC is one of the most absurd and unbelievable statements I've ever from a journalist.

There a couple of other things to point out about Emily's "top notch" article. She quotes me as saying that when the Israeli's were caught that "explosives" were found in their van. No, my 'Smoking Guns' list says that explosives were "detected" in their van. She says the spies were caught "shortly after 9/11." No, the were caught on 9/11 unless she thinks 9/11 ended earlier that day. She then tries to mock me by saying who needs evidence when all I have are "bright red headlines and lots of exclamation marks?!!!!" and "with such colorful, capitalised emphasis, it must be true". Do you see any of what she just mentioned on my 'Smoking Guns' page? Maybe she was talking about my related blogpost where I do have colored emphasis throughout the news articles to highlight the EVIDENCE, but I don't have "capitalized" emphasis and don't have any added exclamation marks there either.

Let spiked's editors know how you feel about Emily's 'plane stupid' article. Apparently they don't have very high standards for their writers because Emily's article and journalism skills are, as the Brits like to say, complete rubbish.