Title: Rivero-wrh Losse Stools
Description: 911CaseStudy Stupidity
UnderTow - September 22, 2006 03:52 PM (GMT)
I don't buy my ink by the barrel, nor can I clone myself to cover all the stupid blogs all over the internet.
But I have noticed a distinct uptick in the mentions that 911 Case Study (youtube) has recieved.
And once again WRH ignores (or missed) my emails and postings.
[flustered] [flustered]
| QUOTE (WRH) |
Flight 77 Simulation Demolishes Lunatic 9/11 Theory
This still won't convince the moonbats. Then again, it's not a matter of convincing them. They know what they're putting out is nonsense - they just hope you don't.
Posted Sep 22, 2006 07:00 AM PST
Category: 911
I have said it from the beginning and will continue to maintain that the whole "No plane" theory, along with that of "pods" on the WTC planes, is deliberate government-planted disinformation intended to give the mainstream media (like Popular Mechanics) an easy tool with which to dismiss all the doubts regarding the official story of 9-11. |
Note to WRH and everyone
NTSB Data and Simulation Destroy "Case Study" Flight Simulation
[nonono]
Merc - September 22, 2006 04:19 PM (GMT)
Yeah Rivero is a divisive disappointment.
Calling us moonbats. He should have got off his ass and went out there like we did to prove we're "moonbats".
Daniel - September 22, 2006 05:20 PM (GMT)
I don't understand this. Michael Rivero has such a good website, but this is so lame. I don't get it.
UnderTow - September 22, 2006 05:43 PM (GMT)
I think he should self-reflect some of his "mainstream media" comments at himself.
Since there IS a Alternative Mainstream Media now.
He is 90% Outstanding. But this...
Cary - September 22, 2006 07:59 PM (GMT)
Yes, this is disappointing. I love WRH and can't understand why Rivero insists on dismissing the evidence that no 757/767 hit the Pentagon. Oh well.
johndoeX - September 22, 2006 08:09 PM (GMT)
What is WRH?
And does he realize that the FDR doesnt provide FACTS on a no plane thoery? It just shows (factually) that AA77 didnt hit the light poles.
Someone needs to wake this guy up.
painter - September 22, 2006 08:17 PM (GMT)
MR has been against the NPAP story from day 1. It has always been his position. Nothing new. However, he probably is NOT familiar with JDX's analysis of the data.
EDIT: WRH = What Really Happened; MR = Michael Rivero; NPAP = No Plane At Pentagon; JDX - JohnDoeX; etc.
UnderTow - September 22, 2006 08:32 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (painter @ Sep 22 2006, 04:17 PM) |
MR has been against the NPAP story from day 1. It has always been his position. Nothing new. However, he probably is NOT familiar with JDX's analysis of the data.
EDIT: WRH = What Really Happened; MR = Michael Rivero; NPAP = No Plane At Pentagon; JDX - JohnDoeX; etc. |
Except, I went to him with my NTSB data before I even came here.
And afterward as we started to do the initial work.
I never got a reply or anything.
Anyway. When it comes to 9/11 I'm a little sick of his knee-jerk spamming of the issue.
painter - September 22, 2006 08:39 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (UnderTow @ Sep 22 2006, 12:32 PM) |
| QUOTE (painter @ Sep 22 2006, 04:17 PM) | MR has been against the NPAP story from day 1. It has always been his position. Nothing new. However, he probably is NOT familiar with JDX's analysis of the data.
EDIT: WRH = What Really Happened; MR = Michael Rivero; NPAP = No Plane At Pentagon; JDX - JohnDoeX; etc. |
Except, I went to him with my NTSB data before I even came here.
And afterward as we started to do the initial work.
I never got a reply or anything.
Anyway. When it comes to 9/11 I'm a little sick of his knee-jerk spamming of the issue.
|
I stopped reading his site when he ridiculed the NPAP after "Find the Bowing" became known. I believe he believes there were real hijackers, that they were agents, but nevertheless real. This is a fall-back position that leaves open the possibility of MOSAD control of the operation. I believe the NPAP theory leads to the conclusion of military involvement and control.
