The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Pay little attention to hooper,weedwacker,bonez, goodoldave or vipertech.

I agree; no need to waste your valuable time with these geniuses and their outstanding sense of logic. There is also a few others you will be able to pick off immediately - they seem to be bored and are just here to get their jollies.

ATS was a much better site until the ownership had the "brilliant" idea of doing away with the ignore button, making us read the extended amount of redundant rubbish these individuals shovel out on a daily basis. This will give you a hint as to ATS' agenda on the 9/11 issue.

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, I do not think you are going to get a fair shake on ATS debating against the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale. Those of us who have attempted to provide valid information and have attempted to have a productive discussion about 9/11 have been treated rather rudely and unfairly by the mods and the admins. On the other hand, those that promote the Official Fairy Tale consistently get a free pass and are freely permitted to urinate all over the place. All this coming from a site which allegedly promotes manners and decorum.

If you hang around here long enough, you'll know what I mean. In fact, I think you have already experienced this rude and ignorant behavior first hand.



Yes couldn't agree more another canadian who tells the truth .

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Oh please.....DO try to bring something new and exciting and VERIFIABLE....instead of the same old crap that gets recycled, over and over.....:

Those of us who have attempted to provide valid information....

Ho Ho Ho! "valid information"!! Ha Ha Ha.

Still waiting..... Many of us have seen this "information"...and it seriously lacks any "validity". A causal perusal of past posts will verify this.

The ONLY things brought, in the guise of "valid information", are the same lies and misconceptions that permeate this topic. Repeated, over and over, despite the contributions of people who actually have experience in areas discussed, and KNOW better and attempt to explain to the ignorant.....

Repeated, over and over, despite the contributions of people who actually have experience in areas discussed, and KNOW better and attempt to explain to the ignorant.....

By your post, you obviously do have experience...in insulting people. Keep up the good work!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


To Jim did you and bonez have the debate on ats in the end ?
To shinx did you recieve my 2nd u2u ?

Repeated, over and over, despite the contributions of people who actually have experience in areas discussed, and KNOW better and attempt to explain to the ignorant.....

Individuals who are accomplished experts in their respective fields of study do not usually go around blowing their own horns, acting superior and demeaning others. Only individuals who are deeply insecure and have something to hide display this type of repulsive behavior and have this need to make themselves feel superior to others on a consistent basis.

But don't worry, your little secret is safe with me...

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Im sorry, what were you saying about Mr McIntyre not mentioning seeing ANY wreckage.....

Show me where I said he didn't see ANY wreckage.

Go ahead, I'll be waiting to see my quote.

Now you have gone from taking someone's words out of context, to making up things that I never said in the first place.

The other testimony you posted agrees with the first quote. He said all the debris he saw could fit inside his hand. The largest piece of debris in the building being about 3 feet long would confirm that. And where did I say he didn't see ANY wreckage? Once again, an example of someone I wouldn't trust to figure out the context of anything.

reply to post by bsbray11


From previous posts by you....

How do you go from "there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" and "the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand" and "There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around" turn into him saying that he does think a plane hit the Pentagon?

I don't know what did or didn't hit the Pentagon, but I can read what this guy was saying and if anyone is distorting his word, it's obviously you

He is clearly saying that what would indicate an entire plane hit the Pentagon, is not there

Does he say anything about debris laying on the ground outside of the Pentagon?

Absolutely not

Show me where I said he didn't see ANY wreckage

You seem to want to play semantics games. You say "Show me where I said he didnt see ANY wreckage"

I could point out that "Does he say anything about debris laying on the ground outside of the Pentagon? Absolutely not."..is saying that he didn't see any wreckage. And I could, once again, show you where he speaks of seeing airliner wreckage on the lawn and helipad. But in your Bill Clintonesque way, you would post something about what is the meaning of wreckage.

Suffice to say that Jamie McIntyre stated on live TV on 9/11/01 that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Not that it hit the ground first and then the building, but that it made a direct impact on the building. That is what he said that day, that is what he has continued to say whenever someone has asked him about it.

Trying to accuse him of anything else is intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


sphinx you there ?

Well, I went back to an earlier post where I have listed resources relevant to understanding 9/11--and, in the case of "7/7 Ripple Effect", to understanding how governments pull off these "false flag" attacks in order to blame those they want to blame by creating fake attacks--to see if the link to Leslie Rapahel's study of how the Jules Naudet film was staged still worked. It does, so you might want to actually read it. Take another look at the footage, where there is more to come, and explain how so many improbable circumstances could have come together to place him in the ideal--virtually, unique!--location to simply pan his camera smoothly toward the North Tower at the just the right time to catch the plane hitting the building! If you can do that, you are better than Harry Houdini! What Leslie explains proves this filming was staged. I think you need to put a little more effort and a lot more thought into your posts about 9/11.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No, not yet. I live in Wisconsin just south of Madison and we have had a lot of snow to deal with lately, plus I do my own radio show and am often interviewed on other programs--plus I am authoring articles for publication and all that. So I haven't set it up yet, but I plan to do that today. I will announce the name of the tread when I have it up.

reply to post by TheGhostViking

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

and thousands of people from Ted Olson to a C-130 pilot to an immigrant from El Salvador to even a guy working in a junk yard are all co-conspirators who are lying to cover up this sinister secret plot

Nice lie, GoodOlLiar.

I have already posted the first hand testimonies of these eyewitnesses as well as many other eyewitnesses who state it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and I will post it again if you wish. The fact that scores of people in the vicinity specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon cannot be refuted. If you attempt to deny this then you will be lying.

I will admit I was wrong on one thing, though- you conspiracy people don't normally accuse these eyewitnesses of being secret gov't disinformation agents. For the most part, you conspiracy people usually run away from it in terror the same way vampires run away from sunlight because you know you can't refute what so many people are saying. So, you try to kill it with silence and pretend these people don't exist.

Thank you for that correction.

Originally posted by pshea38
Pay little attention to hooper,weedwacker,bonez, goodoldave or vipertech. To me they are just trying to earn their pay. Do you think that the ideas of fakery(plane, media and victim) cuts too close to the bone, and thus, when these valid areas are broached, a brick wall is swiftly encountered( exposing true motivations and allegiances).

The last I checked, the motto of ATS is to deny ignorance. Are you genuinely suggesting that the way to deny ignorance is to run and hide from everyone who explains why your conspiracy claims are wrong?

If we're the ones who have ulterior motivations and allegiences, then why are we the ones who happily read your posts, and your'e the ones who are so deathly afraid to read ours?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, I went back to an earlier post where I have listed resources relevant to understanding 9/11--and, in the case of "7/7 Ripple Effect", to understanding how governments pull off these "false flag" attacks in order to blame those they want to blame by creating fake attacks--to see if the link to Leslie Rapahel's study of how the Jules Naudet film was staged still worked. It does, so you might want to actually read it. Take another look at the footage, where there is more to come, and explain how so many improbable circumstances could have come together to place him in the ideal--virtually, unique!--location to simply pan his camera smoothly toward the North Tower at the just the right time to catch the plane hitting the building! If you can do that, you are better than Harry Houdini! What Leslie explains proves this filming was staged. I think you need to put a little more effort and a lot more thought into your posts about 9/11.

To remain intellectually honest, I went back and read his treatise so I know you are lying. Nowhere does Leslie say "this is proof the Naudet film was staged". His own writeup clearly states this was entirely his own opinion. For one thing, the odds that "so many improbable circumstances coming together"" become less improbable once one realizes they all revolve around physically being there with the firefighters, which was the whole project they went to NYC to do to begin with. Like everyone else spinning these preposterous conspiracy claims, his goal is to get people all paranoid over imaginary sinister plots rather than offer any actual answers for anything.

Case in point- the Naudet film does NOT "smoothly pan up toward the north tower". It was a quick glance up and it was only a quarter second glimpse, and I shouldn't have to explain why he even glanced up - Gedeon Naudet was using the eyepiece of his video camera to capture what was going on around him, and when he heard the plane overhead he instinctively looked up and moved the camera with him. You do know video cameras have eyepieces that you can look through to aim the camera, right?

If you're going to be grasping at these absurd straws to foist your conspiracy hypothesis onto others then I would appreciate it if you were to have at least a passing familiarity with your material first. Did you ever even see the Naudet film?

I have just intiated the new thread, "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?", for your consideration.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, it is extremely important that you not only identify false information, but also identify who is supplying it and their reasons for shoving it down your throat. For example, there are about a dozen individuals on this site who continuously supply false information for the purpose of advancing an agenda, making sure that these forums (especially the 9/11 one) remain a circular dead end/trap.

As for running away and hiding, the only ones doing that are the ones who are blowing their own horns about their invaluable expertise in certain fields relating to 9/11. Interestingly enough, these individuals prefer to remain anonymous and refuse to properly verify their obviously exaggerated claims, credentials and qualifications.

This proves that they're either full of rubbish, gutless or have an agenda and do not want to be exposed as such. My guess is all of the above.

Oh yeah...one guy went even so far to state he does not come clean and validate his "alleged" credentials because he values his privacy. Kind of surprising considering he steadfastly supports the 9/11 fairy tale, which directly led to the legislative scam known as the NeoCon authored Patriot Act, which officially did away with any remaining privacy he thought he may have had. Being delusional must be a wonderful thing.

And speaking of the Patriot Act, don't tell anybody, but your Zionist controlled mainstream media is completely burying the fact that your Zionist controlled Government is eagerly planning to renew this UnConstitutional piece of legislation. Obviously, they must be too busy reporting on Anderson Cooper's little boo boo.

Yep...nothing beats valuing your delusional sense of privacy...especially when it suits your insidious agenda.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


The jews did the noplane fakery to pass the Patriot Act?

*pulls up chair


Tell me more.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Getting back to the premise of this thread, it is extremely important that you not only identify false information, but also identify who is supplying it and their reasons for shoving it down your throat.

I agree with this 100%. In fact I agree with this 1000%. To simply declare something to be "gov't disinformation invented by secret agents" before running away giggling is not only ignorant, but childish. If you think it's gov't disinformation you'll necessarily need to explain why the person reporting it is a secret gov't agent and why he's spreading it.

Cases in point- the one reporting that there were out of control fires in WTC 7 that were causing three story tall bulges in the structure isn't some anonymous poster; it's coming from NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden. The person taking the photos of Ground Zero wreckage showing there was NO evidence of sabotage on any of the WTC steel isn't some no name ghost that appeared and disappeared; they werer taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz. The eyewitness who specifically sae that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon isn;t some shadowy unnamed persona. It was Omar Campo, an immigrant from El Salvador cutting the grass across the street from the Pentagon. We know you conspiracy people know all this becuase it's been shown to you ad nauseum here.

Unless the conspiracy people can show how Peter Hayden, Joel Meyerowitz, and Omar Campo are really secret disinformation agents and why, then the conspiracy people are really doing nothing but grasping for excuses for why they shouldn't have to believe anything that disputes their conspiracy hypothesis. Such irresponsible antics only serves to damage their own credibility, not anyone else's.