BLAIR GADSBY CRAPS OUT; Karen Johnson's lame-o state Senate speech, and why "troofers" can't handle the truth.


Master debunker Mark "Gravy" Roberts' video blasting the BS 9/11 conspiracy theory of a controlled demo out of the proverbial H2O.

WITH A WIMPER: Wannabe-PhD Blair Gadsby crapped out today on his Looney Tunes hunger strike in front of U.S. Senator John McCain's Phoenix office. Gadsby announced this afternoon on The Jeff Farias' Show on KPHX 1480 AM that after today, day 17 for him sans victuals, he was declaring victory, calling it quits, and looking forward to a hamburger, even though he accomplished not one of his stated goals. Gadsby got zero time with the presidential hopeful (he wanted two hours with Grampa Munster), and he didn't even manage to starve himself till collapse. (What a wus!) Instead, he gave some flunky at McCain's office a troofer book and DVD, which will supposedly be given to the Senator. Yep, I'm sure McCain'll sit right down and study that troofer propaganda like he was back in the Hanoi Hilton and his life depended on it. (Not.) So what did Gadsby achieve, other than showing how totally wack his ever-dwindling "movement" is? Well, he got to visit with fellow Froot Loop state Sen. Karen Johnson at the Legislature, and he now knows what it is to suffer for his insanity. Personally, I would've had more respect for him if he'd starved himself to death and become a martyr for his fellow morons. But, hey, he's got young minds to warp at the community college where he teaches. And miles to go before he sleeps...

The gushing blandishments of true believers aside, Arizona state Senator Karen Johnson's 10-minute floor speech yesterday championing the troofer cause was as dumb as drywall and twice as thin. Is this the best the troofers have got? If so, it's no wonder their moonbatty “movement” is near extinction.

I'll bet Blair "Anybody got a Hot Pocket?" Gadsby had a full-body orgasm when Johnson acknowledged the wannabe-prof and his fellow 9/11 nitwits from the floor. Then the moonhowlin' Mesa grandmother dove right into retard ramblings so doddering they could give Phoenix troof leader Kent "Cow Killer" Knudson a run for his own bovine biscuits.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s a breakdown of some of Johnson’s more egregious flakery from her speechifyin’ on the subject of 9/11.

Karen Johnson: “In four out of four cases, no hijacking code was transmitted by the hijacked airliners.”

Hard to do that when your throat’s been slit and your transponder – the device that transmits the hijack code – has been turned off, as it was in three out four of the hijacked planes on 9/11. In the case of one aircraft, UA Flight 175, the transponder code changed, but was not cut off. Minutes later, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, a flight attendant notified UA of the hijacking at 8:52 a.m. That’s about 11 minutes before Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

“A male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco,” reads the report, “reaching Marc Policastro.The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.”

Johnson and her a-hole troofer pals would surely argue that the flight attendant’s call had been faked using super high-tech voice morphing technology. Either that, or he was in reality one of David Icke's shape-shifting Lizard People.

KJ: “In four out of four cases, no fighter jets managed to get alongside any of the hijacked airplanes.”

Again, the transponders were off. And with the transponders off, it ain’t easy following those blips on a screen. Back to The 9/11 Commission Report:

Controllers track airliners such as the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 primarily by watching the data from a signal emitted by each aircraft’s transponder equipment. Those four planes, like all aircraft traveling above 10,000 feet, were required to emit a unique transponder signal while in flight.

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft’s transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts—which could take five minutes or more—were tried and had failed.

See why debunking's such tedious work? Some mental midget like Johnson vomits forth a colossal lie, then you have to spend way too much time cleaning up her stinky, barfed-up chunks of misinformation.

Johnson asserted that WTC One, Two, and Seven went down in a controlled, explosive demolition. Johnson believes this was accomplished with thermite, which is an incendiary, not an explosive. Details, schmetails! All that matters is that we all kowtow to the kooks and let the troofers blather on ad nauseam without contradiction, right?

Wrong, oh, camel-ball breath! Crackpot shitkickers like Republiloon Karen Johnson or Todd "Not My Real Name" Stallion or even Elton "I love you George Lincoln Rockwell" Hall will never get the last word. Unless we let 'em have it so we can make fun of 'em later.

Next, Johnson’s fruitcakery regarding “pulverized concrete.” Pat Curley of Screw Loose Change made a point on this in his post on the Johnson speech:

“In her speech, she focused on the pulverized concrete issue, which is simply retarded. The concrete in the building was in the floors only. Even if the building had been a controlled demolition, how would they have pulverized the concrete?”

KJ goes off the deep end, stating, “A building that falls down doesn’t pulverize itself into dust as it drops.”

Please, for Chrissakes, take a look at the gazillion photos of all the freakin debris and rubble left over from the fall of the Twin Towers. Johnson – flying directly in face of plain photography – makes it seem as if all that was left of the WTC was “pulverized concrete.” Why, all Johnson has to do is go down to the 9/11 Memorial in Wesley Bolin Plaza right across from the Arizona state Capitol, and there’s a hunk of steel from the Twin Towers acquired for the project. It ain’t dust, lady! Rub your nose on it if you don’t believe me, ya dumb wench.

Johnson said left a folder on her fellow Senators' desks with 9/11 stuff in it (boy, they must love her), such as photo of one of the WTC buildings collapsing.

KJ: “As you look at that photo, ask yourself, `Is that a photo of a building collapsing, or of a building exploding?”

I’ll answer that, Mizz McGillucuty: It’s a building collapsing. The building is definitely not “exploding.” How a building would “explode” using incendiary devices is never explained.

Up top is something Johnson and troofers like her should watch: A video from debunker badass Mark “Gravy” Roberts, who shows a series of actual controlled demos, which look and sound nothing like the WTC going down. How anyone who has even a third of their marbles in place could look at this and still assert the lie that the Twin Towers and Building Seven were brought down by controlled demos is beyond me. But the 9/11 nutbars will do just that. Know why? ‘Cause troofers can’t handle the truth.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
txstunner
txstunner

A few simple facts omitted by this ignorant, offensive author:

Freefall acceleration of Twin Towers & Building 7, originally ignored by NIST then later admitted but not explained.

The fact that no fire has ever brought down a steel-framed highrise in history except for 3 times on 9/11, yet this is the explanation provided by the 9/11 Commission for both Twin Towers. (The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Building 7)

The fact that WTC 7, a 47 story tall building which was reported to have collapsed before it actually did by both BBC and CNN, indicating foreknowledge.

High-tech nano-thermite found in all dust samples which explodes on ignition from 0 to 4,000 deg C in 2 seconds. Unchallenged report by an international team of scientists in a scientific journal. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Over 1,700 Architects & Engineers who officially support a new investigation, along with thousands of firefighters, pilots, military personnel, professors, family members, and various other 9/11 Truth groups. See lists here: http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

or here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

The fact that the steel at Ground Zero was shipped off to China for recycling, and not preserved for further examination. Destruction of evidence at a crime scene is a crime itself.

For unbiased, factual information on the destruction of the WTC 1,2, & 7, I recommend the movie "9/11: Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out" which was the most viewed video on PBS.org during the month of September, 2012. See Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrjcXOJIWw0

PS: Even if this article was factually valid (it's not), I would still be offended by his writing style. Insulting people's character who you haven't even met is cowardly at best, and does not prove anything except for your ignorance of this subject and your unwillingness to do any scientific research.


Sincerely,

Steve

steve911truther@hotmail.com

txstunner
txstunner

One of the most biased, misinformed, unfactual, and insulting articles I've read on this subject from any source. Shame on this author

Now Trending

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...