Humint Events Online: What Kind of Engine Was Found at Church and Murray?

Sunday, December 02, 2007

What Kind of Engine Was Found at Church and Murray?

posted by spooked at 9:37 AM

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aside from looking at pictures of engines on the internet, what exactly is the extent of your expertise in jet engines?

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not comment on how the engine found doesn't match with what we were told it was, let's just attack and question the person who discovers the fraud.

Sound about right anonymous 1:51???

:-)

2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Rob-of-the-shithead. What sounds right is Sphincter's unqualified forays into the fantasy-world of being an expert in all things aeronautical. He has *no* fucking idea what he is looking at when he opens up his sphincter and opines on jet engines.

And you have no business posting here, as well, seeing that you are so far up Sphincter's butt you should be paying attention to your current circumstances and avoid stepping on ha or the Anonymous Asshole or Early-Baby's toes up there.

6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow excellent comment @ 6:34pm!
to paraphrase:
"let us not focus on the engine itself, but rather on those that would focus on the engine."
certainly you are very convincing!
not.

7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha sword_of_an idiot @6:34 thinks that it takes more than eyes to determine 1 item from another!
idiot!

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That link was amusing Spook. William Seger handed your ass to you.

Is there anyone you try to argue with who doesn't make you his bitch?

10:42 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Wow...must've hit a nerve there with Mr. anonymity @ 6:34 PM.

Good. Nice to know I can when I want to.

FYI Mr. anonymity, I'm sure you realize a profanity laced, irrational tirade of a response simply means you've lost the argument, and are unable to counter with facts.

Tell me, how does that feel?

;-)

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

aha! the sword of comedy hour, right on cue.
never let it be said that sword of "truth" is late for work.
punch that time-clock sword!
hey extra credit if you manage to weasel the words jew-hater into your next irrelevant comment!

12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha, Spook "pulled" comments from Anonymous Pus-filled-cysts latest round of ego-stroking.

Maybe if AP is reading this, maybe he can explain why no rescue dogs are dying from having stuck their noses in the radioactive debris pile after 9/11?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040915112139.htm

"Overall, the lack of clear adverse medical or behavioral effects among the 9/11 dogs is heartening, both for the animals and the human rescue workers," said lead researcher Cynthia M. Otto, associate professor of critical care in Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine. "Since dogs age more rapidly than humans, they can serve as sentinels for human disease. We are encouraged that we do not see significant increases in cancer and respiratory diseases."

10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol...my comments exactly. Tis funny how ol' Sphincter, when he doesn't like the responses that the Anonymous Asshole and his internet diarrhea-base posts (I swear, I have *never* seen co much bullshit in one place) elicit, gets rid of comments. Its like he *owes* the Anony Butthead something!.

My money goes to pictures of Sphincter with a goat.

6:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure thing 10:42!
for every "science daily" link you focus on that says rescue dogs did not die from ground zero there are 5 more links saying that they did.
and don't forget the humans who have/are develop forms of cancer that were considerd rare before 9/11/01.

8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swart, who A.P. has accurately decribed as a regime shill/resident retard here, let's see.

Anonymous Physicist has written an excellent article on the dust analyses from the WTC destruction, and how your employer doctored these studies, but not enough, so that with what A.P. has shown, the actual dust size show that the official gravitational yada yada does not provide enough energy for the towers' destruction.

And your reply is to write about "dogs." I guess that means your employer has no rebuttal to Anonymous Physicist's article.

And regarding the dogs, even the crap article you cited denotes the 8 cancers that the dogs died of. That author's disingenuousness is evident by the fact that she merely lumps all the cancers together, and does NOT cite which cancers they died of! Why?

Could it be that--like the dead and dying human responders--the dogs died of heretofore extremely rare cancers that are typical of radiation exposure?

As always, you have nothing but lies and reference to fellow liars and well paid regime shills.

9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snort
fart
yawn

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ya wtc responders are now dying of cancers that before 9/11 were considered rare.
"snort fart yawn"

3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now you believe in "magic" radiation that skips dogs with no protection and their noses in the dirt and targets only humans with protective clothing?

7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, I find it funny that you read up to the part that mentions 8 cancers but left out the sentence that followed.

Here are both sentences together as they appeared in the article:

During the past three years, 15 deployed dogs have died, of which eight had cancer. At the current time, neither the death rate nor the cancer rate is different from that of the control group.

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as of that article's publication, 15 9/11 rescue dogs had died, 8 of them from cancer.
certainly nothing out of the ordinary!
you are the sword of what, again?
oh that's right: comedy.

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's exactly what the researchers at University of Pennsylvania said, dumbass.

21 dog years passed between 9/11 and that articles publication.

12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Retard, shill, Swart:

What I said above stands:

"That author's disingenuousness is evident by the fact that she merely lumps all the cancers together, and does NOT cite which cancers they died of! Why?

Could it be that--like the dead and dying human responders--the dogs died of heretofore extremely rare cancers that are typical of radiation exposure?"


Not citing which cancers the dogs died of is not standard medical or scientific procedure, retard. It gives the whole sham away.

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

21 dog years?
awesome rebuttal!
sword of fooling himself.

1:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are just as stupid as Spook and AP, you know that?

THE
TYPE
OF
CANCER
DOES
NOT
MATTER
BECAUSE
THE
CANCER
AND
DEATH
RATE
WAS
THE
SAME
FOR
BOTH
THE
TEST
AND
CONTROL
GROUPS.

You gawddamn idiot.

3:34 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Oh, but the type of cancer DOES matter.

Though it's so cool when
YOU
WRITE
THINGS
LIKE
IN
THIS
FORMAT.
THERE'S
NO
BETTER
WAY
TO
SHOW
THAT
YOU
KNOW
WHAT
YOU
ARE
TALKING
ABOUT
WHEN
YOU
WRITE
LIKE
THIS.

9:58 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

I'll note that this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040915112139.htm
is three years old and it would be interesting to know if there were follow-up studies.

Make that nine WTC dogs, at least, that have had cancer:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/news/regionalnews/hero_wtc_search_dog_dies_after_cancer_fight_regionalnews_.htm

Here are some caveats to the UPenn dog study.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh
I
am
stamping
my
little
feets
in
a
fury
!

21 dog years, awesome logic!
what is the equivalent in goldfish years?

10:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger