Debunking 3 “Proofs” of a 2nd Shooter (UPDATED)

Before getting into these two evidences for a second shooter, I just want to say that yes, it is rare to have an act done in killing people without a clear motive. Typically the killers leave behind a manifesto that explains why they did it. In the case of the Vegas shooter, we have nothing yet. THAT BEING SAID, I do not need a manifesto from a person to know that they are incurably wicked. My guide to this and the next life make this abundantly clear. Mankind is depraved… able to do any wicked deed that comes across their hearts.

Maybe there were demonic forces influencing him. Maybe his anti-depressants brought out the real Stephen Paddock.

SIDE-NOTE — Most men struggle with two main issues that are natural to them: lust and anger. I have friend’s or know people who struggle greatly with sexual issues (lust, attraction, fidelity, etc.). Others struggle with anger… this is me. It runs in my Italian side of the family, and it is what my family had to see me deal with over many years. (Others battle both.) PIVOT — I have Multiple Sclerosis… and there are four drugs they recommend to help suppress it. I opted for the daily shot as it was least offensive to one’s body. The shot COMPLETELY changed my demeanor… all the gains I made over many years of maturing as a man and believer — out the door. As soon, and I mean within days of not using the inhibitor, I was back to normal. So my own experience with some of these more serious drugs makes the below ring true. I reacted to this mild medication, Copaxone, in the most extreme way – a very low percentile reaction.

NOW, whether he was taking any “anti-Depressants I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS IN REPORTS. He was prescribed … but whether he was taking them regularly is something no one knows. I try to take my vitamins every day, but often times forget about them.

Again, this is just anecdotal evidence meanderings by myself and others.


(My original statement) At this point we do not know. What I do know so far is that it looks like he has acted alone. So far. I am inclined to think he was a Leftie, and hated life. It is possible he target the event to kill the most Trump supporters possible. But all I have to go on is that there are pictures of him at a rally with a pink “pussy” hat on and some anti-Trump sign. And? Even I need more.

UPDATED INFO regarding Paddock being at an anti-Trump rally… to be fair, I want to debunk my own claim above. Here is SNOPES dealing with this:

…Here’s the best comparison we could create of photographs allegedly depicting the same man in these two different contexts:

Although these images are blurry, one can spot noticeable differences, such as the two men’s eyebrows (the accused gunman had light eyebrows, while the protester’s eyebrows are dark) and earlobes (the bottom of the gunman’s earlobes are attached, whereas the protester’s appear detached). Even if the man in pink was indeed the Las Vegas shooter, it would be nearly impossible to identify him from this photograph alone.

It’s as if conspiracy theorists simply searched for photographs of an anti-Trump protester who shared the shooter’s approximate age, race, and gender in order to push the narrative that the latter’s actions were politically motivated. In fact, another video purportedly showing the Las Vegas gunman at an anti-Trump rally identified an entirely different person:

Although this individual is also white, middle-aged, and male, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is the same man who committed the shootings….


So, this first conspiracy theory was an easy one to debunk. It came through my son via a buddy of his. Here is the evidence for a second shooter in Paddocks room, it comes from a blog:

Hotel Guest Next Door To Las Vegas Shooter Saw ‘Multiple Gunmen’

An Australian man who was staying in the room next to the shooter in the Mandalay Bay has confirmed he witnessed multiple gunmen involved in the Las Vegas attack.

“There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. I got outside safely and was hiding in bushes,” Brian Hodge told Australia’s Courier-Mail.

Mr. Hodge, who was staying in room 32134, next door to Stephen Paddock in room 32135, also provided important information when he revealed that a security guard was killed by police.

“My floor is a crime scene. They killed a security guard on my floor.”….

(See also the Washington [not so] Standard).

However, Mr. Hodges was not in his room, as THE DAILY MAIL and other outlets report:

…Mr Hodge is thankful that he was not in his room at the time police used controlled explosives to enter room 32134 and locate Paddock.

‘It was hardcore, like it was full machine-guns for 20 seconds and then it stopped for five seconds then it just went again,’ he said, describing how he hid in bushes outside of the hotel for more than three hours.

‘There were so many shots fired, I couldn’t tell you how many.’

Mr Hodge also described the terrifying moment a woman stepped in front of him and urged to turn back because there was a shooter….

So he did not see two shooters that night, as, the conspiracy sites try to make out. NOR was a security guard killed by police. Dumb! TO BE CLEAR, Brian Hodges did not see multiple shooters. Nor has he ever said that a security guard was killed by police.

PUNDIFACT has this:

…In fact, Hodge gave an interview to the Sydney Morning Herald in which he more fully describes what he saw.

Hodge told that newspaper that he never made it to his room on the 32nd floor and after hearing the bullets he first went to a casino kitchen before hiding in a bush outside.

“I was just laying on the ground. It was like a scene from a movie. The shooter was up above, we didn’t know where they were… I didn’t want anyone to know where I was, so I just curled up and hid. It was the most terrifying moment of my life.”

Hodge also posted on Facebook, “There is a live shooter with a gun in my hotel in Vegas right now, but I got outside safely and hiding in bushes.”

More importantly for this fact-check, it’s clear to us the Neon Nettle [a crazy conspiracy site that said it interviewed Hodges] post puts words in Hodge’s mouth. Hodge never said in the Courier Mail article nor in any other article or social media post that the security guard was a shooter…..

He also disputes ever saying “shooters” (multiple), or seeing a guard shot. Here is one response to a comment on his Facebook by someone noting the conspiracy theory (via Pundifact):



The second conspiracy deals with multiple windows looking as if they were broken on various floors, adding to thew suspicion of other shooters. This photo is starting to take off on the interwebs. Here is the PROOF of multiple shooters:

The only problem is that this is not the same side the shooter was on. Nor do I know the date of this photo. And I also have photos I know the date of:

2010 Pic

2011 Pic

2014 Pic

Even in this shot the taken day after the shooting you can see that the missing windows are on the opposite side of the building. And… so you know, no one died in the line of fire of those missing windows. If there were shooters in them, they were the worst shot ever!

During conversation about this on Facebook, someone posted a video to prove the position that there were multiple shooters. In fact, the opposite is done — it DISPROVES multiple shooters. Here I take the linked video and edit in the above points:

In other words:

  • The angle is impossible;
  • No one was shot on the North-West side of Mandalay Bay;
  • No missing or broken windows were present on the North-East side of Mandalay Bay… besides the windows Paddock broke.



Simply put, people are showing videos (taxi driver || far shot) of supposed gun shots Uber driver driving away Here is a raw video shown in the below video debunking this conspiracy theory, HERE:

Quoting SMIDT’S post:

  • also the visuals of the strobing don’t match with the gunshots. The former is consistent, doesn’t stop. The gunshots came in waves. No match, not even when we consider the differential between sound and light waves.
  • Notice the different missing windows from the pic you posted from the one’s Erin did. Also, notice the many other pics throughout the years of Mandalay Bay’s missing windows. Window maintenance is common at MB.
  • Also, you’d have to suggest in what way the missing windows on the other side of the building relate to the shooting since there’s no demonstrable evidence of any effects related to those windows or that side of the building in any way.
  • The reports about police saying the wind blew out the windows are not factual.
  • Listen to the gunfire. You’d hear overlapping patterns if there were multiple shooters, unless they took turns, which seems inefficient and unlikely (unless we’re going full planned attack to make it seem like a single shooter).

Bruh… this shit is gonna rot your brain.


In one of many refutations regarding World Trade Center number seven, I kept a video by an ex-truther regarding his final week in the movement. These dealt with similar windows. Here is how I prefaced the video on Facebook:

I have listened to the raw audio from the early uploads. It was one shooter. The echo from a gun firing would have been two or three for each bullet fired with massive delays due to the buildings in that vicinity. I also watched the video. Those windows being replaced were on opposite towers/sides than where Paddock was shooting into the crowd from. Last I checked no one was shot en mass on other streets or areas other than what his room over looked.

Edward Current was a long time 9/11 Truther and left the movement when he realized almost all the evidence for his position was founded on innuendo. The week he officially left he cobbled together a fake video and watched his allies go to town putting together elaborate stories surrounding it’s authenticity. A video of his explanation is found via my YouTube, and is explained more on my WTC-7 CONSPIRACY DEBUNKING PAGE.

Unfortunately, Info Wars and Prison Planet [e.g., Alex Jones] type crap is becoming somewhat popular (made all the more so by The Drudge Report and Paul Joseph Watson – who has some good commentary at times). All, one must keep in mind, based on innuendo.

Project for a New American Century Myths (PNAC)

This is an importation of a few posts that are slightly edited for this platform and will be edited — more so — in the future. so I will simply start with the most recent post on my old site and work backwards…. here, Rosie O’Donnmel pushes the myth of an evil cabal planning the Iraq and middle-East takeover — otherwise know as Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I will precede the posts with a date:

Rosie O’Donnell Still Pushing 911 Conspiracy Myths/Lies… PNAC Her Biggest
(Originally Posted March 12, 2010)

  • (Video Description) Talk about a stubborn mule: three years after misleading the public during The View regarding 9-11, Rosie O’Donnell is at it again. In fact, this is the second time in a week she’s used her radio show to revisit her widely-debunked theories.

Take note that some of these links are broken. Just shorten the link to its main website URL to explore. The following mainly comes from 9/11 MYTHS… READING BETWEEN THE LIES:


The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.


The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they’ve been a dream come true for the PNAC ‘think-tank’ whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and “regime changes”.


There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.

These examples should suffice. So how does one respond to this tired old canard? with the real quote (the truth shall set you free). Here is the response via the counter conspiracy site, 9/11 MYTHS:

So, the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

The odd word here seems to be “transformation”. What do they mean? Let’s look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence”.

So “transformation” refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC’s pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs….

Can you see why many get frustrated when talking to 9/11 “truthers”? They use the title without actually using the meaning… truth.

PNAC – Project for a New American Century
(Originally Posted: December 31, 2008)

This PDF entitle, The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations, was originally found at THE JOURNAL OF DEBUNKING 9/11. I posted this in response to this post at THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KIMBA

  • …His brother Jeb is not only considering, but 90% sure he will throw his hat into the GOP ring for the Presidency in 2008. Unfortunately for Jeb, the hat will read “I With Stupid.” What a wonderful prospect this is, yet another President who is a card carrying member of the PNAC group. The Bush brothers are pictured above left with one of the carcasses they left behind on the road to the White House…. (emphasis added)

The below is such a great help in understanding what the “Project for a New American Century” is all about… by refuting the crazy conspiracy people who love to link to anti-Semitic sites.


Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a plan produced by the group Project For a New American Century (PNAC). From the introduction to his paper:

It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, [3] in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.

The footnote supporting this argument then points to:

3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
“The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

While the somewhat edited quote,1 is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only “not proof of complicity”, this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is “in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq”. The invasions of these two countries, however, are nowhere mentioned in the PNAC document, they are not even vaguely alluded to. It exists purely in the imagination of the person writing this paper. In fact the only time the paper mentions Iraqi policy at all, is in regards to continuing the containment policy around Iraq with regards to the no-fly zones,2 not in invading it.

Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing. A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the “process of transformation” that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of TRANSFORMING effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military TRANSFORMATION will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):

Further, the process of TRANSFORMATION, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.

Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.

And regards to the Pearl Harbor reference, what precisely were they talking about? A sneak attack by terrorists using fanatical devotion combined with box cutters? Well, curiously enough, the PNAC document uses this Pearl Harbor reference in another part, which despite clarifying the meaning, didn’t manage to make Mr. Legge’s paper.

absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.

They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.

An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of Afghanistan andIraq not only fails to assist them in their “transformation”, but it would most likely hinder them. In fact the study points to the increased operational tempo of the operations in the Balkans as detracting from needed R & D funds.7 It also discusses the difficulty of carrying out this transformation without impacting even the current international obligations.8 Somehow we are to believe that two expensive and manpower intensive wars would improve this process.

Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:

The fact that the air attack on Afghanistan commenced on October 9, less than a month later, is not proof either, but does suggest the possibility that plans for the invasion were already in place.

This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.

In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?

Some of the original FOOTNOTES

1. This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses,” and actually reads in full from page 51: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

2. Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”


7. Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”

8. Ibid page 50: The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”

BOOM! Jake Tapper Lands a Knockout Punch

First, let’s set this up with the video the rest of the post will be about:

Let us look a bit deeper at who Macklemore is… really is:

In 2014, Rolling Stone reported outrage after Macklemore appeared to promote anti-Jewish hate:

Macklemore Accused of Anti-Semitism After Wearing Questionable Costume

Rapper faces criticism after performing with oversized nose, bowl-cut wig and Hasidic-looking beard

Yet, other than the few examples like Tapper, where is the journalistic outrage against Obama for inviting this man to the White House?

Here is more about the issue with this rapper… via NEWSBUSTERS… brought up by CNN’s Jake Tapper:


Dr. Thies Notes Some of the Differences Between Dems and Repubs

A great, short, article can be found over at Libertarian Republican systematizing some of the differences between Democrats and Republicans:


A 2006 Scripps-Howard poll found that 51% of Democrats believed it was “likely” or “very likely” that the federal government either assisted in the attacks of 9-11 or knew that the attacks were coming and did nothing in order to go to war in the Middle East. And, a 2011 PPP poll found that 51% of Republicans believed Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

I am going to interrupt this part of Dr. Thies’ article merely to add to the information given above, and this comes from my “Comparing Two Conspiracy Theories: Birtherism vs. 9/11 Conspiracies” as well as updated information. One should read this post of mine because the “evil” factor in these conspiracies are VASTLY different. In other words,

…Republicans at least say Obama was lying about his place of birth in order to get special preference in educational and publishing opportunities; at most saying that Obama later found out about other peoples lies in getting him over to America as a child and tried to cover it up for his Presidential run.

On the other-side of the coin, you have Democrats saying that [at least] Bush knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to financially profit from a war[s]. At most they say he was actually involved in the taking down of the Trade Towers in order to go to war. BOTH options Bush is culpable for the murder of innocent and military lives.

First the historical polling:

What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?

  • 31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…

How many Democrats?

  • 15% of Democrats believe the same… [well as 18% of Independents]

However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him…

(2010 ~ ABC-News and my RPT post)

That last sentence is also key, “…a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him.” And here is a poll concurrent with Clifford’s:

12 percent of Democrats think the president was born elsewhere, as do 21 percent of independents. That percentage climbs to 37 percent among Republicans. Among those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, 41 percent think the president was born outside the U.S.

Most American voters — 67 percent — believe Obama was born in the United States. That includes almost all Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (69 percent). Less than half of Republicans (47 percent) and Tea Partiers (44 percent) think so.


Can I mention as well that it was a Democrat who originated this conspiracy, Philip Berg, NOT to mention that many years prior to Berg… Obama’s own publisher had him listed as “born in Kenya” from 1995-to-2007.



A 2013 Harris poll found that more Republicans than Democrats believed in God, miracles, heaven, hell, Jesus, angels and life after death; and, that more Democrats than Republicans believed in Darwin, ghosts, UFOs, astrology and reincarnation.


A recent YouGov poll found that 43% of Democrats had a favorable view of socialism, while only 9% of Republicans did; and, that 79% of Republicans had a favorable view of free-market capitalism, and, that only 43% of Democrats did.

…read it all…

Another stark difference is noted by HotAir, and frankly, I am disappointed in the Republican number of support being so high:


Democrat Rep. Brian Higgins a 9/11 Truther?

  • Either he is so disconnected from society that he has never heard of this theory;
  • or, he was playing politics and being “ecumenical,” the empty suit;
  • or, he truly believed that all views are equivocable and should be looked at, looked into equally.

ALL of the above means he is a weeny!

Libertarian Republican has this awful story of modern radicalism that blames the U.S. for 9/11. And as usual, the radical nature of this belief is not manifested in a radio host, a reporter, but an official [as usual] who represents the Democratic Party. Here is the story:

Muhammed Attah and his gang of merry Muslim warriors didn’t really fly those jets into the Twin Towers… That’s just fantasy don’t ya know… It was really those evil Republicans in the Bush Administration!!


Who the hell is this guy? Most certainly a backbencher of the Democrat backbench.

Meet Democrat Rep. Brian Higgins. If you’ve never heard of him, relax, nobody else has either. But he may have just made a name for himself by becoming a spokesman of sorts for the Truther movement, and aligning himself with the theory that maybe “Muslims didn’t do it” after all.

Watch and be horrified as he agrees with a caller that evidence that Muhammed Attah and the other 18 Muslim hijackers may not have flown those jets into the Twin Towers. Perhaps it was the… drum roll please… BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!

Engaging In Discussion With John Lofton On His Illogical Thinking Regarding Conspiracy Theories

In a conversation that is quite typical of those I have engaged in with Ron Paul fans, I ended up provideing evidence that Ron Paul’s views on the 9/11 are misguided by showing the people involved in the conversation themselves wee misguided. The discussion was the same-ol-same-ol… Ron Paul sends his fans to vote for radical candidates that are self-attested anti-Semites and Marxists when libertarian folk like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman are/were lifelong Republicans, etc., etc.

What peaked my interest is that the conversation is joined by John Lofton, who is part of the site, The American View, and has many of his MP3s HERE, as well as having a blog entitled, Recovering Republican. All-in-all John and I probably agree on much. However… discussion about Ron Paul led to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. So I pick up the conversation where John hops in. (I will point out that most times I will change the name of persons from FaceBook discussions. But john is a public enough figure that I will use his full name and links):

John Lofton
Oh, and Reagan gave us O’Connor!

Mr. Lofton, may I recommend a resource for you. It is seminary level study, and you may thoroughly enjoy it, “Politics According to the Bible.” We also got Rehnquist and Scalia (and almost Bork). Bush gave us Thomas. How many Justices did Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode get us? Zero.

Ruining the good for the perfect… your position (to the many above who are doggedly RP fans) are no better than the utopians out there because you do not ebb the utopian dreams of the left in ANY way.

Also, there are less hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like today than generations ago. These are false stats put forward by eschatological positions of the left (and unfortunately from the eschatological positions within Christianity, with which I agree with — minus the bad information and scare tactics).


By the way John… I believe you have jumped the shark. You seem to be a truther as well. And after listening to you mp3 on the subject, I would steer you to my C-O-Nspiracy page:

John Lofton
You a Christian, Sean?


John Lofton
Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about being a “truther?”

After listening to your mp3 on the matter, you conflate two subjects, what the 9/11 truther goals are with truth/Truth. My faith has no connection to calling a spade-a-spade. I have spent lots of $$$ and time looking into many of the claims in Loose Change and other conspiracy position. I also noticed that many of these positions are lies, the opposite of truth.

“Trutherism” doesn’t ad-hoc equal truth, and to make it is a non-sequitur/straw-man argumentation.

John Lofton
So what are the top 3 things in Loose Change that are “lies?” List them here, please….

Lets do this John. Let us talk about one item you think is strong in Loose Change (since over different editions got rid of many of their previously stated evidences).

John Lofton
You made an assertion, Sean, an affirmation….please back it up. Thank you….

I have written on it thoroughly already:



And my compilation of many refutations:

John Lofton
So, in other words, you will not reply even briefly to my simple question, right?

I have thoroughly refuted Loose Changes position on two major premises, a) the Pentagon, and b) WTC-7. If you have not read a good refutations of these two major positions put forward in this “true” documentary, then choose one? Which edition? One, two, or three? How bout cell phone calls, mmm, that was in the first one. They rejected that. There are many they present, I deal with the macro one, choose one YOU feel confident about, something that would come to mind that convinces YOU or that you would like to share here as an evidence that others would be persuaded by. One. Simple, not three. One.


John Lofton
“Lies” means things said to DECEIVE ON PURPOSE……list those things here, Sean….

Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying out options on airline stock.

John Lofton
What was said in “Loose Change,” Sean, that was a “lie,” something said ON PURPOSE TO DECEIVE?

That is one. There was no truth to it, and when investigated, there was no truth to it. It was stated merely to endure a conspiracy minded folk to the film. Maybe those reading this would benefit from some sanity on this topic:

Another example is the out-of-context quote from an air traffic controller who supposedly reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane. This controllers full context (apologists should be use to this tactic used by skeptics to state certain things from the Bible but not so in context) was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that:

★ “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”

I have given you two.

John Lofton
What was said, Sean, that was said TO PURPOSELY DECEIVE is my question which you have not answered?


You have loose mouth about “Loose Change,” Sean……have documented here no “lie” that was told….

They misquoted the second example IN ORDER TO mislead, deceive. They had no proof, evidence of the first example but merely invented it with no evidence. Both are willful acts to deceive and to engender people’s fears. It worked apparently.

John Lofton
And what is your evidence they sought to mislead ON PURPOSE, Sean?

Both were untrue, in the first they had no way of knowing this — even if true — however, they made it up whole-cloth. In the second, they had access to the full context, but decided to truncate it in order to engender their point. A common attack on our faith. Sort of like when they talk about WTC-7 and show a picture of a small fire in one window… but refuse to show pictures of the entire building on fire or the massive damage of the World Trade Towers destroying a corner of the building, or not talking about the 15,000 gallons of fuel in the building, etc., etc. The picture engenders what they want their viewers to believe.

John Lofton
For-the-record: I have neither said nor written ANYTHING saying I agree with anything in the “Loose Change” DVD. I do NOT, however, believe our government’s official story re: 9/11 and believe our government is capable of murdering 3000+ people because our government murders people now in our unGodly, unConstitutional wars; and the government has OK’d the murder of millions in the womb by abortion…..

SIDE-NOTE: Again, it is quite plain-and-simple John supported these conspiracy theories by a) obfuscating ideas of truth and trutherism, and b) by all-but endorsing Loose Change. FOR CONTEXT: one should listen to John’s MP3 on the “truther” movement and realize that I spoke out against Ron Paul’s admiration of truthers and John then [much like in his MP3] equated the mere mention of “truth” in “trutherism” as unassailable. His presentation is titled: Lying, Shameless Hatchet-Job On 9-11 Truth Seekers By Chris Bury On “Nightline” Scurrilous, Despicable But, Of Course, No Surprise; Also of note is his interview with Richard Gage, Founder Of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, Inc.; O’Reilly Lies Repeatedly About Study Re: Building 7. ON RICHARD GAGE: Here is a three part interview with Richard Gage where he is caught lying about thermite: Part 1, Part 2, and Part3. You can also see many well done articles refuting Gage’s positions quite well, HERE. While he says he doesn’t support. I would strongly suggest John does agree with Loose Change as well as Gage on these issues (after listening to his own words that is).

John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?

John, proving one position by stating opinion and then supporting the “truth of it” by stating another example unrelated (you gave thee definition of a non-sequitur) is not a logical way to jump from one position to another. The Christian has to think well, and testing our own positions with this good thinking:

“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”

Morimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in, Kelly James Clark, ed., Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 207.

This is applicable to our discussion. Reason is not being used to its Godly potential here.

John Lofton
You believe the government’s story, Sean?

Do you have a good reason for me not to?

John Lofton
Why can you directly answer a direct question, Sean? You are a bit of a windbag…..

Eric RS
Come on John…lets be gracious at least. He answered your leading question with a question, very much like Christ did many times.


Of course he agrees with the govt. story, unless we can prove otherwise.

“You a Christian, John? Then why are you making snide, snotty remarks about a fellow believer?” (Adapted from Mr. Lofton)

Do I trust my government, the heroes of America, our Founders, say one should always be weary of it. And that the Christian faith is its true guide. But as to THIS topic (9/11), yes. And you have yet to show me why I should not. Again, I think you are taking a larger issue (one trusting government in the macro), and then overlaying it to our particular (micro) discussion here. Like you saying that if our government can kill “x” amount of people through abortion, then why not 3,000 in New York?

I believe many on the pro-choice side think that killing innocent lives is wrong. They agree with us on this major point. They merely redefine the person in the womb as non-human. It is imperative that we open up dialogue with them and make a strong moral argument that convicts them to change on this position.

  • POST-SCRIPT: I should have also made the point that both pro-choice people and pro-life people agree that the people that perished in this particular attack were innocent people, and thus an evil immoral act.

Continuing My Thought
So yes I trust the government in this particular case. And no, as a whole the checks and balances issue is meant to try and keep government honest:

Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).

John did not reply after that.

A group of protesters organized by SEIU and `Obama For America` showed there Crazy Side (Quote: `We Love Dead Republicans`)

As the race heats up… more and more truthers will come out of the woodwork. First, lets watch a union organized protest via Weasel Zippers:

A group of protesters organized by SEIU and Obama For America showed up in Wisconsin to greet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Here is my point. More and more as the high percentage of conspiratorially minded Dems become vocal, the above will almost be normal. Here are some stats and ideas between the left and the right in regards to conspiracies from an older FB chat:

You are aware,I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton. For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:

☼ …Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks…. Read more:

Let us digest this a bit. Let me reiterate the stat I ended with:

☼ Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Read more:

To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were “still on the fence.” Now, only 31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states… 15% of Democrats believe the same, as well as 18% of Independents. However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him ( SEE ALSO… LINKED IN MY POST:

So you have two conspiracies to compare, what do they show? One has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up. In other words… when Obama was a child other adults made this happen, he was powerless to affect it, and may not have known (assuming such a thing to be true) about it until his Presidential run. That’s number one.

Number two deals with a conspiracy that posits a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it — killing more Americans over an evil conspiracy. Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen ( So this conspiracy would be considered — if we had an evil scale — much more “evil” because it is an American in the highest office basically directly culpable for the death of innocent people.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS [*not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*]. Yeah this other conspiracy is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.” in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would I guess (if they were Republicans) be called racists for this assertion, like Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position (which I guess the 15% of Democrats are not?)

MSNBC Headlines Show with 9/11 Conspiracy Proponent ~ Toure

MSNBC will debut a new program, Monday, featuring a 9/11 truth conspiracy theorist as a co-anchor. Toure Neblett will be one of the hosts for The Cycle, airing at 3pm on the cable network. Toure (who doesn’t use his last name on MSNBC) has tweeted his suspicions about whether the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job.