Friday, October 13, 2006

Denial

Dylan's response to the South Park episode on their blog:

I know, it's been kind of quiet here lately. Been finishing up 9/10 [all 17 hours of it I am sure] and working on the script for the Final Cut.

Btw, in the slight off chance that Trey Parker and Matt Stone read this website, congratulations guys. Some saw that as a hit piece. I saw it as a subtle and careful way of delivering the facts without taking either side. [Without taking either side? They called you a retard!]

The episode was incredible, and I'd like to thank you. I don't need to go into detail as to why I think the show was on our side, I'll just say that, based on interviews with you two, Eric Cartman often serves as your personal mouthpiece. [Isn't Cartman the stupid bigoted one?] And every time a character brought up evidence, it was either silence or "Are you retarded?

"One even brought up the explosions at the base of the towers. This wasn't a poorly-researched hit piece. This was a calculated and brilliant way of flying under the radar.

But hey, that's just my two cents. Interpret it as you may.

Yeah, OK. And Dr. Strangelove wasn't a parody of politicians and the military, it was really just a brilliant way of supporting the arms race.

316 Comments:

At 13 October, 2006 20:12, Blogger Nyke said...

"And every time a character brought up evidence, it was either silence or 'Are you retarded?'"

Exactly, your claims are so stupid that they don't warrant a reply.

 
At 14 October, 2006 00:11, Blogger Bubbers said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 October, 2006 00:13, Blogger Bubbers said...

This guy has got to be kidding. All that episode did was bash on those morons. Give us all a break and shut up Dylan Avery...ARE YOU RETARDED?

 
At 14 October, 2006 03:16, Blogger shawn said...

DID HE NOT LISTEN TO CARTMAN'S SONG?

"I can't base my logic on proof/Almost all the evidence points one way but I'm like Charlie Sheen and Gloria Estefan/I need to know what really happened on 9/11"

(Dylan they mean "almost all the evidence" supports us.)

 
At 14 October, 2006 03:20, Blogger shawn said...

I bet Dylan thought the Hot Catholic Love episode supported pedophilia and the Mormon episode was actually saying Joseph Smith was a genius.

 
At 14 October, 2006 04:00, Blogger What Would Grape Ape Do? said...

Forget the South Park. Don't tell me this egomaniac is going to upload 17 hours of his glorified wank of a trip to New York.

 
At 14 October, 2006 07:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

It seems the "D" in "Denial" is for Dylan...what an idiot. When this guy is 35 he is gonna look back and go..."Oh My God, what was I thinking."

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 10:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The South Park show was obviously to help the truthers. If it wasnt explain why one of the characters worw 911truth.org on his tshirt for half the show. If they were against the theories they would have directed people to a disinfo site talking about tv fakery etc

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dog town if thats the case could you expain why screw loose change has 8000 views on google video while loose change has over 20,000,000?

You are the tiniest minority. Anal trolls that analyse our every word. 911 truthers consider u as our little pets

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With regard to Bill O'Reilly, he is a disgrace to the profession of Journalism.

At least he has the guts to debate Fetzer tho, none of u clowns would do it.

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:35, Blogger shawn said...

If it wasnt explain why one of the characters worw 911truth.org on his tshirt for half the show.

And then they implicated every conspiracy website as part of a more vast government conspiracy.

God, you people are retarded. They said the entire "Truth" movement is a government conspiracy. Are you that blind? Christ on the Cross, people, they called EVERYONE IN THE TRUTH MOVEMENT A RETARD AND PART OF A GOVERNMENT DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.

Matt and Trey weren't "fair" in their episode, they scewered you people at every turn. They weren't saying "haha look at the ad hominem the debunkers are using" they were saying "haha look how retarded the conspiracy mongers are".

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:36, Blogger shawn said...

Dog town if thats the case could you expain why screw loose change has 8000 views on google video while loose change has over 20,000,000?

Argumentum ad populum.

You shouldn't accuse people of not arguing the facts and then using a logical fallacy.

According to you (or what passes for logic in your moronic world) the greatest book ever written was Da Vinci Code (best selling novel of all time) and Titanic was the greatest film of all time (highest grossing film in history).

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:52, Blogger Bubbers said...

pdoherty76 said...

At least he has the guts to debate Fetzer tho, none of u clowns would do it.
-----------------------------------

You, doherty, are a dumbass. Typical Cter making statements that are pure speculation, and totally false. I'm willing to bet that most of us would PAY to debate that fat fuck.
----------------------------------

AND NOW ANOTHER MORONIC STATEMENT

----------------------------------

Frank said...

By using the word "retarded" over and over again, they are making fun of the "anti-truthers" like O'Reilly, who will resort to name calling and personal attacks instead of discussing the facts.
----------------------------------

Ummmm....okay guy. That's why the only time they ask someone if they're retarded is when they act like they don't know what happened(i.e. you guys). When Cartman said 1/4 of Americans believe in a conspiracy and was told he was retarded and then asked if 1/4 of Americans are retarded(i.e. you guys!), he was told yes, 1/4 of Americans are retarded(once again, they are talkin about you guys). But if you're into the Zogby polls, it's actually 46% of Americans who are retarded. And since when did Matt Stone and Trey Parker care about calling names? Is this the first episode of South Park you have seen?

 
At 14 October, 2006 11:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least he has the guts to debate Fetzer tho, none of u clowns would do it.

pfffft. You've got it backwards. Fetzer makes sure he stays in the safety of his 9/11 echo-chamber websites as much as he possibly can.

By the way, who do you think won the debate? Didn't Fetzer do a rly, rly good job of answering why no mainstream media outlet - foreign or domestic - will print the truther's garbage?

"Go to my website. Everything's there." Yeah, Fetzy, God knows knows we won't find your crap anywhere else. Like an academic journal. Or a trade magazine. Or the New York times. Or any major daily anywhere in the world (well, maybe in Iran). etc...

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bubbers when u have to resort to calling people a fat fuck then u definitely have lost the argument

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:07, Blogger shawn said...

I would debate ANY of the leaders of the Truth movement in public (and I'm awful in front of groups).

My only request would be no mocking the dead. I think Fetzer would have to drop out with that condition.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you lot notice that the deranged neocon bootlicker O'Reilly actually called on the FBI to investigate fetzer? I wasnt aware having an opinion was a federal crime.


By the way, the fact that Screw loose change has had only 8000 views shows what a futile task u lot of anal no-lifers have set urselves

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:12, Blogger Alex said...

Bubbers when u have to resort to calling people a fat fuck then u definitely have lost the argument

No, personal insults from us are just the last nail being driven into the coffin. The argument was won long before.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

dog town i only deal in facts.

I would love to see all u faceless internet trolls debating Steve Jones on the physics of the collapses.

Here is the transcript of that debate if it ever occured:

Jones: According to the conservation of momentum law...

Troll: I want my mummy

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:22, Blogger Alex said...

No, it'd involve Jones comparing the WTC towers to two giant trees, and us rolling on the ground laughing. Followed by Jones pouting and calling us shills.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:23, Blogger Alex said...

What facts do you deal in, exactly? You haven't shown a single one, while you HAVE engaged in quite a bit of ad-hominem attacks, as well as misrepresentation of figures.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex I deal in facts like the 6 second collapse of Building 7. I am not one of these no planer idiots or a pentagon missile merchant. I just know as a Mathematical Physics graduate that those towers were blown up.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would love to see all u faceless internet trolls debating Steve Jones on the physics of the collapses

So you trust 1 cold-fusion researcher over every structural engineet and cd expert. Basically, you look at thousands of informed positions, and pick the only one that supports your position. Surely you can't be so ignorant. You must just be trying to stir up trouble.

On the other hand, maybe you're a true-believer. Listen, I've got this million dollar inheritance in Nigeria. I just your need a bank account number to get it here! Interested?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Markyx when are u gonna move on from loose change and do a voiceover on a credible video like 911 mysteries?

Attacking the straw men can only get u so far

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way if saying 8000 views is argument by popularity then what is calling us 25%ers? lol

with regard to Steven Jones, Yes I would trust a brave nuclear physicist with strict academic standards to a regular engineer whos scared to speak up because he will lose his job.

How can a structural engineer who believes they were demolished come forward when he knows u idiots will pounce on him and call him a nutjob?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:36, Blogger Alex said...

Alex I deal in facts like the 6 second collapse of Building 7.

You know, listing irrelevant factoids which may or may not be correct isn't going to convince anyone. In a controlled demolition buildings collapse at near free-fall speed. And in an UNcontrolled demolition they can fall at near free-fall speeds. The speed of the collapse is largely irrelevant to proving what caused the collapse. If you knew the first thing about building collapses, you'd realize that. Your math and physics knowledge doesn't mean squat in this case since you're workign off flawed assumptions.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:38, Blogger Alex said...


How can a structural engineer who believes they were demolished come forward when he knows u idiots will pounce on him and call him a nutjob?


The same way your brave nuclear fusion researcher does. Except a demo expert would find it even easier, since his peers should back him, and we can't attack his lack of qualifications the way we do with you idiots.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dog town i didnt pay for my degree and I got it in one of the worlds best departments for that discipline. Im not claiming im better than anyone, im just making the point that my beliefs are based on science not anti semitism or other dubious motives

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex could you please name a builing that has fallen symmetrically at free fall speed without the use of explosives?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:42, Blogger Alex said...

just making the point that my beliefs are based on science not anti semitism or other dubious motives

Not quite. There's nothing scientific about your argument. You start with the same base assumptions as all CTers. The only thing you have going for you is that you're better able to analyze numbers. The relevance of those numbers to your case is a different thing altogether.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:43, Blogger Alex said...

Alex could you please name a builing that has fallen symmetrically at free fall speed without the use of explosives?

Can you please name a building other than the WTC which has been hit by a 767?

Can you name a building with a design similar to the WTC buildings?

Didn't think so.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I would trust a brave nuclear physicist with strict academic standards to a regular engineer whos scared to speak up because he will lose his job.

Most "regular engineers" know their science twice as well as a physicist (they have to, they're specialized). Why do you think engineers make so much more money (on average) than physicists? They're more useful.

You think engineering professors don't have "strict academic" standards? And tenure? Way to insult an entire profession, and just so you can continue to feel special and enlightened. You're special, at least.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:44, Blogger shawn said...

Alex I deal in facts like the 6 second collapse of Building 7.

Shame it collapsed at (a minimum) 13.5 seconds. That's just me watching it. The seismic records place it between 20-30 seconds (you can't see collapses that begin inside a structure).

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:45, Blogger shawn said...

idiots

When an idiot calls you an idiot, is it a compliment?

Oh and about your question about other buildings falling symmetrically at free-fall...I'd like you to point out which building did that. WTC5 maybe?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right for all you selective evidence seekers who claim no CD expert thinks they were demolished have a look at this video in which a CD exert says 7 was a demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

Lets see if Markyx puts this clip in his next shambles of a video.

By the way Markyx, when are u gonna create an original video rather than puttin words on someone elses?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:50, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:50, Blogger shawn said...

Is that the guy who's shown one angel with no sound?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:50, Blogger Alex said...

Yes, yes, we've all seen Jovenko before. It's just too bad the same guy also says there's no way in hell that WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished. And the only reason he has the reaction he does to WTC7 is because of the angle he's viewing it from. I bet you any money if we showed him footage from different sides, he'd say the same thing about WTC7 that he did about 1 and 2: there's no WAY they were controlled demolition.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:50, Blogger shawn said...

angle, rather

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

erm alex could you please show me a plane that hit building 7? I didnt see one

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:52, Blogger Alex said...

And you have the nerve to accuse US of being selective? How about showing the clip where he says WTC1 and 2 were NOT demolished? Don't you think that's a wee bit relevant, and should be included in any coverage of what the guy said about WTC7? You're a goddamn hypocrite.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never suggested that the towers demolition was controlled

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tons of concrete eh alex? All i saw was concrete dust. Talking of which how does a gravity collapse turn all the concrete to dust> Ur arguments are utter crap

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:56, Blogger Alex said...

erm alex could you please show me a plane that hit building 7? I didnt see one

Can you show me any other building in history built with thin steel beams, cantilevered over a power station, which took massive damage from falling steel and concrete, and then caught fire, which wasn't faught?

Well?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex i agree with him that the towers wasnt a controlled demolition, it was just a series of bombs designed to get the towers down asap

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:57, Blogger Alex said...

Tons of concrete eh alex? All i saw was concrete dust.

Oh, you were at grund zero were you?

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:58, Blogger Alex said...

Alex i agree with him that the towers wasnt a controlled demolition, it was just a series of bombs designed to get the towers down asap

Ah. That must be your scientific opinion.

You, sir, are an idiot. I've worked with explosives, you haven't. I wouldn't presume to lecture you about physics, so don't presume to lecture me about explosives.

 
At 14 October, 2006 12:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fires in building 7 were unfought how could silverstein be saying pull the firefighters? u cant have it both ways

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erm i have worked with explosives, but its very interesting that u assume i havent.

U dont need to be an expert to know that those towers were blown up

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:00, Blogger Alex said...

If the fires in building 7 were unfought how could silverstein be saying pull the firefighters?

Were you planning on adressing the REST of the points, or are you going to continue acting like a retard?

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:02, Blogger Alex said...

Erm i have worked with explosives, but its very interesting that u assume i havent.

Well that's an outright lie. Which makes me question your "math and physics" qualifications too.

U dont need to be an expert to know that those towers were blown up

I think what you meant to say is "you CAN'T be an expert and think that those towers were blown up".

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh i c so we can only have an opinion if we were at ground zero? nice

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right for all you selective evidence seekers who claim no CD expert thinks they were demolished have a look at this video in which a CD exert says 7 was a demolition:

Ok, you found 1 expert to say WTC7 was a demolition (based on a casual inspection of 1 video!!!!). The video even makes a point of telling how little he knows about WTC7. A casual reaction to being shown a video is not science, it's a first impression.

But we're the selective ones. Riiiiiighht.

Hey, I wonder if that guy lost his job. Probably not, he's foreign. Question: why don't any foreign engineers support the "truther science?" They don't have anything to lose. Where is the, say, French Association of Civil Engineers with a report that points to a controlled demolition?

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex you know nothing about me yet you call me a liar. So tell me what explosives do u work with

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the collapse of the towers was unprecented and had a unique design then ALL experts opinions are exactly that. SPECULATION

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:08, Blogger shawn said...

Alex i agree with him that the towers wasnt a controlled demolition, it was just a series of bombs designed to get the towers down asap

We would've seen explosions, dumbass.

And did the bombs somehow survive the plane crashes and inferno? (The collapse starts where the planes hit.)

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:08, Blogger Alex said...

I've primarily worked with C4 and datasheet. How is that relevant?

Also I find it rather difficult to believe that a professional in the field of physics would constantly spell the word "you" as "u". Your behaviour on here suggests that you're, at best, a college student. So yes, I certainly have no problem calling you a liar.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:09, Blogger Alex said...

If the collapse of the towers was unprecented and had a unique design then ALL experts opinions are exactly that. SPECULATION

Ofcourse. But if you really were a scientist, you'd understand that not all theories are equal. And you wouldn't be supporting a theory which makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Burke even FEMA and nist dont know why building 7 collapsed. They said "even the best hypothesis of fire...has only a low probability of occurence"

so the fact is, building seven has confounded every expert and of all the engineers in the world, not one can give an explanation for it that doesnt involve explosives

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:12, Blogger Alex said...

so the fact is, building seven has confounded every expert and of all the engineers in the world,

Another lie.

For someone who "only deals in facts" you sure do lie a lot.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fires in building 7 were unfought how could silverstein be saying pull the firefighters?

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

source

(courtesy of debunking911.com)

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at alex showing hes really desperate by criticising my use of the letter u instead of you,

erm maybe its because writing u is quicker

Anyway writing on the internet with perfect spelling and grammer proves the assertion i made earlier about the anal retentiveness of u guys

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok Burke if ur going to quote a firefighter then may i be allowed to do the same?

"We believe there are secondary devices in the buildings"

Albert Turi, CHIEF of safety at FDNY

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:17, Blogger Alex said...

erm maybe its because writing u is quicker

Yeah, but it also says something about your character. If I were talking to a 16 year old highschool kid, I wouldn't bother pointing it out because it'd be normal. It's definitely NOT normal from someone who claims to be a professional physicist.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:19, Blogger shawn said...

Anyway writing on the internet with perfect spelling and grammer proves the assertion i made earlier about the anal retentiveness of u guys

Or we're sad about the dumbing down of America. The belief in invisible conspiracy theories and a destruction of the language are just two symptoms.

If you type correctly, it should be automatic.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:20, Blogger Alex said...

"We believe there are secondary devices in the buildings"

Albert Turi, CHIEF of safety at FDNY


And? How does what they believed at the time have any relevance? Can you go ask the same guy what thinks NOW?

You know what, with every sentence you write on here you're convincing me more and more that you're lying about your background. There's no science behind your argument whatsoever, only the same type of quote mining and misrepresentation that the rest of your movement relies on.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:20, Blogger shawn said...

"We believe there are secondary devices in the buildings"

Albert Turi, CHIEF of safety at FDNY


And a lot of people believed Saddam had WMDs. You don't seem to get the burden of proof is on you. You have to show the physical evidence for these secondary devices.

Also, the quote he posted was in an entirely different context.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all i am not a professional physicist, I have a degree not a Phd. Secondly i have nothing to prove to u trolls, like i said u are our pets.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:23, Blogger Alex said...

In other words, you're a lying kid who doesn't know his nose from his asshole.

Alright, we're done here. Go pester someone else kid.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The burden of proof is on the US government and they havent produced a scrap of proof against osama bin laden.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Burke even FEMA and nist dont know why building 7 collapsed. They said "even the best hypothesis of fire...has only a low probability of occurence(sic)"

NOTE: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're correctly quoting the NIST report, and that the NIST report misspelled "occurrence."
----------------------------------

If the best hypothesis was fire damage, and there was a low probability of that happening, what does that say about the NIST's opinion of the demolition hypothesis?

building seven has confounded every expert and of all the engineers in the world, not one can give an explanation for it that doesnt involve explosives

No, it hasn't. You just quoted a report that came to the conclusion the building collapsed because of fire damage. There's a difference between "low probability of occurrence" and "zero probability of occurrence."

Ok Burke if ur going to quote a firefighter then may i be allowed to do the same?

If it's relevant to the discussion of Larry Silverstein's "pull it comment." Oh, it's not? Then why did you quote it?

The Chief of Safety was being pretty wise by considering the possibility (he said we believe) of secondary devices planted by terrorists. No wonder he's the Chief of Safety.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

alex u are a liar, the closest u came to an explosive was lighting a firework on 4th july. By the way im 29, im guessing ur 17

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know im getting to people whe every spelling mistake becomes an argument in the debate lol

oops ive spelt laugh out loud wrong, i must give up my degree instantly

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you people know what its like to be a truth seeker?

u get a sense of pride knowing ur every word is being analysed and annotated by a facelessgroup of people with nothing better to do.

They used to say in hollywood that ur nobody until u get a stalker, well in the truth movement ur nobody till u get a troll on ur case

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:33, Blogger shawn said...

The burden of proof is on the US government and they havent produced a scrap of proof against osama bin laden.

Except for his confession.

well in the truth movement ur nobody till u get a troll on ur case

Someone must be new to the internet because he doesn't understand the term "troll".

By the way im 29, im guessing ur 17

"I am rubber and you are glue."

No 29 year old types like a 12 year old girl, just sayin'.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The burden of proof is on the US government and they havent produced a scrap of proof against osama bin laden.

Except for the martyrdom videos of the pilots, video of OBL planning 9/11, the history of the hijackers visiting AQ training camps, Moussaui(sp?) admitting knowledge of the plot, numerous confession tapes by OBL sent to al-jazeera (those CIA shills!) as well as statements by AQ taking responsibility, and the history of AQ terrorist attacks against America, for starters.

What evidence do you need?

What evidence do you have that anybody else did it? Affirmative evidence, mind you. I don't want to sit here and argue over some mid-level-FBI-official-who misplaced-a-verb-and-so-that-proves-a-conspiracy-because-FBI-official-never-misspeak.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn we all know that confessions are reliable dont we? especially in videos that magically appear. Osama denied any involvement in 911 at first, why would that be?

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know im getting to people whe every spelling mistake becomes an argument in the debate

It becomes an argument when I have to determine the authenticity of the statements you produce, because you haven't provided a source.

You don't think it's a little odd that the NIST misspelled "occurrence?" Maybe not from the actual document? At any rate, I gave you the benefit of the doubt weasel.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US trained osama, he is a cia asset and a very convenient enemy.

Have u lot seen operation northwoods? that is concrete evidence that the government would do this type of stuff

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:41, Blogger shawn said...

The US trained osama, he is a cia asset and a very convenient enemy.

How many mistakes have you made in this thread?

Osama is not an Afghan, ergo he was never trained or funded by the CIA. Saudi and other Arab financiers took care of that. We only took care of Afghan nationals.

Christ, study this stuff before you start spouting off.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

burke why do have to ascertain the authenticity of my statements? am i ur hero or something?

you cant be certain of anything on the internet which is why it attracts the jobless, hopeless, and friendless like u boys

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pdoherty-

Thank you for coming on here and being our punching bag for today. I'm trying to quit smoking, so I kind of needed it.

Can you come up with some arguments that aren't so easily refuted, though? It's starting to get boring. Like being stuck on level 1 of a video game.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:42, Blogger shawn said...

Osama denied any involvement in 911 at first, why would that be?

Produce the video where he denies it.

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Operation northwoods says it all,
"the casualty lists in newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation"

The government will kill anyone necessary

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Operation northwoods says it all,
"the casualty lists in newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation"

The government will kill anyone necessary

 
At 14 October, 2006 13:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Idiots like you believe that a magic bullet killed kennedy and u call us the nutjobs lol

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:08, Blogger shawn said...

Idiots like you believe that a magic bullet killed kennedy and u call us the nutjobs lol

There was no magic bullet. It went straight through both men and deflect off Connally's wrist. Of course you probably took a conspiracy nut at his word and saw an image with the bullet bouncing all around.

JFK was killed by one man - Lee Harvey Oswald.

How come you morons believe in all these baseless conspiracy theories?

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

pdoherty76:

So I am assuming you are 30 years old...a bit old for a truther...anyway, I will stop the mudslinging early, and simply say this...

If you are so convinced you are right, and if you are not a coward, come over to JREF, where there is room, so to speak, to have a legitimate debate on the issues...oh, wait, I am sure you have already lurked three, and realize you will be "pulverized" if you open your mouth.

Pick a 9/11 issue (not the pakistani connection/iraq war BS, but an actual 9/11 theory on the attacks) and come on over and present your evidence mr.mathematician/physicist. We have civil engineers, architects, aerospace engineers, and people without those credentials, but a wealth of knowledge who could kick your intellectual ass on any of the issues.

The invitation is there, take it if you dare...

TAM - EET, BSc-MedSci, MD, CCFP

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:16, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, I mean I am not a Hardley Boy.

And only some of the LC Crowd are such retards they don't know when they are being called retards.

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:18, Blogger Jacob said...

Macrophage, how many of these conspiracy theorists do you believe have a diagnosable mental disorder?

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:22, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

If you include the personality disorders, I would say 10-20%, likely more common in there group than the general population.

In particular, schizotypal and borderline personality disorders, or at least symptoms of such (A complete history taking from an individual would be required to make the diagnosis), are very common amongst them.

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:28, Blogger Jacob said...

Thanks!

I should have mentioned I was including personality disorders. I lurk here a lot, but I just don't see the reason to argue with these people most of the time. :) Thought I would ask a question that just popped into my head. I'm just a lowly MS1 with an mech. engineering degree.

 
At 14 October, 2006 14:42, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

jacob;

by MS1 do you mean first year med school? If so, don't sweat it, and get back to studying your anatomy...lol.

I had a fellow classmate who had his Electrical Engineering Degree when he got in. I myself had a Electronic Engineering Tech Diploma, and a Bachelor Sc.

if by MS1 you meant something else, than ignore the above message.

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 15:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

So, this thread represents the current state of the debate. A conspiracy liar named pdoherty76 pretends to have a degree in physics. If he does, let's simply close all the colleges and universities and be done with it.

He attempts to address issues that have been worn to rags. He has read nothing--nothing at all--on the subject. It's as though the Protec paper, Mark Roberts's new paper on WTC 7, the NIST report, all of Dr. Greening's papers (available on 911myths.com), the material on debunking911.com, the Popular Mechanics book, Fetzer's humiliation at the hands of J.R. Dunn (on americanthinker.com), etc., etc., don't exist.

Why bother?

 
At 14 October, 2006 15:04, Blogger Jacob said...

Actually, biochem is what I'm studying today. I'm taking a break from anatomy today. :)

 
At 14 October, 2006 16:09, Blogger pomeroo said...

Another fantasist claims to "know" that the Twin Towers were blown up. What does he know that controlled demolition experts, structural engineers, and physicists don't? Why can't he put his knowledge into words--words that can be checked and investigated?

Tell us what the experts keep missing. What is, at long last, the actual evidence that proves all the authorities wrong?

 
At 14 October, 2006 16:52, Blogger Unknown said...

It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.
They never explain how a 47 story building could be wired with explosives and no body notice. CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. the current world record
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:06, Blogger Unknown said...

Physicists don't build buildings and don't use structural dynamics.

What makes him an expert on structural engineering in the first place?

What is his mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

What is his experience with aircraft investigatoins.

Which crashes did he investigate?

What is his experience with building design and how many has he investigated?

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The difference is that for you, and I, and Pomeroo, etc, we realize structural engineering and the lot is not our "expertese", so we rely on the experts to explain how things occured.

The CTists, whom many admit, don't believe the experts count for anything, feel that there eyes don't lie, so that from video alone they feel they can claim that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.

Rediculous really, but they are CTers, so expect little more.

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

stevew im glad u mentioned air crash investigations. On 911 there were 4 air crashes but 0 air crash investigations, not to mention that the debris from the towers was illegally removed.

markyx u dont piss me off at all, i just think that doing ur own video would get u more than 8000 views, it mite also get u the fame that ur so jealous of dylan avery for,

i think loose change is a crock of shit but its an original crock of shit

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

None of u punks are experts in the field either, id rather trust a physics professor than u shysters.

And where is this idea that experts cant be wrong coming from?

I know someone who was misdiagnosed with a cancer by three separate cancer specialists. Every physics expert for 200 years after newton thought gravity was a force until one man (einstein) showed it was a curvature of space.

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

god ur thick!

I was saying it wasnt a controlled demolition, it was an uncontrolled one. There is a distinction which is why they put the word controlled in front.

The bombers in 1993 intended to demoliswh the towers but not in a controlled way

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont live in americathank god but if i did i would be shitting myself.

If terrorists alone brought down those towers as u claim then those terrorists have won because ur constitution has gone.

Bush says "the terrorists hate our freedom", well youve no freedom to hate any more so u should be safe eh

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

rayzor if u had just been a little more anal and studied what i said properly u would have noticed that the only thing i believe in is demolition and government complicity.

I call LC a crock of shit cos it claims the pentagon was a missile and the planes were swapped etc

LC is the easiest film to debunk, thats why u lot do it.

I challenge any of u todebunk 911 mysteries

theres a steel beam shown in there that is in a perfect semi circle with no buckling or cracks, debunk that boys

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talking of northwoods, none of u have addressed that point.

By the way, I am not a conspiracy theorist

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

rayzor hitler burned his own reichstag and blamed communists then on the back of that he brought in his version of the homeland security crew, how u cant see it is beyond me.

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:52, Blogger shawn said...

rayzor hitler burned his own reichstag and blamed communists then on the back of that he brought in his version of the homeland security crew, how u cant see it is beyond me.

Actually, when the Nazis thugs came to set their fires the guy they blamed it on was actually there setting one.

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:54, Blogger shawn said...

I dont live in americathank god but if i did i would be shitting myself.

Thank God you don't live in the greatest nation the planet's ever seen?

Your God must shit on you a lot if you thank him for that.

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at these interesting qoutes that debunkers conveniently overlook:

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”

N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

and

New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11. "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."

From Eastday.com, 1/24/02 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm


notice its the victims families, who you claim we r disrespecting, that are outraged

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:57, Blogger shawn said...

Bush says "the terrorists hate our freedom", well youve no freedom to hate any more so u should be safe eh

No freedom? Weird, I can go where I please, say as I please, and live how I please.

And I guess 99.9 percent of my friends who rag on Bush nonstop would be locked away if we had no freedom.

It's a shame you hyperbolic morons spout about things you obviously have no idea about. You even said you don't live in America, so how do you figure you can tell us how free we are? I've lived here all my twenty years and I've never had any of my rights revoked.

 
At 14 October, 2006 17:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

america is the greatest nation ever seen? You couldnt even beat vietnam lol

America is backward in my opinion. I live in the worlds greatest nation...GREAT britain

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:01, Blogger shawn said...

america is the greatest nation ever seen? You couldnt even beat vietnam lol

...if we fought it like Korea or WW2 the war would've been over in months. We left because of the rise of the peace movement.

America is backward in my opinion. I live in the worlds greatest nation...GREAT britain

Yup, so backwards we were the world's first liberal democracy.

Sorry, we took your place after WW2. I guess you aren't very well-read when it comes to history.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn u claim u can say anything u please? yet when fetzer says 911 was an inside job the psychopathic pervert Bill O'Reilly tries to get the FBI on him

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:03, Blogger shawn said...

yet when fetzer says 911 was an inside job the psychopathic pervert Bill O'Reilly tries to get the FBI on him

Bill O'Reilly is a private citizen, numbnuts. And he tried to get the FBI to investigate him. You act if the FBI is O'Reilly's personal lackeys.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

check these qoutes, they are professors of structural analysis

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It shows the mindset tho doesnt it? If having an opinion can get prominent right wing deviants to ask for the fbi to investigate u then that hardly promotes free speech

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

northwoods might not have included actual deaths but does it not prove the government will fake terrorist acts to get public support for a war.

Leaders have been doing it for centuries

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

It shows the mindset tho doesnt it? If having an opinion can get prominent right wing deviants to ask for the fbi to investigate u then that hardly promotes free speech

I've had left-wing radicals call up the Secret Service on me before. Private citizens can do what they want.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:20, Blogger shawn said...

Leaders have been doing it for centuries

How many can you name predating the 30s?

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if america has free speech could u explain why steven jones has been placed on leave? or why politicians are asking for the same to be done to kevin barret?

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:24, Blogger shawn said...

if america has free speech could u explain why steven jones has been placed on leave? or why politicians are asking for the same to be done to kevin barret?

Jones works at a private institution. Freedom of speech is only a government deal - the Constitution is a series of restrictions on what the government cannot do (infringe of specific rights).

A private entity can fire you for anything they want, they have their own rules.

As for Barrett, his class is on Islamic studies not 9/11 conspiracy. If he doesn't teach what he's hired for they can take action against him. They're educational halls, not prisons for brainwashing.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

northwoods was rejected by kennedy who mysteriously got his head shot off 2 months later by a magical bullet, wonder why.

Hold on, if itwasnt meant to get public support why did they seek " a helpful wave of public indignation"

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

no steven jones got the boot cos he was set up on a right wing radio show to sound anti semitic, kevin barret can ask his students to read whatever he wants

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

did u hear about that 14 year old girl who was questioned by the fbi at her school cos she had a blog that was anti-bush? free speech my arse

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

guess what? ur all right. ive seen the light. all our leaders are nice friendly hippies who wouldnt do anything to hurt us

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes defacing the crown is an arrestable offence in britain but its also legal in britain to shoot a welsh man on a sunday so whats ur point.

Bill O'Reilly said he wanted to see barret floating down a river but the fbi didnt pay him a visit.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:36, Blogger shawn said...

did u hear about that 14 year old girl who was questioned by the fbi at her school cos she had a blog that was anti-bush? free speech my arse

You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre either. Threatening the president is a federal crime (she had a myspace page with images of Bush being stabbed), by the way. PRobably because people have assassinated presidents before, nimrod.

wonder why.

Because a very confused man, named Lee Harvey Oswald, decided to enter the Texas School Book Depository and make his mark on history.

no steven jones got the boot cos he was set up on a right wing radio show to sound anti semitic,

Wrong, I already explained this to you.

kevin barret can ask his students to read whatever he wants

No...he can't. I've actually gone to college in America, you haven't, moron. There's a Holocaust denier on the faculty of Northeastern, but he is not allowed to air those views with his captive audience of students - he can only teach what he is the professor of.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

captive audience of students? hes actually holding them captive?

I thought people that went to university were intelligent people able to form an opinion autonomously but obviously i was wrong, they are all morons like me lol

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lee harvey oswald was like a david blaine for the 60s, u should seen what he could do with those bullets, he made em turn in mid air

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:43, Blogger shawn said...

captive audience of students? hes actually holding them captive?

You figure a Brit would realize words have nuance.

You pay to go to college here. You take certain classes to make your major, and you have to be in the class. They're looking to this person as someone who has studied whatever they are passing on for years - ergo captive.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:45, Blogger shawn said...

u should seen what he could do with those bullets, he made em turn in mid air

I already told you that's wrong.

This is how you think the bullet travelled.

Unfortunately, they have the men in the wrong position. Connally was off-set from Kennedy and lower in the car.

And here's how it really travelled.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn were u in dealey plaza that day> no so u r not entitled to an opinion

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:50, Blogger shawn said...

shawn were u in dealey plaza that day> no so u r not entitled to an opinion

And you were in Great Britain when 9/11 happened, you're not allowed to have an opinion on it.

Isn't it funny, I destroy his argument but his (hypocritical) response is to say I wasn't there so I can't have an opinion on it.

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hold on a minute, u claim that osama did it cos he confessed, well james files confessed to killing kennedy so that proves oswald wasnt alone....

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn mite i not have been being sarcastic cos someone said earlier that i wasnt at ground zero

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

its just another example of ur selective evidence, osamas confession proves he did it but je=ames files confession proves erm oswald did it

 
At 14 October, 2006 18:58, Blogger shawn said...

well james files confessed to killing kennedy so that proves oswald wasnt alone

He actually said he was the grassy knoll shooter.

Unfortunately (for you) the two shots that hit could've only come from the Texas School Book Depository.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont live in americathank god

yes, we're all relieved to hear that.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

heres another qoute for u:

"Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which could occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the Twin Towers, only if every supporting column were removed simultaneously"

Guess who said that boys? A structural engineer.

Earlier i was told by one of you clowns that no structural engineers agreed with me. I have already qouted 4. that makes u proven liars

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but if files was a grassy knoll shooter that proves oswald didnt act alone.

Why will u accept osama bin ladens confession but u wont accept files?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

burke i am also grateful for the appropriate username u chose, saves me having to insult u

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:05, Blogger shawn said...

but if files was a grassy knoll shooter that proves oswald didnt act alone.

He did act alone, the shots all came from the Texas School Book Depository.

Why will u accept osama bin ladens confession but u wont accept files?

I guess you missed the videos where he was with some of the hijackers.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh so ur saying the collapse was so strange that even nist had to change its story?

thats right boys, keep making my case for me lol

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh yes i remember, the video that the government claims came out last month but which has actually been used in a documentary 7 months ago. god your government is honest isnt it

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

thats right boys, keep making my case for me lol

You know what's great about science? People work very hard to make sure they have it right.

I guess Darwin was wrong because for so long everyone said God just created everything. I guess Einstein was wrong because Newton already figured out all that gravity stuff.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

god your government is honest isnt it

Al Jazeera released it, moron.

At least post once without making an ass of yourself.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

crungy i set my blog up today so cut me some slack.

by the way crungy, thanks for taking time out of ur busy life to research me. in the dictionary next to the word anal i bet theres a picture of crungy

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

talking of global collapse, could one of you intellectuals please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:14, Blogger shawn said...

talking of global collapse, could one of you intellectuals please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?

Ever played jenga?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn u know nothing about einstein or newton

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh my god, shawn is comparing the trade towers to a game of jenga rofl im gonna use that in my blog, that is priceless

when i play jenga i often crash boeings into it lol

cud someone get shawns coat

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn i apologise, i have just found this qoute from the lead architect on the trade towers

"when we designed the towers we envisaged a super strong structure that could withstand boeing impacts but then we had a game of jenga and decided to make them like that instead"

pmpl lol

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:21, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

could you expain why screw loose change has 8000 views on google video while loose change has over 20,000,000?


Like hey man, I mean, did you count all the versions of Loose Change? There's like version one, then I like changed it. Then there was version 2, and now I mena I'm changing it again.

Like hey man, we should call it Loose CHANGED and Loose CHANGED AGAIN

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:25, Blogger telescopemerc said...


"Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which could occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the Twin Towers, only if every supporting column were removed simultaneously"

Guess who said that boys? A structural engineer.


Bulls*** you liar. It comes from Fetzer. Not an engineer by any account.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:27, Blogger telescopemerc said...

talking of global collapse, could one of you intellectuals please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?

Are you ready to take an entire courseload in Structures? 'Cause there's no Cliff Notes version of this.

However, the short version is: How do you expect them to fall?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oi telescope, that qoute is from charles pelegrow a structural engineer

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:30, Blogger shawn said...

Doherty I was talking in language I thought you'd understand. When too much weight is on not enough support your jenga tower collapses.

That's why the tower collapses START WHERE THE PLANES HIT. It's the division between the intact tower and the "added" weight.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh so ur saying the collapse was so strange that even nist had to change its story?

The NIST didn't find any support for the "pancake" hypothesis in the evidence, so they came up with a more appropriate one. What's wrong with that?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i didnt expect them to fall. A reasonable expectation since they are the only skyscrapers in history to fall from fire

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:31, Blogger shawn said...

shawn u know nothing about einstein or newton

How do you figure? I think I've shown myself to be a well-read young man.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:32, Blogger shawn said...

A reasonable expectation since they are the only skyscrapers in history to fall from fire

Only a moron could say something like that. They didn't fall from fire.

They fell from two loaded planes hitting them at hundreds of miles per hour followed by infernos.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes shawn ur jenga analogy was perfect. most jenga games involve jet fuel and planes.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:33, Blogger telescopemerc said...

but if files was a grassy knoll shooter that proves oswald didnt act alone.

Why will u accept osama bin ladens confession but u wont accept files?


Osama's confession fits the evidence, his resources, his motives, and his methods.

Files confession can be heaped on top of all the other confessed 'second shooters' who nobody on the 'grassy knoll' saw, or heard. Ergo, no evidence.

We had a case here in the US where a young girl was killed in a very brutal manner. A person just confessed to that brutal crime. Turns out, he wasn't even in the same state.

You might want to learn about equating evidence someday.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:34, Blogger shawn said...

most jenga games involve jet fuel and planes.

You ignore the planes and fuel in all your comments, I didn't think you'd mind.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

erm thanks for the info crungy.

now lets dally with the truth shall we? u spent all day today on the internet trolling, then tomorrow u will pick up u welfare check so u can pay AT&T for ur internet connection(ur only contact to the world)

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:35, Blogger telescopemerc said...

oi telescope, that qoute is from charles pelegrow a structural engineer

The quote you gave came from a letter from Fetzer.

Where is this 'pelegrow' working? What are his full qualifications?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh yes i remember the case of that girl. didnt ur fair media hold a tv trial for her parents and force them into hiding despite them being innocent. god bless america

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:37, Blogger telescopemerc said...

i didnt expect them to fall.

This is why you are not an engineer. Most structural engineers had a very good inkling that they were going to fall.

A reasonable expectation since they are the only skyscrapers in history to fall from fire

Very few skyscrapers have such massive fires and the impact of the plane to deal with.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:38, Blogger telescopemerc said...

oh yes i remember the case of that girl. didnt ur fair media hold a tv trial for her parents and force them into hiding despite them being innocent. god bless america

That sound you heard was the point going over your head.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:39, Blogger shawn said...

didnt ur fair media hold a tv trial for her parents and force them into hiding despite them being innocent.

How are they innocent? We still don't have who did it.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

building 7 wasnt hit by a plane.

if structural engineers knew they were going to fall why did nist do an investigation and change from pancake to global

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:41, Blogger shawn said...

tomorrow u will pick up u welfare check

It's kinda funny seeing a Briton using welfare collection as an insult when he hails from the model welfare state.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:41, Blogger shawn said...

building 7 wasnt hit by a plane.

A bigass skyscraper collapsed right next to it, though.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if structural engineers knew they were going to fall why did nist do an investigation and change from pancake to global

Can you rephrase that so that it makes sense?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

telescope go to

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349170.html#democracynow

here u will see a full resume on Charles pegelow and see his open letter to democracy now

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:46, Blogger shawn said...

Indymedia and Democracy Now!

Next you'll have us check the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349170.html#democracynow

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn u used a game of jenga as ur source so id stay quiet. i cant put the fucking link in. anyway charles pegelow is a very experienced senior design engineer, put him into google

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Charles the engineer...isnt he the oil rig designer guy from texas that fetzer loves so much.

Funny Doherty, you claim not to be a CTer, yet you feel the towers were brought down by Controlled Dem, you believe in JFK CTs, what am I missing.

Oh, and please give me the names of the four "Structural Engineers" you claimed earlier are in opposition to the official story (you know, the ones you said you quoted).

...let me see, Zuniga, Pelegrow, Oh and the two that Jones added to "Scholars" full time member list, despite them not meeting the very credentials that he set up for scholars...you know the ones that made Judy and Morgan leave, those are about the only 4 engineers I can think of in the field of buildings and structures that are against the official story. You might include Jowenko, but he only half supports anything the CTs put out, and that is based on visual evidence only.

Jeez man, the list of team leaders on NIST, just the leaders, is twice as long as the above. This doesnt include the hundreds of engineers that assisted them in the studies. Now if we get into the FEMA list, and the armie's engineers, well I mean, this gets longer than your arm...oh wait, they are all shills right...just nod your head.

Oh, and one other thing. Did you sign up to debate at JREF yet, as I invited you to. You know, a place where we can discuss a number of topics, without cluttering up poor Jim and Pats Blog...I didn't think so. Seems cowardice still exists amongst the CTs...oh wait, you said you are not one...my apologies.

give me a break. You come in here, act all high and mighty, and then you simply engage in ad hominems, ad nauseum in fact, and make absolutely no points, let alone points with evidence.

Scholars for 9/11 - F&*KING joke. A bunch of super left hippie professors with too much time on their hands. Amongst their full time members, they have only a handful of scientists with any credentials relative to the 9/11 attacks, and of those, even less have actually written anything on the topic. Yet these are the "leaders" of the "truth" movement...apart from the nut job, yes nut job, that is alex jones.

TAM

what a joke. Your whole crowd is a joke...a sad, sorry assed joke of whiners who are so void of any real life that they have to invent one to be a part of.

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

right i have a question for you all...

why do u repeatedly claim that not one structural engineer supports us when i have named several????

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:50, Blogger shawn said...

shawn u used a game of jenga as ur source so id stay quiet. i

I didn't think you'd understand a complex answer (you sure shut up after the JFK stuff, so I should've tried it), so I stuck with something even an infant could understand.

It wasn't a source either. A source is going "so-so at this publication said the best way to explain 9/11 is through jenga".

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:52, Blogger telescopemerc said...

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349170.html#democracynow

here u will see a full resume on Charles pegelow and see his open letter to democracy now


Color me unimpressed. The guy has been working on oil dericks his entire life. And he is a Civil Engineer, not structural. His opinion is also very much the minority.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the jealousy is unbelievable.

ull never be radio host like jones, ull never be a successful filmaker like dylan avery. get over it

i would love to accept ur offer to come to jref but unfortunately i would come in all high and mighty ad hominem ad nauseum etc u wudnt want that wud u?

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:54, Blogger telescopemerc said...

building 7 wasnt hit by a plane.

No, just two other huge skyscarpers fell on it.

Oh and it then burned for seven hours, with absolutely no firefighting efforts and no working internal sprinkers.

No surprise it collapsed.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

telescope if you bothered to read his resume u would see that he worked on skyscrapers before oil rigs.

i have proved u wrong end of

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:56, Blogger telescopemerc said...

ull never be radio host like jones,

I don't want to be like Jones. He's an opportunist crank with minimal exposure. Art 'woowoo' Bell has more exposure and even he knows the 911 denier are full of crap.

ull never be a successful filmaker like dylan avery.

This must be one of those definitions of 'successful' that I am not familiar with.

 
At 14 October, 2006 19:58, Blogger telescopemerc said...

telescope if you bothered to read his resume u would see that he worked on skyscrapers before oil rigs.

His resume says he did that for the two years just after he got his degree. Meaning that even by poor 70's Texas engineering standards he wasn't even an EIT, let alone a PE.

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well dylan avery hasnt made a fortune but for a filmmaker to have tens of millions see his movie all over the world with the possibility of cinema release, id say thats successful compared to an internet troll

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:02, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I dunno doherty, would you. Maybe over there you might be a rational sane person who would debate with facts and logic...I know your not doing that here, but who knows...the offer still stands.

As for a desire to be like Alex Jones, a relatively unknown shock jock for nobody radio...keep it, I wouldnt want it in a million years.

As for a "successful" filmaker, like Dylan Avery...ummm ok. The guy takes a bunch of other peoples footage, pastes it together, gets a friend to make some music for it, and then interjects his own "boy next door" commentary. Ok, is he a success, ya, I suppose, in the land of the internet. Talented...not by a long shot from what I have seen so far. I would call it right place, right time, and a tonne of luck...but we will see...see what the future holds for them...fame or famine.

TAM

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:02, Blogger telescopemerc said...

well dylan avery hasnt made a fortune but for a filmmaker to have tens of millions see his movie all over the world with the possibility of cinema release, id say thats successful compared to an internet troll

Sorry, but my definition of 'successful' means that I can sleep at night with a clear concious. It does not mean I crap out a bunch of the most laughable lies ever put on video and pander it to clueless college idiots.

Why does Avery hide from Gravy?

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as for alex jones. minimal exposure? how many hollywood films has art bell been in?

Jones is a great american, look how he got the waco church rebuilt.

Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?

funny how a crank can predict them but the entire US intelligence apparatus cant

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:09, Blogger telescopemerc said...

as for alex jones. minimal exposure? how many hollywood films has art bell been in?

Several series, not to mention a video game (or two). But this isn't a d*ckwaving contest.

Jones is a great american, look how he got the waco church rebuilt.

rebuild the pedophile palace. Won-der-ful

Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?

Have you looked at all of his predictions that he missed completely? I can spew out hundreds of 'predictions' and some of them are bound to come true.

funny how a crank can predict them but the entire US intelligence apparatus cant

They guy with a shotgun full of buckshot who getsa few pellets into the target does not haev the right to brag about what a great marksman he is.

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

why do u repeatedly claim that not one structural engineer supports us when i have named several????

Have either of these engineers (you've named 2 that I can recall) published their findings anywhere besides conspiranoia websites?

Do they even have findings? All I've seen is one guy make some off-hand remarks about a video and an interview with Alex Jones.


They have a name for this kind of thinking.

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?

OMG! Proof Alex Jones was in on the attacks. South Park was right!

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well if i worked in the cia id hire alex jones.

He said on 25th July 2001 that planes were gonna hit new york and osama would be blamed.

After 9/11 Condaleeza rice said they couldnt have imagined planes going into buildings.

go figure

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:21, Blogger shawn said...

He said on 25th July 2001 that planes were gonna hit new york and osama would be blamed.

When you make thousands of predictions, it's only a matter of probability that you'll finally get a hit.

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He said on 25th July 2001 that planes were gonna hit new york and osama would be blamed.

Link?

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:25, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Jones also predicted a 'suitcase nuke' within two years.. back in 2001. He gaurunteed it.

You really need to learn about the shotgun approach. Or do you think Sylvia Brown is a real psychic?

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:28, Blogger shawn said...

Jones also predicted a 'suitcase nuke' within two years.. back in 2001. He gaurunteed it.

Yeah it doesn't help him that suitcase nukes don't exist. "Foot-locker nukes" is about as small as they get.

 
At 14 October, 2006 20:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

burke just put "alex jones predicts 9/11" into google video and u can see the video of him saying it.

It wasnt fluke that he said this. If he can put planes, new york and osama bin laden into the same sentence before 9/11 then why couldnt the people at the cia do so? they were meant to be monitoring osama

a memo hit the desk of bush well before the attack talking about hijacked planes and he did fuck all

 

Post a Comment

<< Home