Thursday, April 12, 2007

Barrett's "Humor" Falls Flat

Kevin Barrett has apparently decided to make himself into the funny man of 9-11 Denial:

Barrett, the world's leading Irish Muslim truth jihadi, has come out in two-fisted support of "fightin' 9/11 truth-teller 'Irish Rosie' O'Donnell" -- while demanding that accused "sex-harasser and bully Bill O'Reilly admit that he is not Irish at all!"

"O'Reilly's true father was a slinkin' yellow-bellied polecat, not an Irishman," Barrett blustered. "And if ye still want ta throw me in the drink, ye slitherin' coward, I'll meet ye at the banks o' the River Liffey at high noon on Bloomsday next."

Satirist Barrett, the object of a nationally-televised death threat from O'Reilly, made the remarks over a pint of non-alcoholic Guinness while celebrating the release of his new book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie.


More "comedy gold" from Barrett:

"Is it true Woodward and Bernstein said that O'Reilly was a CIA asset?"
"No, the Bernstein article came out before Hannity and O'Reilly were nationally known."
"So, the I in CIA doesn't stand for Irish?"
Barrett: "No, that's my group: Crazy Irish-Americans."
"And does BOR (Bill O'Reilly's initials) actually stand for Bore?"
Barrett: "Yes, what you have there is actually a very large-bore bore."


Coming soon, to a public access channel near you!

Labels: ,

64 Comments:

At 12 April, 2007 09:55, Blogger Triterope said...

I'd love to watch Kevin Barrett try his shit in a professional club. A real comedy club audience would eat him alive and spit out his glasses. Ever seen a club audience turn on a comedian when he says the wrong thing? It's nasty.

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:05, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Oh dear.

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

Oh boy, why waste energy on crap like this when 911 families are petitioning NIST?

Priorities fellas..

- - - - - -
Israel in all its gory...
God's chosen part 1
God's chosen part 2
God's chosen part 3

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:26, Blogger BG said...

James and Pat,

If you guys have honorable intentions, why is your material on par with some weird cross between Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:51, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh boy, why waste energy on crap like this when 911 families are petitioning NIST?

Because Data Quality Act petitions are old news, maybe?

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:11, Blogger Jason said...

Old news? How about addressing the points brought up in the petition? (not the one talking about directed energy weapons)

I read through it, and I must say, regardless of what you believe, the NIST report is clearly flawed. If there's nothing to hide, they should have no problem correcting it, right? ... right??

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

Because Data Quality Act petitions are old news, maybe?

We talking about the same petition?

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:15, Blogger nesNYC said...

This one contradicts Wood on her "energy beam" theory. Read IT! Fear not the truth.

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:21, Blogger nesNYC said...

the NIST report is clearly flawed.

I would disagree in that NIST started with a conclusion and did their report from that point backwards. In that, it's a 100% success in theorizing how the aircraft would have hypothetically taken down the buildings. As a research piece it limits itself to the plane scenario without taking into consideration eyewitness accounts of explosives and other anomalous (to the plane theory) inconsistencies.

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Old news? How about addressing the points brought up in the petition?

How about a quote, then?

"I imagine this process just requires NIST to defend its own work, not investigate alternative theories."

"These people think they can bring the whole government conspiracy down in one stroke if they just file the right form. So they go looking for some obscure, narrow government form, fill it out with some objective for which it was never intended, then claim conspiracy when the republic doesn't crumble beneath it."

-- me, 17 days ago, on the post I JUST GAVE YOU A LINK TO, you lazy turd.

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:28, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

". . .his new book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie."

"Mein Kampf" was already taken...

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

-- me, 17 days ago, on the post I JUST GAVE YOU A LINK TO, you lazy turd.

Apples and oranges. Read HERE.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:09, Blogger nesNYC said...

Here's the story on this:

9/11 Family Members File Petition with NIST

Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine today filed a petition with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeking correction of inaccurate factual statements and analysis in NIST's reports on the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Mr. Doyle is the representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, the Coalition of 9/11 Families*, and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

Mr. McIlvaine, an outspoken 9/11 truth activist, lost his son Bobby when the World Trade Centers were destroyed.

Another prominent 9/11 family member supports the petition, but decided for personal reasons not to sign.

Also signing the petition are:

• Physicist Dr. Steven Jones

• Scientist and former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Kevin Ryan

• Architect Richard Gage (a member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use)

More...

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Apples and oranges.

More like walnuts and cashews. They're both still nuts.

Read IT! Read HERE

Tell ya what, I'll search for some key concepts:

Building never collapsed due to fire? Check. (p. 6)

People heard explosions? Check. (pp. 23-25)

Steven Jones' paper was peer-reviewed? Check. (p. 29)

Accusations of bias because the report didn't confirm the conspiracy story? Check. (Too many to cite individually, but the one at the bottom of page 25 is a real knee-slapper.)

Laughable self-contradictions? Check. (I don't want to give away the knee-slapper, so read it and then read the second non-indented paragraph on page 8.)

Misrepresentation of the level of involvement of victim families? Check. (pp. 27-29, Nesync's "911 families" turns out to be two people.)

Involvement of long-discredited wackaloons? Kevin Ryan, check. Steven Jones, check. Scholars For 9-11 Truth and Justice, check. (pp. 29-30) LOOK I MAKE AD HOM LOL

I could go on, but clearly this petition is the same grade of bullshit we always get out of you people.

Let me know when you get a reply from NIST. I suspect it will be along the lines of what T.A.M. suggested in the previous thread on the matter.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:27, Blogger nesNYC said...

I could go on, but clearly this petition is the same grade of bullshit we always get out of you people.

Where's the energy beams? Who didn't read? hahaha.. So YOU find fault with the backers of this petition, big deal. All you petty insults and useless name calling doesn't do anything but show your inability to grasp the subject at hand.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:35, Blogger Triterope said...

So YOU find fault with the backers of this petition, big deal.

Yes, that was one of the seven points I raised.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:36, Blogger CHF said...

Nazinyc,

So a total of two 9/11 family members are petitioning NIST?

First of all, that's a pathetically low total.

Secondly, maybe you should focus your attention on engineers and demolitions pros instead.

www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

How about it Nessie?

You can join Swing in his fruitless quest to find some engineers who back silly demolitions theories.

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:25, Blogger shawn said...

Satirist Barrett

He's our generation's Mark Twain.

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:58, Blogger Jason said...

The reason why nobody will touch the latest NIST petition (with any seriousness) is because they CAN'T. If you actually read it, you'll see that it contains numerous examples of NIST's flawed logic, missing evidence, and obvious bias.

To argue that the NIST report did not do any of these things would be absurd, because it's right there in black & white. Regardless of WHY they did it, or whether or not they're trying to cover something else up, the fact remains that their report is not scientifically sound. That's a big problem, not only for 9/11 report in-question, but also any future research they're asked to do.

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:07, Blogger CHF said...

Tell you want, Jason...

The reason why nobody will touch the latest NIST petition (with any seriousness) is because they CAN'T. If you actually read it, you'll see that it contains numerous examples of NIST's flawed logic, missing evidence, and obvious bias.

Wonderful. You plan on doing anything useful with this info of yours?

Take your numerous NIST errors and show them to engineers.

www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:26, Blogger Jason said...

It's not "my" info (it's all from the aforementioned petition), and no, I don't plan on doing anything with it. My tax dollars paid for the NIST researchers/engineers to do that work, so as far as I'm concerned, they're on the hook for a scientifically sound report that is free of major self-contradictions.

If you take a step back and look at the NIST report objectively, without considering the absurdity (or likelihood) of an alternate conclusion, you would see what I'm referring to. Unfortunately, you're probably not capable of doing that (despite your claim to the contrary).

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:40, Blogger CHF said...

Jason,

What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether you or me or Kevin Ryan find what we think are serious errors in the NIST report.

No one gives a shit!

You're not an engineer, you're not a demolition pro. You're just one of many people surfing the net. This will not make for a succesful petition or a new investigation.

Now if engineers start signing this petition...well then this might amount to something.

So...do you want this to amount to something?

If so, I suggest you do your part or don't complain when NIST doesn't re-open the case.

www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:41, Blogger Triterope said...

The reason why nobody will touch the latest NIST petition (with any seriousness)

Well, you could head over to the JREF, where the petition is getting a far more thorough examination than I gave it. Some responses:

T.A.M.: "So far as I had read, there was no attempt made, backed with evidence or scientific calculations, that the loss of said kinetic energy via expulsion of aircraft materials out the other side, would have been siginficant enough to effect in a significant way, the outcome that is collapse initiation."

Horatius: "Essentially they're claiming that because none of the simulations showed damage as severe as was actually observed, they should not have thrown out the least damaging simulation. How's that again?"

Beachnut: "As an engineer, I found no worthy items of interest in the petition. I tried, but could not find one thing worthy that would change the outcome of 9/11 or the overall NIST conclusions."

Myriad: "The petition goes on to claim that the medium and severe scenarios were also wrong, because different specific airplane parts were ejected from the towers in the model than in the real event. On that basis it claims that the less severe scenario is therefore no less valid. That's equivocation, fallaciously equating 'inaccurate by virtue of showing different specific pieces of debris penetrating the far wall' with 'inaccurate by virtue of not showing any penetration of debris through the far wall at all.' Quite silly."

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:57, Blogger BG said...

A tasty morsel:

PSYOP AS A CHALLENGE FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

 
At 12 April, 2007 15:35, Blogger gb said...

OFFICIAL PSYOP WEAR!

 
At 12 April, 2007 16:05, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

What kind of Irishman drinks non-alchoholic Guiness? I didn't even know they made such a thing.

 
At 12 April, 2007 17:34, Blogger Pat said...

Bill, is this post or is it not up on 9-11 Blogger?

 
At 12 April, 2007 18:45, Blogger James B. said...

There is no way any self respecting Irishman would make non-alcoholic Guiness. In fact that thought offends me more than Barrett comparing us to Nazis.

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:14, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I can't understand why anyone would even make it, I've certainly never seen it. Then again non-alchoholic beer isn't exactly popular in Glasgow.

 
At 12 April, 2007 20:37, Blogger Jason said...

I don't need to be an engineer or a demolition pro to spot a deviation from the scientific method, considering the fact that it's taught in.. what, the 3rd grade?

As for the JREF forum -- as evident in the quotes posted by triterope, the people who post there have no clue what they're talking about. The main problem with the NIST report really isn't hard to understand:

(grossly oversimplified) Let's say the simulations show that it takes 5 units of damage to bring down one of the WTC towers, and that each plane could have accounted for 3, 4, or 5 of those units. Then there's another variable for non-plane (or plane related) damage.

NIST essentially worked under the assumption that the non-plane damage was 0, making 5 units the only possible value for the plane damage. As a result, they tossed out the simulations for 3 & 4 units.

Then, to justify the assumption that the non-plane damage was 0, they basically point back to the simulation to say, "well, we've accounted for all the damage already, so it's 0".

That's not sound reasoning, and you don't need to be a scientist to make that determination (even though there are plenty who have). I'm stunned that so many people have a hard time grasping this..

 
At 12 April, 2007 21:51, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Many of the posters at JREF ARE engineers and scientists and they have no problem with NIST's findings or methods.

 
At 13 April, 2007 02:28, Blogger Jay said...

(grossly oversimplified) Let's say the simulations show that it takes 5 units of damage to bring down one of the WTC towers, and that each plane could have accounted for 3, 4, or 5 of those units. Then there's another variable for non-plane (or plane related) damage.

They had 3 case studies. They tossed out the first 2 studies, because the outcome did not resemble the events that happened. the last study was a very close match, so they stuck with that. Thats called research, incase you didn't know.

 
At 13 April, 2007 04:46, Blogger Jason said...

Jay- they were the ones tasked with identifying "the events that happened". How exactly were they able to use their *conclusion* to discard test cases before the research was completed? How can you not see the problem here?

Do you understand what it means when someone is "begging the question"?

 
At 13 April, 2007 09:56, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Jason said: "How exactly were they able to use their *conclusion* to discard test cases before the research was completed? How can you not see the problem here?"

You don't seem to understand how this sort of thing works.

Any reasonable investigation bases itself on the observable events and evidence. Sometimes, yes, reasonable assumptions may need to be made to fill in some gaps.

An example of this is part of NIST's fire analysis. As I understand it (and I'm probably over-simplifying here), their first simulation didn't produce a fire that matched the observed intensity on 9/11. Does this mean that they "proved" the fires couldn't be as hot as they were given the observable evidence?

No.

As it turned out, the problem was simply that they hadn't "rubblized" the contents of the towers on the affected floors. So, they modified their hypothesis to include rubblized office contents.


Lo' and behold, the simulated fire matched very closely the observed intensity and the evidence available through analysis of actual, affected steel beams.

Truthers seem to howl at this sort of thing, claiming NIST merely created evidence to fit the observed conclusion.

But, really... is it unreasonable to assume that the impact of a commercial airliner would create a chaotic distribution of the office contents? Of course not...

What's unreasonable is pointing to NIST's first hypothesis, saying, "Look! Even they proved that the fires weren't that intense," and then running off an hypothesizing thermite or some other nonsense...

 
At 13 April, 2007 11:29, Blogger Jason said...

You've just described how the NIST report did not follow the scientific method -- thank you.

That "problem" you're referring to was that their hypothesis didn't match the conclusion they had already decided on, so they modified the hypothesis until it did match.

I understand that you're saying that's not the case, but seriously, how can you argue that? If they were truly following the scientific method, they would have broadened their investigation when the simulation didn't match up with reality, as opposed to "rubblizing" the WTC debris.

Forget about conspiracy theories - how could they be sure that terrorists didn't plant a small bomb somewhere in the building? People obviously heard explosions that day.. to dismiss that possibility without proper (documented) due diligence is a joke.

 
At 13 April, 2007 11:41, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

If they were truly following the scientific method, they would have broadened their investigation when the simulation didn't match up with reality, as opposed to "rubblizing" the WTC debris.

They broadened the investigation to take in to account the debris. No evidence was found to suggest the use of any kind of explosives so simulating them would have been pointless.

Please cite a scientist who finds fault in their methods instead of going by what you remember from the 3rd grade.

 
At 13 April, 2007 11:54, Blogger Triterope said...

I hope there's somebody at NIST with the right combination of knowledge, humor, and vindictiveness to give this snotty petition the arch response it deserves.

 
At 13 April, 2007 12:28, Blogger Jason said...

"They broadened the investigation to take in to account the debris. No evidence was found to suggest the use of any kind of explosives so simulating them would have been pointless."

No, simulating a tsunami or an 8.5 magnitude earthquake would have been pointless. Simulating explosions, which countless eyewitnesses reporting hearing at various times, would have shown NIST's willingness to consider alternative conclusions.

Regarding a response from NIST - I completely agree. There are dozens of ways they could immediately silence all the conspiracy theorists: release all the video evidence from the Pentagon crash (raw & uncut, just for kicks), revise the NIST report so it follows the scientific method & explores other possible conclusions, etc.

 
At 13 April, 2007 12:37, Blogger Jason said...

Oh, and for the person who asked me to name a scientist who disagrees with the NIST report, here's five of them. Let me know if you need more.

David Griscom, Ph.D.
Bill Hammel, Ph.D.
Mike Hawryluk, Ph.D.
Greg Jenkins, Ph.D.
Lon Waters, Ph.D.

(all five physicists or mathematicians.)

 
At 13 April, 2007 12:37, Blogger Jason said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 April, 2007 13:14, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

What a surprise, all five are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Perhaps I should have asked if there are any scientists that have problems with NIST's methods that aren't gargling Uncle Fetzer's Kool Aid.

I have to admit that Griscom makes some good points though:

"Mercifully, we normally publish in refereed journals, where some of our inevitable mistakes are caught by anonymous peer reviewers prior to publication. Nevertheless, referees tend to be too busy to catch every error, so mistakes can still leak into print. I have made a horrendous number of mistakes in the process of publishing the 108 papers that I wrote fully myself. I know this because I’ve caught virtually all of them myself by double-, triple-, and quadruple-checking my data, logic, and mathematics before allowing my manuscripts to go to press. My published works are highly respected by my peers according to my score (h=39) on the recently devised Hirsch index [J.E. Hirsch, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 0507655102 (2005)]. This means that 39 of the 185 total papers of which I am the principal author or a coauthor have each been cited at least 39 times in other refereed publications."

"I have a feeling that most physicists never completely outgrow their propensity for "hand waving" and that in moments of hubris some may even resort to "proofs by intimidation." But in the end what keeps us honest is our need to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Therefore, I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics."



So where are these peer reviewed papers?

 
At 13 April, 2007 13:19, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

No, simulating a tsunami or an 8.5 magnitude earthquake would have been pointless. Simulating explosions, which countless eyewitnesses reporting hearing at various times, would have shown NIST's willingness to consider alternative conclusions.

Once again a twoofer displays an inability to distinguish between explosions and explosives.

One person said they heard what "sounded like a freight train", should NIST have run simulations involving a freight train?

 
At 13 April, 2007 13:23, Blogger Jason said...

I didn't reference any peer reviewed papers. You asked for a scientist; I gave you five.

Perhaps you should have said, "Name one scientist who has a problem with the NIST report, not counting the scientists who have a problem with the NIST report."

 
At 13 April, 2007 13:34, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I probably should have been more clear. I don't doubt that there are some scientists that question the NIST report. After all there are scientists that questions the theory of evolution, it's just that they can't give valid reasons for doing so nor can they back up their position with peer reviewed papers.

I am interested in what problems neutral scientists may have with NIST's methods such as Greening.

 
At 13 April, 2007 13:38, Blogger Jason said...

"Once again a twoofer displays an inability to distinguish between explosions and explosives.

One person said they heard what "sounded like a freight train", should NIST have run simulations involving a freight train?"

I won't stoop to your level with the name-calling, but I can tell you that explosions are produced by explosives (among other things). Unless NIST investigated & explained the source of every reported explosion, wouldn't it be possible that terrorists could have planted one or more explosives in the WTC buildings? Given the trouble they went to with the planes, I don't see why that's such an unlikely scenario given the scope of the NIST report.

Regarding the freight train- I don't know, are there any train tracks nearby? ;)

(I'm only halfway joking, because I honestly have no idea if there were any above-ground trains near the WTC buildings. I would assume the person was using a figure of speech, though.)

 
At 13 April, 2007 14:24, Blogger Jason said...

I am interested in what problems neutral scientists may have with NIST's methods such as Greening.

Why? So you can find creative new ways to discredit them and ignore what they have to say? Your response to almost everything is an appeal to credentials (i.e., a fallacy). I don't think I'll waste any more of my time..

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:10, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

Listen, dumbass. Go to a camping store sometime and get yourself an MRE heater. They're little green bags which are used to heat food. Take the packet out and put it in a 2 litre pop bottle. Add water. Then toss it, and stand a couple dozen meters away. Then come back here and describe the sound that you heard.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:17, Blogger sggw said...

David Griscom, Ph.D.
Bill Hammel, Ph.D.
Mike Hawryluk, Ph.D.
Greg Jenkins, Ph.D.
Lon Waters, Ph.D.
(all five physicists or mathematicians.)

How many airplane crashes have they investigated and which ones they were?

Tell us about all their mechanical design experience

Tell us about all their mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

Tell us about all their experience with aircraft investigators.

Which crashes did they investigate?

Tell us about all their mechanical design experience with airplanes.

Which ones have they worked on?

Tell us about all their experience with building design

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:39, Blogger Jason said...

alex: It sounded a lot like a freight train.

sggw: How many mathematicians or physicists do you know that have done any or all of the following:

- designed airplanes.
- designed buildings.
- investigated plane crashes.
- worked in "Structrial Dynamics". (sic)
- mechanical design as it relates to airplanes.
- experience with aircraft investigators.

..because none of that really falls under the traditional physics or mathematics umbrella.

 
At 13 April, 2007 15:45, Blogger Alex said...

alex: It sounded a lot like a freight train.

You might want to try it before you comment. It actually sounds like a rather powerful explosion. But I can guarantee that you won't be knocking down any buildings with it.

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:28, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Why? So you can find creative new ways to discredit them and ignore what they have to say?

No, I am actually interested in wether or not there are genuine errors in the NIST reports that would support the need for further investigations. So far I have been given no reason to believe so.


Your response to almost everything is an appeal to credentials (i.e., a fallacy). I don't think I'll waste any more of my time..

How the fuck is that a fallacy? Do you go to see an optician about toothache?

 
At 13 April, 2007 16:34, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I won't stoop to your level with the name-calling, but I can tell you that explosions are produced by explosives (among other things). Unless NIST investigated & explained the source of every reported explosion, wouldn't it be possible that terrorists could have planted one or more explosives in the WTC buildings?

That is retarded for two reasons: 1) You need to prove that there were explosives, not that there weren't.

2) Demanding that NIST explain every explosion is utterly ridiculous and reminiscent of creationist who demand an example of every intermediary evolutionary phase.


(I'm only halfway joking, because I honestly have no idea if there were any above-ground trains near the WTC buildings. I would assume the person was using a figure of speech, though.)

But when someone says it "sounded like a bomb" then it MUST be a bomb!

 
At 13 April, 2007 17:03, Blogger sggw said...

My point exactly. These toofers are qualified to only give their opinions but you toofers think they are qualified to give detailed explanation on subjects way out of their fields

 
At 13 April, 2007 18:02, Blogger shawn said...

Unless NIST investigated & explained the source of every reported explosion, wouldn't it be possible that terrorists could have planted one or more explosives in the WTC buildings? Given the trouble they went to with the planes, I don't see why that's such an unlikely scenario given the scope of the NIST report.

Because it's needlessly complex. People in the real world don't act like James Bond villains. Somehow they managed to plant massive bombs without anyone noticing all throughout the towers, just in case flying planes into them didn't meet the whole spectacle aspect of terrorism. Not only that, but if they were caught planting or even transporting any bombs, say goodbye to their hijacking plot. These people may be evil, but they are not stupid.

 
At 13 April, 2007 21:20, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Jason said: ". . .but I can tell you that explosions are produced by explosives (among other things)."

Ohhh... So close to understanding, yet looking in the opposite direction. What a shame.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2674646408572574875

 
At 14 April, 2007 10:17, Blogger Triterope said...

Here's why the Twoofers are so hot about explosives. If you can prove the existence of any amount of explosives, then you officially have a conspiracy. It's the equivalent of the second shooter on the grassy knoll. The mere existence of someone or something related to the plot could not have happened without foreknowledge. It proves that conspiracy existed in some form.

So now that all but the most insane Twoofers have accepted that airplanes were the primary cause of the collapse, they're now looking for itty-bitty explosions that might have aided the process. Any size explosion will do, you see. It's a pass-fail thing.

So we get all these arguments that the conspiracy did crash the plane into the building, but planted explosives as a backup plan.

Look at Jason's 3-4-5 model. If 5 points of damage are needed to destroy the building, and the plane crash and its aftereffects don't cause 5, then 1 or 2 came from some other source. That's essentially their argument.

The problem with this model is that it implies an 80-20 or 60-40 ratio between the two forces that destroyed the building. If an explosive had done even 20% of the damage that the plane crash did, it would have been obvious in the video. NIST wouldn't need to "test for explosive residue" any more than the investigators of the Boston Molasses Flood needed to test for molasses.

The petition complains that NIST rejected models in which the impact of the plane was not sufficient to bring down the building. Fair enough, but if the impact of the plane wasn't sufficient to cause collapse, then why did it collapse?

I'm all for the debate continuing if it is not conclusive, but at some point someone on the conspiracy side is going to have to demonstrate, from observable reality and in scientific terms, what other forces were present.

And DUH PEOPLE SAID THEY HEARD EXPLOSIONS UNGLUNLGUBLGGLUBLGBGUNGH doesn't cut it. Neither do these ridiculous squib photos, in which some pathetically tiny puff of smoke is discharged out of a window just as 50 stories are collapsing onto it. Here's a good example, from this page. If anyone wants to argue that the puff of smoke in the above photo was a significant factor in the building collapsing, go right ahead. It will be good for a laugh.

The purpose of the study was not to prove that the building collapsed. It did. We all saw it. The purpose was to find out why, to find out what forces were involved. This is where Jason's "they didn't use good 3rd grade science" argument fails. If developing multiple models of a known event and choosing the one that fits observable reality is bad science, then I guess all regression analysis is bad science, too. Alert the Nobel committee.

In conclusion, what the Twoofers are really looking for is an explosive large enough to have been a factor in the collapse, but small enough to have gone completely unnoticed. These two traits are, of course, completely contradictory.

I am glad, however, to see some factions of the Truth movement voicing their concerns through real-world processes. This will make NIST defend their study, and improve upon it. Ironically, the objections of Twoofers will actually improve the science supporting the official story.

 
At 14 April, 2007 12:46, Blogger CHF said...

In conclusion, what the Twoofers are really looking for is an explosive large enough to have been a factor in the collapse, but small enough to have gone completely unnoticed. These two traits are, of course, completely contradictory.

Indeed. If there were any explosives causing or even aiding the collapses they would have been very noticable - to thousands of people.

Instead we're supposed to think that random "squibs," that show up AFTER the collapse has started, are somehow keys to the puzzle, or that a "basement bomb" heard by 4 people somehow managed to weaken the core.

It's a level of desperation that no argument should ever reach.

 
At 14 April, 2007 20:07, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

The purpose of the study was not to prove that the building collapsed. It did. We all saw it.

Well according to the "faster than freefall" clowns it must have been propelled towards the ground somehow.

 
At 15 April, 2007 03:05, Blogger Jason said...

How the fuck is that a fallacy? Do you go to see an optician about toothache?

"Appeal to credentials" is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam. In other words, dismissing someone's thoughts or ideas because they're not an expert in that field, and for no other reason.

That is retarded for two reasons: 1) You need to prove that there were explosives, not that there weren't.

Well, it's kind of a hard thing to prove when you have no access to any of the evidence (e.g., steel). NIST was given full access (to whatever wasn't destroyed), and THEY were supposed to conduct a thorough investigation, which they clearly didn't do.

Everybody keeps talking like the idea of a bomb inside one or both WTC towers is absurd. Consider these facts:

- Countless reporters & eyewitnesses reported seeing & hearing big explosions inside the building. Bombs, among other things, make explosions.

- Some representative from the fire department told the media they thought there were secondary devices planted all throughout one or both of the towers right before they collapsed.

- The sound of big explosions (ones that can be heard miles away) were recorded between the plane crash & the two collapses. The fact that it could be heard that far away limits the root causes even further, but "bomb" is still up there pretty high.

- Bombs do damage when the explode. The WTC buildings were obviously damaged.

So what logic did they use to rule out the possibility of bombs planted beforehand? When their simulations weren't doing enough damage to collapse the building, why wasn't this investigated?

Testing for tornado damage or escaped zoo animals would be a waste of time. Testing for bombs potentially set by terrorists should have been done, and would have been done in an investigation following the scientific method.

 
At 15 April, 2007 03:57, Blogger Jason said...

triterope: my example was fictitious, and I intentionally used disproportionate numbers so people wouldn't get distracted from the real point I was trying to make.

By saying that NIST should have investigated smaller bombs left by terrorists, I'm just demonstrating how NIST overlooked & ignored legitimate evidence -- evidence that would have been used if the investigation wasn't manipulated to match a pre-determined conclusion. Not considering the possibility of explosives would be like not following up with an eye-witnesses in an unsolved murder investigation.

As for proof, if you're not convinced already, I'm not sure what else there is. Regarding the towers collapse- the physics behind the government's explanation aren't possible. Then there's two other planes that crashed that day, with little or no wreckage for either of them (oh right, planes vaporize when they hit the ground?). Then you have the surveillance tapes from the Pentagon - immediately seized & never released, except for a handful of frames, from a bad angle, with all the frames that could instantly kill all talk of a conspiracy EDITED OUT.

You want the opinion of scientists, but then dismiss the credibility of any scientist who disagrees with the official story. Same goes for eye-witnesses (people SAW huge explosions & extensive damage in the parking deck). There's no shortage of evidence - it's all over. Why not just say, "regardless of what you tell me, I can't accept the conclusion proposed by alternate 9/11 theories"? It would save people like me a lot of typing time, and it sure beats name-calling or other random insults.

 
At 15 April, 2007 06:36, Blogger sggw said...

If you have the qualifications, then you can understand. If like you and the other toofers don't have the qualifications all you will do is spew nonrelivent BS just like you and all the other toofers do.
Anyone could ask questions after looking at any pik of an aircraft crash, just because people can ask questions does not mean a thing. Most of the questions asked by the toofers have been answered in great detail but because the answers do not fit what the toofers believe, they are wrong. All have been debunked by experts over and over. Repeating them over and over and never looking at the real evidence does not make them true.
I would love to see the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline.There have never been crashes like these and there are no benchmarks for these crashes. Can you provide one?
How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? No opinions.

Most of your claims were from people in a panic mode experienceing something that has never happened before

 
At 15 April, 2007 16:49, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

"Appeal to credentials" is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam. In other words, dismissing someone's thoughts or ideas because they're not an expert in that field, and for no other reason.

You don't seem to understand how argumentum ad verecundiam works. You have no science on your side, no experts in the relevant fields support your theories and only a small handful of eyewitnesses agree with you. If you don't accept that, what on earth can possibly falsify your beliefs?


Well, it's kind of a hard thing to prove when you have no access to any of the evidence (e.g., steel). NIST was given full access (to whatever wasn't destroyed), and THEY were supposed to conduct a thorough investigation, which they clearly didn't do.

Yeah, clearly, because they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.


- Countless reporters & eyewitnesses reported seeing & hearing big explosions inside the building. Bombs, among other things, make explosions.

Explosions are a common occurence in large fires, this does not nessecitate the existence of explosives.


- Some representative from the fire department told the media they thought there were secondary devices planted all throughout one or both of the towers right before they collapsed.

They though there may have been, it's their job to take in to account all possible dangers. Please find us a firefighter that that believes these devices really were there.


- The sound of big explosions (ones that can be heard miles away) were recorded between the plane crash & the two collapses. The fact that it could be heard that far away limits the root causes even further, but "bomb" is still up there pretty high.

Would this be from the idiot that took the wind cover off his boom mic?


- Bombs do damage when the explode. The WTC buildings were obviously damaged.

None of the damage has been shown to be consistent with bombs.


So what logic did they use to rule out the possibility of bombs planted beforehand?

Oh I don't know, lack of even a shred of physical evidence perhaps?

 
At 15 April, 2007 17:03, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

By saying that NIST should have investigated smaller bombs left by terrorists, I'm just demonstrating how NIST overlooked & ignored legitimate evidence -- evidence that would have been used if the investigation wasn't manipulated to match a pre-determined conclusion.

WHAT EVIDENCE? And "duh people heard explosions" is not enough".


As for proof, if you're not convinced already, I'm not sure what else there is.

Some physical evidence of bombs, eyewitness reports of actually seeing suspicious devices, an explanation of how thermite/thermate could be used in demolition, and explanation for how a demolition could bring about a top down collapse and an explanation of how the fuck they managed to wire the place up without anyone knowing.


Regarding the towers collapse- the physics behind the government's explanation aren't possible.

You been the "freefall" bollocks? Haven't we gone over that enough?


Then there's two other planes that crashed that day, with little or no wreckage for either of them (oh right, planes vaporize when they hit the ground?).

No vaporize, OBLITERATE. What do you expect to happen when an aluminium construct connects with a solid object at over 500mph? Plus there was plenty of wreckage retrieved, including the black boxes and flight data recorders.


Then you have the surveillance tapes from the Pentagon - immediately seized & never released, except for a handful of frames, from a bad angle, with all the frames that could instantly kill all talk of a conspiracy EDITED OUT.

What was edited out? The security systems only record about one frame a second, do you really expect to get a clear picture of any object moving at over 500mph that way?


You want the opinion of scientists, but then dismiss the credibility of any scientist who disagrees with the official story.

That's because none of these people HAVE any credibility!


Why not just say, "regardless of what you tell me, I can't accept the conclusion proposed by alternate 9/11 theories"?

Why don't you just admit that nothing we tell you will make you give up on your ludicrous fantasy?

 
At 16 April, 2007 09:51, Blogger Triterope said...

triterope: my example was fictitious, and I intentionally used disproportionate numbers so people wouldn't get distracted from the real point I was trying to make.

You're defeating your own argument.

Previously, I argued that your 3-4-5 model implied a 60-40 or 80-20 ratio between the force of the plane impact and the force of the explosion, meaning that this second force would be obvious. You disagree with this interpretation. Okay, but a smaller secondary explosion just poses a different set of problems.

The smaller your secondary explosion gets, the less of a factor it becomes in the building collapse. An explosion of even 1 percent of the force of the plane crash probably wouldn't have been a factor in the building collapsing or not. It would have collapsed differently, or possibly more quickly (and left telltale signs).

This isn't a Tom and Jerry cartoon, where Tom can successfully lift a barbell until a feather lands on it, which sends him careening through the floor. If you're saying that a largely unnoticed explosion with a force less than one-fourth that of the plane crash aided the building collapse, that's essentially what you're arguing. I hereby dub this argument the "Tom and Jerry theory": the WTC would have survived the plane crash, if not for some tiny conspiracy explosive that sent it over the edge.

So the 80-20 model doesn't work because the second explosion would have been obvious, and the 99-1 model doesn't work because the explosion would have been too small to have decided the fate of the building.

If there was a second explosion that played a role in the building collapse, how much force DID it have behind it, Jason? You tell me, you're the one arguing its existence.

Not considering the possibility of explosives would be like not following up with an eye-witnesses in an unsolved murder investigation.

A false and self-defeating analogy. Any police investigator will tell you that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And it certainly isn't viewed in exclusion of all the other evidence.

If one witness says they saw the victim in traffic at 4:00 PM, and the autopsy confirms the victim died before noon, and the victim stopped making phone calls at noon, and the victim's watch is broken at a time just before noon, and a neighbor reported someone else driving the victim's car at 1 PM, and the victim didn't show up for work at noon when expected, and twelve other people who should have seen the victim after noon didn't see him, and there's a photograph of the victim's body with a clock reading "12:01" and the sun is visible at its highest point in the background, what should the investigator conclude?

Eyewitness testimony is only part of any criminal investigation. And the NIST report about the failure of the WTC towers isn't even a criminal investigation, it's a scientific inquiry. Who said what to whom when is hardly of any relevance to a scientific study aimed at proving the forces behind a building collapse.

You want the opinion of scientists, but then dismiss the credibility of any scientist who disagrees with the official story.

I did no such thing. I have no doubt that some people can be scientists and also Twoofers; humans are quite capable of holding absurdly contradictory beliefs when they really, really want to believe in something. Entire books have been written on the subject. I'm not interested in any Twoofer's credentials or lack thereof; I'm interested in an alternative theory that makes sense and fits observable reality. If you have one, by all means share it with us.

Why not just say, "regardless of what you tell me, I can't accept the conclusion proposed by alternate 9/11 theories"?

There is no "THE conclusion." It's been five and a half years since the attacks, and your side can't agree on whether the World Trade Center was destroyed by holograms, missiles, thermite, piloted planes, remote controlled planes, or dancing space potatoes. Why do you suppose that is, Jason?

Testing for tornado damage or escaped zoo animals would be a waste of time.

And NIST views testing for explosives as just as much a waste of time. Why do you suppose that is, Jason?

There's no shortage of evidence - it's all over.

It's just that thousands of scientists of disparate backgrounds, from all over the world, working independently, can't seem to find any of it. Why do you suppose that is, Jason?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home