Greening's Post at JREF
Since PDOH thinks this is such an important topic, I'll take up the challenge.
First of all, Greening's post is extremely hard to follow. Partly this is a reflection of the technical nature of the subject discussed, and partly it's because he does not state his conclusion (or even that he has one). Certainly this post of Greening's (as Apollo20) gave the folks at 9-11 Blogger some thrills:
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.
When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”
I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
At first, this causes quite a bit of an uproar, but watch what happens as the thread gets deeper. Suddenly Apollo20 (now revealed to be Dr Greening gets a little more puckish:
I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy.....
And:
When I said I had a theory, perhaps I should have said I have an idea....
I see this theory/idea as a movie script that tells a story based on what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened on 9/11.
And I see the NIST Report that way too. It's a movie script about some ideas about what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened.
Cherepanov also has a movie script based on something he calls a fracture wave. And he has all sorts of fancy calculations to back it up as well.
Steven Jones has a movie script too.... of sorts.....
And perhaps gives the game away here:
The 9/11 truthers have been exposed by their reaction to a new conspiracy theory.
All I have attempted to show is that:
YOU TOO CAN WRITE A CONSPIRACY THEORY
And one that is way better than the feeble efforts of Jones and Wood.
I will post it as soon as I can, but I offer it as a "movie script" and will have no further comment!
And later:
As I said before:
Some people study 9/11 out of conviction, some out of curiosity
So the notion that Dr Greening has gone Truther on us is a little premature. Gotta learn to read the whole thing, PDOH!
Labels: Dr Greening
posted by Pat @ 6:48 PM
50 comments
50 Comments:
Here is what I don't understand about the "hate" against NIST.
The NIST was written by dozens upon dozens of experts. It was peer reviewed by these people and it's even available for the public to read.
Yet, the only people who don't seem to get the NIST report are either idiots or people who have no expertise at the subject.
If there is some scientific evidence that proves some parts of the NIST false, why hasn't anyone with the proper know-how in the entire world submitted anything yet?
Suggesting that the NIST is a fraud is accusing hundreds of people who had their hand or looked at the NIST report, including those who were part of the cleanup crew or the NYFD.
But the truth is coming! It really, really is! Rosie O'Donnell is talking about it and everything! We have eighty metric tons of new evidence! And every day, upwards of sixty billion people are convinced of it! That's been proven by scientists!
*tumbleweeds*
Off topic, but did anybody notice the new Maddox page. It's pretty good. maddox.xmission.com
Every debunker has lauded Greenings work as a defence of NIST. Now you think he is wrong.
That is simply untrue. Greening's work always had contradictions to NIST. The major point with Greening was that his papers tore the alleged claims of some of the troothers to shreds. He had another paper which has disagreements with NIST, but the fact is he didn't buy the nonsense CTers were pulling out of their ass.
If what P'doh claims is true, then why does 911myths, one of the first to bring up Greening's work, say the following?:
Dr Greening has some questions of the NIST WTC report, though. Does it really provide a plausible mechanism to show how the process of global collapse was initiated? He points out some possible contradictions and other issues (PDF file).
The fact is, Greening has a long way to go to prove his claims, and he doesn't seem to like JREF (he had similar complaints about physorg), but this is hardly the 'OWNED' Pdoh was creaming his pants over. Greening doesn't like JREF, (some) JREF memebrs think his criticism of NIST is wrong but his work on the collpase is still on target. He's not god, and we never made him out to be that way. He just happened to be right one time and might be wrong this time.
So P'doh lied. He does that. A lot.
I never claimed greening was a truther.
Ummm... yes, you did, on the "NY Denier Wars Continue" post, less than 24 hours ago:
No mention of Greening becoming a truther on this blog? I wonder why LOL LOL
Telescopeshirk, Greenings arrival at JREF was much anticipated by the traitors there. They claimed it would be wonderful to see him destroy the truthers.
Really? Could have fooled me. My reaction was 'that's nice, but the deeds already done.' The most Greening would clean up is floor sweepings. The troothers had been destroyed already. The job is done.
Can you find any real examples of this great anticipation? Thread upon thread saying 'Greening is coming!! OMG!!! OMG!! OMG!!!". Russell Pickering's arrival had more anticipation of arrival and he's in the troother camp.
Seriously, there's like one recent thread with his name on it that isn't started by a troother, and that's about his trouble registering. There's one comment saying his arrival would be excellent and another saying they looked forward to him correcting Trootherseeker (ACE). That's the big anticipation?
You make him out like he was JREF's messiah, but that isn't true. You are lying again.
Triterope please quote me where I said greening was a truther.
So you're saying that your tauting the bloggers for not mentioning Greening 'becoming a truther' is not saying Greening is a truther?
Dude, weak.
Triterope please quote me where I said greening was a truther.
Ladies and gentlemen, the comedy stylings of PDoherty! Drive home safely everyone, and please tip your server.
I think Greenings point is there are other REASONABLE view as to what caused the collapse of the WTC. The "Fracture Wave" is one of them. It's the idea that the impact of the plains and the stress from thee fires caused the towers to break apart like a delicate glass figure. And there is a point of view these towers were overstressed to begin with nobody seems to want to touch.
There are also UNREASONABLE ideas as well such as building melting space beam weapons and the almost as ridiculous secretly hidden explosives. Hell the only thing the "implosion" nut have is they can say they are not as nuts as the death rays nuts.
Greening's theory will be interesting to read and I am sure analyzed and picked apart, BUT that is the process of science and if his idea is sound and presented with true and reasoned proof then who knows, we may have to change our thinking on the mechanics of building collapse.
I think Greenings point is there are other REASONABLE view as to what caused the collapse of the WTC. (snip) There are also UNREASONABLE ideas as well such as building melting space beam weapons and the almost as ridiculous secretly hidden explosives.
Ding!
There is an important debate to be had about skyscraper safety which is not being had as vigorously as it needs to be and which is getting almost no public attention. And frankly I blame the twoofers.
I would much rather have Popular Mechanics do articles and a whole book about the possibly flawed engineering assumptions about tall structures than articles and a whole book debunking morons and anti-Americans who are trying to deflect blame away from the universally-known source of the attacks. I would much rather NIST had put more work into getting the 7 WTC report out and less work into their anti-nutjob FAQ.
Hell, even among morons, I would much rather have people like Rosie O'Donnell bleating that 'we're not safe in our buildings!!!!one!!eleventy1!!' than alleging that steel has no melting temperature -- at least the responses to her idiocy might be useful for a larger and important public debate.
So Do-Over Dylan, make that your final cut. Say that the pissed-off Muslims should not have succeeded in toppling the towers; that 7 WTC should also not have fallen. Cut the BS about drone planes and flyovers and controlled demolition and do some hard work on engineering assumptions and construction field conditions and building codes.
Sure, you'll probably still be 100% wrong -- you are after all very very stupid. But at least you'll be contributing to a useful debate.
Greenings paper is not quoted as a "defence of NIST" but it has been quoted against the "Controlled Demolition" theory the twoofers spue.
Greening came on to JREF, and posted an alternative theory for the 9/11 WTC collapses. He posted it to show everyone just how easy it is to come up with what appears to be a scientificly valid theory. I suspect he did so to prove that all the "apparently logical" theories that the truthers can come up with, doesnt make any of them right.
TAM:)
JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.
How dare those bastards ask such reasonable questions!?
"There is an important debate to be had about skyscraper safety which is not being had as vigorously as it needs to be and which is getting almost no public attention. And frankly I blame the twoofers."
Your sure do not want to spend more time and money investigating something that could not have happened, like controlled demolition.
But it is reasonable to ask, "were the towers too big?" "how big is too big?"
Galileo realized this long ago in a lectures on scaling. Addressing the idea that imperfections in the material not size would make large scale object weaker. He said
"Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness."
The bigger it is the more likely it is to fall.
It would have been interesting to see the towers in another 30 years. Would they have become so weak from age that a costly dismantling would have to done?
If 911 had happened 20 years ago would the towers have had some extra bit of strength to resist collapse? Did the steel loose something with age?
Lots of REAL interesting questions, BUT we have to deal with the childish concepts of the conspiracy theorist. "Dude it was a bomb"
Dr. Greening is a serious scientist who has some problems with the NIST Report. He and R. Mackey have engaged in a high-level debate, which appears at the moment to be going Mackey's way.
P'Doh is a disturbed young man who requires medical attention.
pomeroo--Hey, Papa Bear! I suppose you now know who was responsible for getting your "spooky" account at 911Blogger banned--boy, were you hopping mad! Thought you'd always have a back door, you did...
Since PDOH thinks this is such an important topic, I'll take up the challenge.
Don't you just love these lads who almost never take responsibility for their own ommissions and over sights?
As if PD can "force" our Pat to blog anything. I tell you, that power must be heady--and Jenny should know! I've had two blogs in my honor here--and they wonder why I have a big ego!
I think Apollo20 brings up some good points--that Gravy doesn't like!
Oh, and cheers for the Union Jack, Mark Roberts!
;-P
Jenny, Should I assume that you're drunk or are you attempting to say something?
What the hell is a "spooky" account?
Was I "hopping mad"? Well, you're barking mad, so I suppose all things are possible. What can you possibly be talking about?
Poor Papa Bear! Embaressing to admit innit?
Listen closely, love:
After your "Ronald Wieck" account was banned at 911Blogger--
After your"UBloons" account was banned at 911Blogger(yes, that one's kind of funny)--
You still had your "pomeroo" account at 911Blogger--that dz had forgotten all about. And you were counting on still being able to use it to vote down posts and blogs--basically to continue being a trolling wanker--until someone told dz about the "pomeroo" account--and banned your arse for good.
Then you had a meltdown about it on JREF.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Been sitting on that one for some time, I have--figured I've earned the right to gloat.
GLOAT, GLOAT!
I can share the emails with dz to prove it, if you like...
So, why exactly have you broken up with our Mark Roberts?
Gravy: I know you're reading this. Good job changing your avatar--though the hoped for effect of sticking me with that ugly picture didn't quite work. See, I altered the code just enough all you did was disable the flag.
Oh, well, all's fair in love and war, eh? Guess I'll have to get my Union Jack somewhere else.
Be seeing you... ;-)
Ah, I get it. The account that was closed BEFORE I started posting as "Ronald Wieck" was the one I was counting on. Boy, I'd have to get up pretty early in the morning to fool you!
Back to planet Earth: "pomeroo" was closed a long time ago. You see, I figured that out when I tried posting as "pomeroo" and was unable to. That's why I started posting under my actual name. Duh!But, then, you probably knew that. Are you lying again, or just terribly confused?
Who cares?
If I wanted, for whatever reason to post on 911blogger, it would be extremely easy--as you know. I have NEVER cast a vote on that infantile blog. Why should I want to?
Everyone on JREF, including me, missed my "meltdown." It must have been exciting.
I don't know why I've broken up with Mark. I'll ask him when we prepare for the upcoming 'Hardfire.'
The account that was closed BEFORE I started posting as "Ronald Wieck" was the one I was counting on.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, love--you and I both know better. After your "UBLoons" account was banned, I did a user search of "pomeroo", and there you were. Then I told dz. Then he banned you--for good. And then you had your meltdown on JREF--you even came back to bitch about it on 911Blogger--anonymously!
You sure you want me to post the emails between me and dz?
I don't have time to read the rest of your tot--I've got to go to the gym--but you've just proven you'll say ANYTHING to save face.
LOL! LOL! I've got you, you wanker! Gloat! Gloat!
Yeah, we both know, don't we, Papa Bear? You're not as bright as Sword of Twoof--he knows when to back off when Jenny's on to him...
Be seeing you...
GLOAT! GLOAT!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, Jenny, it appears as though you've been caught again. Why would I post under my real name if "pomeroo" were available to me?
Let's save time: I wouldn't. After I was banned as "Ronald Wieck" I naturally took another look at "pomeroo," but, as I strongly suspected, it was blocked. Now, you can produce any number of phony e-mails, but you will never sell your latest fantasy.
When I felt like responding to some moron on 911blogger, I did so as "Ubloonz." If I decided to make a comment right now, I could do so with the greatest of ease. I have NEVER posted ANYWHERE
as "anonymous." NEVER.
To repeat, I have found you to be a liar and a fool, but the exact proportions aren't clear. You claim that I suffered a "meltdown" on the JREF. If you're not lying, show it to us. Simply copy the post containing my meltdown from the archives and post it here. The mere fact that it doesn't exist should prove no obstacle. Now, I've called you a liar--you DO have something to prove, right?
I have used three handles at 911blogger, in this order: "pomeroo," "Ronald Wieck," and "Ubloonz." You have trapped yourself, as usual. You announced in January on your blog that my "pomeroo" account was still open. You were wrong: it had already been closed. So, what would prevent me from posting under ANY NAME I CHOSE? I have access to a dozen computers and eight or nine phone lines. Tell us, dear, what would stop me from posting if I wanted to?
Don't you nitwits ever think before writing?
I naturally took another look at "pomeroo," but, as I strongly suspected, it was blocked.
You are SO talking out your arse! You CAN'T look at an account if it's closed! And if you closed it, why would you think it was blocked? Also, if you closed it,you would KNOW you couldn't look at it!
LOL!
If I decided to make a comment right now, I could do so with the greatest of ease. I have NEVER posted ANYWHERE
as "anonymous." NEVER.
Then why haven't you, sunbeam? And why did you go on and on and on at JREF about how the "loons banned you"? Wasn't it TWO threads you started about "how you were done wrong"? And you're a terrible actor--it really isn't hard to see an "annoymice" is you.
With the greatest of ease, huh? So what, rotationg your IP, are yeh? Using a mate's machine? Going to the public library? Or maybe you have a bank of them back at the "debunk cave"?
Pity Robin, I mean Mark Roberts, abandoned you. The two of you would look cute in tights...
So, any email I post you will think is fake. Hmm. Well then, I guess I won't bother--though I may change my mind in future. I think debunks have read enough to know you're a nutter--they're just too polite to say so.
BTW--we've got this guy at the local 911group who's kind of like you--spouts off without thinking, can never admit he's wrong, can't get along with anyone. A couple of us have taken to meeting at the New Seasons on Division St. Sunday mornings so that we can actually get things done without disruption.
Debunks probably feel the same about you--"Ronnie's good for a laugh, but God, please, make him shut up when we need to look credable."
Be seeing you...
Oh, almost forgot:
GLOAT! GLOAT!
;-P
You're trapped, Jenny. No matter how you squirm, your patient nemesis has once again made you look ridiculous (to be fair, you did most of the work).
When I was banned as "Ronald Wieck," YOU mentioned on YOUR blog that I could still post as "pomeroo." I thought you were mistaken, but I decided to check. As expected, I received a message stating that this user name has not been activated or is blocked. When I felt like posting a response, I invented the name "Ubloonz."
Nothing you can say will make the slightest bit of difference. That's the way it was--obviously--and any time I feel like posting at 911blogger, I can do so. Of course, if I attempt to log-in as "Ronald Wieck," or "pomeroo," or "Ubloonz," I will be informed that those user names are blocked.
Seriously, who do you think you're kidding?
Let's see my "meltdown." Post it here. Remember, I called you a liar. I explained on the JREF that I had grown tired of repeating myself and turned up the heat on the hapless Jon Gold as my surest ticket to a banning. I pointed out that idiots professing nonsensical beliefs have no tolerance for someone who is pointing out how foolish they are. Does that strike you as an original insight?
It isn't hard to see that "annoymice" is me? It must be very hard indeed, as you are spectacularly wrong, as usual. I have NEVER posted anonymously ANYWHERE. When I post, I identify myself (it's an ego thing).
I'm sorry Mark abandoned me. I'll have to talk to him about it.
Most of us get the idea that you wouldn't enjoy a debate with this "nutter" very much.
I'm sorry Mark abandoned me. I'll have to talk to him about it.
So when are you going to do that? It's sort of sad you two aren't "fighting the twoof" on 911Blogger anymore. Still, probably for the best--you being gone that is--the bannings have been quick and merciless. We already had TWO winners today at the BANNING FEST 2007!
Speaking of which, I need to go gloat at b.j.edwards.
But before I go, I'll just leave you this to remember me by--GLOAT! GLOAT!
And notice how none of the debunks are rushing to your rescue? Jenny's rumbled you, mate--and the longer you try to save face, the worse it will get!
;-P
Jenny, I hate to break the bad news, but you and I are the only people looking at this dead thread.
You pick battles you can't hope to win. I have not posted on 911blogger since early January. I have no interest in posting there. After Mark demolishes his opponent in the upcoming 'Hardfire' debates, I will check in to see the reaction among the loons.
The JREF is a DEBATE forum--that's why you don't participate. 911blogger exists to allow fifteen to twenty ignorant, deluded souls to console each other and pretend that they have real lives.
I just dropped in to see if I might have been hasty in assuming that no one is reading anything here. Nope, I wasn't.
Hey, Jenny, I was wondering what you're gloating about. You were wrong that I posted anonymously on Gold's site; you were wrong that "pomeroo" was still an open account after "Ronald Wieck" was closed; you were wrong about Mark; you were caught in a lie about my imaginary "meltdown."
Just out of curiosity, what exactly did you manage to get right? If this is one of your victories, I'd hate to see what a defeat looks like.
I'm reading it, I just don't have a clue what she's on about.
I just dropped in to see if I might have been hasty in assuming that no one is reading anything here. Nope, I wasn't.
Well, YOU are. Unless you're saying you're "no one". Many of us could agree with that...;-P
We both know I got your pomeroo account banned, Papa Bear. All your verbal dancing aside--and I have to say it is a good dance--YOU and I KNOW.
Now, let's see if you can resist responding.
Poor, Ronnie, rationalize it however you will, but the other debunks think you're a nutter.
GLOAT! GLOAT!
Careful, civilized worm--according to Ronnie, you just made yourself a "no one"!
No, Jenny, they wonder why I waste time slapping around a silly, ignorant woman. The truth is, it's fun.
Listen closely, now: I don't care who got me banned. I guessed that it was the pathetic Jon Gold, but if you want to take the credit for it, fine. Why anyone should care one way or the other will remain a mystery.
We were not, as everyone following this silliness understands, arguing about who got me banned. You are dishonest, but unintelligent. You lack the mental juice to slip these little deceptions by me.
You were wrong when you claimed that I posted anonymously on 911blogger, and you were wrong when you claimed that the "pomeroo" account was still open after "Ronald Wieck" got banned. If you knew that you were wrong when you made those claims, then you were lying again. I prefer to assume that you're just dumb.
No, other rationalists don't regard me as a nutter. Oh, and neither do you.
Try out those finely-honed debating skills of yours on the JREF sometime. You'll dazzle 'em.
You're a scream, papa bear. Let's get to a hundred, shall we?
Sorry, Ronnie, you know I'm right. I know I'm right. Our site moderators know I'm right. So there.
Like I told chippy: we won, you lost--get over it.
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
and
GLOAT!GLOAT!
How does it feel to be SOOOOOOOOO wrong, pom-pomeroo?
No, other rationalists don't regard me as a nutter. Oh, and neither do you.
Oh yes I do, Ronnie--the only one nuttier is that disinfo git, Nico Haupt. And I'm not talking about the imposter you had a chat with.
You ever go to the pub together? With the real one, I mean?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm afraid that the curtain has fallen on your show. You tried pretending that we were arguing about who got me banned. The record of our posts here demonstrates that we were not. You've been caught lying again.
I suspected Gold of getting me banned; you claim it was you. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said earlier, so I'll try once more: WHO CARES? Any questions?
Do I "know" that you're right? How can I possibly know? Both you and Gold are dishonest and stupid. Neither one of you has the stones to parade his/her ignorance on the JREF. You claim that the site moderators will support your claim that you are responsible for banning me? Then it's settled. I'm grateful to you. It still wasn't what we were talking about.
What could you possibly imagine that you've won? Everything you originally said was wrong and you made a horse's ass of yourself for the umpteenth time. You call that winning?
Come to think of it, for a twoofer, that IS winning.
You really are incapable of NOT responding, aren't you? :)
I suspected Gold of getting me banned; you claim it was you.
You KNOW it was me--well, with the last account left, anyway. We won, you lost..get over it!
So--I dare you to NOT respond to this. Even though you know I'm right and you feel the need to save face. Go on, RESIST Ronnie--resist!
Bet you can't.....
Okay, I'll let you have the last word. Tell us what I lost. I was goading Gold into banning me and it turns out that you did me the favor. Now, please let us in on the secret. What was I attempting to win? Was there any doubt that I would banned again, having been banned once before for expressing my opinions? How am I "saving face"? Nobody can figure what you're talking about. Explain yourself.
OMG! You CAN"T resist, can you! Even when I tell you it's a wind up, and you know I'll mock you mercilessly, you CAN'T stop responding! LOL!
We won, you lost--get over it.
It's okay--remember I can't post on JREF so I won't embaress you there. The fact I GOT you can just be our little secret.
So, what do you think about your mate B.J.Edwards, his multiple fake identities, his banning from 911Blogger and the fact he keeps deleting my posts on his blog exposing the above? A scream, isn't it, cossack?
Sorry, I mean "pomeroo".
You've completely lost us.
You CAN post on the JREF, remember? You were caught lying about being prevented from posting. Several people have recently encountered problems registering, including Dr. Frank Greening and my producer, Gary Popkin. They resolved them easily enough by writing an e-mail to an administrator. You could do the same, but to what purpose? Are you planning to debate the engineers, the physicists, and avionics techs?
Either you're having a psychotic episode or you're just terribly confused. I have never heard of B.J. Edwards, and I can't begin to guess what the significance of "cossack" might be.
Try to process some rather simple information: I have not posted on 911blogger since early January; I have no interest in posting there; anyone you imagine is me is, in fact, not me. Your imagination has run wild.
I am amused at your plight, but this charade has grown extremely silly. It's time you threw in the towel.
Try to process some rather simple information: I have not posted on 911blogger since early January; I have no interest in posting there; anyone you imagine is me is, in fact, not me. Your imagination has run wild.
Who said I was saying you were posting on 911Blogger? I didn't say that. I wonder why you brought it up. ARE you posting on 911Blogger? If not, why does it sound like you think I think you are?
I'll read your response in the morning--I'm knackered.
Cheery bye.
It's difficult to tell if you are truly bonkers or merely drunk. You did write the following, didn't you?
"So, what do you think about your mate B.J.Edwards, his multiple fake identities, his banning from 911Blogger and the fact he keeps deleting my posts on his blog exposing the above? A scream, isn't it, cossack?
Sorry, I mean "pomeroo". "
Now, you refer to someone I've never heard of as my "mate." You refer to me as "cossack." I think we all get the idea that B.J. Edwards and "cossack" must be posters on 911blogger. If they aren't, why the hell are you mentioning them? So, yes, by now everyone has the impression that you are implying that I post on 911blogger.
You started this silliness by mistakenly claiming (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake) that I posted anonymously there. You must be trying to make some sort of point, but, frankly, I'm getting bored.
Let's review:
I have not posted on 911blogger since the beginning of January;
I have NEVER posted anonymously ANYWHERE;
I do not know either B.J. Edwards or "cossack";
I don't care who had me banned.
Enough already.
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. I just Googled B.J. Edwards. It turns out that Smasher has been posting some of his satire. To be fair, I probably should have known who B.J. Edwards was, but I never took the trouble to find out. The mystery is starting to unravel. Okay, who is "cossack" and why should I care?
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. I just Googled B.J. Edwards.
You didn't need to do that, sunbeam--your mate Pat blogged his "satire" just last week or so. Don't you READ Screw Loose? What sort of debunk are you?
You refer to me as "cossack."
Yes, but that was a mistake--which I admited. Sorry about that. But YOU brought up the possibility YOU might be posting at 911Blogger. YOU said you could do that ANY TIME with the greastest of ease--so considering, it was reasonable to ask. ;-)
but, frankly, I'm getting bored.
For someone alledgedly bored, you have no problem posting essay length responses. ;-P
Enough already.
Anytime you're ready to stop, just don't respond and Jenny won't either. Course that means allowing Jenny the last word...
GLOAT! GLOAT!
What are you gloating about?
Why are you the only person who can figure out what you've won?
We won, you lost--get over it--cossack!
Gloat! Gloat!
If I lost, I must have lost SOMETHING?! What could it possibly be?
Jenny, I have a thought. We are the only two people here. Nobody else has any idea of what this discussion is about. Instead of continuing to argue in public, why not join the JREF (you are under no obligation to post) and then you can send me private messages.
why not join the JREF (you are under no obligation to post) and then you can send me private messages.
OMG! You fancy me, don't you!
I notice that you pretty much ignored my suggestion.
Funny, I was beginning to get the idea that you "fancy" me, given the unsolicited attention you devote to me.
Unfortunately, darlin', I suspect that I'm a bit older than you. And I don't have a clue as to what you look like--conceivably, you outweigh me. These considerations, coupled with the fact that I'm a rationalist, a defender of the principles of the Enlightenment, and you're willing to slander innocent people to protect religious zealots who'd kill you as readily as they'd kill me, lead me to conclude that we don't have too much in common.
But I appreciate the thought.
you're willing to slander innocent people
Um, the Bush administration is the farthest from innocence as you can get without killing puppies and kittens.
Non-existant WMD's? "Get Osama at all costs--wait never mind I don't care about Osama", " Air is safe to breathe" Condi--
Maybe you're talking about different people?
And you're right about my type--I DO prefer my men young and pretty--no offense.
I have a hunch that one of the differences between us is that there really was a time when I WAS young and pretty.
Here's a link to Brent Blanchard's paper. Find a few errors in it:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
Post a Comment
<< Home