Screw Loose Change On Mancow!
I will be on the radio Friday morning with MANCOW to discuss Rosie O'Donnell and her recent "Joe Friday" routine regarding 9-11 and WTC-7. MANCOW is a nationally syndicated morning drive time show that airs in Chicago and 30 other markets around the country. My segment is scheduled to begin at 8:05 Central Time, but it may appear at different times elsewhere due to tape delay. Click here for details on the show; I am not sure if you can listen live over the internet, but I will check on this. Note: I am expecting only a 5-10 minute segment, and we will not be taking calls.
MANCOW had a memorable smackdown with Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and others. This guy goes on Alex Jones and spanks him like a red-headed stepchild.
Labels: MANCOW, Radio, Screw Loose Change
posted by Pat @ 5:23 PM
48 comments
48 Comments:
He also had a less memorable smackdown with Jimmy Hart.
You love your little 5 minutes of fame on the radio dont you Pat?
Mancow was destroyed by Jones and Avery.
MANCOW is a nationally syndicated morning drive time show that airs in Chicago and 30 other markets around the country.
Wow, that's got to be 50 times the combined RBN/GCN audience.
Mancow was destroyed by Jones and Avery.
Nice to know pdoh hasn't left the land of fairies and pixie dust yet.
pd:
your mind is so simple, you act like a 6 year old. At one point, way back when, you actually had something semi intelligent to say, now you just act like a cry baby... what is up with that?
TAM:)
At one point, way back when, you actually had something semi intelligent to say
When was this? I must have blinked...
James:
"Cluck, cluck", get snappy--unless you're turning in--in which case I'll look for your responses in the morning before I post the questions--here.
BTW: some of you debunks can't recognize an exit from a thread. Or that it is an exit JUST from a thread. You'll want to help each other with that. ;-)
Night.
(translation-I am leaving here for the night or going to bed.)
Didn't think I'd need bleeding closed captions for the comprehension impaired...
Water Bender in the LC thread has issued this challenge to JamesB:
"so are you holding the NIST reports, and FEMA, and the 911 commission to these same standards? all three of these official reports are full of logical and factual errors. ommissions, misquotes, and sheer speculation. yet amazingly they don't revise anything. they havent released a single retraction or correction to the multitude of errors. wheres your critisim of them? have you spent nearly as much time picking them apart as you have this film? are you prepared to? can you honestly go toe to toe with factual evidence? i'll put forth a challenge, if you're even half as serious as you claim to be. a moderated debate. no bullshit. a thread setup moderated by 2 people, 1 person from 'your' camp. one moderator from 'your' camp. the only two people allowed to post in the thread are you and i. every fact must be cited and sourced. if others want to help you in your reseacrh behind the scenes, that is more than fair. no name calling no insults. we can iron out the exacts of the rules to the debate, if you'll actually do it. so, care to put your money where your mouth is?"
I wonder if coward JamesB will accept or run?
Sorry to rain on your parade, P'doh. But James is more than man enough to cut you down to size anytime he wants.
It's too bad when 9/11 Deniers mention that the "official reports" are full of errors, they never point one out.
"It's too bad when 9/11 Deniers mention that the "official reports" are full of errors, they never point one out."
But that is not the point to 9/11 Truthers. The point is:
"If NIST, through the WTC Report, has given inaccurate, unreliable information about the destruction of the WTC Towers, the implications would stretch across the entire architectural, political and social landscape."
It's all about "IF".
Remember, 9/11 Truthers are just asking questions.
Doh'p,
It's easy to say that the official reports are full of errors. It's much hard to point one out is it?
I'm getting sick of this "NIST IS FULL OF ERRORS" bullsh*t. Back it up for once.
I'm getting sick of this "NIST IS FULL OF ERRORS" bullsh*t. Back it up for once.
How about real world experiments not supporting the real world event but only supported by computer models? As in collapsing floors by fire?
How about seeing no evidence for CD? Perhaps they should have tested for evidence, took statements from victims and eyewitnesses, to prove there was not CD involved? Nahh scratch that scientific process.
How about a core collum suffering say 10% damage, but treated as if it was damaged 100%?
What data and how was it "tweaked" to fit the models resulting in a global collapse?
Fireproofing shot by a shot gun blast to prove it was removed?
And last of my rant but certainly not least, why won't the NIST allow their findings, conclusions, etc. to be tested for validity, to be repeated by other experts, so they are factually correct?
Lets not forget their complete refusal to hear anything regarding explosions in the sub-level B or other explosions. That would be of course step one in the scientifc process that wasn't completed.
Back to topic, I suppose Mancow won't have any 9/11 Truth retorts to Pat. No suprise. Sounds like another hit piece. Hey Pat, why don't you encourage Mancow to have a few 9/11 folks on there to debate with you instead of repeating the debunked Os? Make sure Mancow doesn't insert his own words to repeat some of the MSM lies about Rosie. Oh and you might want to bring up Imus and his relevant comments. Any chance the MSM is calling for his firing?
Oh and why you and not the Tour Guide?
How about seeing no evidence for CD? Perhaps they should have tested for evidence, took statements from victims and eyewitnesses, to prove there was not CD involved? Nahh scratch that scientific process.
My head almost expoded at the irony.
How about real world experiments not supporting the real world event but only supported by computer models? As in collapsing floors by fire?
1) Why should they do what no Engineering company in the world does?
2) To build a "Real World" model, they'd have to rebuild the entire tower. Kinda unfeasable.
3) Computer models are very accurate and determining. Only folks compleltely ignorant of engineering and computer modelling say otherwise.
How about seeing no evidence for CD? Perhaps they should have tested for evidence, took statements from victims and eyewitnesses, to prove there was not CD involved? Nahh scratch that scientific process.
CD leaves behind massive signs that CD was done. Detcord is everywhere, columns show signs that they were cut via the explosive jet. None of these signs were present. So NIST did not waste time on them as there was real engineering work to be done.
How about a core collum suffering say 10% damage, but treated as if it was damaged 100%?
What data and how was it "tweaked" to fit the models resulting in a global collapse?
There's no evidence that the data was 'tweaked' in any illegitimate way.
Fireproofing shot by a shot gun blast to prove it was removed?
A moment ago you were complaining about a lack of real workd models. The shotgun demonstration is actually quite accurate.
And last of my rant but certainly not least, why won't the NIST allow their findings, conclusions, etc. to be tested for validity, to be repeated by other experts, so they are factually correct?
This is completely wrong. You are perfectly free to do your own testing and modelling. In fact, many engineers have done just that.
Lets not forget their complete refusal to hear anything regarding explosions in the sub-level B or other explosions. That would be of course step one in the scientifc process that wasn't completed.
The 'explosions' are known to have been caused by fuel travelling down the elevator shafts. This happened when the the Bomber hit the Empire State Building and caused a lot of damage in the ESP lobby. That was with a lot less fuel than the 757s.
So basicly, the 'NIST is full of errors' claim is mostly just inconsistant whining.
Mancow was destroyed by Jones and Avery.
Just remember, this judgement brought to you by the guy who declared that Avery 'destroyed' Mark Roberts on Hardfire by sitting motionless for almost 30 minutes.
What problem do truthers have with the pellet method of fireproof analysis?
What'd you expect NIST to do, rebuild the towers and fly a plane into them?... Sheeh.
Poor Swing,
the silly child still doesn't understand how absurd it is to suggest basement bombs in a top-down collapse.
Have you presented this idea to engineers yet, Swing?
I'd love to see their reaction.
MarkyX said...
It's too bad when 9/11 Deniers mention that the "official reports" are full of errors, they never point one out.
Here's more than one presented to NIST themselves:
Petition to NIST
* The Coalition of 9/11 Families is not a signatory to the petition.
So we are left with the same nutballs :)
Jay said...
* The Coalition of 9/11 Families is not a signatory to the petition.
Bill Doyle is the rep for the Coalition and he signed it.
Here's a direct link to the pdf document -- I suggest you read it and debate the substance rather than resorting to the old name calling:
Petition to NIST
Ow ive looked at it, and im not really impressed. They mention that no firefighters were heard in the NISt report, which is not true. they interviewed over a 100 firefighters.
Maybe you should read NCSTAR 1.8, there are even firefighters mentioning explosions!
in NCSTAR 1.7 they interviewed over 800 people that were inside the buildings. They also talk about explosions. So its not like NIST is hiding the fact that people heard explosions.
Jay said...
in NCSTAR 1.7 they interviewed over 800 people that were inside the buildings. They also talk about explosions. So its not like NIST is hiding the fact that people heard explosions.
So with all the eyewitness accounts of these explosions, why didn't they investigate for explosive residue? That would be the job of a so-called 'investigation' wouldn't it?
Besides, there is much, much more to the petition including the falsifying of steel temperatures to create the NIST computer modeling for collapse.
JREF hero and 911myths contributor Greening says NIST is seriously flawed.
The Doc, will you please get over the bitterness you have that I force3d you out of ATS. Your grovelling apology thread gives me a laugh whenever im feeling blue.
So with all the eyewitness accounts of these explosions, why didn't they investigate for explosive residue?
Because, unlike you idiots, the guys at NIST realize that explosions and explosives are two different things.
That would be the job of a so-called 'investigation' wouldn't it?
Hardly. Testing for implausible scenarios is not the job of legitimate investigators.
Besides, there is much, much more to the petition including the falsifying of steel temperatures to create the NIST computer modeling for collapse.
Prove it.
Alex said...
Because, unlike you idiots, the guys at NIST realize that explosions and explosives are two different things.
Wow, and when you call me an idiot it really makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.
Hardly. Testing for implausible scenarios is not the job of legitimate investigators.
Right. That's why they didn't follow standard procedure as stated in the petition.
Prove it.
From the petition:
By reporting that very little of the steel tested reached temperatures above 250°C, and that none of the steel tested reached temperatures above 600°C, NIST unnecessarily arouses the suspicion that the steel in the Twin Towers did not reach a temperature high enough to initiate collapse.
The physical tests for steel temperature are vitally important to support the conclusions reached by NIST. For example, as mentioned in the previous section, NIST computer simulations calculated more than 42 inches of deflection in the floor trusses occurred at 700°C. NIST also uses many other steel temperatures above 600°C throughout the WTC Report. NIST’s use of 700°C as a realistic temperature for the steel in its computer simulations is problematic for two reasons: (1) NIST has no physical data to support steel temperatures of 700°C; and (2) NIST possesses physical data that proves the exact opposite, namely that no steel tested reached temperatures of greater than 600°C.
By reporting that very little of the steel tested reached temperatures above 250°C, and that none of the steel tested reached temperatures above 600°C, NIST unnecessarily arouses the suspicion that the steel in the Twin Towers did not reach a temperature high enough to initiate collapse.
So some dang idiots misinterpet the purpose a test designed based on paint remenants left on columns and its NIST's problem? Rather than attack NIST, why don't they get some Engineers to explain it to them?
The paint was not the steel. The test was run to help the computer model for the way the fire spread, not to determine how hot the steel got. That would have been impossible from a paint test.
So with all the eyewitness accounts of these explosions, why didn't they investigate for explosive residue? That would be the job of a so-called 'investigation' wouldn't it?
No. Most people who work with fires understand that there are things that explode in buildings that are not bombs. Had explosives been used, you would not need chemical tests for residue, there would be large amounts of physical evidence lying around. Loads of brunt detcord, and columns miscolored from the cutting charge plasma jets. The lack of these things are why Jones & crew try to retreat to even sillier theories like Thermite.
600C is more than ehough for steel to loose half its strength. They recorded temp of over 1800F
The trusses were very small tubed like conduit and easily could have been heated to far more than 600C
The tests were on the large girders, the toofers like to confuse the 2
So with all the eyewitness accounts of these explosions, why didn't they investigate for explosive residue?
I don't know how many times this has to be explained, but explosion does not automatically mean "bomb".
A logical person thinks "well, a plane hit the building and poured fuel everywhere probably setting things off". A moron goes "let's ignore all that and say it was a bomb without any evidence".
From the petition:
By reporting that very little of the steel tested reached temperatures above 250°C, and that none of the steel tested reached temperatures above 600°C, NIST unnecessarily arouses the suspicion that the steel in the Twin Towers did not reach a temperature high enough to initiate collapse.
So why did the exterior column bend inward, sf?
"Here's a direct link to the pdf document -- I suggest you read it and debate the substance rather than resorting to the old name calling: Petition to NIST."
Been there, done that.
Pay attention to real objective of the petiton.
Wow Alex Jones' radio show is comedy gold! Adverts for all kinds of woo woo, what in the name of fuck is a "salt lamp"? No wonder these people have such a problem with the JREF. Maybe they can obtain some damning evidence by having Sylvia Browne contact the victims.
b. j. edwards said...
Been there, done that.
Pay attention to real objective of the petiton.
Jones was forced out of his job at BYU over the ridiculously inadequate NIST report which plays as 'definitive', so I think this is area that deserves fair consideration.
CHF said...
So why did the exterior column bend inward, sf?
They didn't - Watch this video of a structural analysis - start at 2:50:
Structural Model
The load was doubled and still no inward bending. Only local failure at bolts, spandrels.
Jones was forced out of his job at BYU
He was put under investigation for publishing his paper on 9/11 without having it peer reviewed. HE made the decision to retire rather than face the music.
"They didn't - Watch this video of a structural analysis - start at 2:50:
Structural Model "
But then watch videos of the actual collapse and note that the side DO buckle inwards. and this inward buckling is clearly visible well befor the collapse. We are not talking computer 3D model animations here but the real deal. That is what really happened.
Note this same buckling was observed by NYPD helicopters circling the building a full 20 minutes before the collapse starts.
911_truthiness said...
But then watch videos of the actual collapse and note that the side DO buckle inwards. and this inward buckling is clearly visible well befor the collapse. We are not talking computer 3D model animations here but the real deal. That is what really happened.
What kind of argument is this? LOL.
The 'real deal' is not what was witnessed from the exterior of the building. The point of a investigation is to show scientifically how this occurred.
Thought you guys knew this?
The point is, the NIST findings apparently are not able to be duplicated independently, which as you smart folks know, is the hallmark of good science.
A nuclear device in the basement WOW and it had no radiation
sf,
The columns didn't bend inward?
So what did the NYPD obrserve then?
sggw said...
A nuclear device in the basement WOW and it had no radiation
That's why I said start at 2:50 -- I don't agree with that either.
CHF said: sf,
The columns didn't bend inward?
So what did the NYPD obrserve then?
I'm not debating whether or not there was some bending inward of the perimeter columns.
Your statement is the equivalent of saying "fire was observed therefore the fire weakened the steel and caused collapse". That's not science.
NIST is stating that this inward bending was caused by the sagging trusses which in turn lead to the initiation of collapse. This is not verified independently in this structural analysis.
So what did pull in the exterior columns then Spoon?
It wasn't "verified" because it was obvious. This is like saying that, just because I observed a guy getting shot, I don't have any evidence to prove that the bullet killed him. Don't be an idiot. What do YOU think caused the bending? A bunch of kibbler elves pulling on the columns?
Sp I know you are probably an IT guy but
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?
Tell us about all your experience with building design
"Mancow was destroyed by Jones and Avery."
The terribly disturbed P'dope has done better. He stated for everyone to see his "opinion" that the Loose Change boys beat Mark.
Let him try to top that one!
Well, he'll have his chance this week when Mark takes on Fetzer.
Jay said...
So what did pull in the exterior columns then Spoon?
Well the building did swallow an entire 767 so I suppose that could cause some inward bending.
Alex said...
It wasn't "verified" because it was obvious.
???
So we don't need to worry if NIST results can't be independently repeated?
Well the building did swallow an entire 767 so I suppose that could cause some inward bending.
The bending didn't occur until well after the crash. Try again.
So we don't need to worry if NIST results can't be independently repeated?
You got it in one! The data certainly CAN be repeated, but why would you bother? If they had cheated in any way, it would be obvious simply by reviewing their report. If you want to repeat their experiments, feel free.
Post a Comment
<< Home