Saturday, February 13, 2010

Keith Olbermann Goes Truther

Not particularly a surprise, just wondering why it took him so long.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 changed American politics forever. But in spite of the warning signs raised by the U.S. intelligence community, the Bush administration seemed preoccupied with other issues, aloof to the alleged threat until the day both towers fell.

Why then, MSNBC's liberal host Keith Olbermann asked on Friday night, is it "taboo" to blame the Bush administration for allowing the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on their watch?

His conclusion: For their lack of vigilance and because they "did not prioritize," President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are to be faulted for the attacks.

Labels: ,

213 Comments:

At 14 February, 2010 00:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please explain Bush's conduct in the lead up to 9/11. I can't because Bush and Cheney "testified" in secret so I don't know why they acted as they did.

 
At 14 February, 2010 00:40, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Wow, a phantom CIA guy tried to warn Bush. That's seriously truther.

I can't believe I listened to these assholes about the Plame song and dance. I really did. I'm embarrassed.

It's odd to me that Olbermann seems to be going off the rails, just one year after his savior was elected.

 
At 14 February, 2010 05:29, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

Far be it for me to defend Keith Olbermann, who is blowhard and an idiot, who left to his own devices would leave this country largely defenseless (since he seems to object to everything done in its defense), but Pat your accusation is a bit of a cheap shot and is crediting the twoofers for a media conquest they don’t deserve. You really should revise the headline.

At best Olbermann is arguing Let it Happen by Incompetence (LIHBI?), I don’t agree with it because I think the country was collectively “asleep at the wheel” in 2001 and no President would have acted differently than Bush. Having said that, it has been a standard left-wing refrain for years and in this particular case, Olbermann and apparently Lawrence O’Donnell are invoking it in response to the accusation Obama is “inviting” another attack.

Olbermann is an asshole and I won’t shed any tears if he loses his slot on MSNBC (which is apparently a possibility) but I do think accusing anyone of twooferism is a serious accusation, akin to writing them off as loon or America-hating fanatic permanently and I don’t think Olbermann fits the bill, at least not in this case.

Patrick, the Bush Admin did know Al Qaeda was trying to work out an attack on US soil, that isn't any secret and even then I don't really fault them because the threats were so nonspecific. I think the claim about the CIA agent is stretch or least the way it is being recounted here. Having said that, its still LIHBI rather than twooferistic. It's akin to Rush Limbaugh claiming Bill Clinton had "blood on his hands" for the 1998 embassy bombings. Its a cheap shot but not a conspiratiod claim.

 
At 14 February, 2010 05:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Keith Olberman is a cock-gobbling reactionary leftist, a seething pit of hate and resentment against anyone better than him, and since that includes most of the human species, he has good reason to be as obnoxiously repugnant, vicious and vile as he is.

 
At 14 February, 2010 06:23, Anonymous New Yorker said...

What ConsDemo said. I have little use for Olbermann, but he's not suddenly babbling about thermite and free-fall speed and "pull it" and the other assorted nonsense that would make him a full-blown "truther".

 
At 14 February, 2010 08:47, Blogger Ruslan Amirkhanov said...

"Reactionary leftist?" Damn we got some political illiterates on here.

To be honest though, while I don't think this qualifies Keith Olbermann as a truther(because there was evidence of ignored memos), I think it's a bit extreme to blame Bush for the attacks. As another poster pointed out, probably any administration would have done the same thing.

The memo said something like "Al Qaeda determined to strike within the US." Hijackings were mentioned but that's pretty much standard terrorism tactics. In other words, the memo might have well as read "Sky blue, sun rises in east, sets in west."

 
At 14 February, 2010 09:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Ruslan Amirkhanov said...
"Reactionary leftist?" Damn we got some political illiterates on here."

Pot, Kettle.

Kettle, pot.

 
At 14 February, 2010 09:07, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"I have little use for Olbermann, but he's not suddenly babbling about thermite and free-fall speed and "pull it" and the other assorted nonsense that would make him a full-blown "truther"."

Well, for now. Both Olbermann and O'Donnell can read (and presumably have read) the PDB. Whatever drives them to mischaracterize the "warnings" might drive them into the "just asking questions" crowd.

 
At 14 February, 2010 09:35, Blogger Pat said...

Cons, anybody who says anyone is responsible for 9-11 other than Bin Laden and KSM and Atta is a Truther. They are pinning the blame on anybody other than the terrorists for their own purposes, just as the Truthers do.

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:01, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To Pat:

Cons, anybody who says anyone is responsible for 9-11 other than Bin Laden and KSM and Atta is a Truther.

A truther is someone who seeks the truth of what happened. As for "Bin Laden and KSM and Atta" - where's the proof to that effect?

They are pinning the blame on anybody other than the terrorists for their own purposes, just as the Truthers do.

I think just about any right-minded person would agree that those who perpetrated 9/11 do qualify to be classified as terrorists. It is their identity that is not clear - but it is quite clear that the official explanation as to what took place simply does not hold water.

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:03, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Well doesn't that say it all. In chronological order:

Conclusion: "Bin Laden and KSM and Atta" did 9/11.

Nobody else, I repeated absolutely nobody else was involved. To suggest otherwise is heresy and will result in ostracism.

Now...let's go out and find facts to support our "conclusion".

This is known as "the political method" or "begging the question", and is how Pat thinks.

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:08, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Furthermore, should our conclusion be "amended" to allow further perpetrators to be identified, the following stipulation applies: these perpetrators must be foreigners.

The logic of kookloon ultra-nationalists.

* Look towards outsiders for scapegoats.
* Incite domestic forces against a common foreign enemy, whether real, partially imaginary, or totally fictional
* Unify through shared hatred.
* Label dissenters collaborators
* Push through totalitarian agenda.

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:14, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Roid Rage,

Conclusion: "Bin Laden and KSM and Atta" did 9/11.

Nobody else, I repeated absolutely nobody else was involved. To suggest otherwise is heresy and will result in ostracism.

Now...let's go out and find facts to support our "conclusion".


That appears to be how anyone still supporting the official story is forced to operate. Here is a pretty good article on that subject:

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:23, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Heh - nobody give Boris Epstein any personal information. He's a psychotic stalker.

Btw, Boris, nobody is going to click on your 911blogger link. Fail.

How'd that Northeast Truther Conference go? I heard the speakers didn't show up. Meetup shows 4 attendees. Did those 4 actually make it there? Or is that a lie?

If I google "Northeast Truth Conference", your website is the top link. Yet no one showed up. Hmmmmm. Kinda makes you a failure among failures, doesn't it?

How does it feel to be a loser among losers?

 
At 14 February, 2010 10:48, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Hey Patrick. Some useful people somewhere need kidneys. Don't be frugal. Please die.

Just take a bath with a toaster. Oh shit no, that might damage the kidney. Okay just have an accident with a guillotine then. You know, like "woops, looks I decapitated myself again, this time it might be serious".

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:03, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Roid Rage,

I don't think hate speech here helps anybody. Do you really hate Patrick that much? Do you want him dead? I presume not. Then perhaps you should stop this sort of rhetoric as well.

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:08, Anonymous Roid Rage's Dad said...

Son, simmer down now.

Keep your cool and ambush these rascals with Truth. Give 'em an education on Larry the Joo's pull it quote.

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:17, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Mr. Epstein, are you trying to tell us that the hijackers are still alive?

Sorry, but that claim is based upon an erroneous BBC report ("The investigation and the evidence", BBC News, September 23, 2001). The BBC retracted the story. In fact, DNA evidence collected by the FBI from the hijacker's hotel rooms and rental cars confirms that they were aboard the aircraft. Have a look at the following:

9/11 conspiracy theory by Steve Herrmann, BBC News, 27 October 2006.

The story reads in part, "...The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

In addition to identification of victims, the remains of all the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93, American Airlines Flight 77 were found and their DNA forensically identified.

Remains of three of the hijackers were found and identified through DNA testing at the Ground Zero.

Remains Of 9 Sept. 11 Hijackers Held by Brian Dakss, 17 August 2002.

The article reads in part, "...(CBS) Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers...The FBI has held them for months, and no one seems to know what should be done with them. It's a politically and emotionally charged question for the government, which eventually must decide how to dispose of some of the most despised men in American history."

Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi by AP, 6 February 2002.

The article reads in part, "...Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions...Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...'The names that we got confirmed that,' Nayef said in an interview. 'Their families have been notified.'"

Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified BBC News, 28 February 2003.

The article reads in part, "...Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms. Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims. 'No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have,' Ms Borakove said. 'We haven't finished our work, so it may be more,' she added."

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:22, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

Im not sure about Olbermann being twoofie. The comment was stupid but i think this is the Conservative blogger comming out in your 9/11 blog.

My pops considers Olbermann to be the anti-christ also, but I think he's like everyone else on TV. All people do nowadays is spout crazy shit to see what reaction they can get. Rush, Beck, Olberman, they're all the same.

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:28, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

GuitarBill,

Mr. Epstein, are you trying to tell us that the hijackers are still alive?

No sir, I don't believe I have ever made such a point. I am saying, however, that whoever they were they could not have physically accomplished what they are said to have accomplished. Unless, of course, a few laws of nature took a day off that day.

As for the hijackers' idnetity... well, lots of things are unclear there or at least were last I checked. While it may be true that the same people who drove some rental car later ended up on board of some or all flights in question - how do we know that they were the hijackers? Furthermore, how do we know they were truly who they represented themselves as? Never mind that I seem to vaguely remember the US State Department even apologizing to Saudi Arabia for accusing some of their citizens of participation in 9/11 as those citizens did turn up alive and well after the attacks. It also turned out that their Saudi passports were at one point stolen from them.

Be that as it may, I don't know for sure what the story with those identities was, nor do I have to to know that the official conspiracy theory is bogus.

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:35, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Boris Epstein, you psychotic stalking moron -

You truly didn't learn anything in your time away.

If you could read and/or think, you'd realize that all of that crap was debunked years ago.

How'd that Northeast Truth Conference work out? Will you ever tell us how many people showed up? Was it 4 or 5? Who was on the hook for renting the venue?

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:41, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Mr. Epstein writes, "...While it may be true that the same people who drove some rental car later ended up on board of some or all flights in question - how do we know that they were the hijackers?"

Given the DNA collected by the FBI, the odds against the hijackers being persons other than those identified by the investigators are astronomical (trillions-to-one).

Sorry, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the "official story".

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:54, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

GuitarBill,

Sorry, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the "official story".

I really don't need to argue with you regarding the hijackers' identity. I actually never made that an important part of my argument anyhow.

Why am I saying the official story is bogus? I believe I posted a link to one of my articles on the subject here, but to recap: it is the physically impossible alleged mechanism involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7, near impossible aeronautical feat of an amateur pilot flying the jet alleged to have hit the Pentagon as well as various other aspects of the story that simply fail to add up on, I have to say, too many level to mention.

And if you believe that the evidence supports the official story so overwhelmingly - would you speculate on why there seems to be so few people who are convinced having seen the alternative opinion? How many truthers have ever become convinced that they were wrong? Meanwhile, scores of people it seems are abandoning the official story every day - as ludicrous? Why in your opinion would that be?

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:57, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

Pat, I think you’d want to include the hijackers themselves in that group! In any case, looking at the quote you cite:

For their lack of vigilance and because they "did not prioritize," President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are to be faulted for the attacks.

He seems to be using the analogy that a guard who was asleep while a back robbery occurred should be faulted, that’s a whole lot different than saying the guard perpetrated the act and blamed it on someone else, which is the heart of the twoofer argument. If LIHBI automatically makes someone a twoofer, you’ve expanded the twoof population tenfold. As I said above, I think the claim (that Bush's negligence helped cause 9/11) is offbase but it is the kind of discourse that happens pretty routinely and is far removed from the ludicrous conspiracy theories peddled by twoofers. Do you believe Obama is “inviting” another terrorist attack?

Scientific Method versus Political Method

Once again Bore-ass proves why he is a laughingstock. This twoofer Op-Ed cites Steven Jones and also claims twoofers “Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.” Jones claims he “knew that day” on 9/11 that something other than the plane crashes and resulting fires brought the towers down. Like all other twoofers he arrived at his thesis and has attempted to invent “science” to bolster what he believes anyway. Twoofers are trying to project their own inadequacies onto others. It figures a loser like Bore-ass would find it appealing, if everyone else is a loser than relatively speaking, he feels better about himself.

Say Bore-ass, do you think Jones’s claim that Jesus came to North America is “scientific”?

 
At 14 February, 2010 11:58, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Everybody watch out for Boris - he's now entertaining the fantasy of lawyers working for him on contingency for statements made against him on this blog (for instance, the statement that he's a psychotic stalker. Which he is). The psychotic Boris Epstein really is in another world. Just a matter of time before he pulls a Sean Fitzgerald or a Kurt Sonnenfeld.

Just don't harm your mom, Boris. She's had to deal with you every day of your pathetic life.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:00, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"Say Bore-ass, do you think Jones’s claim that Jesus came to North America is “scientific”?"

ConsDemo, you spoilsport - you beat me to it! :)

Yeah, Boris Epstein, you psychotic stalker who lives with his mom, do you really believe that Jesus came to North America in a wooden submarine? That's where the scientific method has led Steven Jones!

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:02, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Nobody else, I repeated absolutely nobody else was involved. To suggest otherwise is heresy and will result in ostracism."

Well there were also the guys that did the actual hijackings and plane crashings, the ones who did the training, the ones who financed the plot, the but you're too fucking stooopoid to realize that.

"Now...let's go out and find facts to support our "conclusion"."

Nice scare quotes, moron.

"This is known as "the political method" or "begging the question", and is how Pat thinks."

No, that's known as "reality", a condition which I'm sure you only have a passing aquaintance with.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:04, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

OK, Boris must be a parody of a truther. He wrote "Meanwhile, scores of people it seems are abandoning the official story every day - as ludicrous? Why in your opinion would that be?"

Now, Boris, I know you're a psychotic stalker who lives with his mom and gets his legal knowledge from fictional television, but do you REALLY think that's the case? How many people showed up to the Northeast Truth Conference (which you promoted)? 4? Maybe 5?

You idiots can't even MAINTAIN your numbers, let alone grow them.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"* Look towards outsiders for scapegoats."

THE JOOOOOS THE JOOOOOS!!!!!

"* Incite domestic forces against a common foreign enemy, whether real, partially imaginary, or totally fictional"

Nice encapsulation of the entire Twoooofer™ movement.

"* Unify through shared hatred."

Well, twoofers hate sane people. And America.

"* Label dissenters collaborators"

DISINFO!!!! DISINFO!!!!!!


"* Push through totalitarian agenda."

Well, you're a fascist goon, so that works.


Nice work there, fucktard. For once you got something right.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:11, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

...it is the physically impossible alleged mechanism involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7...

Says who? You, Steven Jones and Dick Gage. What makes morons such as yourself, a defrocked professor and a washed out architect the definitive authority on the matter?
near impossible aeronautical feat of an amateur pilot flying the jet alleged to have hit the Pentagon

Again, says who? What makes you or any of your twoof allies a definitive decisionmaker. All you clowns are saying is your opinions somehow trump everything else. As it has been said countless times, if you "evidence" is so overwhelming, why don’t you take it court?

And if you believe that the evidence supports the official story so overwhelmingly - would you speculate on why there seems to be so few people who are convinced having seen the alternative opinion?

Can someone translate this into English? It seems Bore-ass is making the 84 percent argument. Bore-ass, did you catch the twoofer funded poll that said 4.6% endorse your slanderous claims? Have the twoofers conducted a new poll showing more than 5% believe their crackpot claims or are you just being delusional again?

How many truthers have ever become convinced that they were wrong?

Ed Beglery Jr. seems to have come to his senses but most don’t, at least not openly, because twooferism is a religion, it has nothing to do with facts or evidence, which why most twoofers are impervious to reason. Your average twoofer is about as likely to come his senses as a fundamentalist Christian is going to come to celebrate abortion. A life-event (such as growing up) may make them slink out of the circus and rejoin reality but they won’t make some grand event out of it, and announce they renounce twooferism, they will just disappear much like Steve Walter did.

Meanwhile, scores of people it seems are abandoning the official story every day - as ludicrous? Why in your opinion would that be?

Again, your evidence is what? Hal Sparks coming out of the closet? Your twoof group attracting a third loser who is bitter about the fact he is failure in life?

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:13, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

DumKoff Stanley,your Pops must be PornBoy,right? Tell him that there were a hell of a lot more warnings than a single CIA briefing.That's the point.Funny to see the sleazy Debunker Cult teeter at the edge of the precipice as they try to spin the obvious criminal "negligence" exhibited by our national security apparatus.Actually,what Olbermann is doing is the modern version of the famous Nixon 'modified,limited hangout'.He's only talking about the tip of the iceberg,really.The iceberg that sunk your pathetic club a-long while ago.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the sleazy Debunker Cult"

Blater.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Swirl around and around the toilet bowl that is trutherism, and end up in the sewer.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:32, Anonymous Chester Copperpot said...

And in waddles Walt, the board's own resident "Otis - the drunk" loaded for bear. He's got:

Barry Jennings
2 Second GA
and A 55 gallon drum of Stupid

Out starting riots today were you Wally?

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:37, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Mr. Epstein writes, "...near impossible aeronautical feat of an amateur pilot flying the jet..."

On the contrary, the pilot the "truthers" claim could not possibly have flown the aircraft, Hani Hanjour, was in fact a licensed pilot with all the skills necessary to execute the "near impossible aeronautical feat".

For example, "...On his first certification flight a Cessna 172 was used. This is a single engine aircraft. Mr. Shalev sat next to.Hanjour and had him fly north from the Gaithersburg airport away from Washington, D.C. Mr. Shalev noticed that Hanjour used a landmark or terrain recognition system for navigation and did not use the ''VOR'' or Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni Directional Rangefinder instruments. Mr. Shalev stated that he considered this unusual because basic ainnanship requires knowledge of the operation of the VOR. Mr. Shalev selected Clearview airport in northern Maryland as their designation. The airport is located near Westminster, Maryland. Mr. Shalev said that the runway is small at Clearview and difficult to land. Hanjour landed at the airport without any difficulty. Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations, Hanjour was a "good" pilot. Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation. Hanjour told Mr. Shalev that he (Hanjour) had most recently trained in Florida as a pilot.

"After the certification flight, Mr. Shalev approved Hanjour for the rental of the Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters. Mr. Shalev said that Hanjour had his own flight bag, headset and aviator's chart for the Washington, D.C. area airspace. On 08/26/2001, Hanjour returned to Congressional Air Charters and rented an aircraft. Hanjour came in and spoke briefly with Mr. Shalev. The conversation related to the air corridor between Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. The airspace is restricted because of heavy commercial airline traffic. Mr. Shalev said that the Cessna 172 that Hanjour would be flying is not pressurized and that would restrict the altitude. Generally, the air controllers allow small aircraft to fly to an altitude of 5000 feet."


Source: media.nara.gov.

Of course, the "911 truth movement" will find another part of that testimony which "confirms" one of their theories: "Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation."

Either that or they'll seize on Shalev's name and claim he's Mossad, which is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Sorry Mr Epstein, but your theory doesn't fly.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:54, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

ConsDemo:

Again, your evidence is what? Hal Sparks coming out of the closet? Your twoof group attracting a third loser who is bitter about the fact he is failure in life?

Patrick from Cincinnati:
Now, Boris, I know you're a psychotic stalker who lives with his mom and gets his legal knowledge from fictional television...

The statements presented above are fine examples of unsubstantiated fiction. Let us now introduce some reality to counter it with.

Now, if the anonymous commenter ConsDemo above was referring to the local (Boston) 9/11 Truth Movement then all I can say that a movement that holds weekly meetings, regular events and presentations, etc. would naturally be expected to consist of far more than three members - and that is the case in reality. Those events are hosted and organized by real people, and much evidence - reports, photographs, videos, etc. - is available to those interested. So ConsDemo's statement (question?) is about as far removed from factual reality as it could possibly be.

Now let us move to the statement made by another anonymous commenter, "Patrick from Cincinnati". Here's reality: I am a 40 year old self-sufficient man who in almost 20 years has received no financial assistance from anybody save for several months worth unemployment in 2001 (it was about 3 months if I remember correctly). I do not live with my Mother; in fact, she has been dead for over 15 years and such infantile remarks are hard for me not to find offensive. Then again, that remark was just as infantile as you, Patrick, appear to be and clearly I shouldn't waste time on it.

I get my legal knowledge - and other kinds of knowledge - from many sources. Fictional TV is not one of them. In fact, I hardly ever watch TV at all.

But, most importantly, I am about as far from being anonymous as someone can be on the Internet. Facts about me are available and can be verified.

Furthermore, this sort of attitude towards facts shows exactly how concerned individuals such as ConsDemo and "Patrick from Cincinnati" are about factual accuracy. I could - and have on occasion - shot down most if not all of their substantive arguments but provided their propensity towards slander and disdain for facts and knowledge I really don't see a need to do it all the time.

So to those who read this blog and see me ignore commenters of that variety - well, I guess now you know why.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:57, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Mr Epstein writes, "...the physically impossible alleged mechanism involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7"

In terms of WTC 7, two collapse scenarios are proposed by NIST and were simulated using a cluster of state-of-the-art Linux computers: (i) no debris impact damage from the towers; and (ii) with debris impact damage to the towers.

Scenario [1]: No debris impact damage from the towers.

The collapse initiates on floors 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 (in that order), which causes column 80 and then 79 to buckle. As a result, the east penthouse crashes through the building's roof and falls to the ground floor. As the remainder of the upper floor's weight is redistributed to the remaining columns, the building crumples inward. Clearly, steel beams expanded in the heat, and numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness. Collapse in this scenario is inevitable, given that the firefighters were unable to fight the fire owing to broken water mains. Remember the building's steel was rated for two hours against fire, but the fires burned for over 7 hours.

Scenario [2]: With debris impact damage from the towers.

On 11 September 2001, WTC 7 suffered extensive damage to the South-side of the building and the fires raged for over 7 hours. An entire 15-story section of the lower-South face of the building was scooped out by debris falling from the North Tower. This caused the building to lean and sway, according to FDNY personnel. In fact, FDNY fire damage experts were convinced by approximately 2:00PM that day the building would collapse.

In the second scenario, the collapse initiates once again on floors 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 (in that order), which causes column 80 and then 79 to buckle. As a result, the east penthouse crashes through the building's roof and falls to the ground floor. As the remainder of the upper floor's weight is redistributed to the remaining columns and the building's North wall begins to fall, the lower 15-story portion of the South wall, which was damaged by debris from the collapse of the North Tower, buckles and initiates a global collapse, as the NIST simulation clearly demonstrates. It's at this point that the building experiences a brief period of free fall; however, free fall is short lived as the remainder of the building meets resistance from floor 15 to the top of the North parapet wall.

So much for free fall speed and the alleged "implications".

In addition, Shyam Sunder replies, "...A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time."

Source: NIST/YouTube: NIST SIMULATION FOR WTC 7.

 
At 14 February, 2010 12:59, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

continued...

Mr Epstein writes, "...the physically impossible alleged mechanism involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7"

That said, WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, as the "911 truth movement" likes to claim. The building fell in 18 seconds, as the videos I've included below will conform. The collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building, and the parapet wall did not begin to fall for at least another 8 seconds. This observation is fully supported by the NIST's computer simulations, which confirm their progressive collapse hypothesis.

Source: YouTube: WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1.

Source: YouTube: WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2.

Source: NIST/YouTube: NIST SIMULATION SHOWS DAMAGE TO WTC 7 FROM TOWER CAUSED SLOWER LESS EXTREME COLLAPSE.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:06, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Using only Shalev: special pleading.

So, Who is Eddie Shalev?

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. All of which is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33]

Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.


— author Mark Gaffney

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:07, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

...I could - and have on occasion - shot down most if not all of their substantive arguments...

ROTFLMAO! That's a howler Bore-ass. Btw, when did you "shoot down" an argument from me or anyone else. Posting a link to a twoof cite doesn't prove anything.

Also, it is a bit rich for someone who hurls around accusations that others committed mass murder without having any credible evidence to back up the claim to then say they are offended by something said to them.

As for the "anonymous" bit, Bore-ass, I'm no more anonymous than you. I haven't a clue who you are or what your real name is, or if that picture of an ape that is attached your postings is really you. The big difference is I could care a less about your identity, while you seem obsessed with knowing personal information about others, which makes the suggestion you are a stalker credible.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:15, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The usual pap from the smearers.Keith Olbermann,hardly a "truther",clubs you like baby seals and you wax scatalogically while failing to even take a stab at the numerous and specific warnings to all levels of government in the months leading up to the events.Smart strategy,I guess,because going down that road would be down right embarrassing for you schnooks.The Debunker Cult:a bunch of Holden Caulfields testing their sarcasm on everyone while falling to pieces quite pathetically.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:15, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"That said, WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, as the "911 truth movement" likes to claim."
Freefall speed does not exist. I know that, Chandler knows that, NIST knows that. You, Gage and Gage's fanboys seem to have trouble comprehending that. Quote me a serious physics textbook using the literal term "freefall speed". Skydiver magazines do not count.

The building fell in 18 seconds, as the videos I've included below will conform. [sic]
No it didn't.

The collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building,
No it didn't. Global collapse ensued when the roofline started moving downwards, indicating full support failure. Up until then, only partial internal collapses had occurred.

and the parapet wall did not begin to fall for at least another 8 seconds. This observation is fully supported by the NIST's computer simulations, which confirm their progressive collapse hypothesis.
The computer simulations confirm only NIST's computer generated and drylabbed collapse fantasies.

WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration for a minimum of 2.25 seconds or 7/8 stories, according to the final NIST report, reluctantly confirming David Chandler who forced them to face this issue at the press conference. It is this freefall period which matters. You could even claim WTC 7's collapse took a week, it wouldn't matter at all. The 2.25 second period would still be there.

If you want to claim this freefall period is meaningless, be my guest. But denying it is a bald-faced lie. (What else is new from the debunker cult)

Unhinge

Blather

Defeat

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:18, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

A truther is someone who seeks the truth of what happened.
Incorrect. A truther is someone who thinks that the government carried out or deliberately facilitated 9-11.
It would be more accurate to call them "inside-jobbers" or "gullible college dropouts."

As sick as it makes me, I'm gonna have to defend Olbermann on this one. It sounds like he's claiming that the Bush admin was too busy trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq to pay attention to serious warnings. Until he mentions controlled demolitions or any of the other typical truther arguments and prefacing his claims with "isn't it interesting that..." and ending with a long "hmmmmm" I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's odd to me that Olbermann seems to be going off the rails, just one year after his savior was elected.
It's kind of funny. Many of Obama's far-left supporters are furious that he has not ushered in a Messianic Age. It's almost as if they're too stupid to understand how Washington works and expect way to much from a president in one year. Or maybe they aren't aware of that other branch of government, you know, the one that makes laws. It's as if we elected a new Caesar and with a few decrees he can suddenly change the largest bureaucracy on earth. (Second largest? Maybe the EU is bigger now)

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think what we're going to have to do is find another 50 story office building, shower it in hundreds of tons of debris and set in on fire and see if it collapses after six hours or so. It would be fun!
I'm sure we can find one in Johannesburg no one will miss.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:33, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...Freefall speed does not exist. I know that, Chandler knows that, NIST knows that. You, Gage and Gage's fanboys seem to have trouble comprehending that. Quote me a serious physics textbook using the literal term 'freefall speed'. Skydiver magazines do not count."

Nice straw man argument, RR. I never claimed that NIST used the term "free fall speed". The "9/11 truth movement" uses the term. The correct term is gravitational acceleration, but that's beside the point.

Stow your straw man tactics, RR, you're talking to me now. Got it?

Roid Rage scribbles "...No it didn't. Global collapse ensued when the roofline started moving downwards, indicating full support failure. Up until then, only partial internal collapses had occurred."

Wrong. Collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building. You can't pick and choose when the collapse began to suit you idiotic theory.

Roid Rage scribbles "...If you want to claim this freefall period is meaningless, be my guest. But denying it is a bald-faced lie."

Another straw man argument.

I never denied anything.

The fact is that the "9/11 truth movement" invented the "free fall speed" issue (another straw man argument, by the way), which the "truthers" use to attack the NIST Report.


The 911 "truth" Movement--If You Can Find a Fact in Our Pamphlets, We'll Eat Them.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:34, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"shower it in hundreds of tons of debris"
Please provide a source stating that WTC 7 was showered in "hundreds of tons" of debris. It was damaged by debris, yes. But "hundreds of tons"? Where did you get that idea? From a computer simulation?

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:44, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...Please provide a source stating that WTC 7 was showered in 'hundreds of tons' of debris. It was damaged by debris, yes. But 'hundreds of tons'? Where did you get that idea? From a computer simulation?"

Here's your answer:

Source: YouTube: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions.

The authorities expected WTC 7 to collapse 3 hours before the collapse ensued.

Your argument is propaganda.

The 911 "truth" Movement--Ask Us About the "truth": We're Full of it.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:47, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"The correct term is gravitational acceleration, but that's beside the point."
No, freefall is perfectly fine, although you are free to use a more grand-sounding term to cover up for your embarrassing gaffe.

"Stow your straw man tactics, RR, you're talking to me now. Got it?"
There was no straw man. You used an incorrect term without quotes. Man up and deal with it. I forgive you, if it means anything.

"Wrong. Collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building. You can't pick and choose when the collapse began to suit you idiotic theory."
Nope. Otherwise, you may as well start your clock when the stairs collapsed under Barry Jennings's feet. Or when the debris from WTC 1 hit.

Global collapse starts when the entire structure starts moving downwards, indicating total failure of the lower structure to support the building. Until then, the building stood, although a local collapse of unknown extent had occurred under the Eastern penthouse.

There is only one reason to lie about this: to artificially extend the building's fall time. Yet such attempts are laughable: the 2.25 period of freefall is admitted and insensitive to shortened or lengthened overall collapse times.

Another straw man argument.

I never denied anything.

The fact is that the "9/11 truth movement" invented the "free fall speed" issue (another straw man argument, by the way), which the "truthers" use to attack the NIST Report.


You never denied it? Then what is this you said? :

"That said, WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed [sic]"

Are you senile?

No, you're just a pathological liar, like the rest of your so-called "debunker" friends.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
That entire site good. It answers all the JAQing off done by A&E.
We're just gonna waltz into a massive high-rise building and wire it for demolition without anyone noticing. Somehow that makes sense but debris damage doesn't?

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

building 7 is the smoking gun. no one can explain how it fell yet you guys keep insisting that it was fires even though fires have never brought down a building that big before. your too busy bitching about left vs right to see the real game being played.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:53, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage lies, "...There was no straw man. You used an incorrect term without quotes. Man up and deal with it. I forgive you, if it means anything."

Bullshit.

Remember, shit-for-brains, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed", the "9/11 truth movement" is--you lying, duplicitous, terrorist apologist piece of offal.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the only terrorists are the ones in the government and their facilitators in the corporate controlled media who suppress all free debate on this subject and offer up fake opposition in the form of olbermann and maddow. theyre just shills like all of you eichmans.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:55, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Here's your answer:

"Source: YouTube: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions.

The authorities expected WTC 7 to collapse 3 hours before the collapse ensued.

Your argument is propaganda.

The 911 "truth" Movement--Ask Us About the "truth": We're Full of it.


Pseudoskeptic JREF-er "AlienEntity" is not a source. I asked for a source describing "hundreds of tons" of debris impacting WTC 7 and you went ahead and changed the subject. Again, obfuscation, fallacies and lies are the hallmarks of your cult.

 
At 14 February, 2010 13:59, Anonymous ArguingWithATruther said...

"Show me evidence"
"Here it is"
"That source is full of shit"
Repeat

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:00, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Bullshit.
Nope.

Remember, shit-for-brains, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed", the "9/11 truth movement" is--you lying, duplicitous, terrorist apologist piece of offal.
Sure. The logic of kookloon ultranationalists, item #1

* Look towards outsiders for scapegoats.

Notice how GuitarBill is unable to quote a serious physics textbook with the literal term "freefall speed", so his only recourse now is to distract and attack a third party for using it also. Pretty transparent and weak, even for well rehearsed liars.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:06, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Jackass belches, "...Pseudoskeptic JREF-er 'AlienEntity' is not a source. I asked for a source describing "hundreds of tons" of debris impacting WTC 7 and you went ahead and changed the subject."

The point--you sub-literate used toilet water connoisseur--is that the authorities knew by 2:00 PM that the building would collapse as the result of fire and damage from the collapse of WTC 1. See the video at ~2:50, dufus.

The weight of the stuff that struck WTC 7 is meaningless and proves nothing. The fact is that the building was severely damaged and was expected to collapse.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:09, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Scumbag Rodio Rage lies again, "...Notice how GuitarBill is unable to quote a serious physics textbook with the literal term "freefall speed", so his only recourse now is to distract and attack a third party for using it also. Pretty transparent and weak, even for well rehearsed liars."

Again scumbag, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed"--you toothless whore.

The "9/11 truth movement"--Richard Gage specifically--uses the term to attack the NIST Report--you straw man argument spewing neo-fascist liar.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:19, Anonymous ConsDemo said...

the only terrorists are the ones in the government and their facilitators in the corporate controlled media who suppress all free debate on this subject...

Exactly how is "free debate" being suppressed? How many twoofers are sitting in jail for their slanderous accusations?

Also, Bore-ass, still waiting for your evidence that twoofers are the majority. I know your too much of a pussy to try to defend the claim.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:20, Anonymous paul w said...

Dear god, RR is now asking for a 'serious' physics textbook.

What a joke. They're STILL on about 'free fall'.

Also, get this;

GuitarBill:
"Wrong. Collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building. You can't pick and choose when the collapse began to suit you idiotic theory."

RR:
Nope. Otherwise, you may as well start your clock when the stairs collapsed under Barry Jennings's feet. Or when the debris from WTC 1 hit.

Global collapse starts when the entire structure starts moving downwards, indicating total failure of the lower structure to support the building. Until then, the building stood, although a local collapse of unknown extent had occurred under the Eastern penthouse.

...............

Typical truther, trying to dictate terms to support their own idiotic conclusions...hang on, didn't someone else say that?

Lol!

Sorry, dingbat, but reality doesn't work that way.

The collapse began with the penthouse.

Or, are you saying when the penthouse began to fall though the roof, the building wasn't collapsing?

Bit like saying that when two cars collide at 160kph, the crash didn't really take place when the bumper bars began to crush...it was only when the bodies of the car were impacting.

Yeah, right...

And, let's go back to that unbelievably stupid comment:

"you may as well start your clock when the stairs collapsed under Barry Jennings's feet. Or when the debris from WTC 1 hit."

'when the debris from WTC 1 hit.'
Yup, they actually said that.

Cue; personal insults and ranting from RR in 5,4,3,2,1...

PS Seek professional help

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

THEY KNEW

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:27, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"The weight of the stuff that struck WTC 7 is meaningless and proves nothing. The fact is that the building was severely damaged and was expected to collapse."

The damage was minor and without it, the building would still have collapsed due to fire, as per the NIST report. Now, where does NIST talk about this "lean" in the NIST report? (This is a sincere question). I can't remember..could you point out the exact page?

How come NIST says thermal expansion (according to NIST a so-called "new phenomenon") caused the building to collapse? Does this match up with what the firefighters said, that the building would fall due to damage? Why was it so easy to predict by the firefighters yet to difficult to explain by NIST?

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
Source

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:28, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Again scumbag, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed"--you toothless whore.

The "9/11 truth movement"--Richard Gage specifically--uses the term to attack the NIST Report--you straw man argument spewing neo-fascist liar."


Both GuitarBill and Richard Gage use or have used this faulty term; both are therefore in error.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the collapse of WTC7 was without precedent. This doesn't mean it was demolished.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:37, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Asshole Roid Rage scribbles, "...Both GuitarBill and Richard Gage use or have used this faulty term; both are therefore in error."

There you go again--you trailer park educated bottom feeder.

I've already explained to you that the correct term is gravitation acceleration, but you're too busy applying your low-life "truther" smear tactics to acknowledge the truth.

In addition, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed". Again, the "9/11 truth movement" uses the term, not me.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:37, Anonymous Fucktard Patrol said...

Pick a name asshole.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:41, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Or, are you saying when the penthouse began to fall though the roof, the building wasn't collapsing?
Yes. Global collapse starts when the entire building starts moving downward. Not when a localized section collapses.

Bit like saying that when two cars collide at 160kph, the crash didn't really take place when the bumper bars began to crush...it was only when the bodies of the car were impacting.
Exactly. When does the entire upper portion of the building start crushing the lower portion of the building floor by floor? When the East penthouse collapses? I think not. Thanks for furthering everybody's understanding with this example.

"Yup, they actually said that."
Straw man argument.

Cue; personal insults and ranting from RR in 5,4,3,2,1...

PS Seek professional help"

Okay, I'll hire a professional dentist to help extract your teeth. Perhaps the ivory can be used for some billiard balls.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:44, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

The duplicitous Roid Rage prevaricates, "...The damage was minor and without it, the building would still have collapsed due to fire, as per the NIST report. Now, where does NIST talk about this 'lean' in the NIST report? (This is a sincere question). I can't remember..could you point out the exact page?"

More "truther" hypocrisy and double-dealing, Roid Rage?

So let me see if I've got this straight, Roid Rage: The NIST Report is correct when it supports your insanity, but it's incorrect when it refutes your nonsense. Right?

You can't have it both ways, Roid Rage the Duplicitous. So which is it, "Truther", do you agree with the NIST Report, or do you disagree with the NIST Report?

Bite me, "truther" swine.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:47, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"I've already explained to you that the correct term is gravitation acceleration, but you're too busy applying your low-life "truther" smear tactics to acknowledge the truth."
No you didn't. Freefall will do fine. You merely attempted to obfuscate by using an impressive sounding alternative in the first comment after your embarrassing blunder.

In addition, I'm not the one attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed". Again, the "9/11 truth movement" uses the term, not me.

Here's what you said:

"That said, WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, as the "911 truth movement" likes to claim."

You should have said "freefall acceleration" no matter what the truthers say. Two wrongs does not make a right. But again, I forgive you. I trust you won't make said mistake again, after being publicly embarrassed for it, especially after your toe curling foolhardiness with respect to the physics of WTC 7.

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:50, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You can't have it both ways, Roid Rage the Duplicitous. So which is it, "Truther", do you agree with the NIST Report, or do you disagree with the NIST Report?"

False dilemma fallacy. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:50, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You can't have it both ways, Roid Rage the Duplicitous. So which is it, "Truther", do you agree with the NIST Report, or do you disagree with the NIST Report?"

False dilemma fallacy. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 
At 14 February, 2010 14:58, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage lies, ".,.You should have said 'freefall acceleration' no matter what the truthers say."

Still picking gnat shit out of pepper, "truther" swine?

It doesn't matter what I say or how I say it. The fact is that I'm not attacking the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed", Richard Gage and the "9/11 truth movement" use the term to attack the NIST Report.

The only thing I've done so far, is respond to the "truthers" "free fall speed" allegations.

And don't play that coy shit with me. You are a "truther".

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:02, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

The only thing I've done so far, is respond to the "truthers" "free fall speed" allegations.
No, you've used the term "freefall speed" as if it was valid. You blundered.

And don't play that coy shit with me. You are a "truther".
I guess that means you are a liar

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:03, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage prevaricates, "...False dilemma fallacy."

No. What this demonstrates is the "9/11 truth movements" intellectual dishonesty. They cherry pick the NIST Report and agree with certain conclusions that support their claims, while simultaneously attacking the report with straw man fallacies like "free fall speed".

Again, you can have it both ways, fly boi.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:06, Anonymous paul w said...

"Not when a localized section collapses."

Unfuckingbelievable.

Using that principle, RR, the building did not globally collapse.

I mean, if the penthouse was a localized section collapse, then so was the inner structure, and the outside walls, as they did not collapse at exactly the same time.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

But, that's not all:

Me:
"Bit like saying that when two cars collide at 160kph, the crash didn't really take place when the bumper bars began to crush...it was only when the bodies of the car were impacting."

RR;
"Exactly. When does the entire upper portion of the building start crushing the lower portion of the building floor by floor? When the East penthouse collapses? I think not. Thanks for furthering everybody's understanding with this example."

You have to laugh.

According to our hero, 'collapse' is now:

"the entire upper portion of the building start crushing the lower portion of the building floor by floor"

Yup, just like those two cars that collide head on at 160kph, it's not a collision until RR tells us so.

PS Seek professional help

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:09, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Scum bag Roid Rage lies, "...No, you've used the term 'freefall speed' as if it was valid. You blundered."

No, wrong again, liar.

On the contrar6y, I proved that the building didn't fall at "free fall speed" by providing timed video evidence that shows the collapse of the east penthouse and the parapet wall. The "9/11 truth movement" doesn't want to talk about the east penthouse because they want the gullible to believe the collapse began when the parapet wall fell--a full 8 to 9 seconds after the collapse ensued.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"haha i catched you in a blunder!! I WIN!!!"
Ivory only comes from Elephants.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:18, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Hell, I didn't "blunder".

This is a typical "truther" tactic: Take your opponent's words out of context, apply your own false context and attack the statement based on that false context. In other words a straw man tactic.

That's all the pathetic "truthers" have: lies and intellectual dishonesty.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plus they're really only concerned about winning arguments on blogs and forums (the ones they manage not to get banned from).

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:32, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Again, you can have it both ways, fly boi.
Nope, your argument was fallacious, specifically, a false dilemma fallacy. Currently, you are tending towards argument ad repetition.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:38, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I mean, if the penthouse was a localized section collapse, then so was the inner structure, and the outside walls, as they did not collapse at exactly the same time.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.


Nope. The difference between local and global is just that. You could argue that the building is collapsing partially when the East penthouse collapses, but not fully.

Yup, just like those two cars that collide head on at 160kph, it's not a collision until RR tells us so.

PS Seek professional help


I don't see a counterargument anywhere in there.

PS Seek a physics tutor

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:40, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage lies, "...Nope, your argument was fallacious, specifically, a false dilemma fallacy. Currently, you are tending towards argument ad repetition."

Wrong again, fly boi.

You took my statement out of context and then attacked me via that application of false context, which is a naked straw man tactic.

Next, you cherry pick the NIST Report for information in support of your idiotic delusions and then attack the NIST Report with straw man fallacies like "free fall speed".

This is in-your-face intellectual dishonesty--and you're not getting away with it, Einstein.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:42, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

On the contrar6y, I proved that the building didn't fall at "free fall speed" by providing timed video evidence that shows the collapse of the east penthouse and the parapet wall. The "9/11 truth movement" doesn't want to talk about the east penthouse because they want the gullible to believe the collapse began when the parapet wall fell--a full 8 to 9 seconds after the collapse ensued.

I'm perfectly fine talking about the East penthouse collapse. Global collapse ensued when the entire building began moving downwards, crushing floor by floor after a 2.25 second freefall period.

Moreover, your "proof" was a diversion: not only is the "proof" for your general WTC 7 claim absent, I specifically requested a source for the claim that "hundreds of tons" of debris hit WTC 7. You could present none. I'm still waiting. You are still diverting on this specific point.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:43, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

ConsDemo:

Also, Bore-ass, still waiting for your evidence that twoofers are the majority. I know your too much of a pussy to try to defend the claim.

I can't help noting that it is quite hilarious to be accused of cowardice by someone who is little but an anonymous nobody.

As to the substance of your question: many polls indicate that significant segments of the population, both in the US and elsewhere, doubt the official account of 9/11. I am not going to go through my posts for more details as:

1) you can do it yourself;

2) allowing you to think that you can be as disrespectful and rude as you happen to be and still get your questions answered will only further encourage your deviant behaviour which ought to be stopped, not encouraged.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to the substance of your question: many polls indicate that significant segments of the population, both in the US and elsewhere, doubt the official account of 9/11

Show one. I bet you'll find that large portions of Jordan and Egypt suspect Israel of being behind it.
MILLIONS OF TRUTHERS WORLDWIDE!!

Also "doubt the official account" is very low bar and does not necessarily mean "suspects the US government of carrying out the attacks."

Do you think using your real name and showing a picture of your self adds to your legitimacy?

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:49, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Wrong again, fly boi.

You took my statement out of context and then attacked me via that application of false context, which is a naked straw man tactic.


Nope. You said the following:
"You can't have it both ways, Roid Rage the Duplicitous. So which is it, "Truther", do you agree with the NIST Report, or do you disagree with the NIST Report?"

This is a false dilemma. I can reject certain parts while accepting others. For example, I reject NIST's drylabbed starting point of collapse. (Which doesn't even match the East penthouse collapse, btw, just rewind 5.4 seconds from the parapet point of disappearance.)

Next, you cherry pick the NIST Report for information in support of your idiotic delusions and then attack the NIST Report with straw man fallacies like "free fall speed".
I didn't use this incorrect term, you did, and it was pretty embarrassing, considering your quasi-scientific chutzpah about WTC 7. Second, should this fictitious attack really have taken place on my part, it wouldn't be a straw man. That's 2 errors. Third, I don't cherry pick the NIST report. You have no basis for that allegation. That's 3 errors. Shameless and incompetent, GuitarBill.

This is in-your-face intellectual dishonesty--and you're not getting away with it, Einstein.
Ditto.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:52, Anonymous Fucktard Patrol said...

For the last fucking time, pick a name asshole!

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:54, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"haha i catched you in a blunder!! I WIN!!!" Ivory only comes from Elephants.

That's because WTC 7 is the elephant in the room! No, okay, you're right. But pointing out errors in my insults is a bit of a pyrrhic victory, I'd prefer real errors pointed out in my WTC 7 arguments. So far, I have only seen failure. I'm sure competent people exist who can do better than GuitarBill.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:58, Anonymous Marc said...

Olbermann is a partisan hack. He could qualify as a troofer because he does have a history of mental problems.

Fine, let's play his game his way...

If we're going to blame Bush for not taking the AQ threat seriously, then we also need to hold the Clinton NSC accountable too. We should also look into nailing the Reagan and Carter NSC staff to the wall too because of their negligence in dealing with Islamic terror.

Oh wait, we're playing by Keith's rules, and that's a problem. Keith spent many nights during the Bush administration ridiculing the "Terror Warning" color codes, saying that it was all political theater to keep America scared. So the problem with playing by Keith Olbermann's rules as they apply to counter-terrorism will lead to everyone running around in a giant circle...like a bunch of jackasses.

The United States was in Al Qaeda's crosshairs starting in 1993. I could list all the different times that Clinton missed bin Laden, but what would be the purpose? Clinton didn't understand the threat that bin Laden and Al Qaeda presented. That is because the CIA didn't really make an effort to understand AQ until after the African embassy bombings. Then there was the problem between the CIA and the FBI which resulted in a major turf war that ended up with the head of Alec Station being reassigned and the head of the FBI's counter terror group forced into retirement (where he got a job as head of security at the WTC).

It is very simple, before 9/11 we viewed and dealt with terrorist threats differently than we did after 9/11.

Olbermann knows this, he's just being a tool.

 
At 14 February, 2010 15:59, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...The difference between local and global is just that."

"local collapse"?

No such thing, fly boi.

The correct terms are progressive and global collapse.

The most significant difference between progressive collapse and global collapse is the
initiation by relatively localized damage, and an evolution time to the global collapse.

Get your terms straight, fly boi.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pyrrhic victory? You take this a bit too seriously! I just enjoy watching you people quarrel. I didn't lose a navy.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:09, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"local collapse"?

No such thing, fly boi.

The correct terms are progressive and global collapse.

The most significant difference between progressive collapse and global collapse is the initiation by relatively localized damage, and an evolution time to the global collapse.

Get your terms straight, fly boi.


Nope. Global collapse is global, local (/partial) collapse is local. Not too difficult, really. Pretty pathetic to even want to lie about this.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:09, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Retard scribbles, "...I didn't use this incorrect term, you did, and it was pretty embarrassing, considering your quasi-scientific chutzpah about WTC 7."

Sorry retard, but Richard Gage is the one who attacks the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed", not me jackass.

In fact, before you barged into this thread, I was answering a question from Mr Epstein. You took my statement to Mr. Epstein out of context and then attacked me with your typical and all too predictable straw man tactics.

The fact that I used Gage's term in NO way proves that I endorse the use of the term or agree with Gage's idiotic conclusions. You're making an assumption without the benefit of evidence in order attack me with smear tactics and outright lies.

Fuck you, Glenn.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:10, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Pyrrhic victory? You take this a bit too seriously! I just enjoy watching you people quarrel. I didn't lose a navy."

Okay, cool. Carry on enjoying watching us quarrel.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:11, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

As if the words-put-together "free fall speed" meant anything before, the troofers are now claiming exactly the opposite when it comes to "free fall speed"

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:12, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Fly boi scribbles, "...Nope. Global collapse is global, local (/partial) collapse is local. Not too difficult, really. Pretty pathetic to even want to lie about this."

Still working on that reading comprehension thing, Einstein?

Read it again, goober:

The most significant difference between progressive collapse and global collapse is the
initiation by relatively localized damage, and an evolution time to the global collapse.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:15, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Patrick writes, "...As if the words-put-together 'free fall speed' meant anything before, the troofers are now claiming exactly the opposite when it comes to 'free fall speed'"

LOL!

Exactly! The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:16, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Sorry retard, but Richard Gage is the one who attacks the NIST Report with claims of "free fall speed", not me jackass."

Straw man. My objections weren't to the attacks on the NIST report, (which I also have if they are flawed), but your embarrassing use of the non-existent term "freefall speed":

"That said, WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, as the "911 truth movement" likes to claim."

"In fact, before you barged into this thread, I was answering a question from Mr Epstein. You took my statement to Mr. Epstein out of context and then attacked me with your typical and all too predictable straw man tactics."

You sound like Alex Jones. When he was getting his ass kicked by Mark Roberts, all he could say was "Straw men! It's all straw men!". Of course, Jones doesn't know what a straw man argument is, and neither do you, otherwise you would've been able to catch me using one. If you catch me using one, I will graciously concede it. However, you didn't.

"The fact that I used Gage's term in NO way proves that I endorse the use of the term or agree with Gage's idiotic conclusions. You're making an assumption without the benefit of evidence in order attack me with smear tactics and outright lies."

Nope, you got caught using Gage's faulty terminology, and now you want to weasel out from under that. Pretty embarrassing.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:19, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Still working on that reading comprehension thing, Einstein?

Read it again, goober:"


Sure. Here is what you said:

"local collapse"?

No such thing, fly boi.


There is such as thing as local collapse. It is a collapse that is localized. Not too hard, really.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:27, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...You sound like Alex Jones. When he was getting his ass kicked by Mark Roberts, all he could say was "Straw men! It's all straw men!". Of course, Jones doesn't know what a straw man argument is, and neither do you, otherwise you would've been able to catch me using one. If you catch me using one, I will graciously concede it. However, you didn't."

Fuck you--you sleazy hypocrite.

You'll "graciously concede" nothing, scumbag.

The fact is that all you have are logical fallacies--and not one word of the pseudo-science you peddle has proven me wrong.

The fact is that you don't have any evidence, so like a sleazy defense attorney you attempt to pick holes in the NIST Report by constant application of logical fallacies and pathetic pseudo-science.

In fact, you're so stupid that you fail to make the obvious distinction between responding to Gage's argument and application of a term used by Gage himself as part of that response.

Are your parents siblings?

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:29, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

GuitarBill,

I am sorry if I may have to leave many of your comments unresponded to - it may just take too long to respond to all of the videos, etc. But I will note that I wouldn't use NIST's arguments too much considering that they are not ready to back them up in a public debate.

Now as for Hani Hanjour - are we arguing whether or not he was a good enough pilot to fly a Cessna-172? So let's say he was - does that qualify him for extreme, barely possible aerobatics in a B-757? I wouldn't think so.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:30, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...There is such as thing as local collapse."

Wrong. Read it again Einstein, and this time pay particular attention to the words localized damage.

Think hemorrhoid, think!

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:36, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"In fact, you're so stupid that you fail to make the obvious distinction between responding to Gage's argument and application of a term used by Gage himself as part of that response."

Ah, the weasly wisdom after the fact. You didn't put quotes around the term, and used it as if it was natural to use it. You got caught, no if's and but's.

I take issue with it because it exposes the glaringly obvious scientific illiteracy among some of the more arrogant "debunkers". Spotlighting this curious contrast between claimed insight and real insight is important to demonstrate the hypocrisy. There is no credibility on your part, and no justification to criticize anyone or anything but your abysmal education.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:44, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Wrong. Read it again Einstein, and this time pay particular attention to the words localized damage.

Think hemorrhoid, think!"


No need. You were incorrect. A local collapse is a local, a global collapse is global, not too difficult, really.

 
At 14 February, 2010 16:44, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...I take issue with it because it exposes the glaringly obvious scientific illiteracy among some of the more arrogant 'debunkers'."

Bite me, asshole.

I want you to derive the following equation for us, Mr. "scientific illiteracy". And you may assume an initial velocity of zero.

Derive the following:

v = at

Punk ass chump.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:14, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

I love calculus!

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:18, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Derive the following:

v = at

Punk ass chump."


a = (D)v/(D)t = (v - v(0))/(D)t

a (D)t = v - v(0)


- v = - v(0) - a (D)t

v = v(0) + a (D)t

strike v(0)

v = at

So what? Now, fuck off with the homework assignments. Hire a tutor.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:19, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

He's had enough time to answer. Is it
dv/dt = da/dt?

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:28, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Riod Rage scribbles, "...So what? Now, fuck off with the homework assignments. Hire a tutor."

Yeah, so you cut-paste a poor "derivation" from some website, but your lack of commentary betrays your alleged "knowledge".

In fact, acceleration is the rate of increase of velocity.

a = Dv/Dt

where a = acceleration, Dv = change in velocity, and Dt = change in time.

Change in velocity equals the final velocity minus the initial velocity.

Dv = v(f) - v(i)

The change in time is simply the amount of time that passes while the velocity is changing.

Dt = delta t

Thus, combining the terms

a = v(f) - v(i)/t

If we multiply each side by t, time

at = v(f) - v(i)

Now, add initial velocity, v(i) to both sides of the equation

v(f) = v(i) + at

Since we assume an intial velocity of zero

v = at

I don't need a tutor, fly boi, I know what I'm doing.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:31, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"I don't need a tutor, fly boi, I know what I'm doing."

Good. Please solve:

3x^2 - 14x - 5 = 0

Your turn. Have fun.

You CAN do it, can't you?

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:32, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

[takes notes]

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:35, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

(5,-1/3)

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:35, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...Your turn. Have fun."

Never mind your silly quadratic equation, numbnuts.

So tell us, why is your "derivation"...ummmm, well, you know...fucked up?

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:38, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

GuitarBill, you just got caught using this website:

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/kinematics/EquationsForAcceleratedMotion/Origins/Velocity/Origin.htm

YOU:
"The change in time is simply the amount of time that passes while the velocity is changing."

WEBSITE:
"This delta time, though, is simply the amount of time that passes while the velocity is changing."

Did you honestly expect to get away with it? No please solve my quadratic equation to prove you are better than a weasel plagiarizer.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:40, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Well, at least NoIdentity knows what he's doing. Correct.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:44, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...Did you honestly expect to get away with it? No please solve my quadratic equation to prove you are better than a weasel plagiarizer."

No, the sentence was not plagiarized, it's simply a statement of fact. But there's no lie you won't tell, is there "Roid Rage"?

Now, stop trying to change the subject, Roid Rage.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:45, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

This is a silly game! Factoring quadratics doesn't prove understanding of physics. Just algebra skillz. I'm not sure what the point of deriving v = at was either.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:48, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"This is a silly game! Factoring quadratics doesn't prove understanding of physics."

It was about scientific illiteracy.

"Just algebra skillz. I'm not sure what the point of deriving v = at was either."

So that GuitarBill could get me to focus away from the fact that he used the erroneous term "freefall speed", and dust off high school physics, I think.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:49, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...This is a silly game! Factoring quadratics doesn't prove understanding of physics. Just algebra skillz. I'm not sure what the point of deriving v = at was either."

"Truthers" always claim to have superior knowledge of "science"; however, when I review there "science" it's always wrong--and usually it's wrong by orders of magnitude.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:51, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Truthers" always claim to have superior knowledge of "science"; however, when I review there "science" it's always wrong--and usually it's wrong by orders of magnitude.

You mean the websites you "use" to "review" "there" [sic!] science.

Idiot.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:52, Anonymous paul w said...

"Nope. The difference between local and global is just that. You could argue that the building is collapsing partially when the East penthouse collapses, but not fully."
RR


Yes, you could argue that, but as usual, you'd be wrong.

It's not collapsing 'partially' when it's part of the building collapse, you dolt.

Or, to put our car crash into the argument, we could day it was only a partial collision, if we ignore the rest of the two cars crushing together .005th second later.

Or, the latest space shuttle was a partial launch.

Or...nah, why bother. You are an idiot*









* Not a straw man. Fact.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:53, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

NoIdentity, by the way, care to elaborate how you solved that equation?

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:54, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage prevaricates, "...So that GuitarBill could get me to focus away from the fact that he used the erroneous term "freefall speed", and dust off high school physics, I think."

There you go again numbnuts.

I don't use the term "free fall speed", and I've already pointed out that the correct term is gravitational acceleration.

In fact, it's Richard Gage who uses the term "free fall speed" to attack the NIST Report.

Now go for it Roid Rage, and parrot Richard Gage ("...WTC 7 experienced two and a half seconds of free fall speed."), while simultaneously denying that you parrot Richard Gage.

Putz.

 
At 14 February, 2010 17:56, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...Idiot."

My mistake, Riod Rage, I forgot to proof read that comment. So sue me.

But you're still trying to change the subject.

So why is your "derivation"...ummm...well, you know....fucked up?

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:00, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"It's not collapsing 'partially' when it's part of the building collapse, you dolt."

I see. Then, what is holding up the roofline at the moment the East penthouse collapses? What is preventing a floor by floor collapse? Correct. The fact that global collapse hasn't begun yet, only NIST's progressive collapse.

Take the Delft building. How long did that collapse take? The rest of the building stood. Yet, according to your logic we should start the clock when some portion starts to collapse and stop when the building is completely gone.

But all this is academic anyway. It's in fact completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm not interested in the collapse time, I'm interested in the downward acceleration at various moments throughout the collapse. When the East penthouse collapses, the downward acceleration is zero. Only when global collapses commences, does downward acceleration become >0.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:01, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

x = (-b+/-sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a
I cheated and looked up the formula on wikipedia. But I knew which formula to look up!
Can you factor a formula like that in your head? I can't, I'll admit it proudly. My generation has been spoiled by graphic calculators 0:-)

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:04, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage proves he's an idiot when he writes, "...When the East penthouse collapses, the downward acceleration is zero."

LOL!

[GuitarBill shakes his head in amazement].

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:05, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Sigh....121 comments and none of the by Brian Good. Just Boris Epstein telling us about how the "truth" movement is going to win, and Roid Rage spitting all over his computer while wishing death upon people.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:06, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

"...My generation has been spoiled by graphic calculators 0:-)"

I was looking for my slide rule while you typed your answer.

LOL!

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:07, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"There you go again numbnuts.

I don't use the term "free fall speed", and I've already pointed out that the correct term is gravitational acceleration."


False. You did, and you subsequently tried to cover it up with fancy verbiage. Freefall is fine. In fact, freefall and gravitational acceleration don't signify the exact same thing: gravitation acceleration is the force of gravity exerted on objects, while freefall means a object is falling unimpeded while subject to gravitational acceleration.

I wonder why you keep this up.

"In fact, it's Richard Gage who uses the term "free fall speed" to attack the NIST Report."
Yes. He's incorrect in using that term, like you were.

Now go for it Roid Rage, and parrot Richard Gage ("...WTC 7 experienced two and a half seconds of free fall speed."), while simultaneously denying that you parrot Richard Gage.

Putz.

2.5 seconds is Chandler.
The NIST report admits only to 2.25 seconds.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:10, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

LOL!

[GuitarBill shakes his head in amazement].


Of the roofline.

Still plagiarizing websites for derivations while accusing others of doing the same, GuitarBill? I don't laugh at you, I'm embarrassed for you...it's quite pathetic, considering that large trap hole spewing nonsense and lies about WTC 7.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:13, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage scribbles, "...2.5 seconds is Chandler. The NIST report admits only to 2.25 seconds."

Picking gnat shit out of pepper again, "truther"?

2.5 seconds? 2.25 seconds? Who gives a rat's ass? This doesn't change the fact that you parrot Gage while denying that you parrot Gage.

And you have the audacity to excoriate me for using Gage's term to address Gage's nonsense? How else am I to address his nonsense, you pedantic con artist?

Fuck you and horse you rode in on, Roid Rage.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:15, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

This academic debate begs a series of questions about building demolition. Could people rig a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition without anyone noticing?
Why would they take such an absurd chance for a building that was irrelevant to the operation?
Assuming the operation was to scare the shit out of people by destroying towers 1 & 2, you know the landmarks. Who the hell knew what WTC7 was before it was destroyed?
That's why I asked if any of the scholars were demo experts.
There are a lot of anomalies with WTC 7, it was an unprecedented type of collapse. The entire 9-11 attacks were unprecedented. That doesn't prove controlled demolition. I think you just like arguing with people here.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:15, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I cheated and looked up the formula on wikipedia. But I knew which formula to look up!

Okay. It occurred to me that you might have used an online calculator...turns out they exist for the quadratic formula.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:17, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage lies, "...Still plagiarizing websites for derivations while accusing others of doing the same, GuitarBill? I don't laugh at you, I'm embarrassed for you...it's quite pathetic, considering that large trap hole spewing nonsense and lies about WTC 7."

Reinforcing lies by repetition won't help you, Roid Rage.

You're just trying to change the subject because your derivation is fucked up.

Tell us, did your parents have any children that lived?

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:17, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

On what basis do you accuse GuitarBill of plagiarizing? I tried googling his entry and couldn't find that site.
Or are you like a magician who won't reveal his secrets...

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:19, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Picking gnat shit out of pepper again, "truther"?

2.5 seconds? 2.25 seconds? Who gives a rat's ass? This doesn't change the fact that you parrot Gage while denying that you parrot Gage."

Nope. I don't. I never have, and I especially objected to his usage of the erroneous term "freefall speed", like you did today.

"And you have the audacity to excoriate me for using Gage's term to address Gage's nonsense? How else am I to address his nonsense, you pedantic con artist?

Fuck you and horse you rode in on, Roid Rage."

Pedantic indeed. Unless you think science is some kind of blurry area wherein you get to be imprecise because you feel like it. Or you just plagiarize websites to hide incompetence.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:21, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"On what basis do you accuse GuitarBill of plagiarizing? I tried googling his entry and couldn't find that site. Or are you like a magician who won't reveal his secrets..."

This was explained and sourced. Don't play stupid. It's extremely obvious, and furthermore extremely embarrassing.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:23, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage tells bald faced lies when he writes, "...Nope. I don't. I never have..."

BS!

I've read your argument's on this subject repeatedly. Your argument is identical to Gage's lunacy.

You constantly yammer about "2.25 seconds", just like that con artist Gage.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:24, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Reinforcing lies by repetition won't help you, Roid Rage."
Neither does covering up lies by repetition. Surely you understand why I'm not going to let you off the hook, you shameless charlatan.

"You're just trying to change the subject because your derivation is fucked up."
You have no credibility whatsoever after that monumental plagiary embarrassment. I'm sorry.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:24, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

I'm not playing stupid, I see the two quotes you're comparing. What I'm asking is how did you find the http://id.mind.net site?
I could have been more clear with that question.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed GuitarBill's cockslapping of raging diaper.

Poor pathetic troooother™, still stuck in 2001.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:27, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

NoIdentity writes, "...On what basis do you accuse GuitarBill of plagiarizing? I tried googling his entry and couldn't find that site. Or are you like a magician who won't reveal his secrets..."

I didn't plagiarize anything. It's an old "truther" tactic: Fling shit and hope it sticks.

Roid Rage would lie to his mother if he thought he could derive some advantage from the lie.

In other words, he's common "truther" swine.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:27, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

BS!

I've read your argument's on this subject repeatedly. Your argument is identical to Gage's lunacy.

You constantly yammer about "2.25 seconds", just like that con artist Gage.

Ha ha, what a pathetic diversion have you come up with.

(A) It's in the NIST report.
(B) It's from Chandler, so if I'm parroting anybody, it's him.
(C) Correlation does not mean causation.

And unlike Gage and you, I make sure I get my physics correct.

But...whatever floats your deluded boat =)

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:27, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Seriously, answer my question before you start hatin' on LL.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:30, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed GuitarBill's cockslapping of raging diaper.

Poor pathetic troooother™, still stuck in 2001.


Just like you "thoroughly enjoy" all your pipe dream fantasies, Dorothy. But then you wake up, in your own piss, vomit and shit, on top of your mother, pants down.

This is your life, trailer park mullet cross burning KKK boy! LOL

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:31, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Damnit, I knew that was coming!

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:34, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I didn't plagiarize anything. It's an old "truther" tactic: Fling shit and hope it sticks.

The shit was real and it stuck! =)

"Roid Rage would lie to his mother if he thought he could derive some advantage from the lie.

In other words, he's common "truther" swine."


GuitarBill thinks: "Divert, divert....hope they won't notice I blundered enormously twice today."

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:37, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Damnit, I knew that was coming!"

Of course, he's such a wonderful dung hole moron to toy around with!

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:42, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage prevaricates, "...GuitarBill thinks: 'Divert, divert....hope they won't notice I blundered enormously twice today.'"

No, the diversion is your "free fall speed" nonsense.

The truth is that you can't refute the fact that the "9/11 truth movement" does use the term "free fall speed".

Moreover, there's no "blunder" in addressing someone's question by using their terms--you idiot.

All your talk about "free fall speed" doesn't refute one word I've written. In other words, your entire argument is a diversion.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"This is your life, trailer park mullet cross burning KKK boy! LOL"

Sorry, child, I'm not a Democrat.

LOL

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:50, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Roid Rage prevaricates, "...It's from Chandler, so if I'm parroting anybody, it's him."

BS! And here's the proof from the horse's mouth:

The charlatan Richard Gage scribbles, "...NIST were forced to reverse themselves in their Final Report and acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall. Yet they did not reconsider how this was compatible with their analysis. A network of heavy steel girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building for eight floors. However, a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall, so the structural support had to be removed by something else—explosives. The free-fall of Building 7 is a smoking gun."

Source: worldarchitecturenews WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas....

Thus, you sound just like Richard Gage, Raging Diaper.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

And GB, don't let the child get away with his truther tantrums.

You're doing a great job proving what a moron he is.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:51, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

No, the diversion is your "free fall speed" nonsense.

"The truth is that you can't refute the fact that the "9/11 truth movement" does use the term "free fall speed".
And I never did. I treat all idiots the same.

"Moreover, there's no "blunder" in addressing someone's question by using their terms--you idiot."
Obfuscation after the fact. You used the term nonchalantly and didn't even point out it was flawed.

All your talk about "free fall speed" doesn't refute one word I've written. In other words, your entire argument is a diversion.
Actually, I refuted all your other arguments as well (that is, the ones that are flawed, which is most.), you've just had a particular hard time accepting your flaws. I forgive you, this is a brightness sucking hangout of stammering doodooheads, and you were never reminded of the errors in your arrogant bullshit.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:53, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Sorry, child, I'm not a Democrat.

LOL"


Who cares, bubba? Heh heh. You're a yokel miscreant, an over the top ultra-nationalist bigot and a twat.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:55, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

I'd love to hear your definition of ultra-nationalist. You throw the word around like it means nothing.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:56, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"BS! And here's the proof from the horse's mouth:

(...)

Thus, you sound just like Richard Gage, Raging Diaper."

Nope. He's just referring to the NIST report. Anybody is free to do so. Wrong again. You, on the other hand, sound like a foolhardy plagiarizing embarrassment. Are you a professional moron or just a hobbyist?

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Who cares, bubba? Heh heh. You're a yokel miscreant, an over the top ultra-nationalist bigot and a twat."

The vein in your forehead is throbbing again, child.

GB must be getting to you, him exposing you for the fraud you are and proving all your so-called "arguments" are a compilation of bullshit and logical flaws.

I'd suggest you get out of Mom's basement more often and maybe have a date with a real girl.

 
At 14 February, 2010 18:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I'd love to hear your definition of ultra-nationalist. You throw the word around like it means nothing."

According to raging diaper, that'd be anyone who actually loves America and all she stands for.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:00, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Who cares, bubba? Heh heh. You're a yokel miscreant, an over the top ultra-nationalist bigot and a twat."

The vein in your forehead is throbbing again, child.

GB must be getting to you, him exposing you for the fraud you are and proving all your so-called "arguments" are a compilation of bullshit and logical flaws.

I'd suggest you get out of Mom's basement more often and maybe have a date with a real girl."


I advise you offer yourself up for experiments to molecular biologists and DNA experts so they can study the threat of extinction due to a combination of inbreeding and terminal stupidity. You'd make one hell of a study, freakazoid.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:02, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Raging Diaper whimpers, "...Nope. He's just referring to the NIST report."

"Nope" is not very convincing, Raging Diaper.

The fact is that I nailed you to the wall. You parrot Gage like all "9/11 truthers".

Moron.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:03, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"According to raging diaper, that'd be anyone who actually loves America and all she stands for."

Awwww. Now Dorothy, don't be sad. Put on that white pointy hat and salute to the führer.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I advise you offer yourself up for experiments to molecular biologists and DNA experts so they can study the threat of extinction due to a combination of inbreeding and terminal stupidity. You'd make one hell of a study, freakazoid."

You want to know something?

I'm am actually sitting here laughing at you and your inept attempts at insults.

Must be frustrating as hell to be made a fool of, eh, raging diaper, like GB has done to you all night?

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:05, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Nope" is not very convincing, Raging Diaper.

The fact is that I nailed you to the wall. You parrot Gage like all "9/11 truthers".

Moron."


To the contrary, copycat. Not only have you failed miserably with your diversions, you've blundered like a complete dunce....Twice!

Sad, sad, sad.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Awwww. Now Dorothy, don't be sad. Put on that white pointy hat and salute to the führer."

I told you already, I'm not a Democrat.

You do know, do you not, that the KKK is the terrorist arm of the Democrts?

But....

Probably not, seeing as the depths of your ignorance of history know no bounds.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:06, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Must be frustrating as hell to be made a fool of, eh, raging diaper, like GB has done to you all night?"

HA HA HA HA HAAAA!

Keep trying! ROFL!

LOL....what a wanker...so sad..

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:07, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Must be frustrating as hell to be made a fool of, eh, raging diaper, like GB has done to you all night?"

HA HA HA HA HAAAA!

Keep trying! ROFL!

LOL....what a wanker...so sad..

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:07, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LOL....what a wanker...so sad.."

Yes.

Yes you are.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:08, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You do know, do you not, that the KKK is the terrorist arm of the Democrts [sic]?

But....

Probably not, seeing as the depths of your ignorance of history know no bounds."


Yes, yes. You're a little bigot. Who cares from what party.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:09, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Yes.

Yes you are."


OMGWTF. So harsh. LMAO.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Yes, yes. You're a little bigot. Who cares from what party"

Nope, dope, I'm not a Democrat, the party of slavery, sessesion and segregation.

I was right.

You are ingorant.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Oh, and raging diaper?

Charges of "racism" are boring.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:14, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Nope, dope, I'm not a Democrat, the party of slavery, sessesion and segregation.

I was right.

You are ingorant."


Yes, yes, very "ingorant", Dorothy. LOLOL.

"Oh, and raging diaper?

Charges of "racism" are boring."


I'd say they fit the bill perfectly with extreme right wing overzealous nationalist scum like you. See my bullet points as posted earlier:

* Look towards outsiders for scapegoats.
* Incite domestic forces against a common foreign enemy, whether real, partially imaginary, or totally fictional
* Unify through shared hatred.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:14, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Ultra-nationalist: "God is on our side"
Ultra-nationalist: "our blood is more pure than theirs"
Ultra-nationalist?: "The US government is not responsible for 9-11"
I still don't get it.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:16, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Oh please. Leftist mass movements have imaginary boogey men too. Like our secret earthquake machine that we used (according to Chavez) cause an earthquake in Haiti.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:17, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

And look at my answer, child:

"* Look towards outsiders for scapegoats."

THE JOOOOOS THE JOOOOOS!!!!!

"* Incite domestic forces against a common foreign enemy, whether real, partially imaginary, or totally fictional"

Nice encapsulation of the entire Twoooofer™ movement.

"* Unify through shared hatred."

Well, twoofers hate sane people. And America.

"* Label dissenters collaborators"

DISINFO!!!! DISINFO!!!!!!


"* Push through totalitarian agenda."

Well, you're a fascist goon, so that works.


Nice work there, fucktard. For once you got something right.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:18, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Raging Diaper scribbles, "...To the contrary, copycat. Not only have you failed miserably with your diversions, you've blundered like a complete dunce"

That's right, Raging Diaper, just keep changing the subject.

Oh, and your "derivation" is still fucked up, numskull.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:19, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I'd say they fit the bill perfectly with extreme right wing overzealous nationalist scum like you."

That's becasue you're a screeching idiot, child.

And you kow what, child?

The accusation of racism, the one that's supposed to shame me into silence?

It don't work any more.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:20, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"And look at my answer, child:"

Yes, and wrong again. All those points apply to you.

And exceptionally hilarious is that you label Jews "outsiders" with your pathetic "rebuttal". LOL.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:21, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"And exceptionally hilarious is that you label Jews "outsiders" with your pathetic "rebuttal". LOL."

You miss a lot, don't you, child?

Are you in special ed classes or something?

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:23, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"That's right, Raging Diaper, just keep changing the subject.

Oh, and your "derivation" is still fucked up, numskull."


You've lost your credibility, copycat. I know it must be painful. Just carry the burden like a man. Do you some residue of that left in you? =)

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

You're right, GB, the child's attempts at straw man arguments are really pathetic.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:26, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

The accusation of racism, the one that's supposed to shame me into silence?

It don't work any more.


Nah. You don't feel shame. I'm just trying to accurately describe you to yourself, Grand Wizard Theodore.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:27, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You miss a lot, don't you, child?

Are you in special ed classes or something?"


Look who's talking! LOL!! You're the dumbest guy here!!

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Nah. You don't feel shame. I'm just trying to accurately describe you to yourself, Grand Wizard"

When do your special ed classes start?

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Look who's talking! LOL!! You're the dumbest guy here!!"

Child, you're the one who keeps trying to smear me with the accusation that I'm a Democrat.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:29, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You're right, GB, the child's attempts at straw man arguments are really pathetic."

Wooo! Don't start using terms you hardly understand Dorothy. Just stick to waving that flag and passionately performing the Hitler salute.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Just stick to waving that flag and passionately performing the Hitler salute."

Child, fascists are reactionary leftists.

Like you.

Do they cover history in your special ed classes?

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:31, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Raging Diaper whimpers, "...You've lost your credibility, copycat. I know it must be painful. Just carry the burden like a man. Do you some residue of that left in you? =)"

Who are you to talk about "credibility" when you can't derive a simple equation?

Moreover, your alleged "evidence" of plagiarizing on my part is so razor thin as to be laughable were your attempt not so pathetic.

Tell us more about "gravitational acceleration", Einstein.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:31, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"When do your special ed classes start?"

Ssshht. Anymore out of you and no more "consensual incest" this week for you. Nor do you get to replace your mother with a dead clone

LOL!

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Ok, kicking raging diaper in the ass is getting boring.

Til the next time, child, and remember, a pillow is a godd place to rest yur aching derriere.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:33, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Child, fascists are reactionary leftists.

Like you.

Do they cover history in your special ed classes?


ROFLMAO!!!!!! You're a wonderful self-defeating moron. Not even Pat agrees with you on this one.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:34, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

LL writes, "...You're right, GB, the child's attempts at straw man arguments are really pathetic."

That's all they have, LL. In fact, their entire movement is nothing but a mountain of straw men. "Free fall speed" is a perfect example. The NIST Report never mentions "free fall speed", yet the "truthers" constantly yammer about "free fall speed".

Make no mistake, logical fallacies are all they have--period.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:34, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Who are you to talk about "credibility" when you can't derive a simple equation?

Moreover, your alleged "evidence" of plagiarizing on my part is so razor thin as to be laughable were your attempt not so pathetic.

Tell us more about "gravitational acceleration", Einstein.


Ha ha, oh yeah.. keep on denying..twat. Now you are not only not credible, you are in denial about that of course.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:36, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"That's all they have, LL. In fact, their entire movement is nothing but a mountain of straw men. "Free fall speed" is a perfect example. The NIST Report never mentions "free fall speed", yet the "truthers" constantly yammer about "free fall speed".

Make no mistake, logical fallacies are all they have--period."


And both you and them make this stupid, embarrassing mistake! LOL.

 
At 14 February, 2010 19:58, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

The bullheaded Raging Diaper lies again, "...And both you and them make this stupid, embarrassing mistake!"

There is no mistake, no matter how vociferously you lie to the contrary, scumbag.

The fact is that not one word you've written proves me wrong.

If you honestly think that playing "pick gnat shit out of pepper and lie like a rug" impresses anyone, the only person you're kidding is yourself.

Don't I hear your mom calling you?

 
At 14 February, 2010 20:01, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

There is no mistake, no matter how vociferously you lie to the contrary, scumbag.

The fact is that not one word you've written proves me wrong.

If you honestly think that playing "pick gnat shit out of pepper and lie like a rug" impresses anyone, the only person you're kidding is yourself.

Don't I hear your mom calling you?


Now GuitarBill loses its temper, because it cannot take the relentless defacing and demolishing of its reputation any longer. Hi hi.

You're a charlatan and a hypocrite and you certainly have been exposed as such. =)

 
At 14 February, 2010 20:12, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

The only thing you've "exposed", Raging Diaper, is the breadth and depth of your dishonesty, insanity and, above all, stupidity.

No doubt, you're better at sex than anyone, Raging Diaper, now all you need is a partner.

 
At 14 February, 2010 20:12, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Oh come on, we're only 4 posts away from a 200 comment thread!

 
At 14 February, 2010 22:53, Anonymous Marc said...

Hani Hanjour? Lousy pilot? Who cares?

I can fly a 767, as could most folks posting on this board, just as long as someone else does the take-off. Once that kind of plane is in the air it is easy to fly, so someone with even basic pilot training could easily get the plane from point A. to point B.

Landing will be a problem, but if you want to fly it into a large, easy to find building like the Pentagon then it should be a snap.

A 767 is not an F-16 or the Space Shuttle, it is designed to do most of the flying by itself.

Hani Hanjour also supplimented his real-world flying with the Microsoft 2000 Flight Simulator, as did the other pilots. The sim was good enough to practice their routes to their targets, and that program also allowed the user to fly into the WTC as well. Microsoft has changed that.

 
At 15 February, 2010 01:29, Anonymous Rodi Rage said...

The only thing you've "exposed", Raging Diaper, is the breadth and depth of your dishonesty, insanity and, above all, stupidity.

No doubt, you're better at sex than anyone, Raging Diaper, now all you need is a partner.


How about I long dick your mother in all orifices, while she begs me to please teach you some elementary physics skills? I think she needs some consolation after constantly being reminded each day that you are her product.

<3

 
At 15 February, 2010 01:32, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Hani Hanjour also supplimented his real-world flying with the Microsoft 2000 Flight Simulator, as did the other pilots. The sim was good enough to practice their routes to their targets, and that program also allowed the user to fly into the WTC as well. Microsoft has changed that."

Yeah, now you get a dialog box saying "Are you sure? (They know and they're using you) [Y/n]"

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home