Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Jesse Ventura Interviewed by Holocaust-Denying, Hate-Mongering Paper

Coming off his guest-hosting Larry King Live, Jesse the Nutbar Ventura was interviewed by American Free Press.
The straight-talking Ventura had just finished filling in for CNN’s Larry King Live as a guest host when he spoke with this AFP writer. Notably, Ventura had Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) as one of the guests on the show the evening of April 9. Another was “defrocked” former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich who, despite harboring more liberal views than Paul, concurred with the Texas congressman on several matters, particularly Paul’s insistence that the United States end its interventionist foreign policy that is a factor in bankrupting the nation.

What is American Free Press? Those who've been reading this blog for awhile know its a publication by Holocaust Denier Willis Carto:

In 2001, after years of stalling and legal wrangling in an attempt to shield his assets from seizure, Carto was ordered by the courts to relinquish control of Liberty Lobby and The Spotlight and to vacate his long held Liberty Lobby offices in Washington, D.C. Soon after, Carto did shutter The Spotlight (its last edition was July 2, 2001). However, a month later, Carto and former staffers of The Spotlight created yet another newspaper, American Free Press. Today, the Press carries stories on Zionism, secret "New World Order" conspiracies, American Jews and Israel. Mixed in are advertisements for outfits like Pete Peter's Scriptures for America and Kingdom Identity Ministries — practitioners of Christian Identity, a theology that claims that Jews are the biological descendants of Satan.


We've talked extensively about the American Free Press in the past, including its former 9-11 CT reporter (and current fugitive) Christopher Bollyn.

Why on Earth is Jesse Ventura palling around with a neo-Nazi publication? According to the interview, the Conspiracy Theory show he hosts on TruTV has been picked up for another ten episodes:
While the former Navy Seal who became a high-profile independent Minnesota governor would love to specify the 10 topics, he was not yet fully at liberty to reveal what they are, though he did say one is about the shooting of John F. Kennedy. “Initially there were seven episodes; now they’re ordering 10 more,” he stated in an upbeat manner, while noting that some decisions still have to be made on what will air and in what order.

“We have 20 conspiracies that we’ll have to pare down to 10. I’ll have to battle with the network, but in the end we’ll settle on 10 of them. They promised JFK. There is no pecking order at all.”

Is it too much to hope that Jesse will decide to do one on the Holocaust?

Labels: , ,

121 Comments:

At 20 April, 2010 15:00, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Please tell me this asshole never had time to breed.

 
At 20 April, 2010 15:48, Anonymous troyfromwestvirginia said...

Jesse has 2 kids. Those bright minds opened him up to 9/11 twoofy twoof.

 
At 20 April, 2010 17:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Troy, take your meds today? We don't want you dragging your kids across fields anymore, do we now?

 
At 20 April, 2010 18:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber scumbag whines, "...Hey Troy, take your meds today? We don't want you dragging your kids across fields anymore, do we now?"

What's the matter, Glenn, have I reduced your sorry @$$ to ad hominem attacks?

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 20 April, 2010 19:46, Blogger ConsDemo said...

So Ventura's dopey show got some more episodes. Just in time I guess since Russia Today isn't running as many twoof stories.

Those bright minds opened him up to 9/11 twoofy twoof.

Actually, I think he credits his son, which says something for Ventura's [lack of] intellect.

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler protests at being called a 'leftist' by James 'El Revisionista' Bennet

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, Billshitter™, still talking to your phantom menace 'Glenn'? The comment above is my first in days. I have no idea what you're talking about. I left the discussion because you lost. I haven't checked back because you were boring me stiff, buddy. Only Dave Shyte engaged, and that didn't appear to last very long. If ever you want to answer my three questions properly, I suggest you do so, keeping my lesson about properly answering questions in mind. Capiche?

Sincerely, Willie Glenn, the Phantom Menace.

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really, Billanoid, "Anonymous" has many faces, and we think alike. Don't lose sight of your shadow, agent Mulder. LOL.

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You won the debate?

Then perhaps you'll explain why I'm still waiting for your reply, fuckface.

So let's try again, shall we?

Post by GuitarBill: 17 April 2010 time: 14:44 PM.

Okay, let's answer your first question, scumbag.

Glenn the cyber quote miner prevaricates, "...[1] why is it that in NIST's simulation, global progressive collapse (roofline moving downward) ensues after this alleged internal collapse has completed and yet the period of freefall lasts for approximately seven to eight floors? What changed after these floors had been traversed?"

That's not what the NIST Report on WTC 7 says at all.

For example, here's Box Boy's spin:

"...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.com: WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas....

But that's a bald-faced misrepresentation of the NIST Report.

Here's what NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 really says, sans your intellectually dishonest quote mining (the answers to your questions, which you conveniently excluded from your quote mined bullshit, are in bold font):

"...For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in figure 3-15:

"[1] In stage 1, the descent was slow and less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face. By 1.75 sec. the North face had descended approximately 2.2 meters (7 feet).

"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.

"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."


Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Thus, you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it suits your purpose, and disagree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it presents inconvenient facts that DEMOLISH your argument.

So which is it, quote miner, do you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7, or not--you double-dealing slime bag for "9/11 truth"?

Thus, I stand by my statement: Why should I feel compelled to make calculations based upon Box Boy's erroneous assumptions--your lies about Shyam Sunder notwithstanding?

Fuck you, Glenn.

Go for it, Glenn the cyber quote miner.

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply, Glenn.

And your mother still wears Army boots, Glenn.

 
At 20 April, 2010 21:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And your two remaining questions are moot, because they're based on a false premise.

So let's read your alleged "reply", Glenn the cyber quote miner.

(I won't hold my breath).

 
At 20 April, 2010 22:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's been thirty minutes, Glenn, and as I predicted, no response.

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Thus, you lose the debate, because you simply refuse to debate.

Have a nice evening, charlatan.

 
At 20 April, 2010 23:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 April, 2010 06:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My God what paranoid ranting. I went to sleep, you buffoon.

You didn't heed my lesson about answering questions did you? But we're making progress, you attempt to answer (1), except you don't answer it at all, you answer a question of your own making.

I asked you "What changed after these floors had been traversed?" and instead, you just cited the NIST report and refrained from answering the question.

I know this is how you work, you are forced to rely on straw man arguments, because you can't answer the actual question.

It's glaringly obvious that WTC 7's descent took longer that freefall time, and it is also glaringly obvious that NIST admits to a period of 2.25 or approximately seven floors of full freefall. There is no need to repeat the NIST report, we agree on what it says. It claims both these things, and both are true, but that does not ANSWER MY QUESTION(S).

Now answer my questions, Billshitter™, instead of your own.

 
At 21 April, 2010 06:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn, 10 hours have passed and no response.

*crickets*

*crickets*

And don't try to claim that you haven't read this thread, because I know for a fact that you made a comment (or should I say another personal attack on Troy) to the Luke Joins Elite Patriots; Infowars Goofball Arrested thread at 00:54 AM this morning. So shove you lies, Glenn.

BUSTED LYING, AGAIN!

Do you ever tell the truth, Glenn.

So, why no response?

Here's why you refuse to respond, Glenn: Because I'm telling the truth--and you know it.

Have a nice day (that's Californian for "Fuck You"), Glenn.

 
At 21 April, 2010 06:59, Anonymous chico the mann said...

has anyone else watched invisible empire? any truth to the stuff about emad salam in regards to the 93 wtc bombing or john doe number two in okc?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mind you that the verbal description by NIST claims that the entire core had failed before roofline descent. Their model on the other hand, shows about two-thirds of the core still intact @ roofline descent.

In both cases, I ask the question: "What changed after those approximately seven floors of full freefall had traversed?"

And mind you, this is only one of three questions I asked you. I'm not going to repeat them here, you haven't done the appropriate effort to answer them anyway.

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chico: yep: look it up on Wikipedia, you can download the conversation with Anticev there.

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"because I know for a fact that you made a comment (or should I say another personal attack on Troy) to the Luke Joins Elite Patriots; Infowars Goofball Arrested thread at 00:54 AM this morning. So shove you lies, Glenn."

Oh? Is that so? Explain to me exactly how you "know [this] for a fact", buffoon. Speculation will not do, since you "know [this] for a fact".

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...I asked you "What changed after these floors had been traversed?" and instead, you just cited the NIST report and refrained from answering the question."

Wrong, scumbag.

I not only answered all three of your questions, I proved, beyond a doubt, that you're a quote miner who cherry picked the NIST Report on WTC 7 and then proceeded to misrepresent the content found therein.

Fuck you, Glenn.

So, tell us Glenn, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, you didn't answer any of my three questions, Billshitter—, in fact, you are so autistic you can't even respond to efforts to help you answer the questions I asked you. It's pathetic.

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...Mind you that the verbal description by NIST claims that the entire core had failed before roofline descent. Their model on the other hand, shows about two-thirds of the core still intact @ roofline descent."

That's not what the NIST Report on WTC 7 says, Glenn, and you know it.

Misrepresenting your sources again, Glenn?

It's not looking good for you, Glenn.

So, tell us Glenn, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the compulsive liar prevaricates, "...Oh? Is that so? Explain to me exactly how you "know [this] for a fact", buffoon. Speculation will not do, since you "know [this] for a fact"."

Can you read, fuckface?

"...or should I say another personal attack on Troy"

That's how I know, Glenn.

So, tell us Glenn, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The exterior columns the buckled as the failed building core moved downward"

NIST NCSTAR 1A, xxxvi

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"The exterior columns the buckled as the failed building core moved downward"

Right, Glenn.

I'll bet the NIST Report on WTC 7 also contains the grammatical error in the sentence you just pulled out of your ass, too.

Didn't you mean to right, "then"?

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, GLENN!

LOL!

So, tell us Glenn, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling. The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, pg. 23

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NIST report is a protected PDF document, Billshitter™, and as such, I have to type over portions of text, introducing the possibility of typos.

As always, paranoid and misguided, and chasing the Phantom Menace™

Anybody here can download the report, look up that sentence, and verify. (Exposing you as the pathological liar you know you are)

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But to accommodate you, Billshitter™, I've just decrypted and unprotected the NCSTAR 1A PDF, so I can copy & paste from it.

I'm now using the full version of Adobe Acrobat to browse through it, too, because I own multiple PDF readers.

♪ ♫ Ain't no valley high enough ♪ ♫

=)

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...The NIST report is a protected PDF document, Billshitter™, and as such, I have to type over portions of text, introducing the possibility of typos."

Lying again, Glenn.

After all, you're a "technical writer", and as such, you don't make mistakes. Right, Glenn?

BUSTED LYING AGAIN!

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can resist proving that you are a pathological liar, Billshitter™

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:30, Anonymous troyfromwestvirginia said...

SWEET LORD ALMIGHTY!!!!

Bob Bowman comes up with a hell of a STUNDIE in my opinion.

"..an apparent controlled demolition of an intact building with no visible fire"

I shit you not, this is what Bob Bowman said in regards to Building 7. And to no ones surprise, Alex Jones didn't correct this senile old man on his egregious lies.

5 minutes into this clip...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGU31jcQKWQ

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And again, I don't care one bit who this "Glenn" is you are obsessed with. You are a paranoid freak who thinks "Anonymous" is out to get you.

Well, okay, in a certain sense, this is true, of course ;-)

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn tells another bald-faced lie, "...NIST NCSTAR 1A, pg. 23"

The NIST Report on WTC 7 says no such thing.

Page 23 is titled "LIST OF FIGURES", and says nothing of the sort.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN!

When will you learn, Glenn, that I'll BUST YOU LYING EVERY TIME?

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure it does, Billshitter™, sure it does

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...I can resist proving that you are a pathological liar, Billshitter™"

Misrepresenting your sources again, douche bag?

You haven't "proven" anything, with the exception of the breadth and depth of your dishonesty.

I challenge anyone to pull down the NIST Report, and you'll see who's telling the truth.

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've now proved you to be a liar, or, at best, a sloppy and a lazy researcher, and a paranoid fool quick to jump to conclusions, so I think you owe me two apologies, for two instances, where I went so far as to back up my quotations with screenshots.

=)

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Quote mining again, Glenn?

From the NIST Report:

"...[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."

So when will you apologize for quote mining the NIST Report on WTC 7, scumbag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...I've now proved you to be a liar, or, at best, a sloppy and a lazy researcher, and a paranoid fool quick to jump to conclusions, so I think you owe me two apologies, for two instances, where I went so far as to back up my quotations with screenshots."

No, I just proved you're a quote miner.

Have a nice day (that's Californian for "Fuck You"), Glenn.

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NIST NCSTAR 1A is here, Billshitter™, and I've just verified that my quotations and the screenshots are correct.

Maybe that 'challenge' wasn't the smartest thing for you to do, Billshitter™.

Shouldn't you have actually read the NIST report before bloviating?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I said, you now owe me two apologies, and you still haven't answered my three questions.

You are making a complete ass out of yourself.

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a while, I thought that Laz was the biggest liar here, but I apologize, The Billshitter™ beats Laz by a truck length. And that's saying something!

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...NIST NCSTAR 1A is here, Billshitter™, and I've just verified that my quotations and the screenshots are correct."

So what's your point, douche bag? I put that link in my post above (post #9, to be exact).

So again, what's your point, liar.

"...Shouldn't you have actually read the NIST report before bloviating?"

Just keep lying, Glenn.

If I didn't read the NIST Report, how could BUST you quote ming?

Just keep pretending that post #9 to this thread doesn't exist, scumbag.

LOL!

"...What a maroon." -- Bugs Bunny

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

AGAIN GLENN, JUST KEEP PRETENDING THAT POST #9 TO THIS THREAD DOESN'T EXIST.

LOL!

You're such a dishonest little 'tard, aren't you, douche bag?

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In post #9 you indeed link to NIST NCSTAR 1A! Which completely removes any last remaining possibility you didn't know what you were doing when you accused me of fabricating quotations, Billshitter™.

Heh!

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, don't switch to accusing me of "quote mining", Billshitter™, because you accused me, and I quote:

"The NIST Report on WTC 7 says no such thing.

Page 23 is titled "LIST OF FIGURES", and says nothing of the sort.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN!"

— The Billshitter™

You are lying, and it's indisputable!

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, here is the snapshot!

 
At 21 April, 2010 07:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...In post #9 you indeed link to NIST NCSTAR 1A! Which completely removes any last remaining possibility you didn't know what you were doing when you accused me of fabricating quotations, Billshitter™."

Changing the subject again, douche bag?

I accused you in post number #9 of quote mining.

Read it again, scumbag:

"...Thus, you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it suits your purpose, and disagree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it presents inconvenient facts that DEMOLISH your argument...So which is it, quote miner, do you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7, or not--you double-dealing slime bag for "9/11 truth"?"

AGAIN GLENN, JUST KEEP PRETENDING THAT POST #9 TO THIS THREAD DOESN'T EXIST.

So, when will you apologize for misrepresenting your sources, douche bag?

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No no no, this is what you said:

"The NIST Report on WTC 7 says no such thing.

Page 23 is titled "LIST OF FIGURES", and says nothing of the sort.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN!"

— The Billshitter™

And here is the snapshot. You are lying, it is indisputable. Apologize!

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glenn, just keep pretending that post #9 to this thread doesn't exist, scumbag.

NOW, GET BACK TO POST NUMBER 9 AND ADDRESS THE CONTENT FOUND THEREIN, DOUCHE BAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take that as a confession. No apology, but, then again, what to expect from a state worshipping debunker cultist. Nothing but offensive lies, lies and lies, and no shame.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glenn, just keep pretending that post #9 to this thread doesn't exist--you lying, quote mining sack-of-shit.

NOW, GET BACK TO POST NUMBER 9 AND ADDRESS THE CONTENT FOUND THEREIN, DOUCHE BAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's a copy of post #9.

Now get to work, quote miner for 9/11 troof.


That's not what the NIST Report on WTC 7 says at all.

For example, here's Box Boy's spin:

"...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.com: WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas....

But that's a bald-faced misrepresentation of the NIST Report.

Here's what NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 really says, sans your intellectually dishonest quote mining (the answers to your questions, which you conveniently excluded from your quote mined bullshit, are in bold font):

"...For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in figure 3-15:

"[1] In stage 1, the descent was slow and less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face. By 1.75 sec. the North face had descended approximately 2.2 meters (7 feet).

"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.

"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."


Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Thus, you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it suits your purpose, and disagree with the NIST Report on WTC 7 when it presents inconvenient facts that DEMOLISH your argument.

So which is it, quote miner, do you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7, or not--you double-dealing slime bag for "9/11 truth"?

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I fully acknowledge post #9, as I did in my post at 21 April, 2010 07:54, as it conclusively proves you have no excuse for your horrendous and shameful lies: you knew full well where to find the report and what it says. You are a mendacious clown, Billshitter™, it is indisputable.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So which is it, quote miner, do you agree with the NIST Report on WTC 7, or not--you double-dealing slime bag for "9/11 truth"?"

False dilemma fallacy, psychopath for 9/11 lies.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the compulsive liar scribbles, "...Actually, I fully acknowledge post #9, as I did in my post at 21 April, 2010 07:54, as it conclusively proves you have no excuse for your horrendous and shameful lies: you knew full well where to find the report and what it says. You are a mendacious clown, Billshitter™, it is indisputable."

That's right, Glenn, just keep pretending that I didn't bust you quote mining.

Here's your original question: "...[1] why is it that in NIST's simulation, global progressive collapse (roofline moving downward) ensues after this alleged internal collapse has completed and yet the period of freefall lasts for approximately seven to eight floors? What changed after these floors had been traversed?"

Funny, there's no mention of "buckling" in that paragraph.

Again, here's the content of post #9 (notice that I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP BUCKLING, not you).

The NIST Report reads--and I quote: "...[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

Thus, I accused YOU of quote mining, specifically because YOU FAILED TO MENTION "BUCKLING" IN YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION.

You turn my stomach, Glenn.

Have a nice day, quote miner for 9/11 troof.

LOL!

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, verbally, NIST refers to the core as "failed", yet in the computer model, the core is two-thirds intact. Which is it? This is a fatal contradiction.

However, in both cases, I ask:

"What changed after these [seven] floors [of full freefall] had been traversed?"

And that's only one of the three questions you still haven't answered. It's pitiable.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's anatomically quite possible for a spineless, gutless 9/11 liar to "turn his stomach", yes.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glenn, when your back is against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Here's your question again, quote miner for 9/11 troof: "...1] why is it that in NIST's simulation, global progressive collapse (roofline moving downward) ensues after this alleged internal collapse has completed and yet the period of freefall lasts for approximately seven to eight floors? What changed after these floors had been traversed?"

Again, no mention of "buckling" in your original question, Glenn. Thus, you stand exposed as a quote miner for 9/11 troof.

Have a nice day, scumbag.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I think it's anatomically quite possible for a spineless, gutless 9/11 liar to "turn his stomach", yes."

Then perhaps you can explain why you didn't mention buckling in your original question?

Come on, Glenn, lie to us some more, Pinocchio.

LOL!

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, what's Glenn doing, you ask?

He's moving the goal post, and trying to claim that he mentioned "buckling" in his original question.

So, show me where your original question contains the word "buckling"?

Go for it, Glenn, lie to us some more, scumbag.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Buckling" is fine with me, Billshitter™, but that was not my question.

My question was, and I repeat:

"What changed after these floors had been traversed?"

You still haven't apologized for wrongly accusing me of fabricating quotes:

"The NIST Report on WTC 7 says no such thing.

Page 23 is titled "LIST OF FIGURES", and says nothing of the sort.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN!"

Yet here is the snapshot that proves you lied.

You still haven't answered or addressed my question, let alone all three. Buckling is going to occur, no doubt. You're very welcome to include buckling in your calculations, which you are qualified to do, according to your profile page.

Again, my question is:
""What changed after these [seven] floors [of full freefall] had been traversed?"

Try, try, try again, Billshitter™

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So Glenn, you love to whine about "2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration".

Well, I took you directly to the section of NIST's Report on WTC 7 that mentions "2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall", and pointed out that you failed mention the sentence that talks about "buckling" of the columns:

"..."[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face."

So what were YOU saying about my failure to read the NIST Report?

LOL!

Go for it, Glenn, lie to us some more, Pinocchio.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, my question is:
"What changed after these [seven] floors [of full freefall] had been traversed?"

You're very welcome to include buckling in your answer. Try, try, try again, Billshitter™

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't have to repost my lesson about properly answering question, do I?

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:51, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

It's quite clear that the "Git" is a certifiable Yuppie in the middle of a sex-starved nervous breakdown.The only question is:when the hell is he going to get some help? I mean,he has daughters and a wife.With vaginas.Who will be the worst victims here.Somebody throw him a life preserver,he's flailing miserably.Perhaps he can convert to Transcendental Meditation.Oof!

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"What changed after these floors had been traversed?"

I answered your question, and I also proved that you're a quote miner.

Here's your answer:

"...[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

The remaining columns buckled after column 79A failed. The remaining columns, which were severely weakened by fire, simply could NOT support the redistributed weight. That's obvious, idiot.

Go for it, Glenn, lie to us some more.

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie whines, "...It's quite clear that the "Git" is a certifiable Yuppie in the middle of a sex-starved nervous breakdown.The only question is:when the hell is he going to get some help?"

Projecting again, shit-for-brains?

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The remaining columns buckled after column 79A failed. The remaining columns, which were severely weakened by fire, simply could NOT support the redistributed weight. That's obvious, idiot."

What took you so long? It isn't that hard, is it, Bill?

Now, what specifically changed in this mechanism after this vertical height of approximately seven floors was traversed, such that the building ceased falling gravitational acceleration?

 
At 21 April, 2010 08:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahaha, Arhoolie. I think The Billshitter™ is preparing for some strap-on training with Troy Sexton the child abuser in their newfound love nest tonight.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What took you so long? It isn't that hard, is it, Bill?"

Does the obvious always escape you, Glenn? And you claim to be an "engineer"? I guess that explains why you're a technical writer, flunky.

LOL!

"...Now, what specifically changed in this mechanism after this vertical height of approximately seven floors was traversed, such that the building ceased falling gravitational acceleration?"

Would someone fluent in retard please take a moment and translate that stupidity into English?

Read it again, Pinocchio:

The NIST Report on WTC 7 reads: "..."[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

Any more stupidity for us, 'tard?

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly! And where in the NIST model does this "increased resistance" suddenly come from? Have you looked at their collapse simulation, Billshitter™

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn gives himself away again when he scribbles, "...Hahaha, Arhoolie. I think The Billshitter™ is preparing for some strap-on training with Troy Sexton the child abuser in their newfound love nest tonight."

As anyone familiar with Glenn Maxey is aware, he constantly makes reference to techno-anal-homosexual imagery in his idiotic "writing".

Thus, you stand exposed again, Glenn--you twisted repressed homosexual.

So for how long have you been a charter member of NAMBLA, Pinocchio?

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's a simulation, idiot. Sinse when are simulations perfect, Pinocchio?"

Ha ha ha, thank you, Billshitter™. The simulation is thus full of shit. Question answered, discussion settled, NIST's WTC 7 report is pack of lies.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You mean this simulation video, Pinocchio?

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

It's a simulation, idiot. Since when are simulations perfect, Pinocchio?

More of your self-serving bullshit, Glenn?

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One down, two to go! LAWL!

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing; it took The Billshitter™ about a week to admit the NIST simulation is unreliable, and thus proves absolutely NOTHING.

Tsk tsk. At least we're making progress.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn lies, "...Ha ha ha, thank you, Billshitter™. The simulation is thus full of shit. Question answered, discussion settled, NIST's WTC 7 report is pack of lies."

Wrong again, Pinocchio. I didn't say "full of shit". I said that simulations are never perfect. But does that render the simulation invalid?

Of course it doesn't, Pinocchio.

Read on...

The NIST Report on WTC 7 reads--and I quote: "...As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."

Any more lies for us, Pinocchio?

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, qualified in computer simulations as The Billshitter™ claims to be, he already knew this beforehand, but did the little hush hush on us. LOL.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not "not perfect" Billshitter™, it's FULL OF SHIT, unless you can reconcile my question with the simulation, of course, heh heh heh.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...Amazing; it took The Billshitter™ about a week to admit the NIST simulation is unreliable, and thus proves absolutely NOTHING...Tsk tsk. At least we're making progress."

Declaring yourself the victor without benefit of evidence, Pinocchio?

Don't break you arm patting yourself on the back, Pinocchio.

NOW, GET BACK UP TO POST #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR QUOTE MINING, scumbag.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But...anyways, like nano-thermite, like Norman Mineta, like the Israeli nuke arsenal, you fail, and we can now move on to the remaining two questions. Thank you.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn scribbles, "...It's not "not perfect" Billshitter™, it's FULL OF SHIT, unless you can reconcile my question with the simulation, of course, heh heh heh."

Says who? A quote mining technical writer and failed "engineer"?

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you still haven't apologized for accusing me of fabricating quotes, BTW, and you still haven't apologized for accusing me of posting on the "Luke Joins Elite Patriots; Infowars Goofball Arrested" without any basis in fact whatsoever.

You have some serious trouble with patternicity, Billshitter™.

You lose, lose, lose, keep losing and then fail. ROFLMAO.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...But...anyways, like nano-thermite, like Norman Mineta, like the Israeli nuke arsenal, you fail, and we can now move on to the remaining two questions."

Still patting yourself on the back, Pinocchio?

Shall I post the 11 questions that you refuse to answer?

LOL!

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, I will answer your eleven questions as soon as you answer my remaining two, I promise! Don't let go of this opportunity, Bill!

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

11 direct question that Glenn Maxey will never answer:

[1] Why should I be compelled to waste my precious time performing calculations based upon Box Boy's erroneous assumptions?

[2] On the contrary, why don't you admit that I single-handedly busted your buddy, ewingsc, promoting deceptive videos produced by the lying, Orwellian "9/11 truth movement" as "truth" about the collapse of WTC 7?

[3] On the contrary, in academia the burden of proof falls on the individual who makes the claim, not the reader. So why should I be compelled to perform Box Boy's work?

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[5] Now, I know that you're a cretin and a liar, Glenn, but why do you constantly insist on conflating belief with knowledge?

[6] Tell me, Glenn, when a Doctoral student goes for his Ph.D, does he ask his advisors to write his thesis? Does he ask his advisors to defend his thesis? So why should I be compelled to prove or disprove Box Boy's thesis? Shouldn't Box Boy publish his work to the engineering community? Or does he have something to hide?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

[10] What grade does a professor give his student's when they refuse to answer direct questions?

[11] "Tell us, Glenn the cyber parrot, how does a 50 ksi steel column, which is rated to withstand fire for only two hours, withstand an 8 hour fire?"

Now, get to work and answer my questions, scumbag.

AND WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED, GET BACK UP TO POST #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR QUOTE MINING, Pinocchio.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the bullheaded, lying repressed homosexual scribbles, "...Sure, I will answer your eleven questions as soon as you answer my remaining two, I promise! Don't let go of this opportunity, Bill!"

Can you read, Glenn?

Read my answer again, for 100th time, Pinocchio:

"...And your two remaining questions are moot, because they're based on a false premise."

NOW, GET BACK UP TO POST #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR QUOTE MINING, Pinocchio.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, that will not do. Heh. How silly, spineless and gutless of you.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW: thanks for admitting that the NIST simulation is full of shit. You're a slow learner, but gradually, you get there.

Ha ha ha ha.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn whimpers, "...Nope, that will not do. Heh. How silly, spineless and gutless of you."

Says who? A quote mining technical writer and failed "engineer"?

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn resorts to straw man arguments, "...BTW: thanks for admitting that the NIST simulation is full of shit. You're a slow learner, but gradually, you get there."

I didn't admit any such thing, Pinocchio.

Is that all you have, straw man arguments, Pinocchio?

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You had the perfect opportunity, Billshitter™, and you blew it.

Fail, get up, fail again, get up, lose, then fail, then crash and burn and embarrass yourself and this blog. The Heavyweight (lard ass) Champion of Fail, The Billshitter™, strikes again!

(How surprising)

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(One has to wonder why somebody with a double masters degree is so inept at answering a few questions, but hey, I guess that means we're narrowing it down to where it really starts to hurt!)

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber prevaricator scribbles, "...Fail, get up, fail again, get up, lose, then fail, then crash and burn and embarrass yourself and this blog. The Heavyweight (lard ass) Champion of Fail, The Billshitter™, strikes again!"

More straw man arguments, scumbag?

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Pinocchio.

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn scribbles, "...(One has to wonder why somebody with a double masters degree is so inept at answering a few questions, but hey, I guess that means we're narrowing it down to where it really starts to hurt!)"

More straw man arguments, Pinocchio?

Is that all you have, mental midget and failed "engineer"?

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha, temper temper, tantrum throwing 9/11 lie boy.

I'll wait for the Billshitter™ to properly answer the other two questions. The first one evidently was a big failure for pretengineer Bill.

I have patience. Cya! =) (Keep my lesson about answering questions in mind, Billy Boi!)

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretengineer Billshitter™: "Sinse when are simulations perfect"

ROFLMAO. Classic!

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right GB, it's Glenn Maxey.

And the winner is: GuitarBill.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL! Did you just resort to sock puppeting, Billshitter™? Truly, there are no depths to your intellectual ineptitude!

*shakes his head*

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey changes the subject again, "...I'll wait for the Billshitter™ to properly answer the other two questions. The first one evidently was a big failure for pretengineer Bill."

Can you read, Glenn?

Read my answer again, for 100th time, Pinocchio:

"...And your two remaining questions are moot, because they're based on a false premise."

NOW, GET BACK UP TO POST #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR QUOTE MINING, Pinocchio.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arhoolie, he's all yours. I'm afraid there isn't much left to play with. LOL!!

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn, with his back to the wall, prevaricates again, "...LOL! Did you just resort to sock puppeting, Billshitter™? Truly, there are no depths to your intellectual ineptitude!"

No, I didn't, Glenn.

Are you so arrogant and insane that you can't accept the fact that you're a loser--not to mention a failed "engineer"?

After all, how many "engineers" work as technical writers?

NOW, GET BACK UP TO POST #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR QUOTE MINING, Pinocchio.

 
At 21 April, 2010 09:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn whimpers, "...Arhoolie, he's all yours. I'm afraid there isn't much left to play with. LOL!!"

Another monumental cop out, from Glenn Maxey the failed "engineer".

Pussy!

NOW GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 10:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, Glenn, answer question number 11:

"Tell us, Glenn the cyber parrot, how does a 50 ksi steel column, which is rated to withstand fire for only two hours, withstand an 8 hour fire?"

Go for it, scumbag, and ignore the obvious again.

AND WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED, GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 10:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey lies again, "...Pretengineer Billshitter™: 'Sinse when are simulations perfect'"

What were you saying about "sock puppeting", Glenn?

LOL!

NOW, GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 11:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

For the sake of argument, here are your three "questions" (bullshit would more accurate), Glenn, reproduced in full:

"...(1) why is it that in NIST's simulation, global progressive collapse (roofline moving downward) ensues after this alleged internal collapse has completed and yet the period of freefall lasts for approximately seven to eight floors? What changed after these floors had been traversed? (2) Why is it that NIST's simulation shows severe twisting, crumpling and contorting, extremely well visible deformation of the facade, and the footage of WTC 7's collapse shows no such thing? How is it that the simulation confirms that "internal collapse" must cause severe exterior deformation yet we do not observe it in actual fact, save for a little kink that not even in the same ballpark as the deformation in NIST's simulation? (3) Suppose this complete "internal collapse" fantasy was grounded in any sort of reality, what makes you think that crushing the remaining building materials in the facade won't require an impulse, measurable in a deceleration or a decline in acceleration of the roofline?"

Source: SLC: Just What the World Needs....

Would you care to show us where the word "buckling" appears in that pile of crap?

So why do you constantly lie about "2.25 seconds of freefall in conjunction with the crushing of seven floors", and conveniently exclude the following passage from your argument?

"..."[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Now, the last time checked

4.0 - 1.75 = 2.25

So you must have read the section of the NIST Report on WTC 7, which I included in post #9 to this thread.

Right, Glenn?

So, tell us, scumbag, why did you conveniently exclude the following passage from your argument?

"...as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face."

And that represents another nail in your coffin, Glenn, because that proves, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that you're a quote miner for 9/11 troof.

ROTFLMAO!

So Glenn, now that your credibility can be measured in negative engineering units, how does it feel to have ZERO CREDIBILITY?

Just askin'...

NOW, GET BACK UP TO QUESTION #9 AND ADDRESS YOUR UNDERHANDED QUOTE MINING, SCUMBAG.

 
At 21 April, 2010 11:34, Blogger Billman said...

Holy christ, children! I checked this thread this morning and there were only 16 comments, and now I come back and there's 106! Damn... ya'll are entertaining, but maybe you need your own site for the two of you to argue on.

 
At 21 April, 2010 11:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman,

Glenn has a website: www.maxbridges.us.

But he won't allow rebuttals to his myriad of lies, so that website is next to worthless.

That said, perhaps you can explain why Glenn refuses to answer my direct questions?

 
At 21 April, 2010 11:57, Blogger Billman said...

I'm no expert on foreign affairs, but from all I've gathered during my few minutes glossing over the subject on google, it does appear that it is widely believed and assumed and speculated that Israel has nukes, but there's no proof it does. I think the numer is around 400 they think. But GB makes a good point, you don't aquire nuke technology without testing it, and setting off a nuke is pretty much detectable by every siesmograph in the world. So maybe they got them, but if they did, it must be something they aquired from someone else, or there's a way to test them we don't know about. Either being unlikely.

 
At 21 April, 2010 12:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...So maybe they got them, but if they did, it must be something they aquired from someone else, or there's a way to test them we don't know about. Either being unlikely."

Good point, Billman.

Anti-Semites love to claim that Israel got its nuclear arsenal from the United States. That assertion, however, is BULLSHIT.

Why?

Because if that's true, then the United States is not only in violation of the NNPT, the United States is also in violation of its own laws.

That said, there's a huge difference between speculation and knowledge.

 
At 21 April, 2010 12:18, Blogger Billman said...

Well, also look at the advantages Israel would gain by saying they have them even if they don't. They get the benefits of some other country going "oh shit, wed better not nuke them, cause they'd nuke us back!" And thus, a deterrant.

If history has shown us anything about nukes (prior to learning about the environmental damages they cause), is that back when they were first being used the only effective counters to a country that had them, were surrender or mutually assured destruction with their own nukes.

Look at Japan. Had they not surrendered after Nagasaki, the US would have continued to nuke them until Japan was a glowing wasteland. And then, we also began to threaten China with nukage until they basically said "nu uh, bitches, we got them too."

 
At 21 April, 2010 12:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...Well, also look at the advantages Israel would gain by saying they have them even if they don't. They get the benefits of some other country going "oh shit, wed better not nuke them, cause they'd nuke us back!" And thus, a deterrant."

Exactly! Obviously, you get it.

My analogy is a poker player bluffing against his opponents' cards.

It makes perfect sense.

 
At 21 April, 2010 12:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Jews are descended from Satan? Of course! That's why Bar Refaeli is so bewitching!

If Ventura has holocaust denial in the works, maybe Barrett is angling for an interview.

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/04/dear-andrea-merkel-how-much-do-raul.html

 
At 21 April, 2010 13:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do troofers bother to argue here in Screw Loose Change, a blog that totally mocks and belittles them. Totally justifiably.

Troofers like Glenn seem to have a bit of masochism in them. They seem to take perverse pleasure in being punked intellectually and shown how stupid they really are.
"Thank you, may I have another!"

 
At 21 April, 2010 14:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous wrote, "...Why do troofers bother to argue here in Screw Loose Change, a blog that totally mocks and belittles them. Totally justifiably.

"Troofers like Glenn seem to have a bit of masochism in them. They seem to take perverse pleasure in being punked intellectually and shown how stupid they really are.
'Thank you, may I have another!'"


Because, as the 911TRUTHINATOR said, "Stupidity is Infinite".

LOL!

Fact: 9/11 troofers are descended from chimps.

Proof: Just "debate" them.

ROTFLMAO!

Have a look at the following YouTube video for more:

Source: YouTube: The Rise And Fall of 9/11 Troofers by The 911TRUTHINATOR.

 
At 21 April, 2010 14:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous wrote, "...And the winner is: GuitarBill."

Just another day's work for GuitarBill (GuitarBill tips his jaunty Stetson hat to the ladies, puts his sterling silver 9mm debunker pistol back into his holster and rides off into the sunset).

LOL!

Source: YouTube: '9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous'--Al Qaeda.

 
At 22 April, 2010 12:14, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Is the "Git" aware that there is voluminous evidence that the USA has been bringing hard narcotics into this country,in direct violation of its own laws,for decades? What exactly is wrong with the crazy twanging fool?

 
At 22 April, 2010 13:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"[V]oluminous evidence" provided by who, Mike Ruppert?

LOL!

 
At 23 April, 2010 05:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hate-mongering...
now a title like 'screw loose change'...thats sounds hate mongering...

 
At 24 April, 2010 11:23, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Get crackin' you addled "Git",it was on the front page of the New York Times back in the day when Lawrence Walsh was tearing those motherfuckers to shreds.Are you going to say that Walsh was anti-American? Maybe the Debunker Cult can get a respite from your insane bloviating,as you'll be up nights familiarizing yourself with an amazing and shameful story.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home