Thursday, April 15, 2010

Just What the World Needs...

Another David Ray Griffin conspiracy theory book.

Griffin has written eight books on the subject with another on the way: "Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory."

The appointee, a former Harvard professor named Cass Sunstein who now heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, co-wrote an academic paper saying government should undermine conspiracy theory groups by infiltrating their chat rooms, social networks and group meetings.

Griffin believes "cognitive infiltration" is the wrong term. "It's more like fascism," he says.


Now personally, I think Sunstein's idea is a silly waste of time, but I am not sure how you get "fascism" out of it. I have studied European history pretty thoroughly and I don't recall a significant portion of Hitler or Mussolini's policies being to send people to dissident meetings and suggesting "you know, you may be wrong". Griffin must be really hard up for material though, if he is going to devote an entire book to a 30 page academic paper in which 9/11 is not actually the main subject.

Labels:

197 Comments:

At 15 April, 2010 18:22, Anonymous Gary said...

"government should undermine conspiracy theory groups by infiltrating their chat rooms, social networks and group meetings."

The guy's a dangerous statist control freak. We the people are perfectly capable of taking care of truther nonsense, and any other dis/mis-information that comes down the pike. We don't need government injecting itself one way or the other depending on their particular political ideology at the time.

The guy happens to be right of course in identifying that 9/11 truthiness needs to be countered, but wrong about by whom.

 
At 15 April, 2010 18:51, Blogger Sam said...

That's just what a government infiltrator would say...

O.O

 
At 15 April, 2010 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gary wrote, "...The guy happens to be right of course in identifying that 9/11 truthiness needs to be countered, but wrong about by whom."

Well said.

 
At 15 April, 2010 19:01, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I think Sunstein's idea is a silly waste of time, but I am not sure how you get "fascism" out of it.

Well, infiltrating dissident groups is a function of authoritarian states. The problem with Grifter's argument is fascist states also throw them in jail. That fact that he is free to spew his slander undermines his argument.

 
At 15 April, 2010 20:16, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Good point, ConsDemo.

Heh, Simon Singh's article is back up at the Guardian. Some say this is a victory for free speech in Britain, but I like to think of it as a vindication of free speech in the U.S.

In other words, Grifter can only fantasize about having his speech curtailed like Singh's speech was curtailed in Britain.

I'm drunk, Angrysoba, so don't hold this against me too much; I'm just babbling.

 
At 15 April, 2010 22:52, Blogger Billman said...

I'm drunk too, and Cincinatrick from Panatti is right.

My verification word is dookiewin. Heh. Wow.

 
At 16 April, 2010 02:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as par the course no debunking to seen here, just idiots online. great job jobby job guys!!!

 
At 16 April, 2010 03:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well at least James Bennet acknowledges Hitler and Mussolini are fascists, because if any of that right wing revisionism is going to go on for much longer, calling Obama "fascist", "socialist" and "communist" at the same time, I'm going to have to write an essay about that. With a caricature of Glenn Beck with a Hitler mustache on the cover.

But yes, James, "taxing" or "banning" conspiracy theories, as Sunstein has proposed, amount to raw fascism, or more aptly put: "totalitarianism" and in the post 9/11 climate, making such ghastly claims without immediately being lynched by both the left and the right wing is apparently possible.

I don't worry so much about Sunstein's bat shit crazy ideas, I worry about their lukewarm reception and the rationalizing. I have to agree with Gary, even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum.

 
At 16 April, 2010 03:58, Anonymous NWOisBunk said...

The Truthers going into apoplexy over a paper they probably didn't fucking read? Oh say it ain't so.

I've heard Alex Jones misrepresenting it as saying 9/11 Truth would be made illegal. The tards wish they were that MUCH of a threat to the status quo.

The paper is a real snoozer by the way. I highly doubt too many truthers sat down thoughtfully reading it.

 
At 16 April, 2010 04:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh I actually read it. Do I need to start quoting from it, smartass?

 
At 16 April, 2010 04:16, Anonymous NWOisBunk said...

Anonymous,

High school kids can quote from materials they didn't read either. The ability to quote from the paper does not prove that one read it. It doesn't matter anyway. Its an academic paper.... not government policy. Its an academic paper.. nothing more then that.

 
At 16 April, 2010 04:24, Blogger angrysoba said...

Hey Patrick,

Don't worry about it.

I think the libel laws in Britain are fucking insane.

They're a magnet for any kind of wacko with an axe to grind and hilariously they are often exploited by the very same people who whine on and on about some conspiracy to silence them.

A good example would be David Irving who sought to silence a critic of his who rightly called him a Holocaust denier by suing her for libel.

Fortunately Irving lost his case because he is a Holocaust denier. But the same guy now whines about the fact that he was locked up in Austria for denying the Holocaust.

Personally, I'd prefer Holocaust denial not to be criminalized but those who do should have no right to take anyone to court for calling them Holocaust deniers.

This is funny too... Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair in a British court for libel and was allowed to testify by video. Why? Because if he turned up in Britain personally he could have been arrested for statutory rape!

Anyway, I'm a bit drunk too and I intend to get drunker by toasting Simon Singh's victory over a bunch of charlatans who profit by selling voodoo to sick people!

 
At 16 April, 2010 05:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selling voodoo to sick people, hahaha. I don't remember buying any dolls with pins in them, and I'm perfectly healthy, both mentally and physically, unlike people actually on meds and in therapy, like Troy Sexton.

Anyways, cut back on the drinking fellas, you may have yourself a moment of clarity about 9/11 one day.

"High school kids can quote from materials they didn't read either. The ability to quote from the paper does not prove that one read it. It doesn't matter anyway. Its an academic paper.... not government policy. Its an academic paper.. nothing more then that."

If you had read the paper, you arrogant scumbag, you would have noticed this paragraph, on page 14:

II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).


So (1) and (2) aren't specifically ruled out, they are left on the table for use under "imaginable conditions". Sunstein is a fascist pig, and you are his cheerleader, even though you haven't even read the paper you yourself claim others haven't read. Typical "debunker" ignorance. You remind me of the Billshitter™.

 
At 16 April, 2010 05:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, need I remind you that Nazi fuckbag Sunstein is currently head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs? You haven't read his paper, NWOisBunk, and you don't know who Sunstein is, what his views are and where he works, so you are probably best served to shut your proudly ignorant trap hole.

 
At 16 April, 2010 05:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And best of all: Sunstein's implicit propaganda lie is that the era of infiltration and subversion of magazines, media and universities is somehow "still ahead" of us. He even specifically mentions Popular Mechanics on page 18:

"Expanding the cast further, one may see the game as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and
independent experts – such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics – whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts.
"


Un-FUCKING-believable, isn't it? No. Nothing is unimaginable in the post-9/11 world, and besides we knew about PM already. Sunstein need not pretend PM isn't already on the take.

 
At 16 April, 2010 05:55, Anonymous Bikerman said...

Anon. I recommend Thorazine.

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:04, Blogger angrysoba said...

Selling voodoo to sick people, hahaha. I don't remember buying any dolls with pins in them

Did you have your asthma treated by chiropractics?

and I'm perfectly healthy, both mentally and physically,

You have already demonstrated that to be untrue on a daily basis.

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is that, Billman, do you have experience with it? You have a superman complex, that if left untreated, could lead to serious injury.

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Err Bikerman, excuse me. ;-)

Well you all appear to experienced with psychotropic drugs, and one can only make an educated guess why! ;-)

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did you have your asthma treated by chiropractics?"

Goo goo ga ga?

"You have already demonstrated that to be untrue on a daily basis."

As you admitted, you're drunk and you like to get drunker. You're likely to be alcoholic. Go to bed and sleep it off.

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:29, Anonymous nwoisbunk said...

Anonymous

Its an academic paper..... not government policy. He also isn't arguing for banning conspiracy theories so you can continue freaking out about the MIAC report and tap water in relative peace.

 
At 16 April, 2010 06:58, Blogger James B. said...

Ahh, but Hitler and Mussolini were leftists. What do you think Nazi stands for? National Socialism

 
At 16 April, 2010 07:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Its an academic paper..... not government policy. He also isn't arguing for banning conspiracy theories"

Jesus Christ you moron, what part of "Government might ban conspiracy theories" don't you understand? What part of "head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs" don't you understand?

You're in denial, like most of the self-styled "debunker" cult.

 
At 16 April, 2010 07:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You debunker cultists really need to watch the latest film by Jason Bermas. It's up on YouTube. Not that you will watch. Keeping sucking the govt tit, dirtbags!

 
At 16 April, 2010 07:48, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Here comes the Boneheaded Bennett, trying to rescuscitate the insane PornBoy's "Hitler was a Commie" insanity.For a history buff he sure knows a lot of nothing about the "counter intelligence" program carried out by the FBI against it's own country's free thinking and peaceful dissenters in the 1960's and '70's known as COINTELPRO.This endeavor included the cold blooded murders of an indeterminable number of American citizens and American Indians involved in political activism,much like the people that Sunstein focuses on in his blue print for a crackdown on incorrectly thinking people in the USA.Only an idiot wouldn't see the slippery slope just over the bend.

 
At 16 April, 2010 07:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ahh, but Hitler and Mussolini were leftists. What do you think Nazi stands for? National Socialism"

National Socialism, not "Socialism", where the "Socialist" part has as much meaning as "Democratic" in "German Democratic Republic". Jonah Goldberg is a deluded ding-a-ling and a fool. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to revise the history books. After all, like your acolytes here, you have a superman complex so you're unlikely to feel impeded by your rather considerable limitations.

I used to have a teeny tiny sliver of respect for you, owed to the fact that I know you read some books. This means you attempt to enlist your brain cells for more that critiqueless worship of government. Apparently, your mental faculties don't extend beyond the infantile level of dissecting acronyms of totalitarian movements and taking the semantics of the components literally in sync with your confirmation bias instead of actually studying the ideology.

You've now said it, you can't take it back, and you've just immortalized yourself as an intellectual featherweight, a bloviating buffoon, a misguided extremist and a full blown revisionist crackpot.

And revisionist crackpots, James Bennet, have no place lecturing anybody on 9/11.

 
At 16 April, 2010 08:33, Blogger Triterope said...

We the people are perfectly capable of taking care of truther nonsense, and any other dis/mis-information that comes down the pike.

Yes, but only when said nonsense and misinformation is sufficiently weak. History has shown that when enough citizens start believing this junk, it can be a real danger to society, and impossible to counter by official or unofficial means.

9-11 Truth isn't anywhere near that point, though, and never will be a danger, except as a breeding ground for lone nuts. Fitzgerald, von Brunn, Poplawski, Gerhard, people like that.

 
At 16 April, 2010 08:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed, the official 9/11 myth has had nothing but peaceful consequences.

 
At 16 April, 2010 08:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Heh, Simon Singh's article is back up at the Guardian. Some say this is a victory for free speech in Britain, but I like to think of it as a vindication of free speech in the U.S."

It's also a perfect example how a little debunking can go a long way. I am amazed British truthers didn't try and use these silly GB libel laws to get back at the 9/11 Rationalist. And now with the Singh victory it may be too late. But then the British Chiropractic Association and other quacks have more respect then your average truther.

Lets face it truthers and other conspiracy theorist types will always be the intellectual under belly of society, the village idiots as it were, and there will always be some credulous smart guy willing to fuck with them. No one needs the government's help to trash such a collections of ineffectual fools. There will always be someone willing to poke the feebleminded with a stick just for shits and giggles, and do it for free.

 
At 16 April, 2010 08:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, back to the discussion of Dylan Avery's hair. SLC: intelligent discourse over stuff that truly matters.

 
At 16 April, 2010 08:54, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If the government is going to spend money on debunking silly conspiracies it should be on the anti vaccination kooks. The has real consequences on not only an individuals health but the nations health. You are already seeing a resurgence of measles At least four outbreaks of measles around the United States.

The concerns of a bunch of truther is never going to go anywhere, Same as the JFK thing and believers in aliens. Sure a bunch of stupid kids will get all worked up after viewing a few YouTube videos, but they have no power, and when faces with someone more informed then they are taking them to task for being so gullible, they fold up and shut up, done it to more than one truther myself.

 
At 16 April, 2010 09:10, Blogger angrysoba said...

As you admitted, you're drunk and you like to get drunker. You're likely to be alcoholic. Go to bed and sleep it off.

Well, it is late on a Friday night here in Japan.

There are these things called timezones which you Truthers should have learnt about after you spouted all that nonsense regarding Payne Stewart.

And there was me thinking there could be positive bi-products from 9/11 Truth but it looks like you didn't even learn that.

 
At 16 April, 2010 09:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The big question becomes, Why do we have a certain segment of the population who are so easily fooled? Is it a genetic thing? Pure stupidity? Bad schooling? Why do these gullible rubes exist? This is 2010 and there is no lack of information out there.

Why is it you have people who can't even grasp the idea of evolution or who upon seeing condensation trails in the sky think it's deliberate seeding of chemicals? They see a light in the sky and it become an alien controlled spaceship. Someone tells them the WTC towers fell a free fall and they can't even take the time to view the collapse and count thereby finding out the event didn't happen at free fall?

On wonder we still have Nigerian scam emails, these suckers exist.

 
At 16 April, 2010 09:15, Blogger angrysoba said...

You debunker cultists really need to watch the latest film by Jason Bermas.

I shudder to think of what kind of mind can even think, "You really need to watch the latest film by Jason Bermas."

Compared with Bermas, Alex Jones actually looks intelligent, witty and charming which just goes to show what an utterly obnoxious freak Bermas has to be and probably the sole reason Alex Jones even keeps him around.

 
At 16 April, 2010 10:08, Blogger Triterope said...

Now, back to the discussion of Dylan Avery's hair. SLC: intelligent discourse over stuff that truly matters.

You Truthers really shouldn't use sarcasm. You inadvertently make a lot more sense than when you're trying to be serious.

 
At 16 April, 2010 10:47, Anonymous Pitiful James Bennett said...

Given your proven inability to refute a single item from his previous book on WTC 7, it's little surprise that you'd worry over another Griffin work, James.

Keep avoiding those facts, James, it's noble work.

 
At 16 April, 2010 10:52, Blogger Paul said...

Jesus Christ you moron, what part of "Government might ban conspiracy theories"

Are you familiar with the first amendment?

 
At 16 April, 2010 11:07, Blogger Billman said...

It's more of Photoshop complex, actually. I have photos of myself as a Borg, Indiana Jones, etc... all made for a class I took a couple years back.

 
At 16 April, 2010 11:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Trolling again, Glenn?

Cretin.

 
At 16 April, 2010 11:34, Anonymous Dave the liar said...

"...done it to more than one truther myself."
-Craven Shyte

Source please? Your ass, perhaps?

 
At 16 April, 2010 11:41, Blogger Triterope said...

Trolling again, Glenn? Cretin.

That's all that's left of the 9-11 Truth movement. Trolls. There used to be people who were motivated to promote the films, who could put up a decent fight in a debate, or at least showed some interest in the subject. All that's left is these tedious dregs. It enough to make you miss Brian Good.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:08, Anonymous Smashed Guitar said...

Can someone rescue Shuitar Shill with his research on WTC7? He desperately needs help reconciling Sunder's admission that free-fall is impossible when structural elements are involved, with NIST's affirmation that free-fall occurred for over 2 seconds, or approximately 8 floors.

Clearly he hasn't even learned Pat and James' amazing pretengineer double-think, which sees no problem with this obvious physical contradiction. Otherwise he'd adopt their policy, and shut the fuck up in silent terror when the subject is broached. Instead he just makes an ass of himself. Any takers? Pat the Fat? James the Bitch?

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:10, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

I could swear Adam Syed of the Cincinnati truthers is somewhere on this page.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Being rather liberal in my views, I have some friends who due to a case of Bush derangement syndrome started to entertain the truther ideas for a time. Knowing I am a science and techno geek they brought up the controlled demolition thing with me and they were a bit disappointed I could so easily debunk the stuff they were buying from the likes of DRG and Steven Jones. They so wanted the event to be an inside job. That is how I got started debunking 9/11 conspiracies.

Of course these guys had an advantage over the truthers you see now, they were fairly bright to begin with and even if not big on science and physics, I was able to show them what a crock of shit the entire controlled demolition nonsense was. So they went from "Made It Happen" to "Let It Happen". But a few points of logic and some exposing of the lie from trutherville soon put that to an end. And after a time the "I Have Questions" tactic didn't even cut it. One now admits he feels embarrassed over toying with this foolishness.

I think that is how it is with truthers in general, the bright one have given up on the thing. You are stuck with the dregs of cerebral deftness. The evergreens of crackpottery. Nothing left to do but sit back and prod them a bit for the entertainment return.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:11, Anonymous gmiller said...

Dave Kyte said...

The big question becomes, Why do we have a certain segment of the population who are so easily fooled? Is it a genetic thing? Pure stupidity? Bad schooling? Why do these gullible rubes exist? This is 2010 and there is no lack of information out there.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Not only is there no lack of information, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there. I alway get tickled by those commercials that show a person asking someone a question and the respondent goes off on some tangent becuase of "information overload". That combined with a large portion of the population that either:

a. Have limited critical thinking skills.

b. Want to feel they belong to a "special" group.

c. Hate this country and everything it stands for, as has been very well demonstrated in the responses to the last couple posts.

d. Simply are afraid to think for themselves and want someone else to tell them what and how to think.

Put any of those together and you can have a dangerous combination that results in "conspiracy theories".

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"He desperately needs help reconciling Sunder's admission that free-fall is impossible "

So I take it you don't really know what free fall is,,, is that it? I know truthers are not very bright but this after all high school physics stuff. And just repeating this shows an extreme form of personal ignorance.

Tell you what.... Explain in your rather simple understanding of the term. What is free fall. I suspect it has nothing to do with the reality of the concept. But give it a try if you dare. We will correct it when you do. OR, Maybe in trying to grasp the physics you may even gain some enlightenment and you won't sound so hopelessly inconversant next time.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:32, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Not only is there no lack of information, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there."

That is true. I remember the observation that true intelligence is not so much what you know and chose to keep, but knowing what to throw away.

I have this iPhone and it can with a few swipes collect mountains of information, it does need to be filtered through what Carl Sagan called a bologna detector.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Raving Shyte, but your deceptive tactics are patently obvious again. You couldn't provide any source for your imagined 'education' of non-existent 'friends', and you continue to puff yourself with delusions of a superior education. Same old dance, played poorly and out of tune by GuitarShill and your other choir mates. At least Pat and James withhold their off-key spewing on the subject, the better to conceal their complete bafflement on the real issues.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:42, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Conspiracy theories are the cowards way out.

Can't find real proof for your pet conception? Build a conspiracy that your proof is being hidden by faceless powers.

I always get a laugh out of believers in alien visitor who claim the government or military is hiding UFOs. Hell, logic alone would tell you if the military had little gray men in a freezer they would let the congress and American people know just to justify more military spending to protect us from the outside threat, Star Was would be reinvented as an Alien Shield Program.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:46, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"and you continue to puff yourself with delusions of a superior education."

Wow. It really bugs you that all the debunkers around here are superior to you in every way.

Well learn to live with it, this is your life sad as it may be. You are stuck with it boy.

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:52, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So, how about that explanation of free fall according to truthers?

I know for you guys this is akin to rocket science, but have the balls to give it a try, don't pussy out on me now.

Or can we assume "free fall" is just some words you heard DRG use and now you repeat it because you think it makes you sound informed?

 
At 16 April, 2010 13:56, Anonymous Shyte for Brains said...

Can someone rescue Craven Mite with his research on WTC7? He desperately needs help reconciling Sunder's admission that free-fall is impossible when structural elements are involved, with NIST's affirmation that free-fall occurred for over 2 seconds, or approximately 8 floors.

Clearly he hasn't even learned Pat and James' amazing pretengineer double-think, which sees no problem with this obvious physical contradiction. Otherwise he'd adopt their policy, and shut the fuck up in silent terror when the subject is broached. Instead he just makes an ass of himself. Any takers? Pat the Fat? James the Bitch?

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Can someone rescue Craven Mite with his research on WTC7? He desperately needs help reconciling Sunder's admission that free-fall is impossible when structural elements are involved, "

So, It's a given, you don't understand that free fall is and how it works. I mean, if you did you would understand what was being talked about and exactly why free fall is not impossible for the time referred to.

HINT: when some of the structural element have already fallen away the things they support can indeed fall at something close to free fall. But you wouldn't understand that given you mental rank in the world.

Ok, so you are not that bright. That is all you had to admit to, we all know it anyway. And if I were you I too would not use my real name as well.But then I have nothing to ashamed of.

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:19, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So, any other truther going to give the explanation of free fall a try? "Anon" wimped out on us, but we all knew he would, you can only go so far when you are a mentally challenged truther.

This is not that hard.

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:21, Anonymous Real Science Hurts You said...

"HINT: when some of the structural element have already fallen away the things they support can indeed fall at something close to free fall."

Nice weasel-words, shyte. How much is 'some of the structural element' (sic)? What's 'something close to free-fall?' We're talking about 8 floors worth of 'structural element' (sic) being crushed AT gravitational acceleration, and you're just mumbling a lot of shit.

You're flopping like a fish out of water, Craven. Give up, and just be a close-mouthed stooge like your friends here, before you make yourself look even worse, if that's even possible. Go give guitarshill a hug. he really needs it.

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:37, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"What's 'something close to free-fall?' "

Fine example of your ignorance of the subject. If you did understand free fall in the classic sense of the concept you would know true free fall can only happen in the absence of air (vacuum). That matter little to massive things, steel beams. Lighter stuff would fall slower with air resistance and all.

Point is massive steel beams can fall at close to free fall (little resistance to air) and can do it in the distance that would encompass 8 floors of building 7. Now given much of the internal structure was collapsing well before the north wall finally fell. There was not a lot of the internal structure and the south face to slow the final collapse of the north wall that you see in conspiracy theorist videos.

You see easy for me and most reasonably intelligence people to understand but you being a truther and all have this handicap of a below average intelligence. So it sucks being you.

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:44, Blogger ewingsc said...

So ... ... why did WTC 7 collapse, again ?

(looking for all the world as it did like a controlled demolition)

Was it 'fire' and 'falling debris' ?

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:45, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

it's got to suck being our beef-witted truther friend here. Stuck in a nothing job because his inborn mental deficit only allows him the ability to whip up a mean latte down at the local coffee shop where he can use the free computer and wifi to play "Hero of the Truth" And act all repressed when the boss has him clean the men's room.

 
At 16 April, 2010 14:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

(looking for all the world as it did like a controlled demolition)

Shit looks like chocolate, but it's not.

 
At 16 April, 2010 15:04, Blogger ewingsc said...

So was it 'fire' and 'falling debris' ?

Dave ?

 
At 16 April, 2010 15:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ewingsc prevaricates, "...So ... ... why did WTC 7 collapse, again ?"

I answered this question four times in a previous thread.

Can you read, "truther" swine?

Now, I have a question for you, sociopath:

When will you apologize for presenting a deceptive video as "evidence" for "controlled demolition" of WTC 7?

 
At 16 April, 2010 15:22, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So was it 'fire' and 'falling debris' ?

Yes, debris from building one hitting building 7 started major fires. The building was observed leaning and bulging. So much so the FDNY used a surveyors transit to keep track of the leaning.

Fires cause parts of the internal structure to fail. This cause the east penthouse to fall in, something you can see for yourself in videos of the ENTIRE collapse. Finally the north wall losing much of it internal support also fell.

Nothing at all like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions do not happen in starts and stops.

 
At 16 April, 2010 15:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Gee, don't know if I can dumb it down enough for truthers without drawing little pictures.

 
At 16 April, 2010 15:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave,

Don't waste your time.

The fact is that no answer will ever suffice for a "truther" sociopath--period.

Why?

Two words: Irreducible delusion.

In other words, a man will fight for his viewpoint, even when proven wrong, simply because his ego is so deeply invested in the delusion.

The fact is that their fragile psyches will crumble like a coffee cake if they ever try to disavow the delusion.

 
At 17 April, 2010 06:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can borrow jargon from the Mackey repertoire all you want, but the reality is you're still a lower ladder bungler and a flopped, strung out gitfiddler who couldn't put his two degrees to use to explain 2.25 seconds of freefall in conjunction with the crushing of seven floors.

Let alone the Israeli nuke fiasco. You bitten the dust so many times I think your teeth are sandblasted, Billshitter™.

And what's that about "Anon" bailed on us? Who said that? I got bored with the sub-par rejoinders, that's all. Come on forward and get your sorry, undereducated foolhardy ass whooped.

Did somebody say something about structure collapsing internally? Awesome. I was waiting for that exact prevarication. Now you can explain to me these issues: (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?

Okay, 3..2..1.. GO!

Bitches.

 
At 17 April, 2010 07:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As I said earlier, why should I feel compelled to make calculations based upon Box Boy's erroneous assumptions--your lies about Shyam Sunder notwithstanding?

Sounds like a monumental waste of time to me.

So when will your man, Box Boy, do the math and publish his "work"?

I'll tell you when, Glenn: When Satan sets up snow cone stands in Hell.

And why won't Box Boy publish his "calculations"

Because Box Boy KNOWS that folks like me are just waiting to tear his "calculations" to shreds.

So get to work, charlatan.

 
At 17 April, 2010 07:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tsk tsk. Another cop out. Another non-answer. Why am I not surprised. You don't even try. So why the arrogant clap-trap about "Anon" bailing out? It is you who is bailing out. It is you who has two degrees, one of which specifically qualifies you to do a FEA simulation, perhaps together with a structural engineer friend. You could solve this matter, eminently qualified as you are, and kick the legs from under this argument.

Yet..you don't. Which means...you should keep your arrogant, incompetent trap shut, and especially not "declare victory" over anyone with respect to WTC 7, since you obviously don't the first thing about this building and its collapse.

Don't bounce it back, Billy Boy, get to work or take a hike.

 
At 17 April, 2010 07:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let it be known for the record that the Billshitter™ has now officially gotten his ass handed to him in three debates. One about Norman Mineta, one about Israeli nukes, and one about WTC 7.

Yet the bloviating continues. I'll wait and see if you ever post anything interesting in response Billshitter™, because I'm not interested in convincing hobbyist liars like you, I'm interested in you convincing me. Hint: you simply have nothing to offer at this point to even consider, besides playing reflector.

I'll be waiting, Bill. By the way, how's that fundraiser for that Bentham publication going? Still cruising the boulevard of broken promises? Maybe you can set up a trust fund with Dylan. Hahahaha.

 
At 17 April, 2010 07:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the cyber homo prevaricates, "...Let it be known for the record that the Billshitter™ has now officially gotten his ass handed to him in three debates. One about Norman Mineta, one about Israeli nukes, and one about WTC 7."

On the contrary, don't you mean, let it be known that Glenn Maxey and his partner in prevarication, Arsehoolie, won't answer direct questions about Box Boy, Norman Mineta's fatally flawed time line and Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal?

And since when does the "winner" of a "debate" refuse to answer direct questions?

Only in the rarefied air occupied by compulsive liars like Glenn Maxey.

So when will Box Boy publish his "calculations", shit-for-brains?

And when will you and the so called "9/11 truth movement" formally apologize for presenting deceptive videos as evidence of "controlled demolition" for WTC 7?

GuitarBill's conservative estimate: When Hell freezes over.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

10 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?

Consider yourself buried, Glenn the cyber prevaricator.

And you have the unmitigated gall to declare yourself the "winner" of the "debate", while you studiously avoid the aforementioned 10 questions?

You're pathetic, Glenn--not to mention a compulsive liar.

Now get to work, scumbag, because I want answers, not lies and obfuscation.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:25, Anonymous chakka said...

Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both are sadly mistaken.

If you present them with the many suspicious anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in that particular field.

All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart. They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of allies.

Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to "debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure, patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers. That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his name to Paul and became a believer himself.

The saddest part of our struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11 events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying to them in every other facet.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:25, Anonymous chakka said...

Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors.

We in the 9-11 Truth Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson, Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events.

A columnist at Counterpunch.com attempted to debunk and defuse the many 9-11 inconsistencies in a feature, In Defense of Conspiracy: 9/11, in Theory and in Fact. Diana Johnstone wrote, "Who profits from the crime?"---but without really acknowledging any of those rich and powerful people who profitted immensely. I emailed her and she responded about a week later.

"Dear readers and critics, Thank you for your comments on my 9/11 piece...Please understand that I have been snowed under by responses -- over 50,000 words, plus attachments and web site references, still coming."

Ouch. The surging tidal wave of the 9-11 truth movement had engulfed another debunker.

But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good honest government.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod, goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us;and who doesn't like a good challenge? To get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we stubbornly redouble our efforts.

I believe--and I may be wrong--that behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people. Should half of them ever became convinced 9-11 was an inside job, they would become as forceful as Paul. A more powerful force for change than most of us have been.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"chakka", another deluded sophist for "9/11 truth".

Care to present any "evidence", chakka? (And deceptive videos aren't evidence, charlatan).

Or should we expect nothing more than lies, obfuscation and appeals to emotion from the Orwellian "9/11 truth movement"?

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:45, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Okay, 3..2..1.. GO!

OK, so you cut and pasted a bunch of gibberish from a conspiracy theorist site as if YOU actually understood what it said. Poor ignorant little boy.

What, did trying to understand the concept of free fall also confuse you? I know you must have looked it up after me schooling you on the subject. So you ran away. Typical truther coward

You being of inferior intelligence found free fall too taxing for you to understand so you hit one on the conspiracy theorist and cut and pasted this bull about internal collapse. Like I said not that you conceive what it says, god know you are not bright enough to come up with this in your fable melon.

OK, so my bitch boy here can't understand free fall, we have established that much.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent commentary. Beautifully worded, especially this part:

"They range from diehard conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11 events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying to them in every other facet."

But I strongly disagree with this sentence:

"They want what we want. Good honest government."

You should familiarize yourself with the political positions of those who frequent this blog. A majority favors "the end justified the means", which includes torture (Guantanamo, Abu Graib, Bagram, they like to deceptively call it "EHI") kidnapping (rendition), mass murder (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam, etc.), illegal war (Iraq), (warrantless) wiretapping, and unconstitutional amendments (Patriot Act I and II, Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Terrorism Act, etc.).

"The end justifies the means" as an ideology embodies fascism and totalitarianism, and debunkers, in majority embrace that. They will deny embracing it, but their specific collected positions on individual issues combine into this exact monstrous system and make the conclusion unassailable.

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Shyte, I don't see anything remotely resembling an answer to my questions in there. Just the hollow bragging and boasting of a bluff pokering buffoon. Why is that?

 
At 17 April, 2010 08:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave, here's the source of their bullshit: worldarchitecturenews.com.

Read on...

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: Rense.com->WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas....

Of course, the "9/11 truth movement" completely ignores Shyam Sunder's reply:

Shyam Sunder replies, "...Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building [column 79 -ed] , had it occurred , we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels, about a half mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to."

So tell us, "truthers", where are the 120 dB explosions?

Up your ass (where we'll find your head's, that is)?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey prevaricates, "...I don't see anything remotely resembling an answer to my questions in there. Just the hollow bragging and boasting of a bluff pokering buffoon."

First of all, those are not "your questions", Glenn.

The truth: You're parroting Box Boy?.

Again, have you ever had an original thought in your miserable life, Glenn the cyber parrot?

Second, it's not Dave's job to answer those questions. The burden proof falls on Box Boy, and Box Boy alone.

Get it through your thick skull, Glenn the cyber parrot.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha, what insane drivel. (A) I absolutely ignore Rense as a source, because I consider it to be disinfo. (B) Rense doesn't contain anything close to scientific discussion, and if you think it does, again, you aren't worth your degrees (C) The text you cited doesn't resemble any of my questions, even Ray Charles could see that, and (D) You are bayoneting a straw man argument.

I think you need help with a repeat post of my questions. I think my questions need to be shoved in your face, lest you attempt to distort them in order to avoid answering them appropriately. Here we go again.

Did somebody say something about structure collapsing internally? Awesome. I was waiting for that exact prevarication. Now you can explain to me these issues: (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?

And let me add an extra caveat: suppose not all internal structure was removed, then where are the measurable roofline impulses required to account for the work spent crushing this structure?

Okay, 3..2..1.. GO!

Bitches.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:13, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"If you present them with proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the scientific laws that were broken on 9-11,"

Exactly what laws of science or physics were broken on that day? By all means enlighten us if you can. Just saying it is so because you read it on a conspiracy theorist site does not make it fact. Science is hard and most Americans are not very well versed in science so it's easy to convince the uneducated there were science laws broken. Just look at bitchboys inability to define free fall. FYI. A full 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth!

The scientific literate understand full well this is NOT true, and also understand the crap being spewed from the truthers is bunk, so we debunk it.

It has nothing to do with believing the government but I has to do with seeing the American people being suckered by conspiracy theorist to sell books and stoke their egos and being smart enough not to buy the con job that is 9/11 truth. Sorry but it's a fact of life that stupid can be fooled easier than the intelligent. A sucker born every minute.

But if you think the towers were a controlled demolition, lets see your proof. Proof is important questions are not. Questions only mean you have a certain level of personal ignorance on the subject. Education can fix that issue, give it a try.

If you think laws of physics were broken that day lets see that proof as well.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Furthermore, column 79A (WTC7) was made of 50 ksi steel.

The 50 ksi column had spray-on foam fire retardant, which was rated to withstand fire for 2 hours.

Yet, the fires in WTC 7 raged for 8 hours.

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

Go for it, Glenn the cyber parrot.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Dave, here's the source of their bullshit: worldarchitecturenews.com."

Yeah, I remember reading this crap before but not where.

It's typical truther tactic.. Pinhead copies and paste text he doesn't understand from a huckster as if he is making an intelligent point. Very sad.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Shyte, don't divert, don't bloviate. Answer my questions.

To answer yours: for an upper block to crush a lower block while simultaneously accelerating downwards at a rate indistinguishable from freefall, e.g. Newton's second and third laws of motion must be violated.

Now answer my questions, Dave Shyte, I'm waiting, and I'm getting impatient.

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

Glenn the cyber prevaricator whines, "...I absolutely ignore Rense as a source, because I consider it to be disinfo."

Rense is not the sourse, you idiot.

The link appeared on Rense.com, but the link points to worldarchitecturenews.com:

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

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar once again, Glenn the cyber parrot.

Go for it, Glenn the cyber parrot, lie to us some more--you lying bastard.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:23, Anonymous chakka said...

Care to present any "evidence", chakka? (And deceptive videos aren't evidence, charlatan).

Or should we expect nothing more than lies, obfuscation and appeals to emotion from the Orwellian "9/11 truth movement"?


What evidence would it take to convince you that there is a possibility the military industrial complex had some hand in orchestrating the tragic events of 9/11?

I already addressed 9/11 deniers failure to acknowledge factual scientific evidence in my second paragraph.

So again I ask what would be accepted as irrefutable evidence that official account of 9/11 is inaccurate at best or at worst intentionally deceptive?

Since the 9/11 deniers want to put the burden of proof on those who say the official story doesn't add up, I ask for the last time; what evidence would
it take to prove the official story doesn't add up?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber parrot prevaricates, "...Dave Shyte, don't divert, don't bloviate. Answer my questions."

Just keep lying, Glenn, because as I've proven, those aren't your questions.

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

Do you ever tell the truth, Glenn the cyber parrot?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill, you are desperately trying to divert to another subtopic. I'm not interested. You WILL answer my precise questions. Let me show them to you again, and I will remind you, you will not find them anywhere else on the net, asked in this form. I dare you to prove me wrong. In fact, I double dare you. Rense? Richard Gage? You're a clown. No comparison. Here we go again.

Did somebody say something about structure collapsing internally? Awesome. I was waiting for that exact prevarication. Now you can explain to me these issues: (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?

And let me add an extra caveat: suppose not all internal structure was removed, then where are the measurable roofline impulses required to account for the work spent crushing this structure?

Okay, 3..2..1.. GO!

Bitches.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave wrote, "...It's typical truther tactic.. Pinhead copies and paste text he doesn't understand from a huckster as if he is making an intelligent point. Very sad."

Bravo!

Exactly, Dave. Well said, sir.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The questions I posed are a direct response to Dave Shyte's ridiculous prevarications:

Dave Shyte: "Point is massive steel beams can fall at close to free fall (little resistance to air) and can do it in the distance that would encompass 8 floors of building 7. Now given much of the internal structure was collapsing well before the north wall finally fell. There was not a lot of the internal structure and the south face to slow the final collapse of the north wall that you see in conspiracy theorist videos."

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, answer the questions, bitches, and stop congratulating each other with accomplishing absolutely nothing. My questions stand unanswered. Especially you, Billy Boy. You have two degrees! What's keeping you? Are you, perhaps, a charlatan and a con artist?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the cyber parrot prevaricates, "...You WILL answer my precise questions."

That's right, Glenn, just keep telling the same lie over-and-over again.

You're sick, Glenn. After all, even when caught red handed lying like a rug, you continue to lie like a hardcore neo-Nazi.

Pathetic.

Any more big lies for us, Herr Streicher?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So tell us, "truthers", where are the 120 dB explosions?

i love when people who are not experts in sound, like shitty musicians and NWO asspuppets want to run they're ass fuck mouths about decibel levels.

120 db isn't that loud fucktard

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

chakka dance around my questions and prevaricates, "...What evidence would it take to convince you that there is a possibility the military industrial complex had some hand in orchestrating the tragic events of 9/11?"

That's not evidence, chakka.

And why do you refuse to present evidence?

Because you don't have any evidence.

Go for it, chakka, parrot Box Boy, like your partner in crime, Glenn Maxey the cyber prevaricator.

Bite me, scumbag.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me assist you, Billy Boy. Answering questions goes approximately as follows.

First, you properly read the questions at hand.

Second, you attempt, to the best of your knowledge, to come up with an answer to the specific question asked, and not to some other question you had rather answer because it might be easier for you to answer

Third, you list your answers in the same concise, sequential manner as they were asked. Were I to ask you, Billy Boy, for example:
(1) Who paid for your college education?

and

(2) Do they feel cheated?

You will reply to these questions as follows:

(1) My mommy and my daddy

(2) They were never too impressed with me in the first place.

That's how you properly answer questions, Billshitter™, and I would especially like to you not the neat sequential format in which the answers are presented. Capiche? Now get your lard ass going, and answer the questions I asked: questions (1), (2), and (3).

Bitch.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the cyber prevaricator whines, "...120 db isn't that loud fucktard."

Fuck you, Glenn, I've forgotten more about dB levels than you'll ever know.

120 dB is louder than a Jimi Hendrix concert--and that's LOUD.

Here's Shyam Sunder on the dB levels involved, assuming "controlled demolition":

Source: YouTube: Engineering Disasters WTC 7 Collapse Explanation..

Any more bullshit for us, Glenn the cyber parrot?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:38, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I believe--and I may be wrong--that behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people."

Yes and there are also better educated, more informed and far less gullible.

And in case you didn't notice a goodly portions of them a very liberal like myself. We are just as likely to debunk birthers and teabaggers, creationists, anti vaccination, acupuncture, free energy scams, PETA, the Pope, aliens, and countless other urban myths.

You may not like the fact your particular delusion is getting knock by a sceptic, but if your cause is true you should have nothing to fear, the truth wins out. But it's been almost 10 years and 9/11 is a joke, and will become a bigger joke in the next ten.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fuck you, Glenn, I've forgotten more about dB levels than you'll ever know."

First of all, that Anonymous was not me, second of all, I am not "Glenn", and third of all, you still haven't answered my questions, Billshitter™. But why would you even try to answer my questions? By now, it's extremely obvious you simply can't.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber parrot prevaricates, "...First, you properly read the questions at hand."

Don't condescend to me--you know-nothing cocksucker.

The burden of proof is Box Boy's and Box Boy's alone.

Once again you stand exposed as a liar and a charlatan, Glenn the cyber parrot.

Fuck you and horse you rode in on, scumbag.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now go away Glenn the cyber parrot.

Your argument is destroyed, and you're a proven liar.

Now go back to 911flogger and spew your know-nothing bullshit, Glenn the cyber Parrot. You bore me.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Bill, obviously you need someone to hold your hand, because I have not seen a sequential point-by-point answer to my three questions. Instead, you stamp your feet and your face turns purple.

I'd call that a resounding defeat. Now, have please answer, your degrees qualify you. Don't answer Gage's questions, I don't care. Answer mine. You have conspicuously failed up until now. (I am not surprised at all)

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave wrote, "...And in case you didn't notice a goodly portions of them a very liberal like myself. We are just as likely to debunk birthers and teabaggers, creationists, anti vaccination, acupuncture, free energy scams, PETA, the Pope, aliens, and countless other urban myths."

Bravo! Well said.

After all, I'm a Democrat.

So what was that about right-wingers and 9/11 debunking, Glenn the cyber parrot?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, that previous comment looks a bit mangled. No matter, just answer the questions.

Look, Dave Shyte, if Billshitter™ can't do it, I suggest you take a stab at it. Surely you're familiar with the concepts of "reading" and "answering questions".

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the bulshitter whines, "...Well, Bill, obviously you need someone to hold your hand, because I have not seen a sequential point-by-point answer to my three questions."

Again, those aren't your questions, Glenn the cyber parrot, as I've already proven beyond a doubt.

And the "resounding defeat" is yours and yours alone.

Now go back to 911flogger--you know-nothing bore.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:51, Anonymous chakka said...

That's not evidence, chakka.

And why do you refuse to present evidence?

Because you don't have any evidence.

Go for it, chakka, parrot Box Boy, like your partner in crime, Glenn Maxey the cyber prevaricator.

Bite me, scumbag.



I can present ample evidence indicating a strong possibility exists that the official story of 9/11 is at best very inaccurate.

However, as I asked, and you FAILED to answer (this is probably why the 9/11 truth is growing exponentially) what evidence would be acceptable?

You tell me what evidence you will accept? Are we talking a signed and notarized confession? A leaked memo like the Northwoods Document outlining the plan for 9/11 signed by Richard Cheney?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Look, Dave Shyte, if Billshitter™ can't do it, I suggest you take a stab at it.

It has been answered time and time again. And for you to understand the answer you will have to become much smarter than you are now. Personally it don't think you have it in you, you are a stupid guy and trying to explain complex ideas to you would be on par with talking to my cat, same IQ level.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Again, those aren't your questions, Glenn the cyber parrot, as I've already proven beyond a doubt."

You have done no such thing. In fact, you've proven that you rather answer the questions of your choice from some other source, rather than mine. I understand.

"And the "resounding defeat" is yours and yours alone."

Absolutely not. You haven't even tried yet. It's pathetic.

"Now go back to 911flogger--you know-nothing bore."

I have a better idea, Billy Boy. Read through my questions, and answer them, sequentially, from 1 to 3. List them neatly and type your answer concisely below the original question. Are we clear?

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Dave Shyte, you too are unfamiliar with the concepts of "reading" and "answering questions"?

It certainly seems like there are serious didactic issues at play at SLC. I'm shocked.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It certainly looks like both of you are simply scared of my questions, and will do whatever it takes to avoid even an attempt at answering them.

Shocking. Pathetic. And very cowardly!

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey whines, "...Look, Dave Shyte, if Billshitter™ can't do it, I suggest you take a stab at it."

I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward).

First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period.

Got it, idiot?

So get to work, Box Boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 09:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, but we are not talking about Richard Gage, Billy Boy. We are talking about the shocking absence of your answers to my three questions. You're a pussy and a coward, and you're obviously stupid.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I can present ample evidence indicating a strong possibility exists that the official story of 9/11 is at best very inaccurate"

That is not proof. Incase you were not aware in science burden of proof is on the one who makes the hypothesis. You say it was a controlled demolition. Show the proof of the controlled demolition hypothesis. What you are doing is akin to what creationist do. They say evolution does not explain speciation, ergo god created it all.

It's a logical fallacy called "God of the Gap" rather than prove your case you look for small holes in the accepted theory and than try and force you 9/11 truth god into that gap.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The absence of answers to my three questions can only mean one thing: they are unanswerable, at least by the likes of you.

But well, ok, this is SLC, not JREF, although even at JREF I'd expect 99% ad hominem and other fallacies. Nor has any JREF-er ever posted his or her calculations w.r.t. to this simultaneous freefall/crushing event.

Interesting. The deafening silence these questions evoke is telling. Thank you for affirming their power.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the cyber cocksucker prevaricates, "...Oh, but we are not talking about Richard Gage, Billy Boy. We are talking about the shocking absence of your answers to my three questions. You're a pussy and a coward, and you're obviously stupid."

More logical fallacies, shit-for-brains.

Read Dave's post again-and-again, Glenn, until you get it through your thick skull:

"...That is not proof. Incase you were not aware in science burden of proof is on the one who makes the hypothesis. You say it was a controlled demolition. Show the proof of the controlled demolition hypothesis. What you are doing is akin to what creationist do. They say evolution does not explain speciation, ergo god created it all...It's a logical fallacy called "God of the Gap" rather than prove your case you look for small holes in the accepted theory and than try and force you 9/11 truth god into that gap."

Again, dumb-fuck:

"...I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Now go back to 911flogger, you know-nothing bore.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:07, Anonymous chakka said...

Yes and there are also better educated, more informed and far less gullible.

And in case you didn't notice a goodly portions of them a very liberal like myself. We are just as likely to debunk birthers and teabaggers, creationists, anti vaccination, acupuncture, free energy scams, PETA, the Pope, aliens, and countless other urban myths.

You may not like the fact your particular delusion is getting knock by a sceptic, but if your cause is true you should have nothing to fear, the truth wins out. But it's been almost 10 years and 9/11 is a joke, and will become a bigger joke in the next ten.


The funny thing is, I never heard of 9/11 truth before last year. I did some research and found out all kinds of very disturbing information. Like our intelligence agencies connections to illegal narcotics distribution in the 80's and 90's. Then I found out that before we invaded Afganistan there was very little poppy farming. Now that the U.S. intelligence agencies are in control of that region the production of poppy is off the scale.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:09, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"You tell me what evidence you will accept? Are we talking a signed and notarized confession?"

Well let start with some real experts on tall building structural engineering saying the towers were a controlled demolition. All you seem to have is a bunch of third rate architects who haven built anything over a story to two. And you have a guy like Steven Jones who has a history of promoting kook ideas like Jesus visiting the American indians and the 80s cold fusion scam.

Show us some steel obviously cut by the shaped cutting explosives used in controlled demolitions. Or if you say it was thermite, show you can cut a decent size steel beam with thermite. No one has done it yet.

Your question mean nothing. Proof please.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill, it's really very simple. Let me explain again to you how you answer questions. (Well normal people, at least)

Answering questions goes approximately as follows.

First, you properly read the questions at hand.

Second, you attempt, to the best of your knowledge, to come up with an answer to the specific question asked, and not to some other question you had rather answer because it might be easier for you to answer

Third, you list your answers in the same concise, sequential manner as they were asked. Were I to ask you, Billy Boy, for example:

(1) Who paid for your college education?

and

(2) Do they feel cheated?

You will reply to these questions as follows:

(1) My mommy and my daddy

(2) They were never too impressed with me in the first place.

That's how you properly answer questions, Billshitter™, and I would especially like you to note the neat sequential format in which the answers are presented. Capiche? Now get your lard ass going, and answer the questions I asked: questions (1), (2), and (3), posted & reposted several times in earlier comments.

Bitch.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the lying broken record whines, "...The absence of answers to my three questions can only mean one thing: they are unanswerable, at least by the likes of you."

Again, dipstick:

"...I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Now, get to work, Box Boy, and release your analysis to the engineering community.

What are YOU afraid of, Box Boy?

Pussy!

Charlatan!

Mental midget!

Liar!

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:13, Anonymous chakka said...

Who is glenn?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you have a guy like Steven Jones who has a history of promoting kook ideas like Jesus visiting the American indians and the 80s cold fusion scam."

False on both counts, he published a very mild examination of similarities between stigmata and Mayan depictions of deities. He included contrary evidence as well. It was an article on the website of a Mormon university, BYU. And let me remind you, all Mormons accept some form of crazy mythology, like Christians do.

Furthermore, Jones was not involved in "cold fusion", but muon-catalyzed fusion, and was successful in doing so, in fact he was and is a pioneer, with publications in Nature which stand to this day.

Next time, I suggest you inform yourself appropriately before parroting bullshit from JREF. Clearly, it is YOU and YOUR ilk who can't resist jumping to conclusions based on fabrications and incomplete data.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Resorting the same lies and logical fallacies over-and-over again isn't proof of anything--with the exception of your boundless intellectual dishonesty, Glenn the cyber parrot.

So where's Box Boy's analysis?

I won't hold my breath, fraud.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chakka: beats me, GuitarBill is simply an absolute nutter.

He's also a coward, who refuses to even attempt to answer my three specific questions.

He prefers declaring victory over some other, easily defeated fool, or alternatively, to answer questions nobody (at least not me) ever asked him in the first place.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

chakka whines, "...Who is glenn?"

Your sister.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:17, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"The funny thing is, I never heard of 9/11 truth before last year. I did some research and found out all kinds of very disturbing information. Like our intelligence agencies connections to illegal narcotics distribution in the 80's and 90's. Then I found out that before we invaded Afganistan there was very little poppy farming. Now that the U.S. intelligence agencies are in control of that region the production of poppy is off the scale."

And what does that have to do with the fact a bunch of scam conspiracy theorist are trying to sucker you?

Want to inform yourself? Read up on how a controlled demolition is done. Not a simple deal that truther try and make you think it is. In all controlled demolition pre-demolition is done that involves pre-cutting beams and careful placing of special shaped cutting charges. These leave a distinct signature of cut. And that doesn't even cover the exact timing required to drop a building, FYI DROP is the proper term for a controlled demolition, not PULL.

Kid. Back away from the truther Kool-Aid. You don't want to become a joke like Brian Good or Glenn do you?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well bill, we're well over a hundred posts, and you still haven't even made the slightest attempt to specifically answer my three questions point by point, even though you claim you are qualified to do so.

What are you so afraid of? Do my questions make you scared? So scared that you refuse to answer them and make some vague, irrelevant demands instead? Surely you believe all truthers are fatally incorrect and deem yourself intellectually far superior.

Well then, Billy Boy, put that awesome gray mass to work and sequentially answer my three questions? Are you a coward? I think you are. It's exceedingly obvious with each pathetic dodge.

You WILL answer my questions, Billy Boy, or you WILL admit you are too stupid to even try.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn Maxey the broken record prevaricates, "...He's also a coward, who refuses to even attempt to answer my three specific questions."

Wrong!

Again, cocksucker:

"......I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Now get to work, Box Boy, and stop blowing smoke up our collective @$$.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Kid. Back away from the truther Kool-Aid. You don't want to become a joke like Brian Good or Glenn do you?"

Dave Shyte, you talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. My three questions were direct responses to your ridiculous excuses. I responded and engaged. Both you and Billy Boy have stopped engaging have both cowardly refused to answer my three specific questions.

They are:

(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?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"he published a very mild examination of similarities between stigmata and Mayan depictions of deities. He included contrary evidence as well. It was an article on the website of a Mormon university, BYU. And let me remind you, all Mormons accept some form of crazy mythology, like Christians do."

Wow! Want a ringing endorsement!

Like I said he is a kook. Now he is into the 9/11 truth myth. He got lucky Pons and Fleishman published their cold fusion scam before he could publish his muon-catalyzed fusion scam. Both don't work.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billy Boy: you're correct, I don't care if you prove anything, right now, I would just like you to stop behaving like a fucking coward and start answering my three questions.

You've got a big mouth, where are your skills to back it up?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the bull-headed broken record prevaricates, "...Well bill, we're well over a hundred posts, and you still haven't even made the slightest attempt to specifically answer my three questions point by point, even though you claim you are qualified to do so."

Again, shit-for-brains:

"...I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Get it through your fucking thick skull, shit-for-brains!

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like I said he is a kook. Now he is into the 9/11 truth myth. He got lucky Pons and Fleishman published their cold fusion scam before he could publish his muon-catalyzed fusion scam. Both don't work."

Bullshit! Jones' work is published and stands! Do you even know the difference between "cold fusion" and muon-catalyzed fusion?

How pathetic are your lies!

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit-for-brains whines, '...Billy Boy: you're correct, I don't care if you prove anything, right now, I would just like you to stop behaving like a fucking coward and start answering my three questions."

Again, shit-for-brains:

"...I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Now, get to work, Box Boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billy Boy, you WILL answer my three questions, or you WILL stand as fucking coward, a moron, a whimp and an imbecile, clearly not worth your two degrees. Are we clear?

You're a disgrace to the educational system. Bah.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn whines, "...You've got a big mouth, where are your skills to back it up?"

I proved my math skills months ago, remember Glenn?

And you utterly failed, remember Glenn?

Pussy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Billy Boy, you WILL answer my three questions, or you WILL stand as fucking coward, a moron, a whimp and an imbecile, clearly not worth your two degrees. Are we clear?"

Again, you self-serving cocksucker:

"...I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Just keep it up, troll.

Now, get to work, Box Boy, because the burden of proof is yours and yours alone.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I proved my math skills months ago, remember Glenn?

And you utterly failed, remember Glenn?"

Uhmm....I don't care about your imaginary friend, and I do not claim to be credentialed myself. But I do know enough math and physics to understand what is true and what is false.

Now answer my three questions, coward. You're nothing but a wimp. My questions scare you, that much is clear.

Dave Shyte? Still unwilling to have a go yourself? Are you as scared as Billy Boy or do you have some balls?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:33, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"(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?"

That is because NIST had better access to video than just the 6 seconds YouTube conspiracy theorist post. Also the FDNY reported bulging and leaning. After all they were there.

Like is said Glenn you are just not bright enough for this stuff. Care to cut and paste more bull you can't understand?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber monkey whines, "...You're a disgrace to the educational system. Bah."

Yeah, and that explains why you can't do a simple derivation.

Bite me!

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YES!!!!

Thank you Dave Kyte. You have balls. You've attempted to answer question (2) Billy Boy obviously doesn't.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

'...Now answer my three questions, coward. You're nothing but a wimp. My questions scare you, that much is clear."

Again, shit-for-brains:

"......I don't have to prove anything. As usual, you self-serving cocksucker, you have it 180 degrees out of phase (backward)...First, Box Boy must support his thesis by doing the "analysis" and "calculations". Next, he must present his findings to the engineering community. Finally, the engineering community will subject his findings to rigorous analysis and either accept or reject his thesis--period."

Now, I'm done with you--you know-nothing bore.

Present your analysis to the engineering community, or fuck-off and die, Box Boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:37, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Bullshit! Jones' work is published and stands! Do you even know the difference between "cold fusion" and muon-catalyzed fusion?"

And this from a moron who can't even explain simple high school science of free fall.

Well I see Jones has got you conned on free energy scam too. Well once a sucker....... You are a joke.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Kyte, there is plenty of raw, non-Youtube footage out there, and it's clear to me that you haven't examined NIST's simulations if you are going to actually claim that the severe facade deformation, such as crumpling, contorting and even the flanks folding completely towards the middle which are all demonstrated in NIST's simulation can be observed in said raw footage.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Thank you Dave Kyte. You have balls. You've attempted to answer question (2) Billy Boy obviously doesn't."

So now your turn moron.

FREE FALL, I know it's way over your skill level but give it a try.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And this from a moron who can't even explain simple high school science of free fall."

This your fantasy, not actual reality.

"Well I see Jones has got you conned on free energy scam too. Well once a sucker....... You are a joke."

You are free to publish your rebuttal of Jones' work in Nature. Nature would gladly accept your publication if you weren't a two-bit charlatan full of shit.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So now your turn moron.

FREE FALL, I know it's way over your skill level but give it a try."

If you try to answer the other two as well (I've responded to your answer to (2), btw), I will go all out and try my very best to answer your question. Promise. I'm not the Billshitter™

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber donkey lies, "...Billy Boy obviously doesn't."

No, until you commit your bullshit to paper, I refuse to answer your questions.

Why?

Because you'll simply lie and say, "We never said that."

You've done it before and you'll do it again, and there's no way I'm going down slippery slope again. Got it, clown?

Put it on paper, slippery sophist, or piss off.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:44, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

It is clear in videos of 7 the east penthouse fall into the structure a good 3 seconds before the north wall falls. Funny how truthers avoid this little inconvenient fact.

How could this have happened without the collapse of the internal structure below it?

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:47, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If you try to answer the other two as well (I've responded to your answer to (2), btw), I will go all out and try my very best to answer your question. Promise. I'm not the Billshitter™"

If you don't understand it just admit it. I know it's hard for your type and all. Nobody is blaming you for having bad genetics.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave wrote, "...3 seconds."

No, it was 9 seconds.

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

Source: YouTube: WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill, go away, heh. Somebody stepped to the plate. Your chances have come and gone.

"It is clear in videos of 7 the east penthouse fall into the structure a good 3 seconds before the north wall falls. Funny how truthers avoid this little inconvenient fact.

How could this have happened without the collapse of the internal structure below it?"

Very good point. However, the exact nature of his internal structure collapse is unclear to me. How far did it propagate? And if it involved the entire length of the building, as the facade suggests, where is the accompanying facade distortion as demonstrated in the simulation? This leads me to suspect the failure is much more localized than we are lead to believe by NIST.

Still, it's a good point, Dave.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me, "as the facade suggests" should have read "as the simulation suggests".

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:54, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You are free to publish your rebuttal of Jones' work in Nature. Nature would gladly accept your publication if you weren't a two-bit charlatan full of shit.

I would go the Jones route and pay a vanity publisher like Bentham Open Journals. He did pay to be peer reviewed you know.

9/11 Truthers Just as Good as CRAP

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:56, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Very good point. However, the exact nature of his internal structure collapse is unclear to me.

That is the crux of the problem. Most stuff is unclear to a mental midget like yourself. That is why you buy conspiracy theorist crap. Not enough brain power.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...If you try to answer the other two as well (I've responded to your answer to (2), btw), I will go all out and try my very best to answer your question. Promise. I'm not the Billshitter™"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What transparent BS.

On the contrary, we understand the concept free fall acceleration. And we've proved right here at SLC, more than once.

You on the other hand...

Piss-off, sophist.

 
At 17 April, 2010 10:58, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Work on the free fall thing Glenn. Maybe a spark of intelligence will form in your head. Maybe not.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Question, Glenn:

Glenn the cyber cretin stands on top of a structure 8.3 meters in height, and drops his bag of meth, which weights one lbs., from the top of the structure.

How long will it take for Glenn's bag of dope to strike the ground?


Now get to work, genius.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would go the Jones route and pay a vanity publisher like Bentham Open Journals. He did pay to be peer reviewed you know."

Yeah, right, Dave Shyte.

Okay, so is this the extent to which my three questions are going to be answered? Disappointing. I thought Dave Shyte was gaining some actual momentum for a second there.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billy Boy, you are disqualified from the discussion by virtue of behaving like an abject coward. For more than a hundred posts, you ignored my three questions. As soon as Shyteman attempts to answer all three of mine, I will answer any equal amount of questions (by him) to me.

You, Billshitter™, are welcome to take a hike and play with yourself. You are on 'ignore' now, heh.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, Billshitter™, you of all people, with your two degrees, should know that mass is irrelevant for freefall calculations. Sigh. Just go play outside will you. There plenty of people to scare out of their wits with you atrocious gitfiddling.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn whines, "...Billy Boy, you are disqualified from the discussion by virtue of behaving like an abject coward."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And that, my friends, is proof positive that Glenn the cyber cretin is a charlatan.

After all, that's a high school-level physics question, which should take you no more than 5 minutes to answer.

And YOU have the unmitigated gall to lecture us about free fall acceleration?

Charlatan.

Liar.

Flunky.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn, prevaricates, "...Oh and by the way, Billshitter™, you of all people, with your two degrees, should know that mass is irrelevant for freefall calculations."

I'm well aware that mass makes no difference.

It's called a trick question, which is common in academia.

Yet, I'm still waiting for your answer.

Now get to work, charlatan. And don't forget to show your work, pea brain.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, Billshitter™, I am going to answer your bullshit high school level physics question and then you are going to fuck off from this discussion, because your ankle biting interference is fucking up the signal to noise ratio.

t = SQRT(2d/g)

t = SQRT(2*8.3/9.8)
t = SQRT(1.69)
t = 1,3 seconds.

Now fuck off.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correct.

So which automated website did you use to get your answer?

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, back to more pressing matters, now that child Billy Boy is dispatched outside to go fly a kite.

Dave Shyte, how about about my other two questions? I'm keen to learn your "insights". After all, the above exchange you were right on the mark about muon-catalyzed fusion. LOL.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...t = 1,3 seconds."

That's 1.3 seconds, goofball.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Answer the question, goofball:

So which automated website did you use to get your answer?

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So which automated website did you use to get your answer?"

You blockhead, which kind of "automated website" includes the steps to get there? You didn't answer my three questions for more than a hundred posts. Now make like a tree and leave, bati boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Have a nice day, Glenn the cyber parrot.

And let us know when you have an original idea.

And don't forget to remind Box Boy to publish his pure, unadulterated garbage, because I'm waiting to demolish his delusional horse droppings.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the words of Billman:

"So there's that mindset we all come in here with, with suttle variations. And then there are trolls on both sides who just want to piss people off. And there's the pointless nitpicking, like when people bitch about spelling, I'm like "you still got the point, right?"

The answer was correct, and oh boy, I accidentally used a comma instead of a dot. More proof that I didn't use an "automated website". (Which website isn't "automated") anyway.

Just go, fucktard, you have three questions to answer, and you failed miserably for a complete fucking day in doing so. And I find myself having to "prove" to a fucktard moron like you that I know basic physics. This is high school stuff, you twat. Everybody can do it.

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber parrot whines, "...You didn't answer my three questions for more than a hundred posts. "

And how many questions have you avoided, Glenn the cyber prevaricator? I count at least 10.

I'll tell you what, Glenn, you answer my question, and I'll answer yours.


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


Now get to work

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber parrot whines, "...You didn't answer my three questions for more than a hundred posts.

Really Glenn? Then what are these:

10 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?

Any more duplicity for us, Glenn the cyber sophist?

 
At 17 April, 2010 11:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm a big believer in the Socratic Method; thus, all the answers to your "questions" are contained in the following simple question, which you've studiously avoided for almost two hours:

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


Now get to work, Glenn.

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No way in hell. You owe me three questions to answer. I was crazy enough to engage your physics challenge, now I'm done.

Three questions, Billy Boy. You never did answer a single one of them.

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bullshit, Glenn the cyber prevaricator?

I posted this question today at 9:16 AM:

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

It's been three hours now, Glenn the cyber parrot, and NO ANSWER.

And what's your answer?

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Thus, you stand exposed as a charlatan, a know-nothing parrot, and a double-dealing liar.

Put that in your meth pipe and smoke it, Glenn.

Now, I'm done with you, Pinocchio.

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted MY QUESTIONS at 6:36 fuckwad, that's almost three hours EARLIER THAN YOURS.

You're in no position to making demands, Billy Boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What took you so long to respond (~45 minute), Glenn the cyber prevaricator?

I guess you couldn't find an answer to cut-and-paste from some idiotic 9/11 conspiranoid website. Right, Glenn?

Such is life for a paranoid conspiracy parrot.

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was getting a bite to eat Billy Boy. You overestimate your own relevance. BTW: unlike you, I don't munch away incessantly on a government dick sandwich.

 
At 17 April, 2010 12:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore, I've already told you how it's going to be sweet Billy Boy. You WILL answer my three questions, or you WILL admit defeat.

Defeat is inevitable. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated. Heh.

 
At 17 April, 2010 14:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the cyber prevaricator barks, "...Furthermore, I've already told you how it's going to be sweet Billy Boy. You WILL answer my three questions, or you WILL admit defeat."

I'll admit nothing of the sort--you lying cocksucker. Since when do I take orders from a pencil-necked liar of your ilk?

You can kiss my ass, Glenn.

Again, I refuse to waste my time making calculations based upon Box Boy's faulty assumptions.

Now, shit-for-brains, if Box Boy wants to waste his time on that pointless endeavor, be my guest.

And when he's finished, he can release his work to the engineering community.

Furthermore, until Box Boy puts his "study" in writing, I refuse to anything, nor do I have to do anything, while the "9/11 truth movement" presents a moving target. The fact is that if I commit to anything with you scumbags, you'll merely move the target and make more false claims. So until you put your shit in writing, you get nothing from me. After all, why should I trust a "truth movement" that relies on deceptive videos and bald-faced lies?

Got it, ass-clown?

Again, put it in writing, and I'll demolish him.

Now, get to work Box Boy.

 
At 17 April, 2010 14:09, Anonymous chakka said...

And what does that have to do with the fact a bunch of scam conspiracy theorist are trying to sucker you?

Want to inform yourself? Read up on how a controlled demolition is done. Not a simple deal that truther try and make you think it is. In all controlled demolition pre-demolition is done that involves pre-cutting beams and careful placing of special shaped cutting charges. These leave a distinct signature of cut. And that doesn't even cover the exact timing required to drop a building, FYI DROP is the proper term for a controlled demolition, not PULL.

Kid. Back away from the truther Kool-Aid. You don't want to become a joke like Brian Good or Glenn do you?



Thank you for the truth kool aid advisory, I'm not too sure who those guys are, sorry. And I'm still wondering who this Glenn is, I'm assuming we're not talking Glenn Beck?...



When you look at the reality that a military industrial complex does exist

And, you research history to find that the FBI knew about the 1993 bombing and wanted it to proceed in spite of the hesitation expressed by their operative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem

And learn that most of the really high ups involved with the Iran Contra Scandal were back in power during the Bush 2 administration, I found out these guys think that genocide would make politically useful tool, so no I don't think Dick Cheney would bat an eyelash at killing thousands and thousands of Americans.

Now, think about all coincidental security failures and catastrophic and catalyzing events that happened at just the right time each and every time for the terrorist to score, big time! I really haven't looked into controlled demolition too much.

 
At 17 April, 2010 14:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 17 April, 2010 17:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What happened Glenn the cyber quote miner?

You don't want to play anymore?

After all, no response in 3 hours.

*crickets*

*crickets*

So Glenn, now that your credibility can be measured in negative engineering units, how does it feel to stand TOTALLY DISCREDITED?

Fuck you, Glenn.

 
At 18 April, 2010 00:37, Anonymous chakka said...

who is glenn?

 
At 18 April, 2010 07:33, Blogger an said...

Hi,

Nice post! Your content is very valuable to me and

just make it as my reference. Keep blogging with new

post! Unique and useful to follower....

Cheers,

car audio

schools

 
At 19 April, 2010 07:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

This just in:Nutty fruitcake "GuitarShill" called someone a "broken record"!! What is your major malfunction,numbnuts? Too much jerking off has you delusional and living in a fantasy world.

 
At 19 April, 2010 08:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Onan the "truther" sociopath scribbles, "...Too much jerking off has you delusional and living in a fantasy world."

Projecting again, Onan?

Poor baby, it must really hurt to learn that Box Boy is a quote mining fuck, who "jerks you around" for "9/11 truth".

Dupe.

Simpleton.

Retard.

Don't look now, Arsehoolie, but there's hair on your palms.

Just another jerk-off for "9/11 truth".

So, tell me, Onan, when will you address Norman Mineta's fatally flawed time line--you know-nothing retard?

 
At 19 April, 2010 17:12, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The ShrillGit,he takes a licking and keeps on ticking! Go for it,dude! Bitchin'! You up for it? Far out,man!

 
At 19 April, 2010 17:35, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
The ShrillGit,he takes a licking and keeps on ticking! Go for it,dude! Bitchin'! You up for it? Far out,man!"

Could someone translate this drool puddle into English?

Thanks.

 
At 19 April, 2010 17:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LL wrote, "...Could someone translate this drool puddle into English?"

Yeah, no problem.

Translation: "...I've had my lying head handed to me so many times by GuitarBill that I'm reduced to idiotic ad hominem attacks."

 
At 20 April, 2010 07:12, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Then I found out that before we invaded Afganistan there was very little poppy farming.'

Bull ... shit.

From Ahmed Rashid, 'Taliban' (London: I. B. Tauris 2001), p.124.

'The taxes on opium exports became the mainstay of Taliban income and their war economy. In 1995 UNDCP estimated that the Pakistan-Afghanistan drugs exports were earning some 50 billion rupees (US$1.35bn) a year. By 1998 heroin exports had doubled in value to US$3 billion. Drugs money funded the weapons, ammunition and fuel for the war. It provided food and clothes for the soldiers and paid the salaries, transport and perks that the Taliban leadership allowed its fighters. The only thing that can be said in the Taliban's favour was that unlike in the past, this income did not appear to line the pockets of their leaders, as they continued to live extremely frugal lives. But it made the Afghan and Pakistani traffickers extremely rich'.

In October 1998, Pino Arlacchi, the head of UNDCP estimated that Afghan heroin supplied 50% of the world's demand (and 80% in Europe; Rashid, p.123). It was also the drug of choice for an estimated 5 million Pakistani and 1.2 million Iranian addicts by 1998.

 
At 20 April, 2010 07:18, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

More on the Taliban and drugs:

In December 1999 Maulvi Hafizullah, an Afghan Talib leader, warned the US journalist Peter Bergen that 'We can unleash a 'heroin bomb' to match your atomic bomb' (see 'Holy War Inc' (NY: Free Press 2001), p.143).

 
At 20 April, 2010 07:25, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

It's also noteworthy that the Taliban's 'ban' in July 2000 involved poppy growth, not the production of heroin from existing crops or distribution. So it no discernible effect on the trade whatsoever, and the Taliban continued to profit from it:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6210.pdf

And indeed the drugs trade fuels the Taliban insurgency now:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/drugs-for-guns-how-the-afghan-heroin-trade-is-fuelling-the-taliban-insurgency-817230.html

What does it take for truthers to actually do some proper research?

 
At 20 April, 2010 11:35, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Can someone inform the Gullible Goofball in Blighty that Hamid Karzai's own brother is one of the biggest heroin and hash kingpins on the planet Earth.In other words the devastation that heroin causes in Europe and the USA is directly enabled to our puppet government in Afghanistan.What the fuck is so hard for you saps to put together with that information in hand? Peter Bergen?!?Is he the sly little chap with "Stenographer" tattooed to his forehead?

 
At 20 April, 2010 11:37, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Correction:enabled "by" our puppet government....

 
At 21 April, 2010 01:24, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Got the evidence on Rigi yet, Walt? 2 months since his arrest and counting ...

Incidentally, well done for noticing that there's corruption within the Afghan government. But those of us who are not retards recognise that Afghans don't need mythical spooks from Langley to tell them to grow poppies. They tend to take the initiative themselves - just like the Taliban did in the 1990s, and continue to do now.

I'm still also waiting for you to prove that it's possible to arrange a CD in which a building collapse hours, rather than seconds, after the det charges go off.

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

They're not printing all of my comments.Is anyone else having tbhis problem,or is SLC bigger pussies than I thought? It's happened about 8 times in the past month.What gives Paddy? I'll deal with you,Sackdoily,tomorrow.My response to your loony comment didn't go up and I'm outta here!

 
At 22 April, 2010 04:57, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'They're not printing all of my comments.'

It's called 'moderation', Walt.

'I'll deal with you,Sackdoily,tomorrow.'

Can hardly wait. Maybe you found all that evidence linking Jundollah to Langley after all.

 
At 23 April, 2010 20:08, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Wrong Sackdoily,but what else is new? Busy boning up on your Gary Webb,I trust?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home