Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Pacifica Stations To Ban Opposition to Da Troof

Gotta laugh at this one:

The Official Story of 911 is found by many Pacifica Foundation members to be a propaganda fabrication designed to provide a pretext for the unleashing of aggressive war in Afghanistan and Iraq, while hiding the activity of a private, extra-legal, and anti-constitutional network of officials in the United States government, high ranking military officers, and individuals within private corporations and political institutions, who actively prepared, promoted, organized, assisted, fomented, and/or passively enabled the September 11 attacks and the cover-up that followed.

Pacifica Foundation members have made repeated and long standing accusations of censorship of 911 Truth issues by programmers who have advanced the official propaganda fabrication, and against staff, management, and governance who support them. This has created an atmosphere of corrosive distrust, profoundly harmful to working together in a democratic and collaborative environment. Thousands of former Pacifica Foundation members have left over this issue.


Of course, they're leaving themselves the fig leaf that they just want both sides of the issue discussed, but this is pretty specific:

2. Programming which consistently and unquestioningly advances the “official story” of 911, by commission or omission, is not consistent with the Pacifica Mission and may be a breach of both the letter and spirit of the Mission.


And it's not as if Pacifica hasn't engaged in plenty of 9-11 kookery. Remember that Box Boy Gage claims he became a "Truther" after listening to David Ray Griffin on KPFK's Guns and Butter. No Lies Radio, an inaptly named show, indulges in Trooferism quite often, with Kevin Barrett and Carol Brouillet as regular guests.

Update, the proposal is being put forth by Christopher Bayard Condon, a longtime 9-11 nutbar. He served as the foreman on a "Citizens Grand Jury" in LA back in 2005. The charges are worth a look; most are the absurd crap that you'd see in Loose Change I or II. For example:

1. At least eight of the alleged hijackers identified by the FBI were alive after 9/11, none of their names were on the flight manifest lists, and no physical evidence of any of their bodies' remains were found at any of the attack sites, nor were any of the names of any of the alleged hijackers on any of the flight manifests of any of the four airplanes, and that evidence linking the specific identities to the incidents appears - at best - planted to assure association, but illogical given the nature of the crime to be committed and the personalities involved; the government's assertion that the alleged 19 hijackers operated without being detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the alleged hijackers — whatever their identities and whatever their involvement - acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself.


Here's his candidate statement for the board. After a paragraph of resume, we get this:

I am committed to finding a PD who understands the deleterious consequences of the last eight years of censorship on 911 at KPFK; and is committed to implementing the policy of the LSB for free and open discussion and debate on what happened to us on that fateful day.

I first became involved in KPFK out of disgust over our Public Affairs programmers apparently adopting a unitary line over 911, supporting the official propaganda fabrication, and belittling and insulting as "conspiracy theorists" any who would question the obviously false cover up of 911 - on Free Speech Radio. Our Public Affairs programming, with some exceptions, seems to be an open conduit for establishment views into the progressive left, at best. At worst, they are an uncritical conduit for whatever disinformation roll-out the CIA and National Security state wants to foist on the American people. The 911 lie tops the list, but is not the only issue.

After two years of investigation I can report to the listeners -the electorate - that there has indeed been an organized censorship, always denied, of 911 related issues and the National Security and Economic consequences, at KPFK. This has been undertaken by a small group of Public Affairs programmers both at KPFK and Pacifica wide who not only do not want to deal truthfully with 911, but don't want anyone else at KPFK to do so either. I do not know where these programmers came from, did we inherit them, they seem to have been here for decades and feel they own their on-air time.

Labels: ,

140 Comments:

At 28 April, 2010 18:30, Blogger Triterope said...

According to the blog post, they're just voting on it. Let's give it a chance to fail.

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

A lot of this is driven by the desire of some ultra-left types to force Amy Goodman to give more air time to troofers. Some have even gone as far as claiming she is an NWO stooge. I guess once you buy into one conspiracy theory, all the others must be valid too.

 
At 28 April, 2010 19:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pacifica Foundation wrote, "...Pacifica Foundation members have made repeated and long standing accusations of censorship of 911 Truth issues by programmers who have advanced the official propaganda fabrication, and against staff, management, and governance who support them. This has created an atmosphere of corrosive distrust, profoundly harmful to working together in a democratic and collaborative environment. Thousands of former Pacifica Foundation members have left over this issue."

Orwellian much, Pacifica Foundation? Here's the truth:

In fact, KPFA (Berkeley, CA, the "flagship of the far-left Pacifica Network") runs a show called Guns and Butter hosted by a woman named Bonnie Faulkner.

For example, you'll find dozens of Guns and Butter audio programs chock-full of troofer nuttery:

[1] A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero.

[2] Why The Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed.

[3] Guns and Butter--Live With Architect Richard Gage.

[4] Ground Zero Evidence of High Tech Explosives with physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones.

[5] 9/11 Let's Get Empirical excerpts from a film featuring David Ray Griffin.

[6] 9/11 and Nationalist Faith with Dr. David Ray Griffin.

And that's just a small sample. The Guns and Butter archive goes back to January 2003.

For more examples, see the following URL:

Source: KPFA Radio: All available archives for Guns and Butter.

 
At 28 April, 2010 20:36, Blogger Sam said...

Point made by one of the commenters:

"It is inevitable that Pacifica stations attract such paranoid extremes, but it should also be a given that their management would reject attempts to air them for serious consideration."

 
At 29 April, 2010 02:22, Blogger angrysoba said...

This is pretty brave!

The US secret service (or Mossad) might hijack his plane and fly it into the UN Building.

 
At 29 April, 2010 04:36, Anonymous chakka said...

Now let's look at the current political atmosphere in the country, specifically, the way the mainstream press portrays the events of and surrounding 9/11. This time I'm going to put the burden of proof, if you will, on you. You show me one mainstream journalist who even hints that 9/11was an inside job there's one condition: said journalist still has to be employed at the establishment where he aired this bit of lunacy at least one month after the said airing of said lunacy.

Again, please tell me if you've seen anyone in the mainstream press offer even the subtlest hint that they think our government in any way might have had a deliberate hand in 9/11. I haven't. In fact, all I have seen is the mainstream press parrot the government's version of what happened.

And it's not just the mainstream press. Here's a snippet, the first paragraph, of a piece by one Robert Scheer, called 'Cashing In on Terror'. I got it from The Nation's website, but it was originally published on a sight called 'truthdig.com'. I quote, 'Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn't on the payroll of Lockheed Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush's pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated cold war-style weapons systems.' Unquote. The article goes on to show how fabulously wealthy a number of defense contractors have become thanks to the 'Global War on Terror.

Now, why did he have to start the piece that way? It's not an article about 9/11, it's an article about the defense industry's huge financial gains since 9/11. And yet, the very first sentence in his little thesis begins with 'Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet…'. I mean, who gives a shit if he stokes – or is seen as stoking – some inane theories? Well, obviously, he does. Given the unequaled prominence of that line – the very first line of the whole piece – it's obviously very important that no one gets the impression that he would possibly want, in any way, to lend credence to the idea that 9/11 was anything but what 'everybody' knows it is: a terrorist attack on the US that had absolutely nothing to do with any American agency in any way. It would be inane – at best! – to suggest anything else.

I'll ask you: why was it so important for him to say this?

 
At 29 April, 2010 04:37, Anonymous chakka said...

Of course, we're talking about an old phenomenon. The Emperor's New Clothes is the version we're all familiar with. Interesting tale, that. Why does everyone know about that story? What is it that gives it staying power, so much so that it's become a symbol for a kind of human behavior that we're all familiar with? Obviously, because it's a kind of human behavior that we're all familiar with. It strikes a chord in us, because we've all seen it, in one place or another. No doubt one could write a doctoral thesis on that behavior (I'd be surprised if no one has), but without going that far, I think it's safe to say that it boils down to this: most people know, at an instinctual, unconscious level, that if they're going to be the first one in their crowd to suggest that a very strongly-held belief might actually be horseshit, they'll open themselves up to a world of hurt. Mr. Scheer knows it. None of his peers are going near any 9/11 conspiracy theories. Shit, the term 'conspiracy theory', in common parlance, has become synonymous with 'lunacy'. (As if the act of merely entertaining a theory that a conspiracy might exist, is insane. But… people do conspire. Conspiracies do happen. If one only has partial information about a crime, then one might speculate, or theorize, if you will, that a conspiracy took place. At some point, a hell of a lot crimes that detectives try and solve entail the detective coming up with a 'conspiracy theory' about how it happened, who was involved, and how to get to the truth.)

 
At 29 April, 2010 04:52, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Shit, the term 'conspiracy theory', in common parlance, has become synonymous with 'lunacy'.'

Ever wondered why?

 
At 29 April, 2010 04:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chakka ran his mouth off about...

At some point, a hell of a lot crimes that detectives try and solve entail the detective coming up with a 'conspiracy theory' about how it happened, who was involved, and how to get to the truth.)

You're confusing TV and movies with reality again. In real life, detectives form a narrative THAT FITS ALL THE FACTS (or at least has a rational explanation for them all). The various forms of 9/11 Twoof Theory floating around on the Internet do not even attempt to rationalize any evidence that contradicts them, they simply explain it away as COINTELPRO or some other ridiculous dismissal.

 
At 29 April, 2010 05:01, Anonymous Fucktard Patrol said...

Anonymous said...
You're confusing TV and movies with reality again. In real life, detectives form a narrative THAT FITS ALL THE FACTS (or at least has a rational explanation for them all). The various forms of 9/11 Twoof Theory floating around on the Internet do not even attempt to rationalize any evidence that contradicts them, they simply explain it away as COINTELPRO or some other ridiculous dismissal.

PICK A FUCKING NAME YOU DIPSHIT MARMOSET FUCKTARD!!!!

 
At 29 April, 2010 05:18, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Shit, the term 'conspiracy theory', in common parlance, has become synonymous with 'lunacy'."

That'd be because they, and you, are insane.

 
At 29 April, 2010 05:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

It's kinda ironic that the reactionary leftist nutbags at Pacifica are having issues with the Twoooofer™ nutbags.

 
At 29 April, 2010 05:54, Anonymous sock puppet all in your face said...

Lazarus Long said...
It's kinda ironic that the reactionary leftist nutbags at Pacifica are having issues with the Twoooofer™ nutbags.

it rich against poor, quit with the left vs right lie, it really corporate fascists v liberty

 
At 29 April, 2010 07:25, Anonymous Shmuckhard Eggroll said...

"PICK A FUCKING NAME YOU DIPSHIT MARMOSET FUCKTARD!!!!"

GET A TRACTOR TO PULL THAT PIN FROM YOUR UPTIGHT ASS, YUPPIE.

 
At 29 April, 2010 07:28, Blogger Triterope said...

You show me one mainstream journalist who even hints that 9/11 was an inside job there's one condition: said journalist still has to be employed at the establishment where he aired this bit of lunacy at least one month after the said airing of said lunacy.

You're right that no professional journalist would dare suggest a belief in 9-11 conspiracy theories. But you're wrong about why.

A professional journalist doing what you suggest would be grounds for immediate termination from any news organization that cares about its credibility.

9-11 Truth isn't being "censored." It does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world. Just like Bigfoot and Elvis sightings.

Mainstream media does not cover 9-11 Truth because they're afraid, or bought off, or censored, or whatever juvenile analogy you think applies.

Mainstream does not cover 9-11 Truth for one reason: because it is complete bullshit.

 
At 29 April, 2010 07:33, Anonymous Bikerman said...

[b]'Shit, the term 'conspiracy theory', in common parlance, has become synonymous with 'lunacy'.'

Ever wondered why?[/b]

No, I haven't.

To anyone with a functioning brain the reason why these terms are almost always interchangeable is glaringly obvious.

To get back on topic, my local Pacifica station plays GREAT music when they are not playing their zany political / talk programming.

To call Pacifica "left" is like calling the John Birch Society "right". They are both so far into kookland that any meaningful "left" versus "right" is practically meaningless.

 
At 29 April, 2010 08:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Triteyoke, there is one problem with your derailed train of "thought" though.

Mainstream media is covering 9/11 truth, both positively and negatively.

The affiliation or nationality of a news network is going to be an indicator of how balanced such coverage is going to be, so for example Fox News and BBC giving fair coverage of 9/11 is clearly impossible.

However, various European broadcasters (Italian, French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Russian, Danish) have made several reports about 9/11 truth, and I am thankful for that.

You should be too, after all, you're a brainwashed pea-brained moron whose mental empty cup is filled with warmongering, racist, and state obedient bile every single fucking day.

And then you come here and parrot what you heard, pretending you are the inventor of the propaganda you echo. It's revealingly pathetic, every time.

 
At 29 April, 2010 08:33, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

Bikerman: 1
Anonymous Kook: 0

 
At 29 April, 2010 08:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

crypticbullshit.com 1
Troy Sexton 0

 
At 29 April, 2010 08:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy, really, I'm serious, get the fuck out. Your children need you to take your meds and stop trolling the internet. You've abused and embarrassed them enough already. You're being an irresponsible dick by coming here and not listening to your therapist.

I think it would be best if someone informed your therapist of this relapse, for the sake of your neglected, embarrassed and abused kids.

 
At 29 April, 2010 09:57, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

OK. I'll ask my therapist. I just need some information on who this person is.

Once again, I appreciate your concern for my kids, who's future will be much, much brighter than the current life youre leading.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of get the fuck out didn't you understand, ape? Do you think it's funny? Do you think it's amusing that your stalker obsessions continue at great cost of your children? Try being a fucking dad without chucking your kids over a fence for a change, convicted child abuser.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:08, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

Well, my one boy was swinging a rake in the driveway yesterday.

So I blackened his eye. True story.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, in that case, you need to reported to the police. Again.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:21, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

Make the call, kook. I'll just say he fell down the steps.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Mainstream media is covering 9/11 truth, both positively and negatively.

Then why are you on here whining that they're not? Why does this Bayard Condon guy feel the need to propose rules that dictate the editorial judgment of an entire radio network?

The affiliation or nationality of a news network is going to be an indicator of how balanced such coverage is going to be, so for example Fox News and BBC giving fair coverage of 9/11 is clearly impossible.

What did I just say?

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

You come here and parrot what you heard, pretending you are the inventor of the propaganda you echo.

No, I went to college for four years, got a degree in journalism, and worked as a News Director for many years after that.

And being called a parrot by some Anontard who makes the DURR SHEEPLE DURR MEDIA BIAS DURR CENSORSHIP DURRRRRRRRRRRRR act we've seen a million fucking times is very, very funny to me. Thanks for the chuckle.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, I went to college for four years, got a degree in journalism, and worked as a News Director for many years after that."

You've just magnified your embarrassment tenfold. I don't understand why you think saying this helps you look better in any way. It proves your obfuscation of 9/11 is deliberate and contrived.

 
At 29 April, 2010 10:51, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

It proves your obfuscation of 9/11 is deliberate and contrived.

paranoid twerp

 
At 29 April, 2010 11:06, Blogger Triterope said...

I don't understand why you think saying this helps you look better in any way

I'm sure you don't.

 
At 29 April, 2010 11:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't understand the irony, do you Triteyoke. You whine about us supposedly whining about censorship, and you have done nothing but showcase your own aggressive bias and intolerance of any news considered by you to be "unamerican".

(Translation: anything too negative about the government)

Screw you, and all other mockingbirds like you, who disgrace the profession of journalism.

 
At 29 April, 2010 11:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mainstream does not cover 9-11 Truth for one reason: because it is complete bullshit."

Actually they did cover 9/11 truth at several points during their peak. Everyone from Alex Jones to the Loose Change kids have been on mainstream.

- BBC
- Fox News
- CNN
- Russia Today
- Al-Jazeera
- Vanity Fair
- Penthouse

The list goes on and on and on...to suggest that 9/11 truthers did not get any spotlight is just bullshit cranked to 11. They did and people found them to be downright stupid. They got their fame and because they had no evidence behind their crackpot theories, they were laughed at instead of being taken seriously.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:03, Blogger Triterope said...

censorship

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

bias

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

intolerance of any news considered by you to be "unamerican".

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

anything too negative about the government

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

Screw you, and all other mockingbirds like you, who disgrace the profession of journalism.

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

9-11 Truth does not receive coverage because it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

You didn't hear me the first two times, so I'm going to keep saying it until you figure it out.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a slight problem with that tripeyokel. Mainstream media did cover 9/11 truth. Repeatedly, and in many cases, fairly.

Apparently, you didn't catch that the first time. Where, for example, do you think Danny Jowenko's statement came from?

Where did the C-SPAN coverage come from? Where did the broadcast of 9/11 press for truth on local media come from? Where did all the fair interviews with Richard Gage come from?

I know you are in denial, and I know you lie to justify your denial.

This is not surprising. You are a whimp, a cretin, and a traitor.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You see, we've seen the kind of tactics ABC used at the Treason In America conference.

These people are you, and you are these people.

(= no journalistic integrity whatsoever)

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:13, Blogger Triterope said...

Actually they did cover 9/11 truth at several points during their peak. Everyone from Alex Jones to the Loose Change kids have been on mainstream.

True. But that was coverage of 9-11 Truth as a political and social phenomenon, as opposed to any serious evaluation of their claims. Certainly 9-11 Truth was once newsworthy in that regard.

And I say "was" because this peak you speak of was four years ago. 9-11 Truth is about as current as the results of the Turin Olympics.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"True. But that was coverage of 9-11 Truth as a political and social phenomenon, as opposed to any serious evaluation of their claims. Certainly 9-11 Truth was once newsworthy in that regard."

And I say "was" because this peak you speak of was four years ago. 9-11 Truth is about as current as the results of the Turin Olympics."

You must have deliberately ignored the points I just made where I specifically referred to serious evaluations by mainstream media. Again, this ostrich attitude is no surprise, coming from a compulsively lying denialist scumbag.

And the "nothing new" claim is straight from the CIA playbook, we know it well from the leaked CIA document about covert action to promote the Warren Commission report.

The nano-thermite paper was published in 2009, you revisionist kook. This movement is growing and gaining momentum every day, despite your wide-eyed denialist wish it was not.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note you are discussing two anonymouses here, but I don't mind, because the other guy (Jones, Loose Change) is making plenty of sense as well.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, we are not talking about Alex Jones and "NWO", we are talking C-SPAN coverage, investigative documentaries in Europe, coverage of 9/11 family members.

We cite the mainstream media to make our case you doofus. Ever heard of history commons? I don't give a shit about Alex Jones, except for the fact that he predicted 9/11 better than the 9/11 report claims the government did.

What a joke.

 
At 29 April, 2010 12:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How telling is it that C-SPAN keeps an open mind. Could that be because C-SPAN relies on subscriber fees, and not sponsorship?

Corporate media is either thoroughly corrupted and Orwellian (FOX News) or they are preoccupied with the prospect of a flaming tire around their necks.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:13, Blogger Triterope said...

You must have deliberately ignored the points I just made where I specifically referred to serious evaluations by mainstream media

No, I was still typing my response, you premature ejaculator. It is below.

Where, for example, do you think Danny Jowenko's statement came from?

It came from a dishonest representation of his answer to a dishonest question.

Which the sane world discovered once they looked a little deeper. Because real journalists have to confirm what relevant people say, and not just take the word of agenda-driven loonies like you.

Say it again with me now: "minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world."

Where did the C-SPAN coverage come from? Where did the broadcast of 9/11 press for truth on local media come from? Where did all the fair interviews with Richard Gage come from?

As I said above, to who I presume is a different Anonymous, 9-11 Truth has at times received coverage as a societal phenomenon, political movement, or local event. Which is fine. I suspect most of this paltry coverage you're so proud of falls into that category, assisted by a handful of loony insiders like KBDI.

What 9-11 Truth is not getting is anyone of relevance in the world of journalism -- or politics, or law, or any other relevant field -- presenting the claims of 9-11 Truth as legitimate and worthy of further investigation. And that's why this Condon fellow is trying to force Pacifica radio stations to do so.

And the "nothing new" claim is straight from the CIA playbook

No, it's one of the first fucking things they teach you when you register for journalism class in 8th grade. It's called "timeliness." It's the sort of hip industry lingo you might want to brush up on if you're going to run around the Internet pretending you understand the profession.

The nano-thermite paper was published in 2009, you revisionist kook.

According to my Daily Dilbert calendar, the current year is 2010.

And Press For Truth and the Jowenko misquote are even more out-of-date than the aforementioned Turin Olympics. Proving once again there is no bar of absurdity you Truther idiots can't leap in a single bound.

More importantly, your nano-thermite paper has much deeper problems than being out of date. It was "published" in a joke journal with no editorial standards of any kind. Which the Internet figured out on its own. The JREF forum alone tore Bentham Open Journal enough new assholes to start a real estate hedge fund.

In other words, your precious nanothermite paper did not attract mainstream media interest because ... and stop me if you've heard this before... it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world.

And just to prove I'm a nice guy, I'll say this: if Richard Gage did publish a paper outlining an alternate explanation for the events of 9-11, and it passed legitimate peer review, that would be newsworthy.

But Gage and Jones and friends have no interest in doing that. I think you need to stop arguing with me, and ask your movement's science leaders why they're jetting around the world giving speeches on your dime instead of doing the one thing that would garner real attention to your cause.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:16, Blogger Triterope said...

How telling is it that C-SPAN keeps an open mind. Could that be because C-SPAN relies on subscriber fees, and not sponsorship?

Corporate media is either thoroughly corrupted and Orwellian (FOX News)


C-SPAN is owned and operated by the cable industry, you fucking imbecile.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"C-SPAN is owned and operated by the cable industry, you fucking imbecile."

"C-SPAN accepts no advertising; instead, it receives nearly all its funding from subscriber fees charged to cable and DBS operators."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-span

And there I was, thinking you were such a great insider! Of course, you were just bloviating. I'll address the self-glorifying drivel in your latest comment next.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:48, Blogger Triterope said...

Did you miss this part?

C-SPAN is an American cable television network owned and operated by the cable industry.

I don't know what the fuck point you're trying to make, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

I'll address the self-glorifying drivel in your latest comment next.

Don't bother, I'm going to be AFK until this thing falls off the main board. I'm sure you won't bring up anything I haven't already addressed. Or anything that isn't so obviously stupid that it doesn't require a custom response from me.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, I was still typing my response, you premature ejaculator. It is below."

And it is again fuller of shit than a septic tank.

"It came from a dishonest representation of his answer to a dishonest question."

Tell me, what was the name of the documentary? I know it, because I have it on tape. What were the names of the producers? What is the reputation of the program? Enlighten me, chucklefuck.

"Which the sane world discovered once they looked a little deeper. Because real journalists have to confirm what relevant people say, and not just take the word of agenda-driven loonies like you."

And Jowenko also said WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolitions. And the reporters also consult other sources who oppose the notion of CD, although they refuse to discuss WTC 7. Or are these facts suddenly not convenient to your ridiculous JREF parroting rant?

"Say it again with me now: "minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world."

Say it with me: "I am a blowhard pretender and a charlatan, and a disgrace to the journalistic profession".

"As I said above, to who I presume is a different Anonymous, 9-11 Truth has at times received coverage as a societal phenomenon, political movement, or local event. Which is fine. I suspect most of this paltry coverage you're so proud of falls into that category, assisted by a handful of loony insiders like KBDI."

You suspect a lot, but you are poorly equipped in the fact department.

"What 9-11 Truth is not getting is anyone of relevance in the world of journalism -- or politics, or law, or any other relevant field -- presenting the claims of 9-11 Truth as legitimate and worthy of further investigation. And that's why this Condon fellow is trying to force Pacifica radio stations to do so."

Patriots Question 9/11
80000 New Yorkers, families, first responders and survivors speak out
Family Steering Committee
1100+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth
Journalists & Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 truth
Political leaders for 9/11 truth

Quite a list. Dismiss them all.

"No, it's one of the first fucking things they teach you when you register for journalism class in 8th grade. It's called "timeliness." It's the sort of hip industry lingo you might want to brush up on if you're going to run around the Internet pretending you understand the profession."

No, it's part of the CIA playbook.

"According to my Daily Dilbert calendar, the current year is 2010."

Excellent, you can read calendars! Maybe you can get a real job as a wedding planner. Remember what you said? You said the peak was four years ago. That would be 2006, and it is a recurring pseudoskeptic theme, based on wishful thinking.

"And Press For Truth and the Jowenko misquote are even more out-of-date than the aforementioned Turin Olympics. Proving once again there is no bar of absurdity you Truther idiots can't leap in a single bound."

Your lies and denialism are even more absurd, especially considering the fact that fatal flaws in the official 9/11 narrative don't have a built-in expiration date. Again, rather tragic wishful thinking on your part, kook.

 
At 29 April, 2010 13:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"More importantly, your nano-thermite paper has much deeper problems than being out of date. It was "published" in a joke journal with no editorial standards of any kind."

You are welcome to publish your paper there if this is indeed true. It should be exceedingly easy to get your conformist, unscientific, bloviating pack of lies published. Yet none of you tards have ever done this, because you are lying. And you can start with Pileni, but she lied and could, even with her expertise, find one single scientific flaw in the paper. She's a coward, that's all. Furthermore, no hoax papers have ever been published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is the specific journal Jones et al. published in, something which cannot be said for prominent journals such as Science and Nature. Both Jones and Harrit have published significant papers in prominent journals in their careers, while all you have is your journalistic pretense, which I've just brutally unmasked.

"Which the Internet figured out on its own. The JREF forum alone tore Bentham Open Journal enough new assholes to start a real estate hedge fund."

The JREF forum is chock full of pseudoskeptic loyalists from military and intelligence, and a boat load of toxic, moronic, no good trolls who never got any competing WTC dust study published. End of story.

"In other words, your precious nanothermite paper did not attract mainstream media interest because ... and stop me if you've heard this before... it does not meet the minimal standards of truth that must be met in the journalistic world."

In fact it did, in various mainstream media, including in Denmark. Of course, bold-faced lies & fact distortion is your notion of journalism, which is why you just proudly lied again.

"And just to prove I'm a nice guy, I'll say this: if Richard Gage did publish a paper outlining an alternate explanation for the events of 9-11, and it passed legitimate peer review, that would be newsworthy."

Three papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. One critique of Bazant was published in JEM. Several papers have been published in sociology journals. You are lying, lying, lying.

"But Gage and Jones and friends have no interest in doing that. I think you need to stop arguing with me, and ask your movement's science leaders why they're jetting around the world giving speeches on your dime instead of doing the one thing that would garner real attention to your cause."

I have no particular interest in your opinion, bloviation, or your lies. Your lies void your argument, pal. In this thread alone, I've already lost count. This is what completely obliterates the credibility of the pseudo-skeptic state worshipping cult and their child abusing mascots.

You people couldn't even tell the truth about the color of your own eyes. What a joke.

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did you miss this part?"

No I didn't, just because you imply that I deny that C-SPAN is owned by cable operators, does not make it so.

I referred to subscriber fees as the primary source of income for C-SPAN, be it via those cable companies or not, and I was correct.

I also said C-SPAN does not rely on sponsorship, which was, again, entirely correct.

And again, you lie, and when confronted with your lies, you wiggle around like the typical "debunker" troll you are.

If I were you, I would go AFK as well, after all, reading my responses as they dissect your bullshit like a biologist does a carcass, must be damn near unbearable.

It must suck to see you don't have a leg to stand on, and that you have to rely on stating lies with as much chutzpah as possible, hoping that they will be accepted at face value.

It's pathetic, as is the violent, war mongering, police state promoting cult you belong to.

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...You are welcome to publish your paper there if this is indeed true. It should be exceedingly easy to get your conformist, unscientific, bloviating pack of lies published. Yet none of you tards have ever done this, because you are lying."

That's right, Glenn, just keep pretending that I never asked you the following question:

When will Steven Jones release his "dust samples" to the scientific community? After all, it will be impossible to independently confirm Dr Jones' results without access to the samples.

So, where are the "dust samples"?

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When will Steven Jones release his "dust samples" to the scientific community? After all, it will be impossible to independently confirm Dr Jones' results without access to the samples."

Absolutely it will be possible. In fact, to be truly independent, you should NOT obtain your samples from Jones, since you accuse him and others of a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud.

By obtaining your own WTC dust samples, you can't say Jones spiked your sample.

If you found active thermitic materials, would you report it? Would you be honest? You? Never. You've proven yourself to be a liar over and over and over, and an unapologetic one at that.

I just want to see if you get something published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, since you claim you can buy your way in. Good luck.

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, you are also free to challenge the RJ Lee reports in their finding of "extremely high temperatures during the collapse".

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And by the way, my name is not Glenn, nor has it ever been, which goes to show again what sort of prejudiced, unhinged, paranoid, vindictive kook you are.

You are obsessed. And I challenge SLC folks because you are such staunch and dishonest defenders of the establishment. You for example, won't go anywhere beyond you "moderate" leftism, and sorry pal, that just doesn't cut it. I don't care about your political persuasion, or your mish-mash of weak critique of the GOP, because matters that are far worse are on the table here, and you are literally acting, by your own volition, as a propaganda extension of the perpetrators.

 
At 29 April, 2010 14:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Absolutely it will be possible. In fact, to be truly independent, you should NOT obtain your samples from Jones, since you accuse him and others of a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud...By obtaining your own WTC dust samples, you can't say Jones spiked your sample."

Pure, unadulterated rubbish.

Where are the "dust samples", Pinocchio?

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pure, unadulterated rubbish.

Where are the "dust samples", Pinocchio?"

Thanks for proving my point. Why don't you want to obtain your own WTC dust samples, since you don't trust Jones?

Why wouldn't you make good on your promise to publish in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, you charlatan?

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Thanks for proving my point. Why don't you want to obtain your own WTC dust samples, since you don't trust Jones?"

Sorry liar, but until Jones' conclusions are verified by an independent team of his peers, his "nanothermite paper" isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

So where are the "dust samples", Pinocchio?

"...Why wouldn't you make good on your promise to publish in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, you charlatan?"

You know as well as I do, you stupid whore, that I can't perform any analysis until Jones releases his "dust samples" to the scientific community.

So, what is Dr. Jones trying to hide from his peers? After all, if his conclusions are valid and stand up to scrutiny, he will have no problem with the idea of releasing his "dust samples" to the scientific community.

So I'll ask you again, fuckface, where are the "dust samples"?

Put up, or shut--you lying scumbag.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can ask away, Billshitter™, but you and everybody else here knows damn well that you don't need Jones's samples at all, nor would you trust those samples if you actually got them.

So get yourself your own WTC dust sample, and stop making an ass out of yourself with your silly attempts to divert attention from the fact that you need an independently obtained WTC dust sample anyway.

If you obtain such a sample, and it does not contain active thermitic materials, you have a case.

Right you, all you've got is your typical pathetic big mouth and nothing, absolutely nothing to back it up.

I have to laugh tho, when I remember you admitting the NIST simulation was "imperfect". Understatement of the year! LOL.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...You can ask away, Billshitter™, but you and everybody else here knows damn well that you don't need Jones's samples at all, nor would you trust those samples if you actually got them."

More obfuscatory rubbish, Glennis the Menace?

Again scumbag, where are the "dust samples"?

If Jones won't produce his "dust samples", it's safe to assume that his conclusions are based on fraud or worse.

So, where are the "dust samples", Pinocchio?

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Billis the Syphilis, you need to obtain a WTC dust sample, that is what the fuck you need to do. You have no need to rely on Jones.

If you fail to obtain your own sample, it is safe to say you are looking for ways to wiggle out from under your foolish, pretentious claim that you could buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

You lose. Again and again, Billshitter™. It's the story of your "life".

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, it would be wonderful to see you visit Jones, then get on your knees and beg for a sample.

I would find it enjoying and amusing to see that.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"You are welcome to publish your paper there if this is indeed true."

Anyone could publish a paper there proving that the Norwegian Blue is still alive.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...No, Billis the Syphilis, you need to obtain a WTC dust sample, that is what the fuck you need to do. You have no need to rely on Jones...If you fail to obtain your own sample, it is safe to say you are looking for ways to wiggle out from under your foolish, pretentious claim that you could buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal."

Let the record show that the so-called "9/11 truth movement" refuses to comply with well-established scientific protocol by steadfastly REFUSING TO SUBMIT THEIR ALLEGED "dust samples" TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

This refusal to comply with well-established scientific protocol is nothing less than blatant, in-your-face, fraud.

"...You lose. Again and again, Billshitter™. It's the story of your 'life'."

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, scumbag, because you lost the "debate" when you repeatedly refused to produce the "dust samples" as per well-establish scientific protocol.

So, I'll ask you again: Where are the dust "samples", Pinocchio?

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone could publish a paper there proving that the Norwegian Blue is still alive."

Then do so. Publish a bullshit paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Hell, people even succeeded in doing so with Science and Nature. We are waiting. Nothing ever happens with you guys, just talk.

And then, when you do, please explain to me how this nullifies the science in Jones's paper. Because if you are right and the peer review is faulty, then you should be able to show through your own "peer review" why its conclusions are false. Without resorting to a ridiculous conspiracy theory about the chain of custody, of course.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, I'll ask you again: Where are the dust "samples", Pinocchio?"

Keep asking, because everybody knows that (1) All you need to do is obtain your own, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Besides, writing bullshit papers is the only thing in the realm of feasibility for you and your pseudoscientist "debunker" gaggle anyway. Just look at JOD911. (Hat tip to James "El Revisionista" Bennet)

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let the record show that when you strip away all the obfuscatory nonsense, smear tactics and false accusations of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that only one fact--and one fact alone--remains: The steadfast refusal of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" to relinquish the alleged "dust samples" to the scientific community.

Thus, the only reasonable conclusion one can make is that Jones' accusations are based on scientific fraud.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Get it through your thick skull, assface: My objective is to confirm or disprove Jones' conclusions--nothing more; nothing less.

Now, in order to meet that objective, I must have access to his "dust samples".

Got it, cretin?

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oooh! There we go again.

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Again, let the record show that when you strip away all the obfuscatory nonsense, smear tactics and false accusations of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that only one fact--and one fact alone--remains: The steadfast refusal of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" to relinquish the alleged "dust samples" to the scientific community.

Got it, Pinocchio?

Now, throw more sand in our face, change the subject, smear and lie with abandon, while you make a mockery of the scientific method and mask your cowardly fraud in feigned righteous indignation.

Bite me, fraud.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

However.....slow learners (and hopeless fucktards, too) have to understand that:

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The insane, denialist "debunker" cult and their toxic, compulsively lying, promise breaking acolytes: the ultimate hysterical travesty of the new millennium.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does it feel, Billy Boy, to get the inconvenient truth rubbed in your face like salt in an open wound, on your own turf no less!

You little twerp! Come on! Debunk us and publish your bullshit paper, you bloviating, festering STD of lies.

You coward! You can't do it, can you, you intellectually frigid, impotent, overcompensating sack of horse manure!

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glennis the Menace, just keep throwing up the obfuscatory nonsense, smear tactics and outright lies, while you continue to piss on the scientific method and make a mockery of well-established scientific protocol.

Now, produce the "dust maples", or you stand exposed as a credibility challenged, cowardly charlatan and underhanded fraud.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

Oh, and you have some nerve, you pompous orator, to speak about integrity and scientific method, you pathologically lying sociopath. Go scare some children away in the park with your shrill guitar play, you hat coin collecting, unhappily married bum.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is your paper Billy Boy? Where is it? Why did you break your promise? Why do you pretend that Jones holds all the WTC dust? Why can't you get your own, the disprove the work of a scientist you don't trust anyway?

Do it, you pompous coward. Keep your word. Invest in publishing a bullshit paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Your word isn't worth a dime.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW: I think the Billshitter™ can probably outdo Edith from Allo Allo in scaring away the customers. LOL.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued resort to the same desperate lies, cowardly smear tactics and underhanded obfuscatory nonsense, over-and-over again ad nauseum, will never produce the alleged "dust samples", Glenn.

Why does your rock hard, thick as a brick skull render you impervious to that simple reality?

Now, stop making a mockery of the scientific method and produce the alleged "dust samples", fraud.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With children like Billy Boy, you apparently need to ram it in for it to register.

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures."

That's another blatant misrepresentation of my objective. As I stated earlier, my objective is to verify or disprove Dr Jones' conclusions--period.

Now, it's a given that the "dust samples" obtained by Dr Jones have a broken chain of custody; thus, it's necessary to relinquish Jones' samples to the scientific community before any independent analysis of Jones' dubious methods and conclusions can begin.

So, once again, we're back to the same question: Where are the "dust samples", Pinocchio?

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moving the goal posts. Why? Because:

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glenn, completely avoid the content of my second paragraph.

Thanks for confirming, once again, my "Glenn will never address the substance of my argument" hypotheses, chump.

So come clean, Glenn, and produce the "dust samples".

After all, I'm just asking questions...

%^)

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moving the goal posts. Why? Because:

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn prevaricates, "...Moving the goal posts. Why? Because:"

No one moved the goal post, Glenn, and if someone did such a thing, you've certainly provided no evidence to substantiate your assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with Glenn).

Now, stop making a mockery of the scientific method and defecating on well-established scientific protocol and do the right thing for once in your miserable existence--you puss-infected pimple-on-the-ass-of-humanity: Relinquish access to the "dust samples" obtained by Jones, et al, to the scientific community.

Now consult your corporate lawyer from Machiavelli, Machiavelli, Mafia and Atoms and divine some new obfuscatory tactic. Okay, Glenn?

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You repeat yourself, and so will I.

Moving the goal posts. Why? Because:

(1) All you need to do is obtain your own WTC dust sample, then keep your promise and buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal with your bullshit paper.
(2) You wouldn't trust Jones's sample anyway.

If you keep asking this question Billshitter™, I will repeat paste this reply. Your choice. Can't get your own WTC dust sample huh? Strange. USGS could, RJ Lee could, and both found particles that prove extremely high temperatures. Surely you can obtain your own sample, and completely rule out any presence of thermitic materials in there, stuff no scientist looked for before Jones et al. did.

Your choice, you silly, pathetic, excuse making, promise breaking OCT assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are Moving the goal posts, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let the record show that the self-styled "9/11 truth movement" refuses to relinquish access to their alleged "dust samples" in the interest of scientific inquiry. The record will also show that this is another episode in the long, sordid history of the "9/11 truth movements" steadfast refusal to debate their claims honestly and openly with any individual who finds fault with their paranoid ideas.

Diagnosis: Strong conditional delusion; thus, "debate" with this individual is impossible.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth is of course, you will NEVER attempt to obtain an independent WTC dust sample, because you are none other than the epic Billshitter™.

You gratify yourself with a life of promoting lies and fallacies. Congratulations! =)

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Diagnosis: Strong conditional delusion; thus, "debate" with this individual is impossible."

Au contraire, Billy Boy, you refuse to debate without fallacies and lies, and you know you always crash and burn. You therefore have no choice but to cheat with fallacious chicanery. And as usual, your habitual failure and disgrace is only paralleled by your equally shameful departure with your tail between your legs.

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Au contraire, Billy Boy, you refuse to debate without fallacies and lies, and you know you always crash and burn. You therefore have no choice but to cheat with fallacious chicanery. And as usual, your habitual failure and disgrace is only paralleled by your equally shameful departure with your tail between your legs."

That really hurts, Glenn. After all, you're a proven quote miner who habitually misrepresents his sources, which I've proven over-and-over again.

And where have I resorted to logical fallacy?

In fact, I merely asked a simple question: Where are the alleged "dust samples"?

Only an intellectually dishonest, bottom-feeding whore could possibly have the audacity to turn a simple question--Where are the alleged "dust samples"?--into a "logical fallacy".

And the "fallacious chicanery" is yours, and yours only, Glenn. After all, you refuse to answer a simple question, while simultaneously making a mockery of the scientific method and defecating on well-establish scientific protocol.

So, I'll ask you again, Jezebel: Where are the "dust samples"?

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are moving the goal posts, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous proves that he knows nothing about the scientific method and lies, "...You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period."

Wrong, cretin.

First, I have no intention of making the "spiked" sample claim, for one reason, and one reason only: I have no evidence to support that assertion.

Unlike you, scumbag, I acknowledge truth; thus, I refuse to make unsubstantiated assertions without the benefit of evidence--period.

Hence, you can drop that idiotic obfuscatory line of bullshit, because you have no evidence that I would make such a claim, nor do you have evidence that I intend to make such a claim.

Moreover, Jones made his conclusions based on a dubious "sample" set of relatively unknown origin and handling (a corrupted trail of custody, to be exact); thus, it's perfectly reasonable--that is, if we intended to comply with the demands of the scientific method, which you clearly don't grasp--to request access to his samples in order to confirm or disprove Jones' conclusions.

So, I'll ask you again: Where are the "dust samples"?

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bahaha, other than spiking the samples, how did nanothermite end up in there if you question the "dubious" chain of custody?

Just come clean and say what you mean, you deceitful bowl of slime.

Get your own dust sample, and your chain of custody excuse falls, and you know it.

 
At 29 April, 2010 19:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Bahaha, other than spiking the samples, how did nanothermite end up in there if you question the 'dubious' chain of custody?"

I have never made the claim that Dr Jones, or anyone associated with him, altered the "dust samples". Again, I have absolutely no evidence to support that assertion, nor do I believe that Dr Jones would knowingly alter the "dust samples". Now, take your silly straw man and stuff him.

Furthermore, if you've read my take on Jones analysis of the "dust", you know that I don't question Jones veracity, I question his methods, which leads me to conclude that he's either incompetent or willfully engaging in scientific fraud.

"...Get your own dust sample, and your chain of custody excuse falls, and you know it."

On the contrary, you don't define the constructs and bounds of the scientific method for two well-established reasons: [1] You're not qualified; [2] you're a proven fraud and quote miner, who misrepresents his sources for political gain. Thus, you have no credibility, Glenn. Zilch. Nada. Zip.

In fact, the scientific method demands that Dr Jones relinquish his samples to the scientific community, and Dr Jones is well aware of this requirement.

So I'll ask you once again: Where are the "dust samples"?

 
At 29 April, 2010 19:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Furthermore, if you've read my take on Jones analysis of the "dust", you know that I don't question Jones veracity, I question his methods, which leads me to conclude that he's either incompetent or willfully engaging in scientific fraud."

Cut out the contradictory, wishy washy, zig-zagging please. You're not fooling anyone. Just say what you think.

And obtain your own dust sample. You are deliberately making a request that is unlikely to be fulfilled. Jones isn't going to hand out samples to pathological liars and sociopaths like yourself.

In order to be independent from Jones, you need to get your own dust sample. Mind you, when Jones sends samples to peers for analysis, such as Basile, he requests that his sample sources send their dust specimen directly without his intervention.

Thus, not even Basile received his sample from Jones.

Now, get busy, Billy the Blowhard, and obtain your own sample. Then publish your bullshit paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Your current line of reasoning is a deliberate fallacious act of moving the goal posts, since obtaining your own WTC dust sample is the only objective way to go. Here I am, encouraging you to do so. Yet we both know you have no intention of following up, because you are a coward, a cheat, a charlatan and an honorless, spineless buffoon with a big mouth and no balls to back it up.

I've had it with you, after this, no more discussion, just repeat pastes, because the answer is going to be same anyway =). Get your own WTC dust samples if you dare. You're not going to get any from Jones. Publish in the Open Chemical Physics Journal if you can. We both know you can't.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...In order to be independent from Jones, you need to get your own dust sample. Mind you, when Jones sends samples to peers for analysis, such as Basile, he requests that his sample sources send their dust specimen directly without his intervention...Thus, not even Basile received his sample from Jones."

So what? Then you admit that Jones will authorize the release of the samples, provided the samples are released to pseudo-scientists within the "9/11 truth movement"?

Taking that into consideration, the hands the samples pass through on the way to their destination are beside the point. On the contrary, the select few who Jones authorizes for distribution of the samples does matter--profoundly. And that's the elephant in the living room you simply refuse to acknowledge.

"...Your current line of reasoning is a deliberate fallacious act of moving the goal posts, since obtaining your own WTC dust sample is the only objective way to go."

More obfuscatory nonsense. Is that all you have, Glenn? If Jones makes his samples available to certain "scientists", why does he refuse to answer my (and others) repeated requests for access to his "dust samples"?

"...Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." -- William Shakespeare.

So, I'll ask you again: Where are the "dust samples"?

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:12, Blogger qishaya said...

Buying for comfort is also another useful aspect. Unfortunately, ed hardy womens there is a pre conceived notion that comfortable clothes are not ed hardy kid generally classy and does not make you look cool. Good thing there is ed hardy womens shoes . These clothes, although stylish, are made from lightweight and comfortable important allowing individuals to move liberally. ed hardy womens swimwear The fabric does not stretch clearly and will look as good as new for a long time. ed hardy womens t shirt All you have to do ensue washing and ironing instructions and you will like these clothes for a long time. ed hardy womens tops The thing that makes ed hardy womens tanks unique is their vintage designs. Because these designs never go out of approach, ed hardy womens hoodies choosing to buy these clothes is a smart resolve.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are moving the goal posts, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, by the way, you are not a scientist, you are a charlatan. Show me your peer reviewed publications.

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:07, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

What's this about us having to publish a response to a shit paper published in a shit journal?

Why do we need to do this?

Does the President need to publish something in a shit journal before liberating a foreign country ?

Do the police need to publish in a shit journal before they are allowed to wiretap or arrest terror suspects?

All of these things have been done without any articles in shit journals.

Why can't we just keep doing what we've been doing?

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:12, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

"Show me your peer reviewed publications.


What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392


Howzzat?

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous resorts to smear tactics and scribbles, "...And, by the way, you are not a scientist, you are a charlatan."

Really? I suppose that unsubstantiated assertion explains why I've exposed you again-and-again as a quote miner who misrepresents his sources?


"...Show me your peer reviewed publications."

Why? So you can stalk me and my family?

Not a chance, nutter.

So, I'll ask you again: Where are the "dust samples", liar?

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Howzzat?"

Redundant. I know those papers. I don't, however, remember asking you for diddly squat, jizzcricket. I distinctly remember asking the Billshitter™ for his peer reviewed papers, until you saw fit to interrupt by spamming your unrequested, unrelated mental diarrhea all over this thread.

Again, Billy Boy, where are your peer reviewed papers? Stalking? Is my name M. Yass? I am a fictitious employee for Enron? Why the fuck do you use your photo then? Don't you think I would've stalked you already if I wanted to? Who the fuck do you take me for? Troy Sexton? I will never stoop to his level. O, I forgot, you are still buddies, even after you knew him to be a racist, stalking, child abusing harasser of 9/11 family members.

Enough already. Peer reviewed papers, Billy Boy, and don't you dare call yourself a scientist. You're a guitar player, and a horrible one at that.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What's this about us having to publish a response to a shit paper published in a shit journal?

Why do we need to do this?"


Because the Billshitter™ brazenly claimed he could, while we all know he can't. He can't even buy himself a "shit paper" in a "shit journal". How pathetic is that? Unless of course, your entire premise is false, cock smoker, which I find far more likely.

"Does the President need to publish something in a shit journal before liberating a foreign country?"

He and the likes of you, need to be hung after trial in an international criminal court.

"Do the police need to publish in a shit journal before they are allowed to wiretap or arrest terror suspects?"

They, and they likes of you, need to be arrested for illegal mass surveillance and locked up for the remainder of their pathetic lives.

"All of these things have been done without any articles in shit journals."

Shit yeah, they've even been done without any regard for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Go figure.

"Why can't we just keep doing what we've been doing?"

Said one mob boss to another.

I know something you can do though... how about you walk into Ramallah all by yourself and say all the things you just told me. I like a good laugh while I'm watching a lynching of an arrogant imperialist pig.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More obfuscatory nonsense and naked smear tactics, Glennis the Menace? You're weak, Glenn.

Now, let's cut to the chase, shall we, nut-hyphenated-bar?

Question (for the 1000th time, by the way): So, I'll ask you again: Where are the 'dust samples'"

And the response from the self-styled "9/11 truth movement", you ask?

The long-anticipated reply:

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*


I rest my case.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are moving the goal post, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peer reviewed papers, Billy Boy, and don't you dare call yourself a scientist. You're a guitar player, and a horrible one at that.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like GitBile™ is lapping the losers lane in the lug of lamented lemons™. It's becoming a tradition, heh heh.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response from the self-styled "9/11 truth movement" ("...Surprise, Surprise, Sergeant Carter!"). Once again:

And the response from the self-styled "9/11 truth movement", you ask?

The long-anticipated reply:

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*


I rest my case.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are moving the goal post, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps you can bat yourself in the head with some of those crickets, it might knock some clue™ into that ball of void you call a head. LOL.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Glenn, just ignore my post that addressed your argument.

By the way, Great Pretender, all we can hear are


*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

I rest my case.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are moving the goal post, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 29 April, 2010 23:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh, what fun is there in screwing up this blog and its hardcore fan base of 9/11 liars.

 
At 30 April, 2010 00:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Glenn the prevaricator scribbles, "..Heh, what fun is there in screwing up this blog and its hardcore fan base of 9/11 liars."

Really? No kidding?

Tell us about it, intertubes troll.

Enough of your obfuscation, smear tactics and outright lies: Where are the "dust samples", troll?

 
At 30 April, 2010 04:25, Anonymous sock puppet all up in your face said...

Looks like another win for Anonymous

 
At 30 April, 2010 06:07, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"And then, when you do, please explain to me how this nullifies the science in Jones's paper"


Because Jones alleged "paper" is a collection of bullshit, fantasy and insanity.

And if he can't produce his "samples" for testing (where did these "samples" come from anyway?), then he's full of shit.

Simple, really.

 
At 30 April, 2010 06:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Because if you are right and the peer review is faulty,"

What alleged "peer review"?


"then you should be able to show through your own "peer review" why its conclusions are false."

Yet you refuse to hand over a sample of the alleged "sample".

"Without resorting to a ridiculous conspiracy theory"


OI TEH IRONY SHE BURNS SHE BURNS!!!

"about the chain of custody, of course."

Where did the alleged "sample" come from?

 
At 30 April, 2010 06:17, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

""Does the President need to publish something in a shit journal before liberating a foreign country?"

He and the likes of you, need to be hung after trial in an international criminal court.

"Do the police need to publish in a shit journal before they are allowed to wiretap or arrest terror suspects?"

They, and they likes of you, need to be arrested for illegal mass surveillance and locked up for the remainder of their pathetic lives."

My goodness, scratch a Twoooofer™ and find the fascist underneath.

Here's a thought: why don't you FOAD?

 
At 30 April, 2010 06:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous declares himself the winner: "...Looks like another win for Anonymous."

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

So, let's see if I have this straight, Anonymous.

If I obtain samples from a source other than Jones and arrive at results that show "nanothermite" is not present in the sample, the "9/11 truth movement" will say, "You didn't use the right samples." My response will be something like, "Okay, then give me access to Dr Jones samples." And the "9/11 truth movement" will reply: "...You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period."

FUCK YOU, Anonymous hypocrite.

Thus, I'll ask you again: Where are the samples, scumbag?

 
At 30 April, 2010 09:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure! No problem!

You are moving the goal post, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 30 April, 2010 09:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL

 
At 30 April, 2010 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continuing to stonewall, Pendejo?

Tu eres un estúpido ingreido pendejo, anonimato.

So, where are the "dust samples", shit-for-brains?

 
At 30 April, 2010 12:05, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Arthur Mercante just counted to ten over the "Git" and he's still in there punching! It's a reflex action.Hey Goober,there's plenty of WTC dust in lower Manhattan to this day.Try some of the roofs on,say,Walker Street.It really wouldn't be hard to get some of your own dust samples.There's a coven of the Debunker Cult that jacks off in WeakRonald's SRO hotel room on Thursday nights.Work with them.After all,they're only interested in truth! Why would Jones et al. turn over their samples to an insane Yuppie?

 
At 30 April, 2010 12:12, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Redundant. I know those papers. I don't, however, remember asking you for diddly squat, jizzcricket. I distinctly remember asking the Billshitter™ for his peer reviewed papers, until you saw fit to interrupt by spamming your unrequested, unrelated mental diarrhea all over this thread.

Dumbass... the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. You can reject this and demand someone else respond, but the answer won't change (or I should say the correct answer won't change).

GuitarBill doesn't owe you anything and it wouldn't change anything if he did. The answers will always be the same.

He and the likes of you, need to be hung after trial in an international criminal court.

Typical 9/11 truther response. If the science doesn't support you, kill people!

 
At 30 April, 2010 13:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie said...
Arthur Mercante just counted to ten over the "Git" and he's still in there punching! It's a reflex action.Hey Goober,there's plenty of WTC dust in lower Manhattan to this day.Try some of the roofs on,say,Walker Street.It really wouldn't be hard to get some of your own dust samples.There's a coven of the Debunker Cult that jacks off in WeakRonald's SRO hotel room on Thursday nights.Work with them.After all,they're only interested in truth! Why would Jones et al. turn over their samples to an insane Yuppie?"

Could someone translate this from Retardese into English?


Thank you.

 
At 01 May, 2010 12:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dumbass... the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. You can reject this and demand someone else respond, but the answer won't change (or I should say the correct answer won't change).

Actually, it's 186,282.4. And you're correct, every time GuitarBill pretends he can't obtain his own dust simple, but insists on something that has nothing to do with the paper he claims he can buy into Bentham, he will get the same reply.

GuitarBill doesn't owe you anything and it wouldn't change anything if he did. The answers will always be the same.

Indeed. The Billshitter™ needs to get his own dust sample. Period. Then he needs to prove the Open Chemical Physics Journal is a bullshit journal (like Science and Nature, which both published many bullshit papers..) by publishing his bullshit paper.

He and the likes of you, need to be hung after trial in an international criminal court.

Typical 9/11 truther response. If the science doesn't support you, kill people!


Well, Dildo of 9/11 Lies, that was a response to your outrageous justification of illegal preemptive war and mass murder by the POTUS, after all, filth, you said, and I quote:

"Does the President need to publish something in a shit journal before liberating a foreign country?"

Now crawl back under that rock, woodlouse.

 
At 01 May, 2010 12:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Could someone translate this from Retardese into English?

Thank you."

Sure, Laz. In English, it says: "Laz, you are a gigantic fucktard".

 
At 02 May, 2010 08:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
"Could someone translate this from Retardese into English?

Thank you."

Sure, Laz. In English, it says: "Waaa wa wa waaa wa. Waaa wa wa, a waaa wa wa wa wa".

TFTFY

 
At 02 May, 2010 08:49, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Indeed. The Billshitter™ needs to get his own dust sample."

Wrong, you illiterate chimp.

Jones has to supply a sample of the crap that he allegedly "tested".

Otherwise it's not science, it's bullshit.

Sorta like what you put on this blog.

 
At 02 May, 2010 23:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Riiight. If you say so. LOL.

You do realize that if you're claiming that nanothermite is *only* present in Jones' samples, they are *not* in other samples, therefore his research is automatically void, and therefore you don't need ask him for a sample!

Although I admire the brilliant way in which you back up your argument over your own feet, you really do need to make an effort to be logically coherent, guttersnipe.

 
At 03 May, 2010 01:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...You do realize that if you're claiming that nanothermite is *only* present in Jones' samples, they are *not* in other samples..."

Straw man argument.

No one--I repeat--no one made that claim.

"...therefore his research is automatically void..."

Sorry, wrong again. I said it before, and I'll say it again: I question his methods, not is veracity.

"...and therefore you don't need ask him for a sample!"

Coy may work at 9/11flogger, but you're talking to me now, Anonymous.

No scientist would restrict access to his samples if he truly possessed the strength of his convictions.

So, what does Steven Jones have to hide, Anonymous?

That said, I'll ask you again: Where are the "dust samples"?

And remember, I'm only asking questions...

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why can't we just keep doing what we've been doing?"

Because it'll make you go blind, sweetie.
And baby Jesus will weep. Do you want that?

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That said, I'll ask you again: Where are the "dust samples"?

And remember, I'm only asking questions..."

Yeah, and you can't handle the answers.

You are moving the goal post, because:

You don't need Jones' sample to make your case, in fact, in order to prevent you from claiming your sample was spiked, you must obtain your own sample. Period. Go see people or organizations that saved some WTC dust.

And again, Billshitter™, if you repeat your question I will repeat this reply, and we can go on for as long as you like, filth.

 
At 03 May, 2010 12:47, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Riiight. If you say so. LOL.

You do realize that if you're claiming that nanothermite is *only* present in Jones' samples, they are *not* in other samples, therefore his research is automatically void, and therefore you don't need ask him for a sample!"

Then if your imaginary "superdupermmagiconanotheramin" is present only in Jone's samples, then Mr. Jones has to present his so-called "samples" to real scientists to test.

Because if "nanothermite is *only* present in Jones' samples, they are *not* in other samples" then jones is either the world's biggest bullshitter, the world's worst scientist, or you're a gullible fool.

Now where are the samples?

 
At 03 May, 2010 12:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Oh, and has Jones' imaginary substance turned up in any other dust sample ever collected around the WTC sites?

No?

Well, there you go then.

 
At 03 May, 2010 13:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Because if "nanothermite is *only* present in Jones' samples, they are *not* in other samples" then jones is either the world's biggest bullshitter, the world's worst scientist, or you're a gullible fool.

Now where are the samples?"


Exactly! You get it! So get your own samples Laz, you can prove Jones wrong so easily! Don't you want to?!

 
At 03 May, 2010 13:45, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Exactly! You get it! So get your own samples Laz, you can prove Jones wrong so easily! Don't you want to?!"

No, you fucking moron, it's up to Jones to make his "samples" available for testing.

Otherwise he's a charlatan.

You understand that word, don't you?

 
At 03 May, 2010 13:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Here, I'll use small words so you can understand them:

The bedrock of science is called "replicabilty", which means that if for example scientist #1 sees a something in a testtube that scientist #2 can see the exact same thing in testtube #2.

Do you understand?

So it's up to this Jones character to allow others, called scientists, or real scientists, if you will, access to his "samples" to see if his results can be.....wait for it....replicated.

Now, that's not too comlicated for you, is it?

 
At 03 May, 2010 13:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

complicated..........grrrr......

 
At 03 May, 2010 14:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bedrock of science is called "replicabilty" [sic], which means that if for example scientist #1 sees a something in a testtube [sic] that scientist #2 can see the exact same thing in testtube [sic] #2."

Yes, and scientist #2 needs to get his own sample for test tube #2. After all, there should be plenty of WTC dust to go around. After all, Jones claims any WTC dust sample will contain red/gray chips.

Get your own independent sample and prove Jones wrong. It should be easy.

 
At 03 May, 2010 16:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See,there goes PornBoy again! He's sucking on a Sackdoily lozenge and claiming a conspiracy by lowly activists and skeptical scientists to fabricate the dust samples!! There's no conspiracy theory like a Debunker Cult conspiracy theory!

 
At 03 May, 2010 16:02, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Previous "Anonymous" was Arhoolie.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home