Monday, May 10, 2010

Kevin Ryan Debunked



Solid job here. The Waterboy doesn't get cited much anymore except in the stupid "peer-reviewed" paper; if this video is any indication, it should be obvious why.

Labels:

99 Comments:

At 10 May, 2010 04:23, Blogger Triterope said...

"WTC floor model tests by UL"? Isn't making claims on behalf of UL what he got fired for?

 
At 10 May, 2010 08:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

[Activate troofer™ emulation mode]


We don't need no stinkin' NIST Report!


[Deactivate troofer™ emulation mode].

%^)

 
At 10 May, 2010 10:17, Anonymous Jay said...

Thx for posting the video :)

I'm working on a video on Richard Gage now. Hope i get that done in a few days :)

 
At 10 May, 2010 11:59, Anonymous NWO Janitor (no relation to WillyRod) said...

Jay, how much are they paying you.

 
At 10 May, 2010 12:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is supposed to be a good effort? At what? Selective listening? Cuz it aint debunking.
The guy didn't say the fires were small. He said they were RELATIVELY SMALL. As in compared to the Madrid building being 100% engulfed in flames, the WTC towers, NOT being ENGULFED anywhere, with fires confined to at most 25% of their respective structures, ergo they were RELATIVELY smaller.

Who made this video? I was kinda expecting something better, but looks like it was thrown together by one of the blogs owners relatives on cheap video software.

 
At 10 May, 2010 12:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NWO Janitor (no relation to WillyRod) said...

Jay, how much are they paying you.

10 May, 2010 11:59


Not enough.
Jay said...

Thx for posting the video :)

I'm working on a video on Richard Gage now. Hope i get that done in a few days :)


Can't wait for the fail.

 
At 10 May, 2010 13:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

You'd think after the problems of a certain employee, Turnpike Chevrolet would disable their computer access at work.

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

As for the Madrid Towers No reliance on steel frames here, the core was mostly concrete. And what happened to the steel that it did include?

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, (due to fire) partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. The same story suggests it’s only the key design differences from the WTC that kept the Madrid Windsor Tower standing.

Yes, it failed. Other photos reveal how the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

 
At 10 May, 2010 17:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpg

 
At 10 May, 2010 17:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You will also note the Madrid Towers were about the quarter of the size of the WTC and so the forces at play would be much less.

It's a physics thing that is far above the thinking ability of the average truther.

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Kyte said...

You will also note the Madrid Towers were about the quarter of the size of the WTC and so the forces at play would be much less.


Which is why the man said RELATIVELY small fires.

If you recall, the video misrepresented that statement as the guy saying small fires without qualification.

FLUNK

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...relatively"???

For your information--you greasy liar--relatively is a weasel word.

Are the fires small, or not?

Grade: F-

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:20, Blogger Pat said...

Yeah, the Troofers always leave out the fact that the steel collapsed at the Windsor Towers in Madrid.

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill said...

"...relatively"???

For your information--you greasy liar--relatively is a weasel word.

Are the fires small, or not?

Grade: F-

10 May, 2010 18:08


The guy said they were relatively small fires. The video(which claimed to be debunking this guy, ie responding to what this guy said, NOT what you wish he said ) tried to make it sound like he said they were absolutely small fires, without qualification. "Relatively" is not a "weasel word" it has a relevant definition for those familiar with the English language:

relatively [ˈrɛlətɪvlɪ]
adv
in comparison or relation to something else; not absolutely


www.thefreedictionary.com/relatively

FLUNK again

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat said...

Yeah, the Troofers always leave out the fact that the steel collapsed at the Windsor Towers in Madrid.

10 May, 2010 18:20


Yeah, sure some steel did collapsed and sagged. But the tower didn't fall nearly straight down after, in a cloud of debris, after burning less than a couple of hours.

But keep fucking that chicken.

 
At 10 May, 2010 18:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous the prevaricator gives us another example of the breadth and depth of his ignorance, and scribbles, "'Relatively' is not a 'weasel word' it has a relevant definition..."

No, relatively is a word that can be abused and employed as a weasel word--it depends on how you use the word.

Another example of a common word that can be abused as a weasel word is virtually. For example,

"...Cascade©, leaves dishes virtually spotless..."

Relatively, in this sense, is no different.

I know very well what the video says--sleaze-bag. The comparison is apples-to-oranges; thus the need for the word relatively.

Again, Grade: F-

 
At 10 May, 2010 19:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

For more on weasel words, see:

DoubleSpeak by Professor William Lutz, published by Harper-Perennial 1989, ISBN 0-06-091993-0.

You're welcome, idiot.

 
At 10 May, 2010 19:05, Blogger Triterope said...

The guy said they were relatively small fires. The video tried to make it sound like he said they were absolutely small fires, without qualification.

I wish 9-11 Truthers would take a moment to contemplate what they're fighting over.

The point of contention here is whether Kevin Ryan said they were "small fires" or if Kevin Ryan said they were "relatively small fires." That's what this argument is about. Seriously.

This argument is not about a peer-reviewed paper questioning the 9-11 narrative. It's not about thousands of people gathering in Washington to demand a new investigation. It's not about new Congressional candidates promising to re-open the 9-11 inquiry if elected. It's not about the new 9-11 Truther book or film attracting mainstream attention. It's about whether a fired water tester said "small" or "relatively small" in a YouTube video nobody but the most devoted 9-11 conspiracy hobbyists will ever watch.

And on the next thread, there's a robust debate about whether a 9-11 memorial site never carried Press For Truth or stopped carrying it!

Just reminding everybody what the stakes are. Carry on.

 
At 10 May, 2010 19:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Triterope said...

The guy said they were relatively small fires. The video tried to make it sound like he said they were absolutely small fires, without qualification.

I wish 9-11 Truthers would take a moment to contemplate what they're fighting over.

The point of contention here is whether Kevin Ryan said they were "small fires" or if Kevin Ryan said they were "relatively small fires." That's what this argument is about. Seriously.


Yep, Guitar "You're all American Hating Cocksuckers" Bill, is the one who took it there:


Are the fires small, or not?


FYI, the blog is about a video supposedly debunking what a guy said.
For that to be true, the video has to NOT misrepresent what the guy said. On that point...that the video(and Guitarbill)thought was so important...it is WRONG.

Doesn't necessarily mean its wrong about everything, but it is wrong about that. Remember...it was the video maker who went there, so don't whine it being debated.

"Oh, its not important cuz I know I'm losing this argument."

I wish 9-11 Truthers would take a moment to contemplate what they're fighting over.

It's not about what Truthers are fighting for...its about the topic, which is , as one of the blog owners claims, a video which is supposed to debunker what Kevin Ryan said, but instead is "debunking" what it wants Kevin Ryan to say. Sorry, not something I'd push as a good "debunking" effort.

Don't like being on topic? Take it up with GB. He likes to call people "cocksuckers" if they go off topic. If they're Truthers. If they're debunkers, he ignores it. So never-mind, you're probably safe.

 
At 10 May, 2010 21:29, Anonymous paul w said...

"So can Kevin Ryan be any more dishonest?"

I'm sure he's gonna try.

 
At 11 May, 2010 01:19, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'You'd think after the problems of a certain employee, Turnpike Chevrolet would disable their computer access at work.

10 May, 2010 13:06'

This comment is not mine. Some fucking knob is posting under my handle again.

 
At 11 May, 2010 04:38, Blogger Triterope said...

Yep, Guitar "You're all American Hating Cocksuckers" Bill, is the one who took it there:

No, you took it there when you said:

Cuz it aint debunking.
The guy didn't say the fires were small. He said they were RELATIVELY SMALL.


And please note that the argument has shifted from "whether Kevin Ryan said they were 'small' or 'relatively small fires' to arguing about who said Kevin Ryan said that. And the stakes keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller, to the point that we have to use Zimbabwean currency.

As for the rest of it, your ability to miss the point is reaching Epsteinian levels.

 
At 11 May, 2010 06:13, Blogger Billman said...

I still have about 2000 Yen from my time in Japan. How much Zimbabwean is that?

 
At 11 May, 2010 06:59, Anonymous NWO Janitor (No relation to WillyRod) said...

I've got $3.24 in my pocket and nothing else.

What does that translate to?

 
At 11 May, 2010 08:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Ryan's comparison is wrong not because of fire, but because you can not predict what will happen to one building based on a completely different building.

As I said the two building were of different size. That alone make judging one from another false. As size increases structural forces get disproportionately greater. This is why scale modeling is useless at WTC scale. This is something the low intelligent truther type would never understand, it's science and that sort of stuff is way too complex for these mental munchkins.

Then you have the fact the building were of completely different construction. A Steel and concrete center sections for the Madrid Towers that was what saved that building.

The Madrid Towers had a slow moving fire that was fought during the day. The WTC was multi floor fire stared in seconds. You also had a nice big aircraft size hole to feed oxygen to the fire. And the structural damage.

And of course you have the fact truther liars like Ryan conveniently ignore the fact the steel portion of the Madrid Towers did indeed fail. Funny they never mention that part.

It takes a spacial kind of stupidity to use the logical fallacy of False Analogy. Given that sort of "Logic" the Titanic never should have sunk because other ships have hit icebergs and remained afloat. I could go on and on comparing the outcome of event A to event B but smarter people get it and Anonymous, well he is who he is. Part of the idiot class.

 
At 11 May, 2010 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

The following video was uploaded to YouTube on 11 May 2010:

Blueprint for Lies by Richard Gage, a video by JayBlack12100.

 
At 11 May, 2010 11:34, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

''You'd think after the problems of a certain employee, Turnpike Chevrolet would disable their computer access at work.

10 May, 2010 13:06'

This comment is not mine. Some fucking knob is posting under my handle again.

11 May, 2010 01:19'

Neither comment is mine. Goddamn twoofer trolls.

 
At 11 May, 2010 11:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I said the two building were of different size. That alone make judging one from another false.

Maybe. But that's not what they guy said. The guy acknowledge the size difference, and qualified his statement "relatively". And while the buildings are different sizes, they're still the same category of size: they are both high rises, so a comparison is reasonable. Its not like one is a high-rise and the other is a four-story parking garage. If a video is supposed to debunk what a guy said, its should be doing that, not pretending he said/meant something else.

Dave Kyte said...

Ryan's comparison is wrong not because of fire, but because you can not predict what will happen to one building based on a completely different building.


This sounds like the beginnings of a possibly reasonable counter argument.
Maybe you should make a video.

 
At 11 May, 2010 11:52, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

I knew it was a kook.

They're obsessed with the greatness that is I.

___________________________

If the MLB season ended today, Andre Ethier would be the NL MVP. He an autographged picture of me taped to his locker during the 2008 season. Now that's some funny shit.

Ethier's domination of NL pitching continued last night against Pat's lowly Dbacks.

 
At 11 May, 2010 12:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

troyfromwva said...

I knew it was a kook.

They're obsessed with the greatness that is I.

Yep, the great child abuser.

Is Troy saying sack and ashes is his buddy? Or is sack and ashes Troy's sockpuppet?

 
At 11 May, 2010 12:34, Anonymous Pat's moldy testicles said...

David Shyte: didn't you say, multiple times, that the videos of 7's collapse show only the descent of the north wall? And you expect us to take your analysis seriously?

Jesus you're a stupid fuck.

 
At 11 May, 2010 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies, "...Is Troy saying sack and ashes is his buddy? Or is sack and ashes Troy's sockpuppet?"

Trolling again, Anonymous?

And I see you've added sock puppet impersonations to the cesspool of lies, intellectual dishonesty and misdirection that you cynically label "debate".

No doubt about it, Anonymous is better at sex than anyone; now all he needs is a partner.

"...Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time." -- French, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 
At 11 May, 2010 13:03, Blogger Pat said...

My lowly D-Backs are currently 1-1/2 games behind the lowly Dodgers. I'll give you Ethier, however. He is hitting the cover off the ball.

 
At 11 May, 2010 13:07, Anonymous troyfromwva said...

Is Troy saying sack and ashes is his buddy? Or is sack and ashes Troy's sockpuppet?

Neither, you never right dipshit.

 
At 11 May, 2010 14:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies, "...Is Troy saying sack and ashes is his buddy? Or is sack and ashes Troy's sockpuppet?"

Trolling again, Anonymous?

And I see you've added sock puppet impersonations to the cesspool of lies, intellectual dishonesty and misdirection that you cynically label "debate".


Debunker paranoia is awesome to behold. I bet you still look for Reds under your bed before Mommy tucks you in at night.

No doubt about it, Anonymous is better at sex than anyone; now all he needs is a partner.

Poor Guitarbill: the last virgin on the Internets.

LOL.

 
At 11 May, 2010 15:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"No doubt about it, Anonymous is better at sex than anyone; now all he needs is a partner."

"Of course I was afraid the first time I had sex. Hell, I was alone."

-Anonymous

 
At 11 May, 2010 18:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Debunker paranoia is awesome to behold. I bet you still look for Reds under your bed before Mommy tucks you in at night."

"That's why I never go anywhere without my Hefner's Best™ Ann Coulter Blow-up Doll. It can't be beat for comfort, companionship, and witty barbs at Obamacare when you squeeze it."

-Lazarus Long

 
At 11 May, 2010 22:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Youtube video was supposed to be a debunking? Not a very good job. Every single thing Ryan says is verified... by the debunker.

Thanks...truther!

Oh and Pat, good job, chitty chatting baseball with the criminal nutcase who brags about abusing his own kids on YOUR blog.

Freaks.

 
At 12 May, 2010 07:21, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Debunker paranoia is awesome to behold."

OH TEH IRONY SHE BURNS SHE BURNS!!!!!!

 
At 12 May, 2010 07:33, Anonymous Pat's Hideous Fat Face said...

OH TEH IRONY SHE BURNS SHE BURNS!!!!!!

Blather, Rinse, Repeat as if humorous or original...

"Troy's my buddy from West Virginia"
-Patrick Curley.

 
At 12 May, 2010 08:23, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"This sounds like the beginnings of a possibly reasonable counter argument.
Maybe you should make a video."

The bright and enlightened already understand the point. Only the low of thinking ability have a problem grasping simple logic. If I made a video it would only be stating the obvious in an attempt to educated the people who can not be educated. It would use up my time which is more valuable than a bunch of low life truther loons.

 
At 12 May, 2010 08:29, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"David Shyte: didn't you say, multiple times, that the videos of 7's collapse show only the descent of the north wall? And you expect us to take your analysis seriously?"

Yes the video the truthers show ONLY shows the six second or so collapse of the north face. They do this to make the total collapse look much faster. Watch a video of the full collapse and you can see the east penthouse fall inward a good three second before the north wall. This of course shows internal collapsing was going on.

 
At 12 May, 2010 08:36, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Blueprint for Lies by Richard Gage, a video by JayBlack12100."

You got to love Box Boy and his box trick. It's become the truther's equivalent of creationist Ray Comfort's banana. The clueless buy it and the rest of us have a WTF moment.

 
At 12 May, 2010 08:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave wrote, "...Watch a video of the full collapse and you can see the east penthouse fall inward a good three second before the north wall."

Actually, the East Penthouse fell in on the building a full 8 to 9 seconds before the collapse of WTC 7's North parapet wall. That means the duration of the collapse was 14.5 to 18 seconds, not 5.6 seconds as the troofers would have us believe.

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

Source: YouTube: WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2.

 
At 12 May, 2010 08:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dave wrote, "...You got to love Box Boy and his box trick."

Box Boy's dog and pony show is always a laugh; however, the best part of the video is Danny Jowenko debunking Danny Jowenko.

As it turns out, Jowenko never was a troofer.

Source: JREF: Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers.

 
At 12 May, 2010 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous scribbles, "...David Shyte: didn't you say, multiple times, that the videos of 7's collapse show only the descent of the north wall? And you expect us to take your analysis seriously?...Jesus you're a stupid fuck."

You're absolutely correct, Anonymous.

After all, Dave forgot to mention the myriad of videos produced by the troofers™ that lead "open minded" individuals to only one inescapable conclusion: INSIDE JOB!

For example, the deceptive video of building 7 referenced by "ewingsc" and touted as proof of "controlled demolition". Never mind that the video was spliced into two sections and manipulated via forward and reverse mode video playback in such as way as to suggest "controlled demolition".

I'm curious, Anonymous: How many controlled demolition experts did the troofers™ "interview" before they figured out how to blackmail Danny Jowenko?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...



And come to think of it, Anonymous, a guy with your IQ should have a low voice too.

 
At 12 May, 2010 12:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Blather, Rinse, Repeat as if humorous or original..."

You miss a lot in life, don't you?

 
At 12 May, 2010 14:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And come to think of it, Anonymous, a guy with your IQ should have a low voice too."

And a guy with your lack of testicular development probably has the high pitched voice of mini mouse.

Yours,

Other Anonymous Guy.

P.S.
Still believe Israel doesn't have any nukes, Norman Mineta witnessed a "shootdown order" at ~9:52, that you need Jones' sample and not just any WTC dust sample, and the litany of other tenuous, indefensible, untenable positions you take? Such as columns weakened by 8 hour fires while simultaneously claiming no section of WTC 7 burns longer than 20 minutes?

Ha ha ha. SLC's court jester.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Still believe Israel doesn't have any nukes"

Still unwilling to answer my four questions, asshole?

From GuitarBill's 12 Questions That Anonymous Will Never Answer:

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

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

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

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

I'm waiting for an answer, Anonymous, not an "answer" based on speculation.

So when will you answer the aforementioned four questions, cretin?

Anonymous continues to prevaricate, "...Norman Mineta witnessed a 'shootdown order' at ~9:52"

I never said anything about 9:52AM, so you're just pulling that out of your ass.

Here's what I wrote, liar:

"...Obviously, Mineta's time line is off by a minimum of 30 minutes. In fact, 20 eyewitnesses contradicted his testimony, and demonstrated beyond a doubt, that Mineta's time line was in error. Moreover, his description of the day's events coincide with others who were on the scene, but his time line makes it appear that the events he describes happened earlier in the day. Clearly, his account of the conversation between vice president Cheney and his aid concerns Flight 93, which had already crashed. When taken in context, it's clear that the order Mineta speaks of was the shoot down order issued by president Bush, not vice president Cheney...Clearly, Mineta's testimony was not helpful in piecing together an accurate time line; thus, Mineta's testimony was rightly omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. Mineta himself admits that he could not have been witness to an evacuation at 9:26AM when the evacuation did not begin until at least twenty minutes later."

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar again, Anonymous.

Cheney, moreover, couldn't issue a "shootdown order" as the troofers claim as long as president Bush was alive and in command.

Anonymous continues to make a mockery of the scientific method and scribbles, "...that you need Jones' sample and not just any WTC dust sample..."

From GuitarBill's 12 Questions That Anonymous Will Never Answer we find the following question:

[12] 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, I'll ask you again, scumbag: Where are the alleged "dust samples"?

And remember, scumbag, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha. ;-)

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4 * Because Israel does not want it officially known that it has nuclear weapons, in order to avoid as much as possible a nuclear arms race. Israel considers "nuclear testing" as "nuclear weapons introduction". I quoted you sources that confirm this. I'm not going to scroll past those old threads to cite them back to you again. That you wish to ignore my sources, some of which include leaked military intelligence documents, is your call. Besides, may I point out that several European countries which have *never* performed nuclear tests in fact possess nuclear bombs?

7, 8 and 9 are rendered moot by the above paragraph. We could discuss the Vela incident, but that is superfluous.
The issue is whether or not Israel *has* nuclear weapons.

About Mineta: when Bush was in Air Force One and in some cases difficult to reach, decision making authority was effectively rendered to Cheney. When Mineta heard the order, it came from Cheney. Either in the "shelter" or in the "PEOC", Cheney was in charge. Whether or not that order trickled down from Bush is irrelevant. Fact: the order given to the aide by Cheney is the order overheard by Mineta.

Further, the EEOB was evacuated *before* the White House was.

* 12 >

Get your own dust sample, as any ecologist or chemist would.

Remember, I'm merely promptly demolishing your asinine arguments.

Any progress with that Bentham publication you promised to finance? Still cruising the boulevard of broken promises?

Ha ha ha ha ha... *you clown*... ha ha ha ha.

Tell you what, you convince your fellow SLC-ers Israel has no nukes, and I owe you one. This is about 9/11 truth anymore Billy Boy, this is about your intellectual integrity and the glaring hole in it.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous makes another cheap attemnpt at misdirection, and scribbles, "...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..."

That's the best you can do, lightweight?

So, where are the answers to my questions, scumbag?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions--you pathetic and cowardly lunatic.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tries to present his opinion as fact and scribbles, "...Because Israel does not want it officially known that it has nuclear weapons, in order to avoid as much as possible a nuclear arms race. Israel considers "nuclear testing" as "nuclear weapons introduction". I quoted you sources that confirm this. I'm not going to scroll past those old threads to cite them back to you again. That you wish to ignore my sources, some of which include leaked military intelligence documents, is your call. Besides, may I point out that several European countries which have *never* performed nuclear tests in fact possess nuclear bombs?"

Another 100% fact-free non-response.

That's your opinion, asshole. How about some facts?

And I'm still waiting for answers, jerkoff:

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

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

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

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


And this time, I want FACTS, not your FUCKING WORTHLESS OPINION.

Now get to to work, queer bait.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haven't you seen the newly obtained document by SAIC truscott? Cheney in the shelter before Pentagon impact. And we don't even know that timeline wasn't deliberately skewed.

When Mineta left his post, he was brought to the nearby white house with sirens on. That means the travel time reported by 911myths, as copied from Google, is a load of bull. I'm sure Google doesn't compute travel time as if one was traveling by government escort.

What a joke!

He was there before 9:30. Cheney went down to the shelter around this time. 911myths is full of shit. And so are you.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And this time, I want FACTS, not your FUCKING WORTHLESS OPINION."

The facts were cited to you (MSM) in the previous threads. Look them up. Your incredulity is not my problem.

Do you live under a power line? Studies have indicated a link with Alzheimer's disease.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And like I said, here's a proposal, how about you convince your fellow SLC-ers that Israel has no nukes, and you can hand me a plate of crow.

Dunce.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...He was there before 9:30."

Bullshit!

Mineta's time line was rejected by the 9/11 Commission, because his testimony was contradicted by at least 20 other eyewitnesses.

For example, Norm Mineta claims that air traffic control issued a "ground hold on planes going into New York" that occurred, according to Mineta, at approximately "8:30 or 8:40 in the morning". Nevertheless, this was before the North Tower was stuck; thus, the actual decision was made MUCH later.

From the documentary record we read:

"...Regional air traffic managers on Monday offered a detailed chronology of Sept. 11, when two planes were hijacked from Boston, but refused to say more about what actually happened on the planes...Mike McCormick, air traffic control manager at the New York Center--the main control center for the area--made the unprecedented decision at 9:04 a.m. to declare 'ATC Zero,' meaning that no aircraft could fly into, out of or through the airspace over New York and the western Atlantic."

Source: Boston.com: FAA controllers detail Sept. 11 events .

Furthermore,

"...9:03-9:07 — New York and Boston regions' air traffic control officials stop takeoffs and landings. The New York Port Authority closes Newark International Airport...9:08-9:11 — Departures are stopped nationwide for aircraft heading to or through New York and Boston regions' airspace."

Source: USAToday: Part I: Terror attacks brought drastic decision: Clear the skies.

Starting to get the picture, Einstein? Clearly, Mineta's time for the "ground hold" order is OFF BY 30 MINUTES. The "ground hold" order was given 30 minutes after the time given by Mr. Mineta.

Source: thinkquest.org: September 11 Timeline.


Thus, Mineta's testimony isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Let us know when you master that clock thingy, okay Anonymous?

Try again, lunatic.

And remember, scumbag, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous whines, "...And like I said, here's a proposal, how about you convince your fellow SLC-ers that Israel has no nukes, and you can hand me a plate of crow."

Don't try to change the subject, Pinocchio.

They can't answer my question, and neither can you, scumbag.

Now, I WANT REAL ANSWERS BASED ON FACTS NOT SPECULATION, ASSHOLE:

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

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

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

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

Now, get to work, charlatan.

 
At 12 May, 2010 15:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous bald-faced lies, "...The facts were cited to you (MSM) in the previous threads. Look them up. Your incredulity is not my problem."

That's a lie. Your "answers" are based on SPECULATION.

Do you know the difference between SPECULATION and FACTS, idiot?

Come on, scumbag, lie to us some more.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah and I'm just providing answers to your asinine arguments.

(A) You are quote mining. Mineta said about that time "maybe". But you conveniently leave that out, don't you.

(B) His time citing the *nation wide* ground stop was accurate, was it not?

The 9/11 commission? That commission that largely rejected its own findings? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

That commission? That was "set up to fail"? That considered referring NORAD for "criminal prosecution"?

You clown!

Again, SAIC Truscott confirms Cheney taken to the "shelter" (not necessarily the PEOC) around 9:30. It was then that the plane was closing in on Washington, and when the exchange with the military aide occurred.

Here's a question. Do you defend the 9/11 commission report? Shall I begin quoting commissioners and senators, such as Bob Graham rejecting it? Calling it a "conspiracy to lie"?

Ha ha ha ha ha. You're schoolboy howler, Billshitter™

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's a lie. Your "answers" are based on SPECULATION.

Do you know the difference between SPECULATION and FACTS, idiot?"

Sure. The facts were cited to you from mainstream media. Twat. Look it up. Your incredulity is not my problem.

Correct Wikipedia if you wish. After all, you know something they do not. Again, convince your fellow SLC-ers Israel has no nukes and you can hand me a plate of crow. You are defending your (non-existent) prestige, not the truth. It's sad I had to drive you there, but you owe this humiliation all to your out of control ego.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And before you begin yammering and nattering about Wikipedia being unreliable, I've cited you the sources Wikipedia cite, including leaked military intelligence documents and mainstream media articles.

Again, correct Wikipedia with your omniscient "debunker" bullcrap if you wish. I'll grab some popcorn and a cola and I'm looking forward to an entertaining sideshow, Sideshow Bill.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tries another attempt at misdirection, "...Correct Wikipedia if you wish. After all, you know something they do not. Again, convince your fellow SLC-ers Israel has no nukes and you can hand me a plate of crow."

Stop changing the subject, bullshitter, and answer the questions:

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

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

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

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

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS, charlatan.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a good question for you.

When flight AA 77 was coming in to Washington. Do ya think they let Cheney continue to sit his pompous, neocon traitor ass in his office, or do you think they evacuated him to the bunker? What do you think they did? Do you think Cheney was issuing orders at that time?

What was Cheney doing when AA 77 came in to Washington, Sideshow Bill? Do you think he might have been communicating with the military about the situation?

LOL. How detached from reality are you anyway?

So what are you saying. Tell us your "theory".

After all, I'm "just asking questions" as well, egghead.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stop changing the subject, bullshitter, and answer the questions:"

Ha ha ha! Which one of us is evading Sideshow Bill? You make for good comedy, but abysmal debate. Immunity to fact is a serious condition. See a shrink, but not Troy's, because his isn't doing a very good job.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tries another attempt at misdirection, and scribbles, "...That commission? That was "set up to fail"? That considered referring NORAD for 'criminal prosecution'?"

You're insane. That's the opinion of one man ("set up to fail"), and NORAD was never seriously considered for "prosecution".

But that's beside the point, because you still fail to address the fatal flaws in Norm Mineta's time line; thus, it's safe to conclude that you're being deceptive again (what's new?).

There's no point in "debate" where you're concerned, because you constantly resort to misdirection techniques when your back is against the wall.

Now, go slit your wrists, Anonymous, it'll lower your blood pressure.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous whimpers, "...Ha ha ha! Which one of us is evading Sideshow Bill? You make for good comedy, but abysmal debate. Immunity to fact is a serious condition. See a shrink, but not Troy's, because his isn't doing a very good job."

That's not an answer, scumbag. That's another cheap attempt at misdirection.

Now, answer the questions, scumbag:

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

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

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

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

Now, get to work, beotch.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyway, this has been a good proving ground for testing the debunker cult.

When supplied with immutable facts, they spin, distort, cower and grovel. I've lost count of the number of threads we have "debated" this, and all you do is evade and dodge. And deny. And tell bold faced lies. And divert. With so much fallacious acrobatics, it's become a full-fledged circus performance.

I declare victory. I can't fix your mental problems though, Sideshow Bill. That's a road you must travel alone. Good luck fixing your marriage. Ha ha ha ha.

I'll be checking Bentham from time to time, to see if I ever see a paper bought and paid for by Bill & the SLC circus clowns.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Here's a good question for you."

Fuck you, jackass. I've answered all your questions, and I refuse to answer more of your idiotic questions UNTIL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WITH FACTS, NOT SPECULATION AND OPINION.

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

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

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

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


Now, get to work, charlatan.

 
At 12 May, 2010 16:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...I declare victory."

You always declare victory, but you have nothing to substantiate that assertion.

Now, stop patting yourself on the back, charlatan, and answer my questions with FACTS NOT SPECULATION AND OPINION:

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

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

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

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

Now, get to work, scumbag liar.

 
At 13 May, 2010 04:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anyway, this has been a good proving ground for testing the debunker cult.

When supplied with immutable facts, they spin, distort, cower and grovel."

Which might be true if you ever presented some, you know, facts.

 
At 13 May, 2010 11:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?
[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?
[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

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

Wow,your not very bright. The U.S. did enough testing of nukes therefore our client state, Israel, had no need to test the nukes, only to read the reports.

"Hey we Israelis are so fuckin' smart we are going to test something publicly so the entire Arab world will know we have 'em."

Are you fucking stupid, G.Bill?

Eat this: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Hey dumbass, how does your logic fit into this report?
A general who was once in charge of Israel’s nuclear weapons has claimed that Iran is a “very, very, very long way from building a nuclear capability”.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6982447.ece

What, a SLC debunker wrong again? No surprise there:
Israel admits stockpiling nuclear weapons
By Jean Shaoul
12 February 2000
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/isra-f12.shtml
At the beginning of February, the Israeli Knesset (parliament) held the first public discussion on the country's nuclear arms programme for nearly 40 years. It was greeted with deafening silence by the international establishment.

Military censorship has always forbidden reports in the Israeli media about its nuclear arsenal, and successive governments have refused to discuss the issue. Finally, Issam Mahoul, an Arab Israeli MP who is a member of the Hadash (Communist) Party, went to the Supreme Court to seek a ruling forcing the government to permit a parliamentary debate. Parliament Speaker Avraham Burg backed down in order to avoid a Supreme Court decision.

In the televised debate, Mahoul stated that according to experts' estimates, Israel has stockpiled huge numbers of nuclear warheads. This had increased to what he described as the "insane amount of 200-300". The weapons had been developed with the help of the South African apartheid regime.

Shut the fuck up GuitarBill, you haven't a nuke to stand on. Go play your guitar and keep letting foreign policy experts shove the truth down your throat.

 
At 13 May, 2010 13:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry asshole, but that "answer" is more misdirection.

Put simply, you didn't answer a single question.

Try again, shit wipe:

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

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

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

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


And this time, asshole, answer the questions.

 
At 13 May, 2010 16:03, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Speaking of pathological and scatological White Trash,here comes the hammerhead shark,The YuppieGuitarSchnook,on the latest stop of his "Debunker Cult Self Destruction Tour"! My main man is beyond wild eyed and paranoid,he's headed off a cliff and his neighbors should be alerted.Remember what happened to the dumbass from West Vawhen he was allowed to roam free and unchecked.He's now a convicted criminal trapped in the hellish Police State excesses,if I have it straight.Since the "Git" doesn't know shit but bloviates worse than racist hater and lackey Ann Coulter,I think all the warning signs are there.Paddy,help your brethren when they need it,I say.What the "Git" needs to do is get a load of some of the close-up videos of the North Tower exploding (there are many),or for that matter,to splurge on a DVD copy of Rick Siegel's footage included in "9/11 Eyewitness".If that footage isn't faked then your whole cult has been decimated.Funny,not one Cult Bozo has had the balls to comment on this footage,even though I've raised this subject a dozen times.Your silence speaks volumes.

 
At 13 May, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Speaking of pathological and scatological White Trash,here comes the hammerhead shark,The YuppieGuitarSchnook,on the latest stop of his "Debunker Cult Self Destruction Tour"! My main man is beyond wild eyed and paranoid,he's headed off a cliff and his neighbors should be alerted.Remember what happened to the dumbass from West Vawhen he was allowed to roam free and unchecked.He's now a convicted criminal trapped in the hellish Police State excesses,if I have it straight.Since the "Git" doesn't know shit but bloviates worse than racist hater and lackey Ann Coulter,I think all the warning signs are there.Paddy,help your brethren when they need it,I say.What the "Git" needs to do is get a load of some of the close-up videos of the North Tower exploding (there are many),or for that matter,to splurge on a DVD copy of Rick Siegel's footage included in "9/11 Eyewitness".If that footage isn't faked then your whole cult has been decimated.Funny,not one Cult Bozo has had the balls to comment on this footage,even though I've raised this subject a dozen times.Your silence speaks volumes.

 
At 13 May, 2010 16:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'd respond to your comment, Arsehooligan; however, I'm simply not at all fluent in retardese.

%^)

 
At 14 May, 2010 11:14, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

I could give a flying fuck,you dim bulb blowhard Yuppie.What I need is your extry special debunking delusions applied to Rick Siegel's footage of the North Tower blowing up.Thanks,my main man!

 
At 14 May, 2010 13:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Funny,not one Cult Bozo has had the balls to comment on this footage,even though I've raised this subject a dozen times.

Yeah, you double-posted it six times.

 
At 15 May, 2010 07:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical Debunker Cult non response on the footage in "9/11 Eyewitness".You've become parodies of your bad selves.Don't worry,I know you're all chickenshits and deeply afraid of what that one shows.

 
At 15 May, 2010 09:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous cocksucker, who are you to lecture anyone about "non-responses"?

And when will you answer my questions?


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

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

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

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


Now, get to work, fuck-face.

 
At 15 May, 2010 09:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan scribbles, "...What I need is your extry special debunking delusions applied to Rick Siegel's footage of the North Tower blowing up..."

Rick Siegel's video doesn't show the towers "blowing up"--you fool--because the towers collapsed.

 
At 15 May, 2010 12:59, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Have you seen a hard copy of the footage? No,I didn't think so.

 
At 15 May, 2010 14:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 May, 2010 14:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan whines, "...Have you seen a hard copy of the footage? No,I didn't think so."

Yeah, I've seen Seigel's flick--and it's a pile of sensationalist rubbish.

The DVD is based on Seigel's footage of the World Trade Center attack. In fact, Seigel videotaped the attacks from across the Hudson river in Hoboken, New Jersey.

The film claims that a police helicopter was instrumental in bringing the towers down. This outrageous claim is based on a momentary flash of light from the police helicopter as it passes in front of the smoke pouring out of the North Tower. As any sane person will conclude, the flash of light is sunlight reflecting off the helicopter; nevertheless, Seigel ignores the obvious in order to promote his conspiracy theory.

The helicopter theory leads the viewer to a series of specious claims about "explosions"; however, the "explosions" occur long before the towers begin to fall, which is simply not the way controlled demolitions are known to proceed. The "explosions", moreover, could be nothing more than the sound of wind rushing past the microphone as Seigel filmed the scene.

That said, in typical troofer fashion, the filmmakers ignore the seismic evidence that contradicts Siegel's pre-collapse explosion theory.

If that's not enough, the film asserts that debris from the tower was propelled upward during the collapse. There are only two problems with that assertion: [1] The shape of the dust cloud is obviously not a particle trajectory, since the cloud descends and changes shape; and [2] no upward movement can be seen anywhere in the cloud.

Thus, the DVD is based on conclusions that are not supported by evidence and pseudo-science.

Have a nice day, ArseHooligan.

 
At 16 May, 2010 14:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha haha hahahahaha

There it is again...! =))

"Wind blowing across the microphone"

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're such a tool, Sideshow Bill. Amazing.

The only "wind" blowing here is the hot air protruding upwards from your windpipe. LOL.

 
At 16 May, 2010 16:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...The only 'wind' blowing here is the hot air protruding upwards from your windpipe. LOL."

That's right, Anonymous, just pretend that I never wrote the following:

"...The helicopter theory leads the viewer to a series of specious claims about 'explosions'; however, the 'explosions' occur long before the towers begin to fall, which is simply not the way controlled demolitions are known to proceed."

It's funny that the "explosions" took place long before the collapse, which is not the way controlled demolitions are done.

The following are real controlled demolitions:

Source: YouTube: Controlled Demolition of Wachovia Building Midtown Atlanta.

Source: YouTube: Landmark Implosion.

Source: YouTube: Aladdin Hotel Implosion.

Source: YouTube: The Kingdome in Seattle is demolished.

Notice that the explosives are detonated just prior to the collapse.

This fact alone proves that Seigel is full-of-shit.

Any more lies for us, Anonymous prevaricator?

 
At 17 May, 2010 15:39, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

At this point it would be apparent to a second-grader that the "Git" is faking it,is too mentally drained to churn up anything useful,and needs to meet up with SackofBollocks in the UK for a strategy session! Between this and his completely unhinged Nukes Jihad effort it's really becoming rather poignant.When you can dredge up a memory of the North Tower exploding (about 40 minutes in) let us know what you think.Until then,Tiger,the prevaricating,misdirection schtick is causing quite a few Bronx cheers! Give him the hook,Paddy! For your own sake.

 
At 17 May, 2010 17:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan whines, "...When you can dredge up a memory of the North Tower exploding (about 40 minutes in) let us know what you think."

I gave you my opinion, ArseHooligan.

Can you read?

Let us know when your reading comprehension skills make it past the third-grade level.

 
At 18 May, 2010 08:45, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

No,Captain,you commented on the helicopter speculation of Siegel,not the footage of the North Tower exploding.

 
At 18 May, 2010 09:09, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Sometimes I have to take my own third-grader slowly through some things,and patiently guide her to an understanding of things.So,with that in mind,let's work with you,jerkoff! As the North Tower is coming down,about two-thirds of the way as it gets to the sturdiest part of the central core (where the interlocked,cross braced and strongest load bearing section was),you'll notice a series of bright white flashes as the building finishes being demolished (that's in the core,Bozo).These are the flashes spoken of by eye witnesses and clearly detonations of some kind.Unless you are saying these are faked by l'il ol' Rick Siegel,then you are a dead duck who needs to get on medicaton and enter intensive therapy.Because your whole life's endeavor has been crushed to Earth.And remember,it's only truth,when crushed,that rises up again.Not insane and apoplectic pseudo debunking and hate speech!

 
At 18 May, 2010 09:09, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Sometimes I have to take my own third-grader slowly through some things,and patiently guide her to an understanding of things.So,with that in mind,let's work with you,jerkoff! As the North Tower is coming down,about two-thirds of the way as it gets to the sturdiest part of the central core (where the interlocked,cross braced and strongest load bearing section was),you'll notice a series of bright white flashes as the building finishes being demolished (that's in the core,Bozo).These are the flashes spoken of by eye witnesses and clearly detonations of some kind.Unless you are saying these are faked by l'il ol' Rick Siegel,then you are a dead duck who needs to get on medicaton and enter intensive therapy.Because your whole life's endeavor has been crushed to Earth.And remember,it's only truth,when crushed,that rises up again.Not insane and apoplectic pseudo debunking and hate speech!

 
At 18 May, 2010 09:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan prevaricates, "...No,Captain,you commented on the helicopter speculation of Siegel,not the footage of the North Tower exploding."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, shit-for-brains?

GuitarBill wrote, "...The helicopter theory leads the viewer to a series of specious claims about "explosions"; however, the "explosions" occur long before the towers begin to fall, which is simply not the way controlled demolitions are known to proceed. The "explosions", moreover, could be nothing more than the sound of wind rushing past the microphone as Seigel filmed the scene...That said, in typical troofer fashion, the filmmakers ignore the seismic evidence that contradicts Siegel's pre-collapse explosion theory."


Thus, I stand by my statement: You have the reading comprehension skills of a third-grader.

 
At 18 May, 2010 09:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHolligan scribbles, "...These are the flashes spoken of by eye witnesses and clearly detonations of some kind."

LOL!

Let's consult EXPERT TESTIMONY, shall we, shit-for-brains?

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.


Right ArseHooligan!

The mysterious they rigged the buildings with super-explosives that make no audible sound when detonated and leave no trace of "det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants" or "copper backing from explosive charges".

Yup, the mysterious they are so brilliant that demolition experts were completely fooled.

LOL!

Try again, FlashBoy.

 
At 18 May, 2010 17:05, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Sergeant Nick Fiddler of the Brass Balls Batallion,what a bullshit artist.You still haven't said a single thing about the actual collapse of the North Tower (all the way down,Tiger!).What a nerd you turn out to be.

 
At 19 May, 2010 00:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan prevaricates, "...Sergeant Nick Fiddler of the Brass Balls Batallion,what a bullshit artist.You still haven't said a single thing about the actual collapse of the North Tower (all the way down,Tiger!).What a nerd you turn out to be."

Really? No Kidding?

What's this "tiger"?

GuitarBill wrote, "...The film claims that a police helicopter was instrumental in bringing the towers down. This outrageous claim is based on a momentary flash of light from the police helicopter as it passes in front of the smoke pouring out of the North Tower. As any sane person will conclude, the flash of light is sunlight reflecting off the helicopter; nevertheless, Seigel ignores the obvious in order to promote his conspiracy theory."

So, what were you saying about about "you still haven't said a single thing about the actual collapse of the North Tower"?

Thanks again, ArseHooligan, for the daily demonstration of the breadth and depth of your intellectual dishonesty.

And remember, Bozo, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 19 May, 2010 07:57, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Nutcase "Git" is now channeling Jim Carrey in "Liar,Liar" and insisting that:"I'm kicking my ass,do you mind?" Let's call him "No,that FlashBoy".Hey knucklehead,you're still insane and you still haven't commented on the white flashes as the building completes it's disintegration into dust and tiny pieces of everything.Hint:they are in the core of the building.That's OK,some people have a strange way of folding their tents.Yours includes insane bloviating and teenager style braying.It's not pretty,jackoff.Anything on Shaffer?

 
At 19 May, 2010 07:57, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Nutcase "Git" is now channeling Jim Carrey in "Liar,Liar" and insisting that:"I'm kicking my ass,do you mind?" Let's call him "No,that FlashBoy".Hey knucklehead,you're still insane and you still haven't commented on the white flashes as the building completes it's disintegration into dust and tiny pieces of everything.Hint:they are in the core of the building.That's OK,some people have a strange way of folding their tents.Yours includes insane bloviating and teenager style braying.It's not pretty,jackoff.Anything on Shaffer?

 
At 19 May, 2010 08:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan speculates, "...Hint:they are in the core of the building."

So where's your evidence?

After all, if the Towers were rigged with explosives, why were demolition experts unable to find evidence of foul play?

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

That's EXPERT TESTIMONY, ArseHooligan--and the expert says you're full-of-shit.

Thus, I provide expert testimony and you reply with what? More speculation?

Since when does speculation trump expert testimony?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home