Sunday, May 30, 2010

Yet Another Expert

The Troofers are patting themselves on the back over the fact that the former governor of New Hampshire, Walter R. Peterson, has signed onto their nutty cause. No surprise, when they say "former" they mean a looooooooong time ago; Peterson was the governor during the Nixon years. So Peterson is 88 years old. This fits in with the Troofer profile. For the most part they're either drooling through their dentures or barely out of short pants. Why is that?

It's pretty simple if you think about it. The folks who are most vulnerable to conmen are old folks and youngsters.

Anyway, as with all Troofers, Peterson cites something out of his particular area of expertise:

Peterson said both he and his wife, Dorothy, decided to support the petition article after watching one of the videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he said looks like a controlled demolition to them.

“That raised questions because that’s not how a building would fall if it was attacked,” Peterson said. “Both Dorothy and I had viewed the video and there were certainly a lot of serious questions raised about what happened there.”


Drawing from his vast repository of experience about how buildings fall when they are attacked, no doubt.

Labels:

97 Comments:

At 30 May, 2010 11:34, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"It's pretty simple if you think about it. The folks who are most vulnerable to conmen [sic] are old folks and youngsters."

And, of course, those pesky 9/11 families, first responders and survivors. They've all been conned. Absolutely brilliant Pat, you relentless gumshoe!

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's pretty simple if you think about it. The folks who are most vulnerable to conmen [sic] are old folks and youngsters."

And the insane fucktards like anonypussy.

"And, of course, those pesky 9/11 families, first responders and survivors."

Riiiiight.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Don't forget those expert 88 y.o. ex-governor's, anonypussy.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:03, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Riiiiight."

Yes that's right, you cum breathing clusterfuck. Click the link and fucking read it, degenerate inbred yokel motherfucker. You hate it don't you, that list. I know you do.

You're an un-American, fascist piece of shit, a coward and a traitor.

Now crawl back under that stone you slithered from this morning, brainless Nazi filth.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Memorial Day Weekend!

Unfortunately, twoofer paranoid schizophrenia never takes a holiday.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:35, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

On the other side of the divide, "debunker" minds seem to be always out to lunch.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:49, Blogger Triterope said...

And, of course, those pesky 9/11 families, first responders and survivors.

http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-2.jpg

This is old news, buddy. Get up to speed.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:53, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"This is old news, buddy. Get up to speed."

It's about the list, stupid. These people didn't suddenly stop wanting a real investigation just because the government is corrupt.

It's a petition, and these are the petitioners. Ergo, they're truthers, and thus, by your retard cult standards, they're kooks, nutters, terrorists and enemies of the state. Got logic, you despicable bag of fuck?

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:19, Blogger BG said...

High Resolution Original Footage of the 911 Hoax + Free 911 Documentary Downloads!

http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/high-resolution-original-footage-of-the-911-hoax-free-911-documentary-downloads/

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:33, Blogger Billman said...

Oy... ad-hom here, ad-hom there.

Are we getting anywhere anymore? Am I the last troofer this blog has converted back to sane? Arguing with them has been pointless for ages, now.

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:39, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'And, of course, those pesky 9/11 families, first responders and survivors'

List their names. Then compare that list to anyone in these categories who don't endorse your bullshit. I expect the latter to exceed the former by a clear margin.

 
At 30 May, 2010 14:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Are we getting anywhere anymore?

We're really not, even if "getting anywhere" means getting a brief chuckle out of these loonwaffles.

This new batch of Twoofers isn't even entertaining. They're so ignorant of their own cause they can't even post sensible counter-responses (see Anonymous #2 above). And BG is posting Phil Jayhan links from 2007 as news. Oy.

I think we've milked this for all the comedy it's worth.

 
At 30 May, 2010 16:39, Blogger avicenne said...

"I think we've milked this for all the comedy it's worth."

I'm not so sure. Have some faith.

What about this charming slice of internet age Americana, ie a couple of octogenarians going public with their controlled demolition concerns instead of savoring what remains of their lives?

Actually, on reflection, it's probably more ghastly than funny.

 
At 30 May, 2010 17:56, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"You're an un-American, fascist piece of shit, a coward and a traitor"

Alinsky rule: accuse others of what you are.

You worthless piece of fascist dog crap.

HAHAHAHAHAGHAHAHAHAHGGGAAAAHAHA~!!!

 
At 30 May, 2010 17:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Now crawl back under that stone you slithered from this morning, brainless Nazi filth."

says the fascist fucktrd......

Pitiful, just pitiful.

 
At 30 May, 2010 17:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
On the other side of the divide, "debunker" minds seem to be always out to lunch."

And it your alternative universe, you are actually sane, right fucktard?

 
At 30 May, 2010 17:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous #2 said...
"This is old news, buddy. Get up to speed."

It's about the list, stupid. These people didn't suddenly stop wanting a real investigation just because the government is corrupt."

Nobody cares.

 
At 30 May, 2010 17:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's a petition, and these are the petitioners."

And being a petitioner means....what, in your insane universe?

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:37, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Hey Nazi freakazoid, get back in your box. You'll get a snack later.

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous #2 said...
Hey Nazi freakazoid, get back in your box."

Ah, the fascist fucktard slithers out from under it's rock.

Anyone got some DDT?

And wipe your upper lip, you anti-semitic twit, the shit going to give you some kind of weird disease.

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:50, Anonymous Marc said...

I'm pretty sure that if survey all of the 9/11 Families, first responders and survivors you will find that 10% of them will believe in just about anything from Bigfoot to Homeopathy.

Doesn't make them real,nor does it mean they know what they're talking about.

10% rule applies to all large groups of people, even troofers.

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:59, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I'm pretty sure that if survey all of the 9/11 Families, first responders and survivors you will find that 10% of them will believe in just about anything from Bigfoot to Homeopathy.

Doesn't make them real,nor does it mean they know what they're talking about.


However, none of their relatives were killed in fucking bigfoot attacks or homeopathic mishaps, whereas they did fucking lose somebody or something in the 9/11 attacks, frenzied fucktard of furious fallacious pseudoskeptic folly.

Nice try though.

And yeah, I certainly would like a broad poll among 9/11 families on their satisfaction with the report that Bob Graham called a "conspiracy to lie".

 
At 30 May, 2010 19:07, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Anyone got some DDT?"

I'm sure you have some Zyklon B handy, Obersturmbannführer Lazarus.

"And wipe your upper lip, you anti-semitic twit, the shit going to give you some kind of weird disease."

It's your wife's menstrual blood. So if I have it, you've got it too =P

 
At 30 May, 2010 19:18, Blogger avicenne said...

Jesus Christ, anon, draw it mild. You really are an unpleasant individual.

You can continually characterise this blog as some kind of mecca for neo-fascist detritus, but no one's buying it apart from yourself and other anonymous Baader-Meinhoffian types.

 
At 30 May, 2010 20:09, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"You can continually characterise this blog as some kind of mecca for neo-fascist detritus, but no one's buying it apart from yourself and other anonymous Baader-Meinhoffian types."

Revisionist extremists who have no qualms about characterizing Adolf Hitler as a leftist qualify as Nazis in my book. Historical revisionism is a key characteristic of a totalitarian ideology. You'll be glad to hear that your particular brand of McCarthyian nuttery (including accusing people who refuse to go along with this crazy right wing revisionism of being communist terrorists) is going to be part of the Texas curriculum soon. Thanks to a couple of creationist, racist, theocratic nuts.

"You really are an unpleasant individual."

Thanks! =) I'm genuinely flattered. You people are everything I despise in humanity combined, so you'll understand why I find this remark so flattering. I am, what you may call, a diabolical reaction product of the anti-dissent hate mongering industry you revel in. Pat is a leading hate monger with the most disgusting followers so I dwell here often, looking for the ugliest Nazi propagandist to pick a fighty fight with.

You can debate such exciting subjects here as the merits of torturing people and such crazy outlandish revisionist right wing extremist nuttery as Iraq actually having WMD (or something to do with 9/11). Depending on your particular debunker nut, you can find everything from racism to WW II revisionism to enthusiastic endorsement of the police state.

 
At 30 May, 2010 20:36, Anonymous paul w said...

"I think we've milked this for all the comedy it's worth."
Triterope

Maybe, but there always seems to be another idiot ready to believe the towers were CD...and has a video camera, test apparatus, and youtube access to prove it.

Or, is protesting, gets arrested, films it, posts it.

I hope so, anyway. Comedy Gold.

 
At 30 May, 2010 23:29, Blogger www.makemoney.usersboard.com said...

bdjokes4u.blogspot::finance4u.yolasite::makemoney.usersboard-a trusted sites link

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*This site may help you*-*-*-*-*-*-*

http://finance4u.yolasite.com/online-make-money.php ----

http://bdjokes4u.blogspot.com/ ----
Online Make Money Forum::..

http://makemoney.usersboard.com/
---
http://google-technews.blogspot.com






*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Some reader link*-*-*-*-*-*

http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalpointForum --

http://feeds.feedburner.com/BanglaJokesPortalAndTimePassZone ---

http://feeds.feedburner.com/financ4u ---

http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/AcLFD

 
At 31 May, 2010 00:39, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Piss off Walt. I make my money the old fashioned way, on my hands and knees.

 
At 31 May, 2010 03:46, Blogger 辰原 said...

影音視訊聊天 台灣情色論壇 go2av免費影片卡通 666vl net 0951成人頻道下載 qq美美色網 ut13077視訊聊天 台灣kiss911 18成人免費a片 男人幫 成人網站-天天看美女 日本a卡漫 聊天室ut 5278免費影片 aa 片俱樂部 失敗論壇 影音交友mmshow tw av女優影片,aa片免費看影片 卡通aa片avdvd 美女交友thcmt vsbox色美媚入口 洪爺自拍走光貼圖 一對多視訊,美女短片免費試看 0204成人 視訊交友fireup 台灣kiss情色貼圖區 彩虹AV影音視訊聊天室 性愛日記 ez sex貼片區 aaa片免費看影片 aio小魔女自拍qk 免費試看成人片 g8mm視訊網 色妹妹a漫18 禁 免費視訊聊天 173 線上 aa 片試看嘟嘟 火辣視訊情人 av080下載 aa免費看影片 網愛 正妹百人斬飯島愛 情色sex520 ss369成人色網 免費a片線上看,卡通aa片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片 視訊-愛情館 八國聯軍成人 高雄視訊sexy girl34c 成人自拍色情avdvd 線上aa片試看嘟嘟

 
At 31 May, 2010 05:31, Anonymous troyfromwv said...

Anonymous #2 is becoming quite scary.

 
At 31 May, 2010 06:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"10% rule applies to all large groups of people, even troofers."

Nope.

ALL twoooofers™, as in 100%, are crazy fucks. Some throw in being fascists on top of the "regular" craziness.

Like #2.

I can readily visualize #2 as a street corner screamer, wearing a sandwich board covered with tiny teeny script "explaining" his mad "theories".

 
At 31 May, 2010 06:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I'm sure you have some Zyklon B handy, Obersturmbannführer Lazarus."

Oooo, I bet you got a tiny little woody when you were typing out one of your favorite fantasies, didn't you, you dog shit Nazi?

 
At 31 May, 2010 07:12, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Revisionist extremists who have no qualms about characterizing Adolf Hitler as a leftist qualify as Nazis in my book."

No, you're the Nazi, you fascist creep.

"Historical revisionism is a key characteristic of a totalitarian ideology."

Like I said, that's what your OTHER hero, Ol' Joe Stalin did. And you, you moron, you bought it.

"You'll be glad to hear that your particular brand of McCarthyian nuttery..."

My goodness, the depths of your historic ignorance know no bounds, do they?

What do you call a witch hunt that keeps on finding witches?

"(including accusing people who refuse to go along with this crazy right wing revisionism of being communist terrorists)"

No, you're a Nazi terrorist wannabe, too cowardly to actually terrorize anyone.

"...is going to be part of the Texas curriculum soon."

Wha? Texas is throwing out reactionary leftist revisionism.

The kind of "history" that is the only thing you know, apparentlly.

"Thanks to a couple of creationist, racist, theocratic nuts."

Um, ok, whatevs.

""You really are an unpleasant individual."

Thanks! =) I'm genuinely flattered."

You would be.

"You people are everything I despise in humanity combined,"

Sanity sets him off. Interesting.

"I am, what you may call, a diabolical reaction product of the anti-dissent hate mongering industry you revel in."

If anyone can make heads or tails out of that, I'd be grateful..

"Pat is a leading hate monger"

Yep, typical proggy nuttiness: telling the truth is "hate speech".

This from the ignorant fascist twerp.

"I dwell here often, looking for the ugliest Nazi propagandist to pick a fighty fight with."

And he always ends up screaming in the mirror.

See, nutty as squirell shit.

" such crazy outlandish revisionist right wing extremist nuttery as Iraq actually having WMD"

They did.

See Kurds, Gassed.

"Depending on your particular debunker nut, you can find everything from racism to WW II revisionism to enthusiastic endorsement of the police state."

Only in your pathetic little mind.

Now go wash the shit off your upper lip.

 
At 31 May, 2010 08:48, Blogger Triterope said...

Anonymous #2 is becoming quite scary.

He really is. He takes us waaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously, and he's ignorant even by 9-11 Truther standards.

 
At 31 May, 2010 08:50, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

It's pretty simple if you think about it. The folks who are most vulnerable to conmen are old folks and youngsters.

So which category are you targeting, Pat? Based on the infantile language you seem to have a fondness for it is the youngsters.

 
At 31 May, 2010 09:05, Blogger Triterope said...

"I know what you are but what am I?" Lame.

 
At 31 May, 2010 10:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

boris is back!

Work release program or did you make bail, bore-ass?

 
At 31 May, 2010 10:30, Blogger avicenne said...

" I am, what you may call, a diabolical reaction product of the anti-dissent hate mongering industry you revel in."

You might like to think that, anon, but you're coming across like Ted Kaczynski with an internet connection.

No one's hate mongering here, other than yourself. Feeling nauseated by 9/11 conspiracy theories and highlighting the machinations of a mob of pseudo-millenialist morons who really believe they're going to change the world isn't crazed right wing blustering.

You can obviously string a sentence together, but in the last analysis it still sounds like 'Zeitgeist', V For Vendetta etc, with a few literary and philosophical elements thrown in.

Seems like a waste of intellectual energy.

 
At 31 May, 2010 15:11, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

You might like to think that, anon, but you're coming across like Ted Kaczynski with an internet connection.

Maybe I am. It's all mathematics, as they say. But Kaczynski was a rightist, who was radicalized by CIA experiments.

Of course, a wide-eyed, state loyalist, denialist, kooky, new fish like yourself never heard about that. You just suck and swallow the idiosyncratic, straw grasping bullshit from the pseudoskeptic JREF gaggle.

Lazarus: you're a drum beat marching Nazi pig (I can smell the totalitarian effluvium across the wire), and you bet your ass I would join the resistance and fight you fascist fucks as soon as you take over again. I can't wait, to be honest. It's never going to happen again, trust me.

BTW: So I'm a Nazi and Stalin is my other hero? At the same time? Make up your goddamn mind, you senseless, brainless, heartless, spineless, gutless, hapless, feckless, clueless concentration camp tower guard.

 
At 31 May, 2010 15:25, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Lazarus Long said...
boris is back!

Work release program or did you make bail, bore-ass?


Not that I really need to know but I am bored and a bit curious - what's with this penal obsession? You done time? Or are you a prison guard, a "bull", a "screw"?

 
At 31 May, 2010 16:06, Blogger Triterope said...

a wide-eyed, state loyalist, denialist, kooky, new fish like, idiosyncratic, straw grasping, bullshit drum beat marching, Nazi, pig, totalitarian effluvium, fascist fuck, senseless, brainless, heartless, spineless, gutless, hapless, feckless, clueless concentration camp tower guard.

Dude, you have some serious anger problems. Get some counseling.

 
At 31 May, 2010 17:06, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Bore-ass said "Based on the infantile language you seem to have a fondness for it is the youngsters."

Spoken like a man of experience.

 
At 31 May, 2010 17:22, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Dude, you have some serious anger problems. Get some counseling.

Read something about 9/11. As it is now, you're out of your league, tripeyokel.

 
At 31 May, 2010 19:30, Blogger Billman said...

Just make sure whatever you read about 9/11 only comes from a troofer website or an unverified source based on speculation.

Don't read any of the many other books about 9/11 that were NOT published by DRG, nor get any actual verified source information. If you must, though, focus on the one single quote that contradicts the hundreds of others, because then its obvious those hundred others were plants by the government.

Otherwise, Anonymous #2 will claim you don't know anything about 9/11.

Any other rules, Anonymous #2? After all, you've taken yourself up as comment police for this blog, and keep demanding people communicate the way YOU want them to.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:05, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Just make sure whatever you read about 9/11 only comes from a troofer website or an unverified source based on speculation.

Would you like to have a debate about the validity of the 9/11 report?

Just say yes.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:44, Blogger Billman said...

Would you like to have a debate about the validity of the 9/11 report?

Just say yes.


Does it's validity or non-validity prove 9/11 was an inside job somehow?

And you don't see the irony of your post.

Fine:
Would you like to have a debate about the validity of Active Thermitic Material Discovered In World Trade Center Dust?

Just say yes.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Jizzmop scribbles, "...Would you like to have a debate about the validity of the 9/11 report?"

I have an idea. Why not keep the "debate" on topic, troll?

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

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:57, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Just say yes."

Yes. Go right ahead Billman. Let's see just how far you get.

And your denialist side-stepping of debate on the disgusting fraud that is known as the "9/11 commission report" is duly noted.

In case you're wondering, I could care LESS about proving some far-out conspiracy involving plane swapping and voice morphing. As far as I'm concerned, it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack so that it could be exploited for geostrategic purposes. Exactly who was in on it and who wasn't, I don't know, but I certainly don't put it past torturing, WMD lying, election gaming scumbags like Bush and Cheney to do so.

You, on the other hand, can retreat in your little hamster hole slash mental safety zone, arguing that every single goddamn piece of evidence of cover-up, obstruction, facilitation and foreknowledge is either coincidence or incompetence.

Great, isn't it, being part of the pseudoskeptic "debunker" gaggle.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:23, Blogger Billman said...

Alright, mr. Double standard..

And your denialist side-stepping of debate on the disgusting fraud that is known as the "9/11 commission report" is duly noted.

And YOUR denialist side-stepping of debate on the disgusting fraud that is known as "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust" is duly noted as well.

In case you're wondering, I could care LESS about proving some far-out conspiracy involving plane swapping and voice morphing.

Did I bring that up at all in this thread? Or even recently?

As far as I'm concerned, it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack so that it could be exploited for geostrategic purposes.

And the pay off for this exploitation has been, what, so far?

Exactly who was in on it and who wasn't, I don't know, but I certainly don't put it past torturing, WMD lying, election gaming scumbags like Bush and Cheney to do so.

Even though you have no proof, and just admitted you have NOTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATION, somehow, you can still honestly expect to be taken seriously when you say:

You, on the other hand, can retreat in your little hamster hole slash mental safety zone, arguing that every single goddamn piece of evidence of cover-up, obstruction, facilitation and foreknowledge is either coincidence or incompetence.

Yet, you who just said you don't know "Exactly who was in on it and who wasn't" feel confident enough to say "it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack"

Wait a minute, doesn't that mean you DO know exactly who was in on it and who wasn't? I mean, you'd HAVE to in order for you to think it has been "established" that the US and it's proxies facilitated this thing, right?

Great, isn't it, being part of the pseudoskeptic "debunker" gaggle.

Great, isn't it, to acuse everyone ELSE of being in a cultist mindset, when you're completely blind to your own logical fallacies.

All you ever do is ad-hom and make every thread and agrument become about someone specific person's character, as if that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...And your denialist side-stepping of debate on the disgusting fraud that is known as the "9/11 commission report" is duly noted."

Do you mean the same 9/11 Commission Report that the book burning neo-Nazis for 9/11 troof™ tossed into the Boston Harbor?

You mean that 9/11 Commission Report?

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

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:27, Blogger Billman said...

As for the meat of your arguments:

disgusting fraud that is known as the "9/11 commission report"

Explain how it's a "fraud?"

it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack so that it could be exploited for geostrategic purposes.

IT HAS?!!! WHY ISN'T THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY SINGLE PUBLICATION IN HISTORY! (cont.)

Exactly who was in on it and who wasn't, I don't know,

(cont.) oh, because it's lying bullshit with no evidence other than speculation.


but I certainly don't put it past torturing,

Ok. Waterboarding. Happened. You're right, there.

WMD lying,

Saddam gassed the Kurds. That's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or did that not happen in Troof world?

election gaming scumbags like Bush and Cheney to do so.

Election gaming? Proof?

...is either coincidence or incompetence.

Or a national security matter.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AND THEN THERE WERE 1,201

1201 architectural and engineering professionals and 8240 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

And your side? Well you have that retard GuitarBill ROFL

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:37, Blogger Billman said...

Is the 1201st yet another pool engineer? Who will tell us how the WTC was brought down using chlorine or something?

ZOMG! LOLZ! ROFL!

I'll stick with "our only person on this side," GuitarBill, thanks.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...1201 architectural and engineering professionals and 8240 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."


9/11 troof™ represents less than 4% percent of the US population. So what are the remaining 96% of the population who think you're deranged, jizzmop? Chicken Soup?

And you're forgetting that over 147,000 members of the ASCE endorse the NIST Report.

147,000 < 1,201

Now, try to argue that 1,201 is greater then 147,000. Get on with it, jizzmop.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:40, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Do you mean the same 9/11 Commission Report that the book burning neo-Nazis for 9/11 troof™ tossed into the Boston Harbor?"

This is intellectually weak on so many levels that I hesitate to even call you on it. But *Sigh*, here we go.

* Hmmm, there ain't much sense in throwing burning books into water, now is there. What did you put in your pipe today, Bill? ;-)

* Besides, what was thrown in, were cardboard models of the 9/11 commission report, not actual copies of the 9/11 commission report. Not that you care about such "trivial" details, of course.

* On an amusing side note in this context (although it's actually tragic, of course), many books burned by the Nazis weren't only books by Jews, but by socialists. There goes Lazarus Long's bat shit crazy "Hitler was a leftist and a socialist" bullshit again.

* Not only was this action contrary to the authorities, conducted by a persecuted minority, it involved a government report that was the basis for the "Bush doctrine" of preemptive warfare, a ghastly imperialist nightmare of a policy far exceeding the ambitions of Hitler and his megalomaniac "in crowd". This, of course, is not in comparable in the slightest to the noble literature burned and destroyed by the Nazis.

...

Well, Bill, it seems that this time you have far outdone yourself in stupidity and ignorance. You've really excelled in proudly demonstrating your embarrassing intellectual ineptitude. I wonder if you can ever top this. In this regard, I put nothing past you though. Don't you think it'd be better if you'd just shut the fuck up? It was nauseating in the extreme to see you sodomize history for your little petty pseudoskeptic agenda this way.

Bah.

(*Cheers*)

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous whines, "...Well, Bill, it seems that this time you have far outdone yourself in stupidity and ignorance. You've really excelled in proudly demonstrating your embarrassing intellectual ineptitude. I wonder if you can ever top this. In this regard, I put nothing past you though. Don't you think it'd be better if you'd just shut the fuck up? It was nauseating in the extreme to see you sodomize history for your little petty pseudoskeptic [SIC] agenda this way."

First of all, you're lying. I watched the video of the Boston event, and they tossed real versions of the Report into the Harbor, not just a cardboard effigy.

Now liar, if you'll remove your head from your ass for moment and stop taking yourself so seriously, you might come to the realization that my comment was a joke.

On another level, however, it's not a joke, because you are a pack of book burning neo-Nazis.

Do I need to dredge up a video of the Minneapolis St Paul Chapter of 9/11 troof™ and their "9/11 Commission Report Book Bar-B-Que®" from last year?

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

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Billman, I'm going to answer your lengthy, mendacious acrobatics once, then I'm going to sleep and we can continue tomorrow.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Alright, mr. Double standard..

What?

And YOUR denialist side-stepping of debate on the disgusting fraud that is known as "Active Thermitic Material Found in World Trade Center Dust" is duly noted as well.

No it isn't. I said "yes".

Did I bring that up at all in this thread? Or even recently?

I said "in case".

And the pay off for this exploitation has been, what, so far?

There are many tangents in this debate, but the primary payoff is control over the region with the last, most abundant, remaining sources of oil and gas. I can give you a longer answer later, if you want.

Even though you have no proof, and just admitted you have NOTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATION, somehow, you can still honestly expect to be taken seriously when you say:

Huh?

Yet, you who just said you don't know "Exactly who was in on it and who wasn't" feel confident enough to say "it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack"

Yes.

Wait a minute, doesn't that mean you DO know exactly who was in on it and who wasn't? I mean, you'd HAVE to in order for you to think it has been "established" that the US and it's proxies facilitated this thing, right?

No, it doesn't mean that. Note the word "exactly". There are many levels of looking at 9/11, the micro level, the meso level and the macro level. I don't expect you to understand right away. I can name names, but as one zooms out and looks at the big picture, one sees a convergence of various interests and strategic policies. It's the accumulation of various facts and sources with eventually leads me to conclude what I concluded, not just a list of people of who I am "convinced" were involved in the "conspiracy". Obviously, in a ramshackle shithole like this blog, this level of discourse is fodder for the vultures. You want to engage or ridicule? Your choice.

Great, isn't it, to acuse everyone ELSE of being in a cultist mindset, when you're completely blind to your own logical fallacies.

All you ever do is ad-hom and make every thread and agrument become about someone specific person's character, as if that proves 9/11 was an inside job.


I think it is a non-sequitur to suggest that paying ad hominem in kind is an attempt to prove 9/11 is an "inside job", which, in turn, is a straw man argument, since I despise the term.

You were saying?

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, that was Milwaukee not Minneapolis St Paul.

But that's beside the point, because you're still a bunch of book burning neo-Nazis.

Source: YouTube: Third Annual Milwaukee 9/11 Commission Report Book Bar-B-Que®.

Bon Apetite.

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:04, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

GuitarBill, for the sake of debating Billman, I'm going to completely ignore you for the time being. See you later, Billman. I'm going to sleep first.

Cheers.

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...GuitarBill, for the sake of debating Billman, I'm going to completely ignore you for the time being. See you later, Billman. I'm going to sleep first."

Of course you're going to run, because I just proved that you're lying again.

LOL!

Pleasant dreams, Pinocchio.

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

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:16, Blogger Billman said...


I think it is a non-sequitur to suggest that paying ad hominem in kind is an attempt to prove 9/11 is an "inside job", which, in turn, is a straw man argument, since I despise the term.


No, that's why I said AND.

The ad-homs usually have nothing to do with anything, until it's inferred that attacking someone's character means they are wrong somehow and therefore because they are wrong, then 9/11 is an inside job.

Meh. Even the troofers get tired once in a while, I guess.

See ya'll tommorow.

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:29, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, oops. Reading comprehension isn't my strong suit tonight.

Most troofers DO try to correlate ad-homs as meaning 9/11 is an inside job.

But, how can you say that the US gov facilitated and nurtured the attacks on 9/11, yet contradictorily, say you despise the term "inside job."

We always have to argue the semantics, before we argue each other's characters, then it's on to arguing what's valid for sources, and it never moves on from there... sigh.

So whenever we get back to this, why don't you clarify specifically, what it is you believe about, WTC 1 and 2, the planes that crashed into WTC 1 and 2, Flight 77, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.

I will do the same. And once we have established a set of beliefs, we can then debate those beliefs without constant having to resort to the semantics.

Hopefully.. its a long shot.

 
At 31 May, 2010 22:31, Blogger Billman said...

Oh, and WTC 7. Forgot to squeeze that in there.

 
At 01 June, 2010 04:08, Blogger Triterope said...

Read something about 9/11. As it is now, you're out of your league, tripeyokel.

Are you fucking kidding me? Your every utterance proves you don't know the first thing about your own subject matter.

But go ahead, link to the NYCCAN signatories or "architects and engineers" list again. These things have been shown to be so thoroughly fraudulent that even other truthers don't post them with a straight face anymore. And all your other arguments are straight out of 2007. Or earlier.

 
At 01 June, 2010 05:40, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'sackcloth and ashes said...
Piss off Walt. I make my money the old fashioned way, on my hands and knees.

31 May, 2010 00:39'

We don't have a coal-mining industry in my country anymore.

Stop trying to spoof other posters, you wanker. It only shows everyone how sad you are that you allow a complete stranger to upset you on an internet forum.

 
At 01 June, 2010 09:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Would you like to have a debate about the validity of the 9/11 report?"

How does one "debate" someone as insane as you are?

One doesn't.

One points and laughs at the poor insane mook pretending he actually knows something.

 
At 01 June, 2010 09:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"As far as I'm concerned, it has been established that the United States government and its proxies facilitated and nurtured this terrorist attack so that it could be exploited for geostrategic purposes"


COO-COO COO-COO!

See what I mean?

 
At 01 June, 2010 10:07, Blogger avicenne said...

"There are many levels of looking at 9/11, the micro level, the meso level and the macro level. I don't expect you to understand right away."

Pick any philosopher at random from your bookshelves, anon, and apply his or her epistemology to 9/11 conspiracy. Make it half a dozen, and mix them all together in some pointless syncretic hash, then endlessly portray this blog as a social club for Nazified debauchees.

That doesn't make you any different from the generic bomb slinger, whom you also despise, as you do everyone.

The book you linked might be an interesting read, but on its own terms, not applied to 9/11. If you're operating on the latter principle, you could link ten thousand random books, ten thousand different approaches, and it would never end.

 
At 01 June, 2010 14:32, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

The book you linked might be an interesting read, but on its own terms, not applied to 9/11. If you're operating on the latter principle, you could link ten thousand random books, ten thousand different approaches, and it would never end.

So far, I think I'll use your contributions to expand my idiom. Anything else seems pointless.

However, what I was doing, was trying to explain the complexity of systems (such as the government) and the different levels of detail with which one can study them, including the analysis of intelligence and law enforcement in the run up to, on, and after 9/11. If you want to use this blog as a springboard for your career in literature, by my guest, apart from that, I can make head nor tail of your self-serving, exhibitionist, onanist lexiphanicism. (like my expensive words? =)

 
At 01 June, 2010 14:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

But, how can you say that the US gov facilitated and nurtured the attacks on 9/11, yet contradictorily, say you despise the term "inside job."

Because it exculpates Al Qaeda.

We always have to argue the semantics, before we argue each other's characters, then it's on to arguing what's valid for sources, and it never moves on from there... sigh.

I don't want to be painted with the same brush as the Alex Jones crowd. Generalize all you want. The "inside job" term exculpates Al Qaeda, and I'm not with that.

So whenever we get back to this, why don't you clarify specifically, what it is you believe about, WTC 1 and 2, the planes that crashed into WTC 1 and 2, Flight 77, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.

[and WTC 7]


I believe WTC 1 and 2 could have collapsed naturally, but I am deeply worried by the temperature anomalies and the related studies by Jones, Harrit, Ryan et al. The "rebuttals" don't exist. The criticisms of Bentham and scientific standards are infantile and desperate. The NIST reports are a mix of lies, half-truths and truths. I agree with some analysis, disagree with others. By and large, I believe the NIST hypotheses for WTC 1, 2 and 7 are incorrect.

A plane crashed into the Pentagon, although it never should have and flight 93 may have been shot down,

The FDR of flight 77 could well be a fraud, because it shows several fatal anomalies, exposed by Calumn Douglas. I'm waiting for that issue to start making some sense. Nevertheless a 757 certainly, and AA 77 most likely, flew into the Pentagon.

The WTC 7 NIST report is partly factual, partly fraudulent and I am extremely dissatisfied with it. I believe evidence contrary to the official story is being marginalized and suppressed and that the so-called "debunkers" are anything but skeptics, nor are their criticisms objective or scientific.

These are all scientific, technical discussions though, and completely leave out means, motive, opportunity, the inexplicable behavior of several key players in the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoD, the White House and elsewhere.

Furthermore, the possible involvement and the extent of that involvement of Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is being covered up. With "involvement" I mean any sort of behavior that would warrant criminal prosecution.

And when I link to the NYCCAN petition, I link there to show the support among 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors for 9/11 truth, not to promote the NYCCAN initiative, which, in its original inception, failed.

I do that because the usual character assassination, generalization, guilt by association, and demonization of the 9/11 truthers is difficult to sustain when applied to the real truth movement.

Pat is a tabloid writer and a hate monger, motivated by his extreme right wing ideology to hang flaming tires around the necks of all those who dare oppose the Republican party orthodoxy of blind, mindless jingoism. I oppose these tactics and the pea-brained, cretinous foot soldiers who copy and imitate them in their endeavor to strangle and ridicule dissenting opinion under the banner of so-called skepticism. As a true skeptic, I cannot accept this blatant and shameless affront.

So, in short, I believe the behavior of the US authorities before, on and after 9/11 is so outrageous that it merits a proper criminal investigation which must dig up every single embarrassing, treasonous detail, without any regard whatsoever for "national security", which is just a convenient smokescreen used for cover-ups. This much is clear from Watergate, where Nixon considered invoking National Security to cover up his administration's crimes.

Okay, Billman?

 
At 01 June, 2010 15:31, Blogger Billman said...

Because it exculpates Al Qaeda.

Ah, I think I understand. I am getting that you think Al Qaeda pulled it off, but with help from rogues parts of the US. So Al Qaeda is guilty, to you. But you believe someone in the US helped him.

However, based on some of your past statements, you condemn the US Govt for just about everything. So this is a little cryptic, and a tad contradictory.

I don't want to be painted with the same brush as the Alex Jones crowd. Generalize all you want.

Not my intention to generalize. It seriously seems to me like how every single debate goes. Wether it's in these comment threads, or on the phone ESPECIALLY with Dylan Avery.

I am deeply worried by the temperature anomalies and the related studies by Jones, Harrit, Ryan et al. The "rebuttals" don't exist.

But they do. The truth movement (the crazy part) is ignoring every single one of them because they don't meet some kind of standard for rebuttal, yet they can rebut all they like without meeting thier own standards.

The criticisms of Bentham and scientific standards are infantile and desperate.

They ARE valid. I will say that the sketchiness of how they do business doesn't mean the science of what they publish is always wrong (even though it is when it comes to Jones and Harrit's paper), but they DO have shady practices that have rased valid criticisms about thier legitmacy.

The NIST reports are a mix of lies, half-truths and truths. I agree with some analysis, disagree with others.

You don't see how that can be taken as cherry picking what you think agrees with you, and ignoring what doesn't?

 
At 01 June, 2010 15:31, Blogger Billman said...

By and large, I believe the NIST hypotheses for WTC 1, 2 and 7 are incorrect.

Ok. In your words, why?

A plane crashed into the Pentagon, although it never should have

Ok. Why not?

flight 93 may have been shot down,

Ok, but then there would be debris from the missile and indications of such, and none of that was found.

The FDR of flight 77 could well be a fraud, because it shows several fatal anomalies, exposed by Calumn Douglas.

Explain what these anomalies are? Because the "missing 3 minutes" thing is bogus, because the transcript acounts for all 30 minutes. There's no 33 minute recorder that I know of at that time. Nowdays, I think the digital ones go for many hours... but back then, 30 minutes was the standard, no plus or minus. And all 30 minutes ARE on the FDR.

I'm waiting for that issue to start making some sense.

Well, tell me what confuses you about it, and I'll look into that as well.

Nevertheless a 757 certainly, and AA 77 most likely, flew into the Pentagon.

Ok.

 
At 01 June, 2010 15:31, Blogger Billman said...

These are all scientific, technical discussions though, and completely leave out means, motive, opportunity, the inexplicable behavior of several key players in the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoD, the White House and elsewhere.

Then who ARE you accusing here? Al Qaeda, or the US Govt?

Furthermore, the possible involvement and the extent of that involvement of Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is being covered up. With "involvement" I mean any sort of behavior that would warrant criminal prosecution.

Ok. Possibly. That could be a naitonal security issue, and explain some of the so-called "secrecy and anamolies" in some of things you guys get worked up about. To me at least.

And I'm not saying they should be allowed to get away with it because of "national security" or anything. No. There should be some justice. And yeah, I think a new investigation to deal with those kinds of things, if it worked, is something I could agree with.

But also, there should be some things that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should NOT know about US National Security, and keeping some of those things secret, even if they apply to 9/11 is kind of the US's job.

And when I link to the NYCCAN petition, I link there to show the support among 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors for 9/11 truth, not to promote the NYCCAN initiative, which, in its original inception, failed.

There are other ways to do that. NYCCAN is a horrible execution of an idea that, I get... but they want way too much power to conduct it.

I do that because the usual character assassination, generalization, guilt by association, and demonization of the 9/11 truthers is difficult to sustain when applied to the real truth movement.

I agree with you there. But there are people like Jon Gold who believe they are "the REAL truth movement" and I don't think they get it either.

So, in short, I believe the behavior of the US authorities before, on and after 9/11 is so outrageous that it merits a proper criminal investigation which must dig up every single embarrassing, treasonous detail, without any regard whatsoever for "national security", which is just a convenient smokescreen used for cover-ups.

National Security IS a very very valid concern. You have NO idea, I guess, how one little thing can expose something else. Serving in the military, I learned that the slightest thing you say in a bar about your movements, mission, or whatever can actually be a big peice of information for someone else that could lead to disaster, and nearly has a lot of the time.

Shit, this National Security thing is just ONE aspect of speculation really. But it's complex, and would take a whole discussion in itself to clearly explain what I mean. I'm not using it to justify any kind of wrong doing. Rather, I'm saying it could also be a FACTOR in some (not all) of the things that you guys allege as shady. Mostly concerning other countries and intelligence agents.

This much is clear from Watergate, where Nixon considered invoking National Security to cover up his administration's crimes.

And he was found out about it. Yet noone who supposedly did this 9/11 thing has been...

Okay, Billman?

Sure.

I don't think I got my point across, as I'm too exhausted today to get into it. But I didn't want you to feel ignored, either. I hope I made some sense...

 
At 01 June, 2010 15:32, Blogger Billman said...

I hate that 4096 character limit... sometimes we NEED to windbag longer than that.

 
At 01 June, 2010 16:06, Blogger Triterope said...

I don't want to be painted with the same brush as the Alex Jones crowd.

You know when I said "Your every utterance proves you don't know the first thing about your own subject matter"? This is the sort of thing I was talking about.

 
At 01 June, 2010 22:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9/11 troof™ represents less than 4% percent of the US population. So what are the remaining 96% of the population who think you're deranged, jizzmop? Chicken Soup?

4% Fretboard Fool?

1 In 3 Americans Now Suspect US Government Involvement In 911
By Jim Mortellaro
Reuters
September 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - The United States government is attacking conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York as the fifth anniversary of September 11 arrived.

According to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll carried out in July, more than one-third of Americans suspect U.S. officials helped in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could later go to war.

 
At 02 June, 2010 01:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More fraud, liar?

Where's your link, jizzmop?

(Be careful, Gomer)

%^)

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

 
At 02 June, 2010 05:03, Blogger Billman said...

And of course, nothing has changed in the 3 and a half years since that article (which was wrong then and is wrong now).

If 1/3 of all Americans believe this crap, that means there at least 100 million people in the US alone that do, yet Cynthia McKinney and any other troof candidate can't get anything other than a FRACTION of the vote? Why didnt NYCCAN soar straight onto the polls?

Why isn't there a Rodney King style Riot for Troof going on right now?

Or are they all "afraid" to come forwards because of their pensions? Yet they'll count themselves in a poll...

 
At 02 June, 2010 06:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I don't want to be painted with the same brush as the Alex Jones crowd."

Why not?

You're insane, too.

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:14, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The delusional Yuppie Fret Boy sure has the 9/11 skeptics movement nailed,don't he?!? Even the loopy guys that run this dim-bulb site admit that it's somewhere between an eighth and a quarter (or,their daily consumption of schwag) of the American people know the "Official Fairy Tale" by Philip Zelikow is a crock of shite.Seek help,"Git",you dumbass bloviator.

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:14, Blogger Triterope said...

According to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll carried out in July, more than one-third of Americans suspect U.S. officials helped in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could later go to war.

That's nice. Did you see the question right below it?

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%


Or the question below that one?

The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%


Source

The lesson here -- which isn't a lesson to anyone but you, you out-of-date noob -- is that the wording of a question can greatly change the results.

In the case of 9-11 conspiracy poll questions, the response is largely a function of how much room there is for people to answer "yes" when they believe the Bush administration misused the event to their own ends, but don't necessarily believe they orchestrated a conspiracy.

But you starting asking specific questions about even the most popular conspiracy explanations, and your poll numbers disappear like that.

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:40, Blogger Triterope said...

And when I link to the NYCCAN petition, I link there to show the support among 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors for 9/11 truth

For once, you're right.

There are thousands of New Yorkers who qualify as "family members, first responders or survivors." Your sad little petition has a grand total of 151 signatories. It barely got 30 000 valid signatures total, in a city of millions. Better scroll back up and admire those 6% positive responses in that poll; those are much better numbers for you.

You do a better job illustrating the complete lack of support for some piece of shit "new investigation" than I ever could.

 
At 02 June, 2010 17:44, Blogger Archibald said...

Do the troofers realize that most of their "sources" are: Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers (American Free Press), anti-semites, raving lunatics (Alex Jones), anti-American eurofags, and people talking about shit they have no conception of.

Yet they call us Nazis... Now I will admit they were snazzy dressers and their marching tunes were pretty catchy, but that is where my affinity for them ends. These people they cite as "reliable sources" rattle off all this crap that they take as gospel (the "troof") and in the next breath start talking about blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptile people running the world (well, along with the mass Zionist Conspiracy, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and (of course) the reverse vampires. And they call US delusional?

 
At 03 June, 2010 01:21, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

As the only exception in this thread, I'll respond to Triterope's cowardly "debunker" attack on the 9/11 families.

"For once, you're right."

Thank you. Of course, this will turn out to be another non-apology apology, one of the irritating hallmarks of the foolhardy, zealous, right wing extremist "debunker" cult.

"There are thousands of New Yorkers who qualify as "family members, first responders or survivors." Your sad little petition has a grand total of 151 signatories."

Strange. I count 154. And that's more than enough for me. Thanks for going through the trouble to count them though, that shows once again how much you fear that list.

It barely got 30 000 valid signatures total, in a city of millions.

You are confusing the number of signatures conceded by some obstructionist bureaucrat with the number of signatures collected by the petition, which is what I'm interested in. That would be 80,000, and is sure to include many more people who would qualify as "family members".

"Better scroll back up and admire those 6% positive responses in that poll; those are much better numbers for you."

Here's something for you to admire:
Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative

Why did you even try that one? Besides, I'm Anonymous #2, please keep track.

"You do a better job illustrating the complete lack of support for some piece of shit "new investigation" than I ever could."

Your reflexive and spastic attempts to discredit and defame even 9/11 family members with spurious arguments, deliberate misinterpretions, fallacies and cheap shots, exposes the real agenda of this godawful militaristic authoritarian cult you belong to.

The list remains, forever a stark reminder of the kind of abusive rhetoric even 9/11 family members, survivors and first responders, (such as John Feal) have to endure from sociopaths like "Archibald":

"These people they cite as "reliable sources" rattle off all this crap that they take as gospel (the "troof") and in the next breath start talking about blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptile people running the world (well, along with the mass Zionist Conspiracy, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and (of course) the reverse vampires. And they call US delusional?"

That's how "Archibald" thinks about 154 9/11 family members and 80,000 New Yorkers. That *IS* delusional. Of course, Archibald himself believes the most ridiculous, outlandish, goofy, laughable fairy tales, as long as they originate with his beloved "government" or the "skeptic" community, which by now is largely an echo chamber of the former.

 
At 03 June, 2010 02:35, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Ah, I think I understand. I am getting that you think Al Qaeda pulled it off, but with help from rogues parts of the US. So Al Qaeda is guilty, to you. But you believe someone in the US helped him."

Well, yes. (Them)

"However, based on some of your past statements, you condemn the US Govt for just about everything. So this is a little cryptic, and a tad contradictory."

I do blame governments in general for just about everything. But in the end, it all boils down to human nature. We could have a long discussion about the state crimes of Russia, too, in which I'm sure you'll be a lot more diplomatic and open minded about government conspiracies, because so long as the communist bogeyman is the designated culprit, conspiracy theories are socially allowed.

"But they do. The truth movement (the crazy part) is ignoring every single one of them because they don't meet some kind of standard for rebuttal, yet they can rebut all they like without meeting thier own standards."

My standard for rebuttal is empirical possibility. Only thermitic materials produce previously molten elemental iron when ignited. It's that simple. These are not "my" standards at all. If you disagree, then cite another chemical reaction that can produce the same results (production of elemental iron through reduction) at the same ignition temperature.

"They ARE valid. I will say that the sketchiness of how they do business doesn't mean the science of what they publish is always wrong (even though it is when it comes to Jones and Harrit's paper), but they DO have shady practices that have rased valid criticisms about thier legitmacy."

Hmmm. Okay.. You have a point. But I do want to underscore that more phoney papers have been published in Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters than in Bentham. Where was the proper peer review process there? Note btw that the so-called "nonsense paper" was (A) never actually published by Bentham and (B) not in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is a different journal with different editors. You can start the Pileni discussion with me, but she lied and you know it.

"You don't see how that can be taken as cherry picking what you think agrees with you, and ignoring what doesn't?"

I, unlike you, am not defending the official narrative. Therefore, I am not bound by a false dilemma of either acceptance or rejection. If you reject a part or the whole of the NIST report, I am vindicated. If I reject either a part or the entirety of the NIST report, I am merely doing what is expected. For example, WTC 7 had 47 stories. Just because it's in the NIST report, doesn't mean I reject that fact.

By your logic, any critique might be disregarded as "cherrypicking" because such a critique does not either completely accept or completely reject the report it critiques. This is a false dilemma, and it is fallacious, whereas you are indeed bound by that report if you want to defend it as a full and accurate accounting. If you think it isn't we should have a new investigation.

 
At 03 June, 2010 02:53, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Ok. In your words, why?"

I believe WTC 1, for example, fell due to core failure -> perimeter column failure, not due to floor sagging -> perimeter column failure.

"Ok. Why not?"

Because the USAF should have intervened. Now I know where this leads though. A long-winded, endless, pointless discussion about whether or not they could have. Where I have to do all the work convincing *you*. I really don't feel like spending a whole workweek writing a little book in Blogger comment space, with a constant stream of toxic invective and gaslighting from the resident sideliners. It should be the other way around. The USAF should be doing the explaining, NORAD should be doing the explaining, preferably in a new investigation where they aren't considered for referral to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

"Ok, but then there would be debris from the missile and indications of such, and none of that was found."

Debris from the missile? Can you tell me what kind of identifiable missile debris you would have expected? A piece of hull with a serial number? No. Missiles exploded, and might leave tell-tale signs on the plane's fusilage or near the engines, where they are likely targeted, but I don't expect there to be much "missile debris". Prove me wrong?

I really do believe, BTW, that if flight 93 was shot down, the authorities would simply cover up the evidence for it.

"Explain what these anomalies are?"Because the "missing 3 minutes" thing is bogus,"

What are you talking about? Flight 77? Are you sure?

"Well, tell me what confuses you about it, and I'll look into that as well."

Watch Calumn Douglas's presentation. Video google him.

 
At 03 June, 2010 03:23, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Then who ARE you accusing here? Al Qaeda, or the US Govt?"

Both.

"Ok. Possibly. That could be a naitonal security issue, and explain some of the so-called "secrecy and anamolies" in some of things you guys get worked up about. To me at least."

Israel: never mind. Nothing can be said here about Israel that would make a difference. That much I understand.

Pakistan: the relationship between the ISI and the CIA, vs. the relation between the ISI, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and apparently the 9/11 hijackers.

Saudi Arabia: the relationship between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government, and the information available to Tenet and the Bush family through Saudi intelligence.

"And I'm not saying they should be allowed to get away with it because of "national security" or anything. No. There should be some justice. And yeah, I think a new investigation to deal with those kinds of things, if it worked, is something I could agree with."

Okay.

"But also, there should be some things that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should NOT know about US National Security, and keeping some of those things secret, even if they apply to 9/11 is kind of the US's job."

I disagree. The only thing I can justify keeping secret is/are (aspects of) nuclear security.

"There are other ways to do that. NYCCAN is a horrible execution of an idea that, I get... but they want way too much power to conduct it."

As if power is in good hands where we stand.

"I agree with you there. But there are people like Jon Gold who believe they are "the REAL truth movement" and I don't think they get it either."

Gold knows how to steer clear of mine fields. Gold is simply somebody who represents and continues to represent 9/11 families, survivors and first responders who first came to him requesting financial aid for "Press for Truth". I think this is the best thing to do.

"National Security IS a very very valid concern. You have NO idea, I guess, how one little thing can expose something else. Serving in the military, I learned that the slightest thing you say in a bar about your movements, mission, or whatever can actually be a big peice of information for someone else that could lead to disaster, and nearly has a lot of the time."

I have similar experience, but not from the military. National security is another word for cover up. We disagree here. I understand you can't fully make your point in a few paragraphs, and I also understand disclosing troop movements opens them up to attack, but this is merely a contrived scenario because it has nothing to do with ten-year-old information. I know from Nixon / Ellsberg what national security is good for. I know from what happened to Sibel Edmunds what "national security" is good for. It's mostly good for cover ups. I don't buy it, I'm not having it.

Some disclosures are going to be extremely damaging to the interests of the well-connected, sophisticated elites and their hirelings who are covering their tracks. They want us to believe that exposing them will "damage US interests". Well, guess what, a president getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office will also "damage US interests", nevertheless the GOP went for it.

The term "national security", in short, basically has as much verisimilitude in its meaning as "federal reserve", "ministry of defense" and "peacekeeping mission".

 
At 03 June, 2010 03:48, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

By the way, Billman, many of my concerns I share with Jon Gold.

If you want a list of points to address, that's a good one.

And don't come back at me with "how does that prove an inside jobby job", because I don't care about "inside job" rhetoric.

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:00, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
"Then who ARE you accusing here? Al Qaeda, or the US Govt?"

Both."

COO-COO COO-COO.

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:10, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"COO-COO COO-COO."

Yep the intellectual capacity of a dumb, stupid right wing animal, making animal sounds. Typical...

 
At 03 June, 2010 06:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
"COO-COO COO-COO."

Yep the intellectual capacity of a dumb, stupid right wing animal, making animal sounds. Typical..."

Yet you are the twooooofer™ conspiratard, flatworm.

Have your doctor check you meds for efficacy.

 
At 03 June, 2010 06:43, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I heard Lazarus Long went to the doctor recently with a frog on his head.

The doctor asked: "What's wrong?"

The frog answered: "Doctor, I've got a tumor under my ass"

Klabling!

 
At 03 June, 2010 23:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous #2 arrived at the local medical clinic for his annual physical examination.

As it turned out, his doctor was a drop dead gorgeous 35-year old woman.

After a few minutes of small talk, the young physician began the physical examination.

To Anonymous #2's surprise, the doctor stopped the physical examination in 15 seconds and said, "Anonymous #2, you really need to stop masturbating."

Stunned and dismayed, Anonymous #2 replied, "Why?"

The intrepid and nubile young physician replied, "Because I'm trying to examine you, stupid."

Ca ching!

 
At 05 June, 2010 11:32, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The two weird pillars of the Debunker Cult,Pornboy and the loony "GitFiddler" are going down in flames and the rest of the world heaves a sigh of relief! Pornboy will not give an inch on Hitler being a Commie and the Wackiest Ship in the Navy insists that Israel has no nuclear weapons.Where can you really go after these creeps expose themselves as barking mad?d

 
At 05 June, 2010 12:38, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'ArseHooligan tell us, how's the weather in the Persistent State of Lunacy?'

Ask him about his amazing adventures in the UK. He was either over here in 1995 or 1997-1998, only he can't remember exactly, even though his first son was born over here. He spent time living in South East London, although he can't remember the faintest detail about his surroundings. He was also able to live it up in 'the West End' despite not having a job, or any evident source of income, which is a first.

Oh, and apparently his girlfriend was a professional dancer as well. Forget about 'A Real Veteran', I've never seen such a demented fantasist as this.

 
At 07 June, 2010 16:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Poor sap,he's gone moldy!

 
At 14 June, 2010 01:42, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Wow, that's a witty comeback, Walt. Now tell us why you're compelled to tell lies about your past.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home