Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Good Article on Conspiracy Theories

At (gasp) the Huffington Post.

Many of these popularizers received their lofty titles from "think tanks" or "institutes" that are run out of somebody's PO box or den. Almost none of them have credentials or professional experience in the field they're holding forth on -- and the ones that do have relevant qualifications are more often than not regarded as embarrassments by their colleagues. And so it happens that David Ray Griffin, the leading author of books on the 9/11 conspiracy, isn't an aviation expert, physicist, structural engineer, or authority on terrorism; he's a retired theology professor who asks his readers to take a lot on faith.

Despite the lack of academic or professional cred (or perhaps because of it), the folks who promote conspiracy theories go overboard to put a thick veneer of scholarship on their claims. Books and essays are ostentatiously footnoted; but the references typically link back to even more obscure conspiracy publications with even flimsier evidence -- or else to other works written by the same author, in a self-reinforcing loop.


Yep. Remember that recent DRG article that repeated the claim that several of the hijackers were alive? Well, Grifter has learned from past mistakes; instead of linking the BBC article from 2001, which now has the correction appended, he instead referenced The New Pearl Harbor.

Worth the read.

Labels:

150 Comments:

At 20 July, 2010 19:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sara Robinson wrote, "...Despite the lack of academic or professional cred (or perhaps because of it), the folks who promote conspiracy theories go overboard to put a thick veneer of scholarship on their claims. Books and essays are ostentatiously footnoted; but the references typically link back to even more obscure conspiracy publications with even flimsier evidence -- or else to other works written by the same author, in a SELF-REINFORCING LOOP."

That correct, Sara.

And as I've said for many years, citing a conspiracy website is not evidence--it's a circle jerk (aka, self-reinforcing loop).

 
At 20 July, 2010 19:34, Anonymous Len said...

Other tricks are:

- citing sources that don't really back your claims. Often the citation is so vauge that it is all but impossible to check. Some of DRG's footnotes include only the publication and date, i.e. he omits the title, author and page # of the article. Since he paraphrases this makes it difficult to find what he was referring to unless one wants to look through the entire publication

- providing footnotes for things that aren't disputed but leaving the controversial ones undocumented.

 
At 20 July, 2010 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Good point, Len.

In fact, I've caught troofers misrepresenting their sources on hundreds of occasions.

Troofers are shameless liars and con artists.

 
At 20 July, 2010 21:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GBill, your lack of reading comprehension skill is not the same as truthers misrepresenting sources.

I shoved that down your throat a few of Pat's posts ago if you recall.

And no this isn't Brian, GB. This is the anony that hands you your ass each time I respond to your bs.

But I'm feeling sorry for you, so in the fairness of your braincell, I offer a truce by this simple question.

What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?

You other debunks can feel free to answer in case Bill has problems with comprehending the question.

 
At 21 July, 2010 00:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I shoved that down your throat a few of Pat's posts ago if you recall."

Really? No kidding?

Since when does condescension, bald-faced lies and prattle constitute a valid argument?

"...What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?"

I can imagine thousands of scenarios that might arose my suspicion; however, the 9/11 troofers have offered nothing that would compel me to question the NIST Report or the conclusions found therein.

Keep working on it, psychopath. After all, if you can somehow manage to oscillate your remaining braincell to 4 Hz or so, you might approach vegetable status.

Good luck, and God's speed.

 
At 21 July, 2010 00:55, Blogger angrysoba said...

Len: - citing sources that don't really back your claims

Or sources which outright contradict the claims Truthers are making.

 
At 21 July, 2010 01:57, Anonymous stilicho said...

Another one I find common is the special pleading fallacy. The reason we don't agree with the 'truthers' is because we're simply 'sheeple'. Easy, huh?

Works for everything from religious fundamentalism through to anti-Fed nutters.

@GuitarBill: A famous holocaust denier at the JREF recently cited a facebook group to support his argument that Zionists started WWI. I kid you not.

 
At 21 July, 2010 03:33, Blogger Triterope said...

What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?

There are two things that would make consider the possibility:

1. An internal document of some sort that SPECIFICALLY references the attacks and SPECIFICALLY states that they will be arranged or allowed to happen.

In lieu of #1 I would accept a whistleblower, if the person was in a highly-placed position where they could observe such discussion, and can pass a basic credibility check.

2. A piece of physical evidence that would unmistakably show some other force present in the destruction of the buildings. A scrap of detcord, a blob of gelignite, that sort of thing.

Yeah, I know you idiots think you have things that fit those categories, but you don't.

 
At 21 July, 2010 03:53, Blogger Triterope said...

And as for conspiracy techniques, here's another one they use all the time: overstating the relevance/credibility of bodies that supposedly prove your point.

I was going to bring this up on the Deets thread because it's from his WTC7 website, but it fits even better here:

Architect Richard Gage on Fox News, May 28, 2009

The hosts of Fox News on KMPH in Fresno, California

In the headline, it's Fox News, with a capital N. In the body, the truth comes out -- it's a local news story from one of Fox's affiliates. Big difference in the amount and importance of the coverage.

Similarly, conspiracy people like to pad their credibility by including irrelevant details:

"TV Hören und Sehen", with a paid circulation of nearly a million copies, is owned by the Bauer Media Group, which publishes 308 magazines in 14 countries.

I guess a million copies wasn't impressive enough, so they padded it out by citing the statistics of the ownership group. As if anyone cared, or this made their claims less ludicrous.

 
At 21 July, 2010 09:19, Blogger Pat said...

There are lots of things that would convince me that the US government was behind 9-11.

Let's flip that around. What would convince you that the US government was not behind 9-11?

 
At 21 July, 2010 09:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Anonymous,

What's this?

Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA.

Richard Gage on 970 KNUU Radio Las Vegas - March 2010 - Part 1/5.

Richard Gage on CBC.

Richard Gage, AIA on CBS affiliate WBZ News Radio 1030 (Boston), 03.03.2010.

Richard Gage on Coast To Coast AM - 6/9/09 1/12.

An Inside Job? 1/2.

Now, hurry and move the goalpost, psychopath.

 
At 21 July, 2010 11:21, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible"

My going completely bugfuck crazy, and my wife calling the nice gentlmen in the white coats with the butterfly nets and wet packs.

You know, sorta like, well, you.

 
At 21 July, 2010 11:37, Anonymous Pat the Pudgy Pussy said...

"There are lots of things that would convince me that the US government was behind 9-11."
What a PAThetic non-answer, as usual. Still think it was cutting torches? If so, how many? Where's your resource, fat slob?

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...'There are lots of things that would convince me that the US government was behind 9-11.'
What a PAThetic non-answer, as usual. Still think it was cutting torches? If so, how many? Where's your resource, fat slob?"


Are you still working on that reading comprehension thing, psychopath?

Besides the obvious sources of iron-rich sphere--cranes, excavators, the thermitic lances used by clean up workers, concrete saws, clutches and brake pads--there's another super abundant source of iron-rich sphere: The Tower's lightweight concrete.

Fly ash, moreover, is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Thus, iron-rich spheres were present in the World Trade Center Towers before the destruction of the buildings. As we all know, concrete was pulverized when the Towers collapsed; thus, fly ash, weighing thousands of tons, covered the pile as well as Manhattan.

Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:

Source: Google: fly ash used as aggregate in lightweight concrete.

Furthermore, the US Department of Energy confirms my argument.

The US Department of Energy wrote, "...All of the fly ash samples were comprised mainly of amorphous alumino-silicate spheres and a smaller amount of iron-rich spheres."

Source: US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Fly ash characterization by SEM–EDS.

Now, put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, psychopath

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:03, Anonymous Marc said...

Here are the things that lead me out of the Conspircy Theory Swamp. I am a reformed JFK Assasination kook, and I dabbled in the Illimunati and UFOs too.

The first thing that threw a big steaming pile of reality into my backyard was when I went to Dallas, and actually went to the Texas Schoolbook Depository and Dealy Plaza. I went to the Sixth Floor Museum ( which I recommend to everyone), looked down onto Elm Street below and realized that it was a fucking easy shot. The consiracy mythos made Oswald's shot into some kind of Circus trick that was almost impossible, but the fact is that the final head shot was around 300 feet from the window. I don't know why Oswald even bothered with a scope.

The other things that I realized in Dealy Plaza was that the place is an echo chamber. They were filming the X-Files movie in town that day and the choppers flew over. The place is a canyon, and sound bounces off off all four sides, so gunfire could have sounded like it came from just about whatever building was behind you. Then there is the grassy knoll, someone behind the white fence would be clearly visible in all photographs taken that day, not the grainy "Badge Man" bullshit.

The other thing that I came to notice in the JFK nuts as well as the UFO NUTS was how they are divided into sub-factions. In the JFK-nut world you have the CIA Did it, the LBJ did it, Nixon did it, the CIA, military industrial complex did it, the mafia did it, the mafia did it on orders from the CIA, GHW Bush/CIA/Mafia/Big Texas Oil did it, Lamar Hunt did it on a bet, Cuban exhiles did it with the CIA, and so on.

This should be the first clue that these people are sniffing glue. The facts are the facts, and they all lead to the same place. Facts are not open to interpretation, facts are facts. Fact: Derek Jeter plays baseball well. Fact: Ferraris are expensive. Fact: Ice cream is cold. Theory: Derek Jeter plays baseball well because he is a CIA Android, not facts to support this but I could site evidence that could be interpreted to prove this theory. He's too good looking, I have never seen him go to the bathroom, the guy plays like he's a machine. Forget that there are no actual facts to support my theory. Forget that I have only seen Derek Jeter on television (hell, he might even be a CGI creation), Forget the fact that the technology, while advancing every day, does not exist to make a Derek Jeter android. Forget that stuff because I know what I know, and I have figured out the secret and this makes me special. It also makes me superior to you people.

If you ever want to see a great fight, watch two guys with different theories about the JFK assasination go at it. If both parties have written books there will be blood.

You didn't see this kind of crap with the OJ Simpson trail. The facts are the facts, and the jury not withstanding, there has not been an ongoing effort to find the "real killers" even by OJ's supporters or friends. The facts are the facts.

This is how I pulled my head out of my ass and breathed the air of commin sense.

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:04, Anonymous Marc said...

Here are the things that lead me out of the Conspircy Theory Swamp. I am a reformed JFK Assasination kook, and I dabbled in the Illimunati and UFOs too.

The first thing that threw a big steaming pile of reality into my backyard was when I went to Dallas, and actually went to the Texas Schoolbook Depository and Dealy Plaza. I went to the Sixth Floor Museum ( which I recommend to everyone), looked down onto Elm Street below and realized that it was a fucking easy shot. The consiracy mythos made Oswald's shot into some kind of Circus trick that was almost impossible, but the fact is that the final head shot was around 300 feet from the window. I don't know why Oswald even bothered with a scope.

The other things that I realized in Dealy Plaza was that the place is an echo chamber. They were filming the X-Files movie in town that day and the choppers flew over. The place is a canyon, and sound bounces off off all four sides, so gunfire could have sounded like it came from just about whatever building was behind you. Then there is the grassy knoll, someone behind the white fence would be clearly visible in all photographs taken that day, not the grainy "Badge Man" bullshit.

The other thing that I came to notice in the JFK nuts as well as the UFO NUTS was how they are divided into sub-factions. In the JFK-nut world you have the CIA Did it, the LBJ did it, Nixon did it, the CIA, military industrial complex did it, the mafia did it, the mafia did it on orders from the CIA, GHW Bush/CIA/Mafia/Big Texas Oil did it, Lamar Hunt did it on a bet, Cuban exhiles did it with the CIA, and so on.

This should be the first clue that these people are sniffing glue. The facts are the facts, and they all lead to the same place. Facts are not open to interpretation, facts are facts. Fact: Derek Jeter plays baseball well. Fact: Ferraris are expensive. Fact: Ice cream is cold. Theory: Derek Jeter plays baseball well because he is a CIA Android, not facts to support this but I could site evidence that could be interpreted to prove this theory. He's too good looking, I have never seen him go to the bathroom, the guy plays like he's a machine. Forget that there are no actual facts to support my theory. Forget that I have only seen Derek Jeter on television (hell, he might even be a CGI creation), Forget the fact that the technology, while advancing every day, does not exist to make a Derek Jeter android. Forget that stuff because I know what I know, and I have figured out the secret and this makes me special. It also makes me superior to you people.

If you ever want to see a great fight, watch two guys with different theories about the JFK assasination go at it. If both parties have written books there will be blood.

You didn't see this kind of crap with the OJ Simpson trail. The facts are the facts, and the jury not withstanding, there has not been an ongoing effort to find the "real killers" even by OJ's supporters or friends. The facts are the facts.

This is how I pulled my head out of my ass and breathed the air of commin sense.

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's my favorite troofer logical fallacy: The US government cannot provide photographs of the aircraft that allegedly struck the Pentagon; thus, the US government is lying.

My response, you ask?

The US government cannot produce photographs of me taking a shit; thus, by your "logic", I've never taken a dump.

%^)

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:20, Anonymous Pat the Pungent Pig said...

UtterBilge: why do you suppose Pat Curley doesn't agree with your baseless, unfounded, un-sourced speculation? Is it that he has read the R.J. Lee Report, which states the iron came from high temps and melting, or is it because his explanation (cutting torches) could 'easily' be responsible? We know why he doesn't correct you (he's a coward who doesn't care about facts), but why wouldn't he claim the same sources for the melted iron? Hint: it's because your baseless, unfounded, un-sourced explanation is a vat of bullshit, and he likes to wallow in it with you.

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

Keep reading my post, psychopath, until you get it through your thick skull:

Fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete.

Fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete.

Fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete...

Got it, psychopath?

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:32, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

That's quite a loopy one-two punch there! The fruitcake Marc followed by the Insane Fretboy,who's taken more dumps at this site than your average homeless guy on the old Bowery.

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response, ArseHooligan?

Now, get your worthless carcass back to this thread and answer my questions, numb nuts.

Source: SLC: My rebuttal to the ArseHooligan's Israel has a "nuclear arsenal" bilge.

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:41, Anonymous Pat the Porcine Punk said...

(As if it explains anything) "Fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete." -Utterbilge

Another worthless, sourceless response.

*oink* *oink* *wallow* *wallow*

 
At 21 July, 2010 12:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Another worthless, sourceless response.

My link to Google renders 38,200 results.

"...Sourceless?" Tell us more, dissembler for 9/11 troof.

My link to a peer reviewed paper from the US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory is a pristine source.

"...Sourceless?"

Perhaps in the fantasy world you inhabit, but sane people know better.

Now, go play in the freeway, psychopath.

 
At 21 July, 2010 13:11, Anonymous Arhoolie "Solitary" Vanunu said...

You're as crazy as Mel Gibson,shotspot,and boy was "anonymous" right when he says that the ridiculous Paddy is uninterested in the facts and a completely spineless jellyfish! The Debunker Cult:takes a licking and keeps on ticking! For the record Yuppie Plonker,some people have the sense to get away into the mountains for the weekend,unlike Iron Butts like your insane self.How sad that your own mad cult won't help you understand that Israel has many nuclear weapons,because this has gotten plain scary.

 
At 21 July, 2010 13:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response--you God damned liar?

Go for it, ArseHooligan, lie to us again, cretin.

 
At 21 July, 2010 13:29, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

It's plain as the pathetic,smarmy mug on your face that you are a certifiable lunatic.

 
At 21 July, 2010 15:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan--you wussy--when will you return to this thread and answer my questions?

Go for it, ArseHooligan. I give it a shot, sissy.

 
At 21 July, 2010 15:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie Vanunu said...
It's plain as the pathetic,smarmy mug on your face that you are a certifiable lunatic."


A raised calculus implements the wanting sarcasm, but whatever official gasoline waves a gender. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, however, abstracts from all content of a priori knowledge. Therefore with the sole exception of the discipline of pure reason, the paralogisms of human reason prove the validity of space, as we have already seen.

 
At 22 July, 2010 03:10, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Re: Robinson's article, David Aaronovitch is a journalist, not a historian, which is why there are some minor errors in 'Voodoo Histories'. But on its main points the book is sound.

'What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?'

Evidence would be nice. But that's something you can't offer. Let alone that utter retard Arseholie who's been reduced to telling blatant lies about his past in order to big himself up.

 
At 22 July, 2010 06:15, Anonymous Pat, Portly and Proud said...

GutterBile FAILS to provide a source which says the melted iron in the dust comes from fly ash, and offers unfounded speculation instead. Scientists from the RJ Lee group specifically state it came from high temperatures, and document this in a scientific report. Can anyone give a good reason why Bile shouldn't be laughed at? And why does Pat Curley cower from the discussion? What happened to the 'easily explained' cutting torch theory? What are your sources, Fat Pat?

 
At 22 July, 2010 07:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBile FAILS to provide a source which says the melted iron in the dust comes from fly ash, and offers unfounded speculation instead. Scientists from the RJ Lee group specifically state it came from high temperatures, and document this in a scientific report."

Do you understand how lightweight concrete is made? I don't think you do, jackass.

Lightweight concrete substitutes the gravel and sand found in normal concrete with two new components: [1] pumice; and [2] fly ash.

Thus, we should expect to find pumice and fly ash in the WTC dust.

Pumice is created by VOLCANOES--you droolin' cretin.

Thus, to conclude that the iron-rich spheres were the product of extremely high temperatures is correct (a volcano or volcanic eruption); however, it's STUPID--brain-dead--to conclude that the iron-rich spheres are a product of foul play that resulted in the WTC collapse (A thermitic reaction, to be specific).

The RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures.

Thus, you cannot use the RJ Lee Report to support your case without resorting to a frenzy of wild speculation--which is the stock and trade of the 9/11 troofers.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 07:40, Anonymous Pat the Pedophile said...

Howling ignorance from the lying, despicable creep known as GutterBilge: stop the madness, little boy. The Lee report doesn't just say the iron came from high temperatures, but from the 'WTC event' (remember when Pat stupidly tried to use that term to include the clean-up, as if it made the difference?). Bringing up pumice and volcanoes is your way of obfuscating a scientific finding that's inconvenient to you. Either you haven't actually read the report, or worse, you have no understanding of it. It's all there, tough guy, including the liquefied lead. How hot does lead have to be to melt, Bilge? How does fly ash explain that? Everyone can see you're a moron, so by all means, keep demonstrating that for us. You too, Pat!

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Bringing up pumice and volcanoes is your way of obfuscating a scientific finding that's inconvenient to you."

On the contrary, I brought up an extremely relevant point that is very "inconvenient" for YOU.

Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly as is the product of a high temperature reaction?

If so, you've offered NOTHING to refute my points.

"...How does fly ash explain that? Everyone can see you're a moron..."

Projecting again, cretin? Of course you are.

The lead is the product of the collapse.

RJ Lee report says--and I quote--"...The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form residual spherical particles."

Extremely high temperatures were created in sparks caused by impact and friction between collapsing columns and concrete. Additionally, high temperatures were created when steel reinforcements where pulled out of the building's concrete pads. And those are only two examples where high temperatures were a product of the collapse.

I think it's clear who's the idiot in this case. Try again, mouth breather.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:15, Anonymous Pat the Prancing Pork said...

"Extremely high temperatures were created in sparks caused by impact and friction between collapsing columns and concrete. Additionally, high temperatures were created when steel reinforcements where pulled out of the building's concrete pads. And those are only two examples where high temperatures were a product of the collapse."

Source? Your desperate, speculative ass, perhaps? SPARKS AND FRICTION? How many sparks does it take, genius?

"...when steel reinforcements where (SIC) pulled out of the building's concrete pads."
How much heat does that generate, exactly?
Do you have ANY cohesive mechanism(s), backed by research, that makes any of your tripe viable, or even believable? Why isn't your friend Pat helping you at all? Nice Epic Fail, little boy.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:25, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, damn GB. There isn't a single claim by the troof that you haven't torn to shreds. And poor poor pathetic "porker obsessed" Arhoolie and Anonymous just can't refute you...

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Source?"

The RJ Lee Report--you cretin. Obviously you didn't read the report.

LOL!

Try again, jackass.

A grinder wheel can produce the temperature required to render molten Pb. Ever heard of a grinder wheel? Probably not.

And you still fail to address my point. Hiding something, compulsive liar?

Read it again:

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly as is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Try again, cretin.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Billman beat me to it, GB.

Poor arsehoolio, with the mushroom shaped bruises all over his forehead.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...Heh, damn GB. There isn't a single claim by the troof that you haven't torn to shreds. And poor poor pathetic 'porker obsessed' Arhoolie and Anonymous just can't refute you..."

Thanks, Bill.

Stick around, because I'm just getting warmed up. Troofer fur is gonna fly today.

LOL!

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:29, Anonymous GutterBile Gets Crushed said...

Li'lman joins the discussion and says...nothing. He can't even point to where Bilge has 'torn' anything, other than his new asshole. Facts are painful that way.

Don't forget the lead, along with the calculations of how hot the sparking and friction can get. Oh, and your pads/reinforcement BS...how does that melt tons of iron, anyway? Show your work.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:32, Anonymous You're Reaching Again said...

GB: point to where the Lee report shows that pads/reinforcement ripping caused extremely high temperatures sufficient to melt iron and lead. We'll wait.

 
At 22 July, 2010 08:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GB: point to where the Lee report shows that pads/reinforcement ripping caused extremely high temperatures sufficient to melt iron and lead. We'll wait."

I never claimed the the RJ Lee Report makes that assertion.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can come to the conclusion that the collapse resulted in high temperature.

Read it again, jackass.

"...Extremely high temperatures were created in sparks caused by impact and friction between collapsing columns and concrete."

Still dancing around the substance of my argument, creep?

Read it again.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly as is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Your continued silence brings the lie to your specious argument.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm waiting for a response, psychopath.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly as is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Ask the troofers a tough question, and what do you get?

STONEWALLING and...

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

%^)

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:24, Blogger Billman said...

Arhoolie's just trolling. Of COURSE it will never directly answer a question. That's not it's goal, here.

One question a troofer will NEVER answer directly (or at least, none has so far): what would it take to convince you 9/11 WASN'T an inside job?

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:25, Anonymous Pat the Craven Coward said...

"I never claimed the the RJ Lee Report makes that assertion."

HAHAHAHA Caught in a lie and squirming, as usual.

"...Extremely high temperatures were created in sparks caused by impact and friction between collapsing columns and concrete."

Speculative nonsense with no source, calculations, or corroboration.

Where's your math, fool? What scientific source pointed to fly ash as the culprit for the thousands of TONS of melted iron in the dust? Tell us, or stop your idiocy this instant, little boy. And asking the same questions over and over may fool your fellow grunting primates, but rational folk can see right through your ridiculously pathetic little tactics. You haven't even started an argument of substance, BileBoy. Grown-ups require sources, calculations, and corroboration. You have nothing.
Notice Pat won't venture into this, least of all to support your silly bullshit. Good luck to you.
NEXT!

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Question: What is pumice, and what are its components?

Answer: Pumice is volcanic rock that is rich in alumino-silicate.

Questions: What did Dr. Jones and RJ Lee find in their dust samples?

Answer: Alumino-silicate spheres.

Question: Where did those alumino-silicate spheres originate?

Answer: The tower's lightweight concrete.

Conclusion: I've got you by the balls, psychopath.

So, when will you answer my question, STONEWALLER?

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Again, your continued refusal to answer my questions brings the lie to your specious argument.

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:49, Anonymous Pat the Fugly Fuckling said...

"Again, your continued refusal to answer my questions brings the lie to your specious argument."

"You lose because you refuse to answer my questions."

"Grab your ankles..."

-GutterBile

Inane, off-topic questions and rape fantasies are all you have, GB. Researchers and scientists require more than this.

 
At 22 July, 2010 09:51, Anonymous G.B. Sparky McFriction said...

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes?"

Wow, what a pertinent question to the R.J. Lee group's findings!

Ask me the question again, GB! Quick!

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Inane, off-topic questions and rape fantasies are all you have, GB. Researchers and scientists require more than this."

Really? No kidding? That's all you have, dingus? Do you honestly believe that dismissing relevant information lends a force of credibility to your transparent lies?

Pathetic.

Then perhaps you can explain why you continue to STONEWALL?

And don't forget, jackass, I read RJ Lee's report, and it doesn't support your speculation and bald-faced lies.

So, when will you answer my question, STONEWALLER?

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Again, your continued refusal to answer my questions brings the lie to your specious argument.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricates, "...Wow, what a pertinent question to the R.J. Lee group's findings!"

That's not an answer, cretin.

Is that all you have, STONEWALLER?

Pathetic.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:19, Anonymous GB McRape Fantasist said...

"...I read RJ Lee's report, and it doesn't support your speculation and bald-faced lies."

You mean, like "the melted iron came from fly ash"? That kind of speculation and lies?

Keep flailing like a drowning victim. Maybe if your daughter draws you a picture with her crayons, you'll understand it better...

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...You mean, like 'the melted iron came from fly ash'? That kind of speculation and lies?"

Question: What is Fly ash, and what are its components?

Answer: Iron-rich spheres.

Questions: What did Dr. Jones and RJ Lee find in their dust samples?

Answer: Iron-rich spheres.

Question: Where did those iron-rich spheres originate?

Answer: The tower's lightweight concrete.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let's try again, shall we, cretin?

And this time, dissembler for 9/11 troof, answer the questions.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers.

(I won't hold my breath).

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Tell us, dissembler for 9/11 troof, what's this?

The US Department of Energy wrote, "...All of the fly ash samples were comprised mainly of amorphous alumino-silicate spheres and a smaller amount of iron-rich spheres."

Source: US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Fly ash characterization by SEM–EDS.

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:46, Anonymous Prat Cowardly said...

Keep flailing, rape fantasist. Luckily, anyone who actually reads the Lee report will see it directly contradicts your un-sourced speculation as to the origin of the spheres (attributing it to the WTC event's high temperatures)

Oh, and why did you suddenly forget to address the melted lead (also referred to in the report)?

Poor rape fantasist: a lifetime of grabbing your ankles has made you hostile, even to facts and research. Work on that, and provide citations for your speculative nonsense next time, boy.

 
At 22 July, 2010 10:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Keep flailing, rape fantasist. Luckily, anyone who actually reads the Lee report will see it directly contradicts your un-sourced speculation as to the origin of the spheres (attributing it to the WTC event's high temperatures)"

I answered your question, jackass. And the only person who's "flailing" is you, cretin.

"...Oh, and why did you suddenly forget to address the melted lead (also referred to in the report)?"

Again, I answered your question, jackass.

"...and provide citations for your speculative nonsense next time, boy."

I've done that as well. They're called hyperlinks and direct quotes. Additionally, I offered a peer reviewed paper in support of my argument.

And what do you provide to substantiate your argument?

Nothing but your head up your ass OPINION.

Now, answer the questions.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

(However, I won't hold my breath).

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Triterope just handed your head to you here.

ROTFLMAO!

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:07, Anonymous GB McPrisonRapist said...

...you mean the citations to sources that don't back up your claims? You're not very good at this, boy.

And stop looking at your daughter like that, rape fantasist.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...you mean the citations to sources that don't back up your claims? You're not very good at this, boy."

Prove it, because the opinion of a compulsive lair isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Now, answer the questions.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

(However, I won't hold my breath).

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Concerning pumice, we find the following.

Wikipedia writes, "...Pumice (pronounced /ˈpʌməs/) is a textural term for a volcanic rock that is a solidified frothy lava typically created when super-heated, highly pressurized rock is violently ejected from a volcano."

"...Pumice is composed of highly microvesicular glass pyroclastic with very thin, translucent bubble walls of extrusive igneous rock. It is commonly, but not exclusively of silicic or felsic to intermediate in composition (e.g., rhyolitic, dacitic, andesite, pantellerite, phonolite, trachyte), but basaltic and other compositions are known."

Source: Wikipedia: Pumice

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Concerning Fly ash, we find the following.

Wikipedia writes, "...Fly ash is one of the residues generated in the combustion of coal. Fly ash is generally captured from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, and is one of two types of ash that jointly are known as coal ash; the other, bottom ash, is removed from the bottom of coal furnaces. Depending upon the source and makeup of the coal being burned, the components of fly ash vary considerably, but all fly ash includes substantial amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline) and calcium oxide (CaO), both being endemic ingredients in many coal bearing rock strata."

"...Hollow fly ash can be infiltrated by molten metal to form solid, alumina encased spheres. Fly ash can also be mixed with molten metal and cast to reduce overall weight and density, due to the low density of fly ash."

Source: Wikipedia: Fly ash.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Concerning lightweight concrete, we find the following.

Wikipedia writes, "...Concrete is a construction material composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) and other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate made of gravels or crushed rocks such as limestone, or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures."

"...Recently, the use of recycled materials as concrete ingredients has been gaining popularity because of increasingly stringent environmental legislation. The most conspicuous of these is fly ash, a by-product of coal-fired power plants. This significantly reduces the amount of quarrying and landfill space required, and, as it acts as a cement replacement, reduces the amount of cement required."

Source: Wikipedia: Concrete.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:35, Anonymous GB McRapist said...

...and after all that BS from GB:

Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to high temperatures: 1 (R.J. Lee)

Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash: 0, ZERO, zilch, nada: just the baseless ravings of a fool.

NEXT!

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to high temperatures: 1 (R.J. Lee)...Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash: 0, ZERO, zilch, nada: just the baseless ravings of a fool."

Repeating the same lie over-and-over again doesn't lend the force of credibility to your argument. As I stated earlier, I've already answered your questions. So you sit there and cover your eyes and stamp your feet like a recalcitrant child. Your idiotic evasions and STONEWALLING would be hilarious if they weren't so pathetic.

Question: Tell us, jackass, how are iron-rich spheres formed?

And when you're done, answer the questions.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

(However, I won't hold my breath).

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

(I'm going to lunch. I'll return shortly).

 
At 22 July, 2010 11:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to high temperatures...[blah][blah][blah]."

There's only one problem with your bullshit, jackass. There is plenty of evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at some time, but not on 9/11.

Remember, jackass, fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions.

So, what were saying, charlatan?

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

(I'm going to lunch. I'll return shortly).

 
At 22 July, 2010 12:06, Anonymous Rape Fantasist Crushed said...

...and yet the following is still true, despite your yammering protests:

Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to high temperatures: 1 (R.J. Lee)

Number of cited sources attributing the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash: 0, ZERO, zilch, nada.

You're asking people to take your word over a scientific study. Good luck with that, Tex.

 
At 22 July, 2010 12:27, Anonymous Marc said...

Did this RJ Lee report come with crayons?

It is the only report that you cite, so it must have been the one with big pictures that you could color yourself.

All of those other reports, the ones based on information from Ground Zero, based on materials recovered from Ground Zero are conclusive.

The Lee report is based on materials found blocks away that were collected much later. It would not hold up in court because of the passage of time and obvious contamination.

 
At 22 July, 2010 12:33, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Talking of pathetic liars, what about posing as an OIF veteran and inventing a fake family/fake ex-girlfriends? How does that compare?

 
At 22 July, 2010 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...and yet the following is still true, despite your yammering protests."

No, it is not.

Again, you're offering your opinion as "fact". That said, repeating the same lie over-and-over again doesn't lend the force of credibility to your argument.

"...You're asking people to take your word over a scientific study. Good luck with that, Tex."

I didn't give you my word. I gave you rock-solid evidence from multiple sources, including a peer reviewed paper.

FACT: You have not offered one scintilla of evidence from the RJ Lee Report, or anywhere else.

Thus, you lose the debate again, because all you offer is opinion. And the opinion of a compulsive liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Now, substantiate your argument with facts, or get the fuck out of my face, psychopath.

And when you're done, answer my questions, scumbag liar for 9/11 troof.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 12:53, Anonymous Pat the Pederast said...

"All of those other reports, the ones based on information from Ground Zero, based on materials recovered from Ground Zero are conclusive." -Shart

"I gave you rock-solid evidence from multiple sources, including a peer reviewed paper." -GB

..and yet, neither of you can produce a single scientific report that attributes the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash. Why is that?

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...and yet, neither of you can produce a single scientific report that attributes the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash. Why is that?"

More lies, jackass?

And you can't prove that the RJ Lee Report substantiates your wild speculation and bald-faced lies.

Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion.

But you can't do that can you?

Moreover, the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions).

Thus, you lose the debate again, because all you offer is opinion. And the opinion of a compulsive liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Now, substantiate your argument with facts from the RJ Lee Report (and I want the page number of the quote mined material you're sure to dredge up. And remember, if I catch you quote mining, I'll rip you to shreds), or get the fuck out of my face, psychopath.

And when you're done, answer my questions, scumbag liar for 9/11 troof.

"...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:11, Anonymous GutterShill the Troll said...

Again, you're offering your opinion as "fact". -GB the rape fantasist

Classic. Discerning readers can easily recognize your bullshit, Gutterboy. Even Pat. But at least he knows enough not to step into the slaughterhouse with you and the rest of the lambs here. He just shuts the fuck up and trembles before the facts. Prove me wrong, Pat!

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prediction: Shit-for-brains will close his eyes and stomp his feet like a recalcitrant child and tell the exact same lie he's repeated ad nauseum, while answering not one of my questions.

Now, I ask you, who's really debating, and who's throwing up a smoke screen of lies and transparent bullshit?

I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Classic. Discerning readers can easily recognize your bullshit, Gutterboy. Even Pat. But at least he knows enough not to step into the slaughterhouse with you and the rest of the lambs here. He just shuts the fuck up and trembles before the facts. Prove me wrong, Pat!"

That's not an answer, scumbag.

Answer the questions, cretin.

Question 1: "...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contracts my statement?"

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers, because you fail to answer so much as ONE question. You're not "debating", you're stomping your feet like a recalcitrant child and lying like a rug.

Who do you think you're fooling, dissembler for 9/11 troof?

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:40, Anonymous Pat the Prison Rapist said...

GB spurts: blah blah...

Translation: I have no sources or documents that attribute the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash, nor is there any indication that the fire alone was hot enough to produce them. But you do, and I'm throwing a lot of words out there because I'm angry about this fact.

" Show me where the RJ Lee report contracts my statement? [SIC]"

You're not even trying anymore, rape fantasist. You can let go of your ankles now, boy: no one is interested.

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's a photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000 x magnification.

Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...I have no sources or documents that attribute the melted iron in the WTC dust to fly ash, nor is there any indication that the fire alone was hot enough to produce them."

Lying again, Mr. Straw man argument?

I never said that WTC fire produced the iron-rich spheres. And I challenge to show me where I made such a claim.

You can't? Then shut the fuck up.

Here's what I said:

"...Fly ash, moreover, is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Thus, iron-rich spheres were present in the World Trade Center Towers before the destruction of the buildings."

Thus, you're caught red handed misrepresenting my argument--you straw man argument spewing liar.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 13:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...You're not even trying anymore, rape fantasist. You can let go of your ankles now, boy: no one is interested."

That's not an answer, scumbag.

Answer the questions, cretin.

Question 1: "...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contradicts my statement?"

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 14:01, Anonymous Curley the Cripple said...

"Thus, you're caught red handed misrepresenting my argument--you straw man argument spewing liar."
-Gutterbilge

Translation: waaaah! waaaaah! I hate being crushed by youuu! I have no sources, no facts, and no clue! waaaah! Help me Pat! Please come to my rescue, caped curley!

 
At 22 July, 2010 14:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, scumbag.

And, yes, you were caught red-handed misrepresenting my argument.

The psychopath dissembles, "...Translation: waaaah! waaaaah! I hate being crushed by youuu! I have no sources, no facts, and no clue! waaaah!"

Projecting again, cretin?

Answer the questions, cretin.

Question 1: "...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contradicts my statement?"

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 14:17, Anonymous The Lurkers said...

You're done, Bill. You lost. Get over it.

 
At 22 July, 2010 14:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 July, 2010 14:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying psychopath dissembles, "...You're done, Bill. You lost. Get over it."

No, you're the psychopath's sock puppet (in other words, you're the psychopath masquerading as "The Lurkers."

On the contrary, you lost the debate and your continued refusal to answer my questions brings the lie to your alleged argument.

"...Researchers and scientists require more than this."

I hate to break this to you, 'tard, but I am a scientist. Thus, I don't need the work of others to substantiate my argument. After all, I learned to think for myself a long time ago. And I have the credentials to back that statement. You on the other hand...well, you're an unemployed former janitor. Pathetic.

Now, that I've reduced you to a lying, babbling pile of compost, perhaps you'll answer my questions.

Question 1: "...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contradicts my statement?"

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

I'm waiting patiently for your answers, STONEWALLER.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a quote from the Huff article followed by my comments:

People are far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories when they've already been objectively, seriously, undeniably lied to by people in power. Conspiracy theories are always a clear sign that people's faith government and private institutions has been repeatedly shattered, but never mended. If they lied to us then, we can never be sure they're not lying to us now.

It's not just the Gulf of Tonkin, or Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or being lied into Iraq. It's also the way our own bosses treat us at work, and Wall Street doctors the books, and the media leaves essential facts out of news reports. The current generation of Americans, left and right, has learned the hard way that people in power lie to us -- constantly and habitually. Since they won't trust us with the simple truth, there's no reason to trust them in return.

My Comments

Can't argue with anything she says here...in fact she is exactly correct. And some conspiracy theories of course turn out to be real conspiracies! She mentions for instance: Gulf of Tonkin, or Watergate, or Iran-Contra.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I have the credentials to back that statement.

What exactly are your credentials?

Please list them out in detail.

Degrees, schools, papers written, positions held. I want Everything!

Back up your statement.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:21, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"And some conspiracy theories of course turn out to be real conspiracies! She mentions for instance: Gulf of Tonkin, or Watergate, or Iran-Contra."

All of which were exposed in the MSM.

9 years on 9/11 conspiratards have proved.......nothing.

Other than their own insanity, of course.

I mean just look at the cockslapping arsehoolio took over the course of this one thread from GB, yet he continues to lie, time after time after time.

To me that indicates someone with a deep seated psychotic denial of reality.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"being lied into Iraq."

We weren't.

That is a complete fabrication by the reactionary left.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:22, Anonymous Ktesibios said...

We interrupt uor regularly scheduled pissing match to bring you a bit of bookish nerdiness:

One thing that struck me in Robinson's article- in fact, it's in the part Pat quoted:

"Despite the lack of academic or professional cred (or perhaps because of it), the folks who promote conspiracy theories go overboard to put a thick veneer of scholarship on their claims. Books and essays are ostentatiously footnoted; but the references typically link back to even more obscure conspiracy publications with even flimsier evidence -- or else to other works written by the same author, in a self-reinforcing loop. Some theorists use scientific jargon to dazzle the crowd and obfuscate weaknesses in their story; others borrow terms of art from the intelligence trade, giving the impression that they're getting their data from sources on the inside who know what's really going on."

Is anyone else here familiar with Richard Hofstadter's essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics? (It really is a must-read for the student of conspiracism). Robinson obviously is- Hofstadter said, among other things:

"A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world...

The higher paranoid scholarship is nothing if not coherent—in fact the paranoid mind is far more coherent than the real world. It is nothing if not scholarly in technique. McCarthy’s 96-page pamphlet, McCarthyism, contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch’s incredible assault on Eisenhower, The Politician, has one hundred pages of bibliography and notes."

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Answer to Question 1:

Here is the passage below. They say "These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature" they then define "high temperature by adding "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event"

Iron melts at 2797F. So RJLee says the temeratures "during the event" reached at least 2797F. A hydrocarbon fire plus office materials cannot get above 1825F, an in a open air fire it would be much less than 1825F.
_________________________________

The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral wool. These dust and heat-processed constituents are not typically found associated with typical office building environments. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust. ...Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
--- Lee RJ Group. WTC dust signature report, composition and morphology. December 2003. The RJ Lee Group report was prepared for Deutsche Bank for a “Damage Assessment” of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street. The Report is available on the website of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WT
C%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying psychopath whines, "...Degrees, schools, papers written, positions held. I want Everything!"

Read my profile, jackass.

"...I want everything."

Must I post Perry Logan's warning to those who are gullible enough to reveal their identity to a troofer?

Finally, reserve exclamation marks (!) for true exclamations. For example,

Stop!

Angus Young rocks!

If you can't use an exclamation mark as it was intended, moreover, how can we trust that you understand the details of the events surrounding 11 September 2001?

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:37, Blogger Triterope said...

Is anyone else here familiar with Richard Hofstadter's essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics?

Oh yeah. It is the Principia Mathematica for the study of conspiracy nuts. As you illustrated, with an excerpt from 1964 that applies perfectly to this article from 2010.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:43, Anonymous Arhoolie the "Git" Masher said...

There's a book that Dickflicker on Gitfiddle needs to read.It's "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane.Actually he probably read it because that's his schtick.He tries a plausible argument and lets the blizzard of bullshit fly.Remember when he was gung-ho on the "workers on the pile created the microspheres" insanity? After a mad,cracked out Google orgy he's found another speculation to go sleigh riding on.Wheee! Jingle bells,jingle bells....

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete?

Where does the energy come from to take hundreds of thousands of tons concrete, pulverize it to fine power, rapidly expand that powder to a dust cloud thousands of feet into the air and watch it settle into six inches of grey dust all over lower Manhattan?


The only energy available was gravity (assuming no explosives were used). All the potentional energy available (gravity) is converted to kinetic energy (motion).

Th buildings fell at near free fall. WTC7 fell at free-fall!

That means all the kinetic energy had to be used for one thing and one thing alone: falling down!

Your a scientist William, (or so you claim to be). Perhaps you can explain in a mature, calm, coherent way, where the energy comes from to account for ALL the observations if your only potential energy available is gravity.

See if you can respond without hurling insults, it just undermines your arguments and makes you look silly.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read my profile, jackass.

"...I want everything."

Oh, your a computer scientist. I thought you were a physist or a chemist or something relevent.

So what papers have you published? What positions have you held?

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying paychopath dissembles, "...'Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event'."

Quote mining again, 'tard? Of course you are.

Here's what the report says--sans the quote mining.

"...Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

The psychopath continues to prevaricate and writes, "...Iron melts at 2797F. So RJLee says the temeratures [SIC] 'during the event' reached at least 2797F."

Read question 1 again, jackass.

"...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Cite your source, otherwise you're just pulling this out of your ass.

Thus, you didn't answer my question at all. Instead, you resorted to evasion and quote mining.

"...These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust."

Read the passage again, jackass.

And then I want you to show me the passage where the RJ Lee Report demonstrates how or where we might find those temperatures.

You just don't get it do you? Read it again,

"...Fly ash, moreover, is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Thus, iron-rich spheres were present in the World Trade Center Towers before the destruction of the buildings."

So, where does the RJ Lee Report prove (proof and conjecture are not the same) that the particles are the result of the collapse? The short answer: It doesn't.

Good luck quote miner, because you're going to need it.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must I post Perry Logan's warning to those who are gullible enough to reveal their identity to a troofer?

Your identity ain't exactly a big secret chump.

http://www.myspace.com/gbill73

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."





Is that not quite clear......or are you really that stupid?

 
At 22 July, 2010 16:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cite your source, otherwise you're just pulling this out of your ass.


cite my source for what? the melting point of iron? your the computer scientist....google "melting point of iron" and a zillion web sites will come up.

That's my fucking source.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So what papers have you published? What positions have you held?"

Can you read, cretin?

Must I post Perry Logan's warning to those who are gullible enough to reveal their identity to a troofer?

"...Oh, your a computer scientist. I thought you were a physist [SIC] or a chemist or something relevent [SIC]."

And a computer scientist is a scientist, spelling bee champ. In fact, we have the same undergraduate backgrounds as Chemists or physicists (The first two years of undergraduate studies are identical. We take the same required courses in the calculus, physics, chemistry, etc).

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...cite my source for what? the melting point of iron? your the computer scientist....google "melting point of iron" and a zillion web sites will come up."

God you're stupid. You can't spell, and you can't read. Your GED is showing again, 'tard.

Read it again, jackass.

"...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Where does the RJ Lee Report prove that the particles are a result of the collapse. Your quote mined crap doesn't prove anything.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricates, "...Your [SIC] a scientist William, (or so you claim to be). Perhaps you can explain in a mature, calm, coherent way, where the energy comes from to account for ALL the observations if your only potential energy available is gravity."

That's not an answer, it's an evasion of the question. Put simply, you're answering a question with a question.

Read it again, 'tard. And this time try giving us an answer.

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

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

And I don't see an answer to question number 2.

Read it again, 'tard.

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contracts my statement?"

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I pulled up the RJ Lee report and did a search for "fly ash"

it says:

Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially
combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.
-----------------------

I specfically DID NOT FIND THIS QUOTE ???!!!

"...Fly ash, moreover, is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Thus, iron-rich spheres were present in the World Trade Center Towers before the destruction of the buildings."



STATE YOUR SOURCES

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And when you're done, I'd like for you to explain how 3,000 lbs of "nanothermite" (Dr. Jones hypothesis) can produce 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate sphere.

And don't forget to violate the laws of thermodynamics, 'tard.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricates, "...Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust."

That doesn't prove anything. After all, the WTC collapse was anything but an "ordinary building" fire. It was an unprecedented COLLAPSE.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

You can't spell. You can't think. And you can't answer a question honestly or completely. You're a waste of skin and an oxygen thief.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And a computer scientist is a scientist, spelling bee champ. In fact, we have the same undergraduate backgrounds as Chemists or physicists (The first two years of undergraduate studies are identical. We take the same required courses in the calculus, physics, chemistry, etc).





Good! you should be qualified to able to answer where the energy comes from to pulverize nearly all the concrete and expand that cloud thousands of feet in the air if the only potential energy available is gravity and the building fell at or near free-fall which is clearly the case. the 9/11CR says the north tower collapsed in ten seconds, thats about free-fall, and the vids confirm that to be true. NIST admits WTC7 feel at free fall for 2-1/4 seconds.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer 'tard.

I've answered your questions, now you answer my questions. So far, you've utterly failed to answer the three questions I posed to you.

Try again, cretin.

Question 1: "...Again, the RJ Lee Report, moreover, doesn't mention what temperature range is necessary to produce the observed phenomenon, and the report tells us absolutely nothing about where we might find those temperatures. And I challenge you to produce the passage from the RJ Lee Report that substantiates your assertion."

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contradicts my statement?"

Question 3: "...Do you deny that pumice and fly ash are components of lightweight concrete? Do you deny that pumice is the product of volcanoes? Do you deny that fly ash is the product of a high temperature reaction?"

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's flip that around. What would convince you that the US government was not behind 9-11?

The vast majority of 9/11 truthers never made the claim that the US government was behind 9/11. That is part of your distortion of what we have said.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are (or were) hardly the entire government, but merely an element of it.

Now you may disagree the C&R were in some way involved, but please don't put words in our mouths that we never said.

And AE911Truth for instance has always deferred the question of "who did it" to a future (real) investigation.

So The whole premise of your reverse question "Let's flip that around. What would convince you that the US government was not behind 9-11?" is misleading.

Perhaps you should have asked:

"Let's flip that around. What would convince you that official story is true?"

The problem is that the official story is the sum of many parts, all of which are problematic.

If your side was so right, you might think that there would be some part of the story that is not in doubt.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not an answer 'tard.

I've answered your questions, now you answer my questions. So far, you've utterly failed to answer the three questions I posed to you.

Try again, cretin.






Perhaps you just don't like the answers ass wipe

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Mr. Scientist, you still never explained where the energy comes from to pulverize nearly all the concrete and expand that cloud thousands of feet in the air if the only potential energy available is gravity and the building fell at or near free-fall which is clearly the case. the 9/11CR says the north tower collapsed in ten seconds, thats about free-fall, and the vids confirm that to be true. NIST admits WTC7 feel at free fall for 2-1/4 seconds.




crikets crickets crickets



Got to go, will return to throw sand in your eyes later.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...The problem is that the official story is the sum of many parts, all of which are problematic."

The "official story" is "problematic" in the deranged mind of a troofer--and a troofer only.

So, I take it that you refuse to answer my questions. Right? Thus, you lose the debate again.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

Again, you can't spell. You can't think. And you can't answer a question honestly or completely. You're a waste of skin and an oxygen thief.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Perhaps you just don't like the answers ass wipe."

No, your "answers" are not answers, as I've already proven.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:45, Blogger Triterope said...

crikets crickets crickets

You know, that technique doesn't really work if you don't give the other person time to respond.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...crikets [SIC] crickets crickets"

Hilarious. Weak. Pathetic.

Again, you're evading my questions.

And answering a question with a question is intellectually dishonest.

What's that I hear from the troofer camp?

*crickets*

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Triterope wrote, "...You know, that technique doesn't really work if you don't give the other person time to respond."

I've already answered all of his questions. Now, he's turning to evasion and answering a direct question with a question.

The ass-clown for 9/11 troof is a joke.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

AAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!

BBWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

MMMWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!

"Lane represented the Peoples Temple, led by Jim Jones"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!

"Lane applied to the Warren Commission to represent the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!1!!1@~

"Lane questions the Warren Commission conclusion that three shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository"

HAHAHGAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

" Lane also states that none of the Warren Commission firearm experts were able to duplicate Oswald's shooting feat."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!@!!!!!!

You fucking retard, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine.

My son could take your fat pumpkin head off at 500 yards.

"The KGB allegedly provided Lane with $2000 for research and travel in 1964."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!

Oh, fuck, thanks, arsehoolio, I needed that laugh.

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 22 July, 2010 17:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...And Mr. Scientist, you still never explained where the energy comes from to pulverize nearly all the concrete and expand that cloud thousands of...[blah][blah][blah]."

That's right, ass-clown, when your back's against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 18:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ass-clown for 9/11 troof dissembles, "...STATE YOUR SOURCES"

I've already given you my sources. Obviously, you either can't, or won't, read my replies.

Concerning pumice.

Concerning Fly ash.

Concerning lightweight concrete.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

You can't read. You can't spell. You can't think. And you can't answer a question honestly or completely. You're a waste of skin and an oxygen thief.

 
At 22 July, 2010 18:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 22 July, 2010 18:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I specfically [SIC] DID NOT FIND THIS QUOTE ???!!!"

I didn't say that, Mr. Straw man argument.

Here's what I said, ass-clown.

"...So, where does the RJ Lee Report prove (proof and conjecture are not the same) that the particles are the result of the collapse? The short answer: It doesn't...That doesn't prove anything. After all, the WTC collapse was anything but an "ordinary building" fire. It was an unprecedented COLLAPSE."

I think it's clear that you don't read the replies to your "commentary". Failing that, you must have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

"...Talking to you is like talking to a goat."

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 22 July, 2010 18:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Keep reading question #2 until you get it through your thick skull, ass-clown.

Question 2: "...the RJ Lee Report doesn't provide evidence that these materials (Fly ash and Pumice) were subjected to extremely high temperatures at any other time than when they were produced (recall that fly ash is the product of coal fired power plants and pumice is the product of super-heated volcanic eruptions). Show me where the RJ Lee report contradicts my statement?"

Got it, numb nuts?

If the building's lightweight concrete is composed of abundant amounts of alumino-silicate and iron-rich spheres, why would any sane person conclude that the presence of alumino-silicate and iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust is the product of the fires? Sure, trace amounts might be there as a result of the fires; however, the tower's lightweight concrete was composed of thousands of tons of alumino-silicate and iron-rich spheres.

Does the obvious always evade you, ass-clown?

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 troofers.

 
At 23 July, 2010 14:35, Blogger Triterope said...

I've already answered all of his questions. Now, he's turning to evasion and answering a direct question with a question. The ass-clown for 9/11 troof is a joke.

Oh, I realize that. I thought it was relevant to point out that his incompetence extends to not being able to apply Internet arguing techniques correctly.

 
At 23 July, 2010 16:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The vast majority of 9/11 truthers never made the claim that the US government was behind 9/11."

Yes they do, moron.

It's the fucking PREMISE of insane 9/11 conspritard mumblings.

 
At 23 July, 2010 20:17, Anonymous Marc said...

Mark Lane is just a better dressed version of Box Boy Gage.

He should have pattened the JFK Assassination conspiracy, he wrote the first book that lead to all of the kookery.

And yes, I read "Plausible Deniablity". He uses lawyer trickery in place of substantiated facts.

 
At 24 July, 2010 06:51, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

Actually,"Plausible Denial" is about the fact that American citizen and CIA assassin E.Howard Hunt was part of a conspiracy to kill the elected President of the United States.Oh yeah,Hunt happened to be a hitman connected to the Bush Crime Syndicate.Read the book,and then go into your crazed schtick,Pornboy.P.S. Hunt cofessed to his son,on his deathbed,that he was part of the hit.Just like your 9/11 argument is really with guys like Shyam Sunder and ex-CIA agents,your argument over JFK is with people like Marita Lorenz and Hunt,who were part of the plot.

 
At 24 July, 2010 11:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, whines, "...Actually,'Plausible Denial' is about the fact that American citizen and CIA assassin E.Howard Hunt was part of a conspiracy to kill the elected President of the United States."

LOL!

"...the fact that..."

There you go again, giving speculation and lies advanced billing as "fact".

For your information, oatmeal-for-brains, E. Howard Hunt was a Watergate felon--a so-called plumber--who worked for the notorious liar, Richard M. Nixon. Following the discovery of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was convicted of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping. He served 33 months in prison.

Are you aware that a felon's "word" is less than worthless?

Hunt, moreover, was a CIA contractor.

Normally, a conspiracy monger (that's you, ArseHooligan) will automatically dismiss any testimony from the CIA as lies and disinformation.

In this instance, however, the ArseHooligan believes a felon who was a former ex-CIA contractor.

How ironic.

So, what's the ArseHooligan's "standard of evidence"?

Answer: If the allegations AGREE WITH THE ARSEHOOLIGAN'S OPINION, IT'S THE TRUTH.

Bottom line: You're intellectually dishonest.

But this revelation shouldn't surprise us because you're a pathological liar.

So, tell us more about why Vanunu's photographs, which are not admissible in a court of law, are proof that Israel has a nuclear arsenal.

Thus, we witness the same pattern again: If the allegations AGREE WITH THE ARSEHOOLIGAN'S OPINION, IT'S THE TRUTH.

Pathetic.

Go play in the freeway, ArseHooligan.

 
At 24 July, 2010 23:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That doesn't prove anything. After all, the WTC collapse was anything but an "ordinary building" fire. It was an unprecedented COLLAPSE.




What the hell does this piece of nonsense mean?


"After all" you're an idiot!

 
At 25 July, 2010 00:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Good on you, illiterate.

Care to offer "evidence " to substantiate you specious argument?

Go for it, pr*ck.

 
At 25 July, 2010 06:43, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 26 July, 2010 09:58, Anonymous Arhoolie V. said...

"...testimony from the CIA"?!? Say what,Plucky? Are you chopping up Adderal again,Dad? So,Hunt's son fingered his Daddy as being in on the JFK hit for exactly what reason,jackoff? Once again,Shotspot,your argument is with Hunt's family and as far as Vanunu,your feud is with the Israeli government.Hitler was a Commie,too,right nutbars?

 
At 26 July, 2010 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan, what does the "V" stand for? Vee JJ?

 
At 26 July, 2010 15:09, Anonymous Arhoolie V. said...

Say what,Goober?

 
At 26 July, 2010 15:13, Anonymous Arhoolie V. said...

Meanwhile,over in the padded room,Pornboy the Insane Echo Chamber attempts to laugh off the FACT that Mark Lane proved E.Howard Hunt was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.Actually,he probably hasn't boned up on those facts and is just plain insane! P.S. they stole JFK's brain,too.

 
At 26 July, 2010 16:18, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 26 July, 2010 16:19, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"P.S. they stole JFK's brain,too."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

What, did someone stuff it in your skull, or did you get Abby Normal's brain?

 
At 26 July, 2010 16:19, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 28 July, 2010 05:56, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'P.S. they stole JFK's brain,too'.

What did they do to yours, Walt?

 
At 28 July, 2010 09:50, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

As usual,not a sentient word from the Debunker Cult.Just Pornboy and the Nutty Professor's schtick! Obviously no one from the Wackiest Ship in the Navy has read "Plausible Denial".Of course they're too chickenshit to know anything about that.where the hell is Ronald Weak,anyway?

 
At 28 July, 2010 11:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Mark Fuckin' Lane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!

 
At 28 July, 2010 12:18, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

Speaking of chickenshit,up steps the insane Curtis E.LeMay fanatic!!

 
At 30 July, 2010 05:45, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

Would this be the same Mark Lane who got funded by the KGB?

Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin, 'The Mitrokhin Archives Vol I. The KGB in Europe and the West' (London: Allen Lane 1999), p.297.

And would this be the same KGB that forged the 'letter' which Lee Harvey Oswald 'wrote' to E. Howard Hunt? (same source, p.298)?

Remember this comes from the Walt who posed as an OIF veteran, who created a fantasy family and a fantasy girlfriend, and who believed the Iranian government when it said that the leader of Jundollah was a CIA agent (and then had him hanged on the quiet).

 
At 30 July, 2010 10:50, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

Poor,poor pitiful Sackdoily.

 
At 30 July, 2010 13:59, Anonymous Ambalaj said...

What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible? why ?

 
At 30 July, 2010 14:37, Blogger avicenne said...

"What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?"

Nothing. Because it's completely insane.

 
At 31 July, 2010 05:04, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'What would convince you that there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 that pointed to individuals within the U.S. Government as being partly or wholly responsible?'

There's that little something we call 'evidence', which might help us change our minds.

 
At 31 July, 2010 12:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A coverup is evidence showing the need for a new investigation.

 
At 01 August, 2010 10:21, Blogger Triterope said...

A coverup is evidence showing the need for a new investigation.

Didn't "The evidence of the coverup is that it has been covered up" win a Stundie Award?

 
At 02 August, 2010 03:59, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

If it didn't, it should have done.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home