Zwicker Reactions
I gotta roll my eyes sometimes. The folks over at Truth Action are appalled at
Zwicker's "endorsation" of CIT, and angry that he has accused them of being agents:
Zwicker has openly accused TruthAction of being run by ‘infiltrators.’
So how do they respond? If you guessed with paranoia and accusations, score five points:
Remember all the energy that was being put into relentlessly pushing Space Beams and TV Fakery?
Remember how that just kind of stopped right around when CIT came onto the scene?
yeah - right after the election
and:
this was always the thing that caught my eye - how they seemed to work in concert and had talking points that they pushed in seperate yet suspiciously coordinated ways.
Labels: Barrie Zwicker, Citizen's Investigative Team, Paranoia, Truth Action
posted by Pat @ 6:13 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
If you guessed with paranoia and accusations, score five points:
Don't forget self-importance. "All that stopped when CIT came on the scene"? Wow. These people need help.
Pat, it would be better if you included names with the paragraphs you cite.
Anonymous, it would be better if you had an IQ in excess of 80 before you post to SLC.
So what's your excuse, cretin.
You didn't call me 'Brian'. That must mean you took your pills this morning. Good on you Bill.
For some reason that thread reminds me of an orgy in a nursing home. Not that I've seen one of those, that's just how I imagine it would look.
"...You didn't call me 'Brian'. That must mean you took your pills this morning. Good on you Bill."
That carries a lot of weigh coming from an Alzheimers out-patient.
After all, Brian, why must I repeat myself over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over again, cretin?
Obviously, you need instructions in order to breath.
By the way, don't you have a toilet to scrub? Oh, that's right, your brain is already washed.
Sorry. My bad.
Okay, after that weird little tantrum, I realize my pill-free assessment of Bill was a bad call.
Anonymous said...
it would be better if you included names
Fuck you.
The arrogant know-nothing cretin prattles, "...Okay, after that weird little tantrum, I realize my pill-free assessment of Bill was a bad call."
Yeah, I guess that explains why you consistently lose EVERY "debate".
To quote Triterope, "Fuck you."
Has anyone seen the latest from one of the two world leaders to endorse 9/11 truth?:
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE67609320100807?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
When Ahmadinejad comes out with the 'No Jews were killed on 9/11' line, it's a bit remiss of him not to quote the source of his claim; namely Hizbollah's satellite TV station al-Manar (and we all know who HZB's sugar-daddy is):
http://www.slate.com/id/116813
"Anonymous said...
Pat, it would be better if you included names with the paragraphs you cite."
Yep, it's brian all right.
And just so we're clear, the "fuck you" was for having the nerve to tell Pat how to make posts when you won't perform the the basic courtesy of picking a goddamn screen name so we know who we're talking to one minute to the next.
Besides, if you want to know who said what you can click the link. Or do you want Pat to do that for you too?
Sheesh, it's no wonder you lot haven't taken over the world yet, if you're going to be this fucking lazy.
Well said, Triterope. Bravo!
(Standing ovation).
Triterope: I'm not the one creating the blog equivalent of a cross between the HCUA, Fox News and the Enquirer. Proper attribution is the least the Patster can do. I already knew what they said; I'd already read that forum thread before blackshirt-in-chief Curley stumbled upon it. So, spare me the sanctimonious tirade, hypocrite. If Pat wants to disallow anonymous posting, I invite him to do so. His apparent policy of free and/or anonymous speech here is the only thing I respect him for.
"...If Pat wants to disallow anonymous posting, I invite him to do so. His apparent policy of free and/or anonymous speech here is the only thing I respect him for."
Why? So you can sow confusion and lie with abandon?
That's your opinion. I feel the same way about you, and you put your name on it. As if your semi-verifiable identity makes your distortions, bold-faced lies and obtuse rants any less deceitful.
Don't you like to debate Bill? What else are you doing here? Have circle jerk discussions about the "Zadroga question"? Does it get any more screwed up than that? Have Pat shut it down and it's all over. He doesn't seem inclined to do so, but if he does, fine, I'll see you at JREF. Until then, I'm happy posting anonymously.
Still waiting for that paper you promised to bankroll and/or publish in Bentham. After all, it's just a vanity journal with no peer review. What are you waiting for?
The peter puffing pansy prattles, "...Still waiting for that paper you promised to bankroll and/or publish in Bentham. After all, it's just a vanity journal with no peer review. What are you waiting for?"
Unlike you, Brian--you scurrilous piece of filth--I have work to do. In fact, I'm so busy that I'm catching about four hours of sleep per day--which explains why I'm up so late every evening (or morning, as it turns out).
After all, aren't you an unemployed former janitor--which obviously qualifies you for scientific endeavors. Right Pinocchio?
"...Don't you like to debate Bill?"
Yes, I do enjoy debate. Too bad you don't understand the meaning of the word, Brian.
"...Have circle jerk discussions about the 'Zadroga question'?"
I think it's clear that I don't agree with Pat on that particular issue. We're gentlemen, however, so we can agree to disagree.
"...That's your opinion. I feel the same way about you, and you put your name on it. As if your semi-verifiable identity makes your distortions, bold-faced lies and obtuse rants any less deceitful."
Projecting again, Brian?
Pathetic.
I suppose that explains why you lose EVERY "debate". Right, genius?
Tell us more about the accuracy of EDX when measuring light elements--and don't forget to throw the World's foremost expert, McCrone, under the bus--you scat munching 'tard.
Pathetic.
Face it, you're a charlatan.
Now, go clean your live-in mothers toilet. After all, you're perfectly qualified for the job.
I'm not the one creating the blog equivalent of a cross between the HCUA, Fox News and the Enquirer.
Which doesn't even make any sense. Asking you to pick a fucking handle is hardly oppression or yellow journalism.
Proper attribution is the least the Patster can do.
He did properly attribute it. He provided a link. In the web world, that's plenty.
I already knew what they said; I'd already read that forum thread
Then what's the fuckin' problem?
But don't tell me, I know what the problem is. You want the comments assigned to who said them so you can make your usual post discrediting anyone who's on your personal list of false 9-11 Truthers. And I'm running the HUAC?
His apparent policy of free and/or anonymous speech here is the only thing I respect him for.
Again, you reveal your complete disdain for people who bend over backwards to accommodate you and your silly views. What a snotty little shit you are.
"Which doesn't even make any sense. Asking you to pick a fucking handle is hardly oppression or yellow journalism."
Like I said, have Pat say the word and it's all over.
"He did properly attribute it. He provided a link. In the web world, that's plenty."
You mean your world of capricious reasoning.
"I already knew what they said; I'd already read that forum thread
Then what's the fuckin' problem?
But don't tell me, I know what the problem is. You want the comments assigned to who said them so you can make your usual post discrediting anyone who's on your personal list of false 9-11 Truthers. And I'm running the HUAC?"
To be fair, that's close. I think it matters whether prominent members of TA say it or not. This works both ways, if that is the case, it doesn't exactly help me if the comments are clearly irrational, now does it. Yet I still prefer attribution. Actually, had Pat attributed the comments: one comment would have been attributed to YT, the founder, and one to JohnA (who nobody knows). It would been beneficial nor disadvantageous.
"Again, you reveal your complete disdain for people who bend over backwards to accommodate you and your silly views. What a snotty little shit you are."
Thanks, that actually made me laugh out loud.
"Tell us more about the accuracy of EDX when measuring light elements--and don't forget to throw the World's foremost expert, McCrone, under the bus--you scat munching 'tard."
The manual for the FEI XL30-SFEG lists carbon, nitrogen and oxygen detection capabilities without reservation; other scientific papers use the same equipment for stoichiometric quantification; and Jones measured a reference material, iron (III) oxide, accurately and successfully. You say he lied. Who can argue with that, Bill? Of course there are better methods to ensure even more accurate measurement, but the answers are all in the paper; the tests on reference material prove your objections baseless and inadequate. And, as I said, if they were adequate, (and they aren't), you still haven't refuted the key finding, which is as simple as observing the material under an optical microscope before and after, and notice the formation of iron-rich microspheres after ignition, as stated in the paper and independently confirmed by e.g. chemist Mark Basile. And Keogh. And Ryan. And Harrit. And Farrer.
Harrit has stated that not all materials found are actually "active", hence the title of the paper they've published. That leaves three possibilities:
(1) The material sent to Couannier was tampered with;
(2) Jones et al. made it all up, and sent a defective sample to Couannier to incriminate themselves;
(3) Couannier received a batch containing no active materials; statistically far from out of the ordinary.
(3)
By the way, you've managed to completely leave out the BSE scans in your harebrained rants. Exactly the sort of opportunist, myopic, double-dealing, pseudoskeptic snobbery you are known for, Bill. Make us proud.
Take, for example, this quote:
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION
Qualitative Analysis - The sample x-ray energy values from the EDS spectrum are compared with known characteristic x-ray energy values to determine the presence of an element in the sample. Elements with atomic numbers ranging from that of beryllium to uranium can be detected. The minimum detection limits vary from approximately 0.1 to a few atom percent, depending on the element and the sample matrix.
(...)
Quantitative results can be obtained from the relative x-ray counts at the characteristic energy levels for the sample constituents. Semi-quantitative results are readily available without standards by using mathematical corrections based on the analysis parameters and the sample composition. The accuracy of standardless analysis depends on the sample composition. Greater accuracy is obtained using known standards with similar structure and composition to that of the unknown sample.
And this calibration was performed; using an iron (III) oxide reference sample, as I said earlier. Jones measured oxide accurately enough. Period. (Unless you say he lied of course, and although every debate at that point is useless, at least you'll have shown your true colors)
Correction: if "JohnA" is John Albanese, that he is, in fact, well known.
"Anonymous said...
By the way, you've managed to completely leave out the BSE scans in your harebrained rants. Exactly the sort of opportunist, myopic, double-dealing, pseudoskeptic snobbery you are known for, Bill. Make us proud."
So what's your explanation?
I happen to know for a fact that ALL the posters at TruthAction are Brian Good--even the ones that claim to be supporting William Rodriguez and CIT.
It's all a part of his diabolically clever campaign of anonymous self-promotion.
"...The manual for the FEI XL30-SFEG lists carbon, nitrogen and oxygen detection capabilities without reservation; other scientific papers use the same equipment for stoichiometric quantification; and Jones measured a reference material, iron (III) oxide, accurately and successfully. You say he lied."
I never claimed Jones is a liar. Again, you're pulling that garbage out of your ass and attributing it to me--a naked straw man argument. On the contrary, I question his methods of experimentation. In other words, as others have pointed out, he's incompetent.
Big difference, sheep-dip-for-brains.
Additionally, you've utterly failed to prove that McCrone's authoritative Particle Atlas is in error. In fact, you avoid McCrone like plague. Now, why is that, troofer swine?
In fact, I provide information from a top EDX/SEM manufacturer that supports McCrone's observation that light elements cannot be reliably measured with EDX.
And what do you offer in rebuttal? More pseudo-science from Jones, et al.
Pathetic.
The reality is that Jones' experiments are not reproducible. And repeated attempts to claim the samples were "deactivated" without a shred of evidence to support that ridiculous claim is sophistry in the extreme. But then again sophistry is the stock-and-trade of the 9/11 troofers.
There's a reason why you're a college drop out, Brian.
Dishonesty combined with a double-digit IQ equals "not college material."
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: Fuck you.
"...By the way, you've managed to completely leave out the BSE scans in your harebrained rants. Exactly the sort of opportunist, myopic, double-dealing, pseudoskeptic snobbery you are known for, Bill. Make us proud."
Here we go with the BSE (back-scattered electron image) sophistry.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we.
Jones, et al imply that "nanothermite" (an exothermic nano-material) was somehow applied to critical steel column and truss surfaces in the Twin Towers. Jones et al claim that the "nanothermite" was less than 100 microns in depth.
In order to evaulate this claim we must calculate the heat released by a "nanothermite" doped column. Assuming that the heat produced by the "nanothermite" reaction was absorbed by the column, the result of the calculation demonstrates that a temperature increase of less than 10 degrees C is all we can expect for a full reaction of a 100 micron "nanothermite" coating applied directly to the WTC columns and trusses.
Thus, why would "the conspirators" (Dubya and the evil Dick Cheney, I presume) bother to apply a coating that can only produce a 10 degree C rise in the surface temperature of the columns?
Hmmmmmm...
Someone is yanking our crank. And I think his name is Steven Jones.
"...The manual for the FEI XL30-SFEG lists carbon, nitrogen and oxygen detection capabilities without reservation; other scientific papers use the same equipment for stoichiometric quantification; and Jones measured a reference material, iron (III) oxide, accurately and successfully. You say he lied."
I never claimed Jones is a liar. Again, you're pulling that garbage out of your ass and attributing it to me--a naked straw man argument. On the contrary, I question his methods of experimentation. In other words, as others have pointed out, he's incompetent.
Big difference, sheep-dip-for-brains.
Additionally, you've utterly failed to prove that McCrone's authoritative Particle Atlas is in error. In fact, you avoid McCrone like plague. Now, why is that, troofer swine?
In fact, I provide information from a top EDX/SEM manufacturer that supports McCrone's observation that light elements cannot be reliably measured with EDX.
And what do you offer in rebuttal? More pseudo-science from Jones, et al.
Pathetic.
The reality is that Jones' experiments are not reproducible. And repeated attempts to claim the samples were "deactivated" without a shred of evidence to support that ridiculous claim is sophistry in the extreme. But then again sophistry is the stock-and-trade of the 9/11 troofers.
There's a reason why you're a college drop out, Brian.
Dishonesty combined with a double-digit IQ equals "not college material."
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: Fuck you.
"...The manual for the FEI XL30-SFEG lists carbon, nitrogen and oxygen detection capabilities without reservation; other scientific papers use the same equipment for stoichiometric quantification; and Jones measured a reference material, iron (III) oxide, accurately and successfully. You say he lied."
I never claimed Jones is a liar. Again, you're pulling that garbage out of your ass and attributing it to me--a naked straw man argument. On the contrary, I question his methods of experimentation. In other words, as others have pointed out, he's incompetent.
Big difference, sheep-dip-for-brains.
Additionally, you've utterly failed to prove that McCrone's authoritative Particle Atlas is in error. In fact, you avoid McCrone like plague. Now, why is that, troofer swine?
In fact, I provide information from a top EDX/SEM manufacturer that supports McCrone's observation that light elements cannot be reliably measured with EDX.
And what do you offer in rebuttal? More pseudo-science from Jones, et al.
Pathetic.
The reality is that Jones' experiments are not reproducible. And repeated attempts to claim the samples were "deactivated" without a shred of evidence to support that ridiculous claim is sophistry in the extreme. But then again sophistry is the stock-and-trade of the 9/11 troofers.
There's a reason why you're a college drop out, Brian.
Dishonesty combined with a double-digit IQ equals "not college material."
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention: Fuck you.
Like I said, have Pat say the word and it's all over.
Fair enough. Though I don't know why you even bother. You're about as anonymous as a farter in a two-man elevator.
You mean your world of capricious reasoning.
No, that would be my world of I Have A Degree In Journalism And You Don't, So Don't Ever Correct Me Again, Asshole.
I think it matters whether prominent members of TA say it or not.
Nobody fucking cares, Brian. Especially since this concept of "prominent members of TA" exists only in your own mind. Then you try to justify that by pretending you're Walter Fucking Cronkite. Even though SLC has had a hundred "truther reactions on truther blogs" stories just like this one quote and you never said a peep then. And I'm engaged in capricious reasoning?
And I know this is a radical suggestion, but... you could actually use this discussion area for what it's intended for, and initiate discussion about the TA commenters and why you think their opinions are/aren't credible, instead of just ordering people to do things and squabbling with GuitarBill.
That's hard to do, Triterope, now that posts of mine with links in them are removed. Until that is fixed, there's no point in making an effort to create sourced posts.
And about that degree in journalism you allegedly have: I'm appalled.
You know why? Because you've just assumed I'm Brain Good. Must you really follow in Bill's delusional footsteps?
Or alternatively, you don't really mean it, and you just try to annoy every "Anonymous" into picking a handle.
In any case, if you think you can factually claim the identity of "Anonymous", without any supporting evidence, you shouldn't have that degree at all. How ironic, capricious reasoning and happy-go-lucky, baseless accusations directly after listing 'reasons' why I shouldn't accuse you of this.
You're all very big on the Brain Good conspiracy theory, making you all the biggest hypocrites on the block. Or should I say: blog.
Oh, and by the way, the anonymous-fart-elevator joke was pretty funny. Which is why I take the stairs.
"...You're all very big on the Brain Good conspiracy theory, making you all the biggest hypocrites on the block. Or should I say: blog."
How can Brian Good--one alleged "man"--constitute a "conspiracy"?
Conversed with any plankton lately, Brian?
I guess I said it because you're accusing multiple (anonymous) people of being Brian Good.
But... it's not a conspiracy theory, you're correct in pointing that out.
It's merely a paranoid delusion.
posts of mine with links in them are removed. Until that is fixed, there's no point in making an effort to create sourced posts.
Did I ask you for a sourced post? I asked you to "initiate discussion about the TA commenters and why you think their opinions are/aren't credible," which doesn't have to have a link. Or you could just post the link as text, which other posters have managed to do.
Because you've just assumed I'm Brain Good.
Well, you use the same name as Brian Good; you make the same arguments as Brian Good; you're overly concerned about quotes from "false" Truthers like just like Brian Good; you have the same snotball demanding attitude like Brian Good; you're excessively dependent on Google like Brian Good; you're too dumb to see obvious solutions to problems, like Brian Good; you needlessly use the same big words over and over like Brian Good; you constantly bring up Brian Good, unprovoked; you argue from random and ever-changing ethical positions like Brian Good; you're unusually sensitive about posts made by Brian Good; so I'm just going to assume you're Brian Good.
If you're not Brian Good, you're so similar you might as well be Brian Good, and I will treat you as such.
Did I ask you for a sourced post? I asked you to "initiate discussion about the TA commenters and why you think their opinions are/aren't credible,"
Talk about a "demanding attitude". Well, I think neither CIT nor their "detractors" are agents. I think Zwicker is looking for evidence justifying MIHOP. CIT will give him what he desires. I think the people at TA are some of the hardest working, most sincere, most intelligent 9/11 researchers around. They don't have "star status" like Griffin, but unlike Griffin, they don't advance no plane, no hijacker and no passenger theories.
"Well, you use the same name as Brian Good; you make the same arguments as Brian Good; you're overly concerned about quotes from "false" Truthers like just like Brian Good"
Bla bla bla. Get over it already. You're getting all kooky and paranoid. I thought that was verboten in your circles.
How on earth could a dude who professes to have "degree in journalism" be this speculative? Guess what: you're wrong. So what does that tell you about your judgment? You could use this as a learning experience, but I'm afraid you're just too delusional. With a degree in journalism, you're supposed to stick with the facts. If you don't, remarks such as: "No, that would be my world of I Have A Degree In Journalism And You Don't, So Don't Ever Correct Me Again, Asshole" are the epitome of hypocritical arrogance.
And if you *know* I'm not Brian, I can safely assume you're just badgering any "anonymous", because you just don't like anonymous posts. We get it already. Take a chill pill, Triterope. I'm not obsessed with Brian Good, you lot are. Especially Bill.
I can't call it a conspiracy theory, because it technically isn't, but is sure is delusional and paranoid.
"...Guess what: you're wrong."
According to whom? A compulsive liar?
"...It's merely a paranoid delusion."
Again, according to whom? A compulsive liar?
I'm not obsessed with Brian Good, you lot are. Especially Bill.
Hey, you're the one who brought him up unprovoked.
But I tell you what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously you are in a better position to know the truth than I am. It occurs to me I am violating the Doink Doink Doink Theory, especially the next to last paragraph.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2498831#post2498831
And now to more substantive matters:
Well, I think neither CIT nor their "detractors" are agents. I think the people at TA are some of the hardest working, most sincere, most intelligent 9/11 researchers around. They don't have "star status" like Griffin, but unlike Griffin, they don't advance no plane, no hijacker and no passenger theories.
That's nice. Unfortunately, every other 9-11 Truther has a different opinion of who the "sincere" researchers are and which ones aren't. The above statements are nothing more than your personal opinion. Which is fine; but you go too far when you demand that the blog owners alter their posts so the world can know which Truthers are on your personal approved list. Even more so when you try to dress it up as an exercise in journalistic integrity.
"And now to more substantive matters:"
Why? That's clearly not an arena you excel in, considering that link you forced me two waste two seconds on before I realized it was corny, woolly semi-intellectual nattering and totally unrelated to the topic at hand here. If your aim is to waste brain & CPU cycles, please refrain from taking me down with you.
"That's nice. Unfortunately, every other 9-11 Truther has a different opinion of who the "sincere" researchers are and which ones aren't."
We all agree on which ones aren't: your ilk.
"The above statements are nothing more than your personal opinion."
And the above statement, in turn, is nothing more than your personal opinion. What's your point?
"Which is fine; but you go too far when you demand that the blog owners alter their posts so the world can know which Truthers are on your personal approved list. Even more so when you try to dress it up as an exercise in journalistic integrity."
If you cycled the content of this blog through sewage treatment for a decade, it would still stink like a colony of decomposing, maggot infested skunks.
Does that paint a clear picture for you in terms of this blog's "journalistic integrity"? Or do you want me to bring up Pat's treatment of the first responder issue to finish you off?
Thought so, "journalist".
Hey,no fair picking on the Insane and Threadbare Paddy! If a guy has such strong negative feelings about the heroes down at Ground Zero,then let him express himself.After all,this is America,right?
Post a Comment
<< Home