Sunday, October 31, 2010

Colorado Democrats Go Nutter

They've included a 9-11 "Truth" plank in their party platform:

“Whereas many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”


Note this background:
The citizens who presented arguments for a new investigation at their precinct caucuses are signatories to the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth organization (www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.


Crackpots with Box Boy Gage's group, in other words.

Labels: ,

47 Comments:

At 01 November, 2010 01:16, Blogger JetBoy said...

Democrats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes.

 
At 01 November, 2010 06:53, Blogger ConsDemo said...

If I'm reading the right hand columns correctly, this was a proposed plank that was rejected. The fact that 36 percent of those voting thought it had merit was very unfortunate and speaks to the ideology of some of the participants but it isn't correct to say it was "adopted."

 
At 01 November, 2010 06:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

My bad, the plank before it mentioned 9/11 was rejected. The one Pat mentions was adopted. Ugh! State party platforms are often ignored by candidats as this one apparently was, but it doesn't speak well of the activists who sat on the committee that buy the pathetic "evidence" brought forth by the twoofers.

 
At 01 November, 2010 08:06, Blogger SJCP said...

So advocating a new investigation is "going nutter"? It's hard to state in words how foolish you guys look.

 
At 01 November, 2010 08:56, Blogger Bill said...

If said call was based on evidence and not pseudo science and fallacious appeals.

 
At 01 November, 2010 09:38, Blogger JetBoy said...

"SJCP said...

So advocating a new investigation is "going nutter"? It's hard to state in words how foolish you guys look."

Simon...is that you?

 
At 01 November, 2010 09:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

What fallacious appeals? The dishonesty of the 9/11 Commission is obvious--the Executive Director had major conflicts of interest, maintained contact with Rove and Rice during the investigation, and pushed a politicized agenda against Iraq until he couldn't make it stick any more. It was obviously a bipartisan cover-up: "We won't talk about this if you won't walk about that."

The reports on the twin towers are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable. Because they stop at the moment of collapse initiation, they don't deal with any of the baffling aspects of the destruction of the towers: symmetry, totality, speed, pulverization of the concrete, and molten iron in the basement.

 
At 01 November, 2010 09:47, Blogger Pat said...

Whereas if you stated it in grunts, it would be easy?

 
At 01 November, 2010 09:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

It seems like state party platforms is where you can find all sorts of loony planks adopted. I think the Texas GOP adopted one calling for the outright criminalization of homosexuality.

Still, as a registered Democrat, I find this embarrassing and disturbing.

 
At 01 November, 2010 09:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Anyway, on to more fun stuff...

It was obviously a bipartisan cover-up: "We won't talk about this if you won't walk about that."

Brian, you also think that "rake-on-rake" and "meatball on a fork" are "obvious". The only thing obvious is that you need professional psychiatric care.

The reports on the twin towers are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable. Because they stop at the moment of collapse initiation, they don't deal with any of the baffling aspects of the destruction of the towers: symmetry, totality, speed, pulverization of the concrete, and molten iron in the basement.

How many times are you going to repeat this absurd nonsense before you understand that nobody cares what you think about the NIST report? Ignorant lunatic sex stalkers don't have a seat at the table of professional engineers. Deal with it.

 
At 01 November, 2010 11:28, Blogger avicenne said...

"So advocating a new investigation is "going nutter"? It's hard to state in words how foolish you guys look."

It's also hard to state in words how irrelevant are the views of a mob of internet morons who have bought the hysterical conspiracy bullshit.

 
At 01 November, 2010 12:02, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

WeAreDouchebags take on Jon Stewart and crew..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqage1Wzsbk&feature=player_embedded


(Gets a little NSFW towards the end)

 
At 01 November, 2010 12:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, "rake on rake" and "meatball on a fork" are obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm sorry they confuse you, but it's not my fault. They tried to warn you not to huff that hairspray but you wouldn't stop.

Rather than address the points, you attack me. It's not my opinion alone that the reports are inadequate. It's also the opinion of 1350 architects and engineers. Youse guys have failed utterly to provide the names of independent engineers who validate the NIST report. All of the names you provide are tainted by contracts with, work with, or awards from NIST.

There is nothing hysterical about demanding complete and plausible reports.

 
At 01 November, 2010 12:56, Blogger Philip said...

Ian, "rake on rake" and "meatball on a fork" are obvious to anyone with half a brain.

But to those of us with a complete brain, they are entirely nonsensical.

 
At 01 November, 2010 13:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, "rake on rake" and "meatball on a fork" are obvious to anyone with half a brain.

They do make it obvious how much you need psychiatric help, that's for sure.

Rather than address the points, you attack me.

What "points"?

It's not my opinion alone that the reports are inadequate. It's also the opinion of 1350 architects and engineers.

And nobody cares.

Youse guys have failed utterly to provide the names of independent engineers who validate the NIST report.

"Youse"? Also, this statement is a total lie.

All of the names you provide are tainted by contracts with, work with, or awards from NIST.

And all of your "1350" are tainted by their association with Richard Gage...

There is nothing hysterical about demanding complete and plausible reports.

It's a good thing we've already got complete and plausible reports, huh?

Now go babble about your love for Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 01 November, 2010 14:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Philip, they are no more nonsensical than the models you do not ridicule--piledriver, zipper, pancake. Had petgoat proposed a zipper model Ian would have been all over it: you think the WTC was a giant pair of pants!

Ian, you blatant lies are an embarrassment to your own claims. I must suppose you get some perverse thrill out of lying.

 
At 01 November, 2010 14:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Philip, they are no more nonsensical than the models you do not ridicule--piledriver, zipper, pancake.

Brian, you're in no way capable of making such judgments. Please just stick to what you know, like mopping floors.

Had petgoat proposed a zipper model Ian would have been all over it: you think the WTC was a giant pair of pants!

Brian, everyone knows you are petgoat. Pretending otherwise just makes you look like an even bigger lunatic. And your "rake on rake" model is hilarious in its insanity.

Ian, you blatant lies are an embarrassment to your own claims. I must suppose you get some perverse thrill out of lying.

I've never lied, Brian. You, however, would do well to stop lying about being petgoat or your motivations for stalking Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 01 November, 2010 15:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

So Brian, are you going to watch the Giants tonight? They're one win away from their first world championship since moving to San Francisco!

The dude pitching for SF tonight is a pothead. You'd do well to emulate him, Brian. Smoking a bit of grass would probably help you calm down a bit and not be such an obsessed lunatic.

 
At 01 November, 2010 15:29, Blogger SJCP said...

Jetboy:
"Simon... Is that you?"

And who might you be?

Those who generalize "conspiracy theories/theorists" clearly have significantly less reasoning/intelligence than the rest of society.

 
At 01 November, 2010 16:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The fun part of having a new investigation is that we can count on two things:

1. The new report will look much like the first one, only more expensive yet with the same conclusions.

2. The Twoofers will continue to cry cover-up and inside jobby job.

 
At 01 November, 2010 17:16, Blogger JetBoy said...

SJCP said...

**Those who generalize "conspiracy theories/theorists" clearly have significantly less reasoning/intelligence than the rest of society.**

You're a no-plane knucklehead...and that's supposed to take reasoning and intelligence?

 
At 01 November, 2010 18:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

So advocating a new investigation is "going nutter"?

It is if is done on the basis of the "evidence" put forth by the twoofers. As for Gage's 1,350, no one knows if they all have the credentials they claim or if the even exist. However, even if they did, of the millions in those professions, only a tiny fraction have endorsed the twoofer claims. I don't doubt there are 1,000 plus people in those professions who have such a vitriolic hatred for this country so their ideology would drive them to endorse twoof "science" but it doesn't make their assertions any more true. No credible objective body has endorsed twoof claims, what some activist group says is basically immaterial.

 
At 01 November, 2010 19:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hey Brian, do you hear people celebrating outside your window? Yeah, the Giants won the world series. Why not go out and join in the fun and celebrate? You'll get some fresh air and you may just meet someone to make you forget Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 02 November, 2010 15:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

ConsDemo, despite repeated challenges to those on this board and elsewhere, I am unable to find any names to put on a list of "Architects and Engineers for the NIST Report" who are independent of those reports.

Can you help? The names that get trotted out are all people who worked on the official reports, or whose firms had contracts with NIST, or who received awards from NIST.

Can you name one independent engineer?

 
At 02 November, 2010 15:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

ConsDemo, despite repeated challenges to those on this board and elsewhere, I am unable to find any names to put on a list of "Architects and Engineers for the NIST Report" who are independent of those reports.

So what? I've asked you many times to name an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity and you haven't done it.

Can you help? The names that get trotted out are all people who worked on the official reports, or whose firms had contracts with NIST, or who received awards from NIST.

That's nice. Who cares?

 
At 02 November, 2010 19:11, Blogger SJCP said...

"You're a no-plane knucklehead...and that's supposed to take reasoning and intelligence?"

'No-Plane Knucklehead'? You're either 12 years old, a redneck, or someone hoping to join the newsmedia as a pundit. Is that really the best you've got?

I believe that proper use of one's reasoning/intelligence abilities will lead them to the conclusion that the "airplane" videos are laughable fakes.

 
At 02 November, 2010 19:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

I believe that proper use of one's reasoning/intelligence abilities will lead them to the conclusion that the "airplane" videos are laughable fakes.

I believe that proper use of one's reasoning/intelligence abilities [sic] will lead them [sic] to the conclusion that you're in serious need of psychiatric treatment.

 
At 02 November, 2010 23:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Ronald Brookman, S.E., has implicitly endorsed the theory of gravity when he wrote "I believe in the laws of physics and I use them every day."

 
At 03 November, 2010 06:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Ronald Brookman, S.E., has implicitly endorsed the theory of gravity when he wrote "I believe in the laws of physics and I use them every day."

He's a member of Gage's group, therefore, he is neither independent nor does he endorse the laws of physics.

So you can't find an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity. Well, I guess we need a new investigation into whether gravity exists, huh?

 
At 03 November, 2010 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your sophistic efforts may serve to keep your own illusions intact, but their weak logic embarrasses your case and convinces no one but the weak-minded.

 
At 03 November, 2010 11:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your sophistic efforts may serve to keep your own illusions intact, but their weak logic embarrasses your case and convinces no one but the weak-minded.

No independent engineers who endorse the theory of gravity, eh?

Also, Brian, your ridiculous use of big words in an attempt to appear smarter than other people is a source of endless amusement to me.

 
At 03 November, 2010 15:55, Blogger Triterope said...

It is if is done on the basis of the "evidence" put forth by the twoofers.

And that's all the "evidence" there is.

 
At 03 November, 2010 17:07, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I am unable to find any names to put on a list of "Architects and Engineers for the NIST Report" who are independent of those reports.

Snuggy, that's a really stupid argument. Government agencies don't form advocacy groups.

If a significant number of legitimate architects and engineers believe what you believe, given the magnitude of the crime if it were true, AE911twoof would have millions of members.

 
At 03 November, 2010 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can not find any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. In my experience, most of them are afraid to talk about it and afraid to think about it. They just don't want to know.

What they should do, if they think Gage is full of it, is go to one of his presentations and ask him questions that will reveal his ignorance and irrationality. They don't. GuitarBill, for all his internet bluster, doesn't. They can't. He can't.

 
At 03 November, 2010 21:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

I can not find any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

That's because you're lazy and stupid.

In my experience, most of them are afraid to talk about it and afraid to think about it.

Your "experience"? What, are you calling them and/or e-mailing them? You know, they might just be ignoring you because they have more important things to do than address the paranoid concerns of crazy people....

What they should do, if they think Gage is full of it, is go to one of his presentations and ask him questions that will reveal his ignorance and irrationality.

None of these people are going to bother wasting time on someone so irrelevant. They have more important things to do that address the nonsensical claims of a charlatan like Gage.

They don't. GuitarBill, for all his internet bluster, doesn't. They can't. He can't.

Brian, I met a guy in Union Square who claimed to be the illegitimate child of an affair between Tsar Nicholas II and Liza Minnelli. He demanded the geneticists at NYU Medical Center test him to disprove his claim. They ignored him. It's obvious most of them are afraid to talk about it and afraid to think about it. They just don't want to know, right?

 
At 04 November, 2010 04:34, Blogger Triterope said...

What they should do, if they think Gage is full of it, is go to one of his presentations and ask him questions that will reveal his ignorance and irrationality.

People have tried. All they get is excuses, evasive answers, nonsense, assertions that a new investigation is needed, demands for donations, and lies, lies, lies. The world has learned not to bother.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4074695&postcount=1

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/how_i_debated_a_9_11_truther_and_survived/

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5554577&postcount=6

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009/12/sheeple-outvoted.html

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5194669&postcount=1

 
At 04 November, 2010 17:37, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I believe that proper use of one's reasoning/intelligence abilities will lead them to the conclusion that the "airplane" videos are laughable fakes."

Wow, that's Brian Good level insanity.

 
At 08 November, 2010 20:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: "I met a guy in Union Square who claimed to be the illegitimate child of an affair between Tsar Nicholas II and Liza Minnelli."

Gee, did he get it incorporated in the platform of the Democratic Party?

 
At 09 November, 2010 06:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Gee, did he get it incorporated in the platform of the Democratic Party?

What? Brian, you like to babble about metaphors and analogies, but you're too dumb to understand an obvious one: The crazy guy in Union Square shouldn't expect geneticists to take him seriously because his claims are nonsense. Likewise, you and Richard Gage should expect engineers to take AE911truth seriously because their claims are nonsense.

 
At 09 November, 2010 08:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh. So he didn't get his genealogical claims incorporated in the platform of the state Democratic Party.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 
At 09 November, 2010 08:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh. So he didn't get his genealogical claims incorporated in the platform of the state Democratic Party.

What are you babbling about and what relevance does it have to anything?

 
At 09 November, 2010 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm simply pointing out that some guy you were cruising in Union Square has, as you say, no relevance to anything--and had none when you brought him up.

And you still can't name any independent engineers who express confidence in the NIST report.

 
At 09 November, 2010 12:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm simply pointing out that some guy you were cruising in Union Square has, as you say, no relevance to anything--and had none when you brought him up.

Brian, it's not my problem if you're too stupid to understand my analogy.

And you still can't name any independent engineers who express confidence in the NIST report.

QED.

 
At 09 November, 2010 22:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I understand your analogy just fine--well enough, in fact, to point out that it's not analogous at all.

 
At 10 November, 2010 06:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

I understand your analogy just fine--well enough, in fact, to point out that it's not analogous at all.

Just keep telling yourself that, Brian. Just like you keep telling us you're not petgoat.

 
At 11 November, 2010 23:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

1 Corinthians 13:11

 
At 12 November, 2010 06:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Do you plan on putting away those childish things anytime soon, Brian? Christ, you're in your late 50s and yet you spend all day on the internet calling people "girls".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home