Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The Waterboy Again

Whatever happened to Kevin Ryan's claims to expertise because he was a water tester who worked for Underwriter's Laboratories? Now he's off on Flight 77:

Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]


They weren't identified as possibly linked to al Qaeda; they set off metal detectors as Kevin would know if he read his own footnotes:

When they go through, their carry-on bags fail to set off any alarms, but both men set off the alarm when they pass through the first metal detector. They are directed to a second metal detector, where Almihdhar passes, but Moqed fails again. He is subjected to a personal screening with a metal detection hand wand. This time he is cleared and permitted to pass through the checkpoint.


As for the second part of his question, I'll make him a deal. I'll get four men with knifes and box cutters to guard the entrance to a tunnel and if Kevin can get past them and into the tunnel, we'll consider his argument valid. In reality, of course, Kevin's underwear will end up brown and he won't get anywhere near the tunnel.

Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]


He wasn't; he (or rather a young military man in the PEOC with him) was tracking the possible location of Flight 93, had it not crashed already.

Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.


Additional evidence? What was the initial evidence? And on what basis do you know that a large plane would have had little penetrating power?

Ryan also goes into the idiotic speculation about Barbara Olsen's phone calls:
Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]

Before closing with his real point:
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.


You know, Kevin, I'm sure you think you're helping your cause with these buffoonish posts, but you're not. He relates an anecdote:
A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006.

And so, in response, you do a longer post on the Pentagon? Oh, let's not talk about what hit the Pentagon, because that dishonors the memory of the passengers on Flight 77. Instead, let's talk about Barbara Olsen's phone calls, because that's much less likely to get people pissed off about what a bunch of morons we are.

Really?

But of course the responses are where the usual dingbat nonsense comes up. One dolt even brings up the Clock Lady's evidence of two Pentagon clocks that stopped at 9:32. Inside job!

109 Comments:

At 20 October, 2010 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, Khalid al Mihdar and Nawaf al Hazmi had been identified by the CIA as al Qaeda affiliates. Al Mihdar had lived in the al Qaeda communications hub in Sanai, Yemen, and they had made cell phone calls freely to that number from the USA. Also they had bought 10 airline tickets for 9/11/01.

How is it an "idiotic speculation" to point out that the official story about Barbara Olsen's alleged phone calls has changed many times?

 
At 20 October, 2010 11:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, al Hazmi had been an attendee at the al Qaeda Malaysian summit.

 
At 20 October, 2010 11:52, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad

Appeal to Ignorance. When it is argued that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proved false, or false because it has not been proved true.

Assertions based on what we do NOT know: "No one knows precisely what would happen if a core was to melt down, so ... ." And the compounding of arbitrarily asserted possibilities. What could happen is what is possible. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist to provide some specific reason to doubt a conclusion that all available evidence supports.

truthers love this logical fallacy because all they have as people and as a movement is an abundance of ignorance. Their argument are posed as question because THEY do not know much about the event.

 
At 20 October, 2010 11:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, do you have a point?

 
At 20 October, 2010 12:59, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, do you have a point?

Yes. The reason ALL your argument for 9/11 being an inside job are based as question is because of your own personal ignorance ergo you argue from ignorance. As a rather low IQ person you haven't the ability to understand answers most normal thinking people understand. The fact we can not dumb down the answers to your and K. Ryans level of intelligence does not make 9/11 a giant plot. It only means your level of simpleness is overpowering, you will never be bright enough to conceive what is being discussed.

Now just because you and the rest of the 9/11 truth deniers are lower on the evolutionary ladder of enlightened thought does not mean a new investigation is required, it just means you people need to learn a little more.

Next time you try and make a point about 9/11 ask yourself "Why am I asking so many question if I know the truth?" Questions = Unknowing.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:00, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You will note all of Ryans points are questions, Ignorantiam Argumentum.

 
At 20 October, 2010 13:02, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I am sure Brain will never figure my explanation out, as ignorant as the poor boy is. but I tried.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, I never said 9/11 is an inside job, and you don't seem to be bright enough to realize that.

Your claim that all my points are questions is not true. My first and second posts provided information refuting Pat's misinformative points.

Also, I never said I knew the truth. As Dr. Robert Bowman said: "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11 and we should."

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, I never said 9/11 is an inside job, and you don't seem to be bright enough to realize that.

Then why do you babble endlessly in support of conspiracy nonsense that only 9/11 "truthers" believe? It's hard for anyone to take this claim seriously when you're babbling about thermite and stalking Willie Rodrgiuez because he "hurts" the truth movement.

You're really not very skilled at being a liar, Brian.

Also, I never said I knew the truth. As Dr. Robert Bowman said: "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11 and we should."

False. We know the truth about 9/11. We also know the truth about you, mostly that you're a delusional ignorant liar.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know you believe you know the truth about 9/11, but you reveal your ignorance, mendacity, irrationality, and lack of intelligence in every post. Dr. Bowman, the Jersey widows, and 1350 architects and engineers do not believe your "truth" about 9/11, and you shouldn't either.

 
At 20 October, 2010 14:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I know you believe you know the truth about 9/11, but you reveal your ignorance, mendacity, irrationality, and lack of intelligence in every post. Dr. Bowman, the Jersey widows, and 1350 architects and engineers do not believe your "truth" about 9/11, and you shouldn't either.

My, such squealing!

Brian, I'm confused. I thought you said you're not a "truther" a moment ago. Now you're telling me about a bunch of nobodies who don't believe in the reality of what happened as if it's supposed to convince me?

Brian, make an argument that isn't based on ignorant lunacy like "meatball on a fork" and I'll be convinced. The "truth" movement has had 9 years to come up with a valid hypothesis. Instead it's all magical thermite elves and invisible planes and death ray beams. And you wonder why the view people who pay you any attention just laugh at you....

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

What is this meatball on a fork you keep babbling about, and what arguments have I based on it? I certainly haven't based any arguments on elves, invisible anythings, or rays.

The truth movement has no need of hypotheses. It has the fact that the official investigations have been dishonest and incomplete.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right here, Brian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94447&mesg_id=130943

It's your model, not mine. Maybe you can help me make sense of it because it sure doesn't make a lick of sense in the above post.

And no, you're not a proponent of no-planes or death rays (other "truthers" are), but you sure cling depserately to the magic thermite elves.

The truth movement has no need of hypotheses.

It will if it wants to convince any sane people of its legitimacy. Continuing as a grab-bag of religious cults isn't going to convince anyone other than the ignorant and gullible.

It has the fact that the official investigations have been dishonest and incomplete.

Brian, please look up the word "fact" in the dictionary before you misuse it again.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's petgoat's model. I don't think I want to try to explain it to you, though I could, because you have such problems with elementary concepts that it would only be frustrating for both of us. You should stick to what you're good at, like inventing gossip about the sex lives of people you don't know and who wouldn't like you if you did.

I don't cling to any elves, nor do I cling to thermite. I simply dispute some of the untrue statements that are made about thermite in this forum. I don't know anything about elves. Unicorns, elves, gossip and such girly stuff seem to be your area of expertise.

There is no need for any hypotheses to establish the need for new investigations. The fact of the dishonesty of the existing reports has been established by Dr. Zelikow's conflicts of interest, Condi's unpunished perjury, the omission of pertinent information, NIST's specious excuses for refusing to run needed tests, and NIST's refusal to look into certain areas of vital inquiry--such as everything that happened after its partial and asymmetrical collapse allegedly began.

 
At 20 October, 2010 15:57, Blogger Triterope said...

Right here, Brian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94447&mesg_id=130943


Forget that old post. Here's what he said TWO FRICKIN' THREADS AGO:

I'm sorry that the physics of a bird nest on a fence post or a meatball on a fork or a rake on a rake are too challenging for you, Ian. Probably that's your daddy's fault. Certainly it's not mine.

So one minute he's insulting us for not understanding the argument, the next minute he saying he didn't make the argument. With the same login. Christ.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

I noticed that too, Triterope, but I let it go so he could claim "that's petgoat's model" as he just did. It's too easy...

Anyway,

That's petgoat's model.

You are petgoat.

I don't think I want to try to explain it to you, though I could, because you have such problems with elementary concepts that it would only be frustrating for both of us.

Translation: You could explain it to me because it's your "theory" but you won't because I have a hard time understanding the delusional world you inhabit.

You should stick to what you're good at, like inventing gossip about the sex lives of people you don't know and who wouldn't like you if you did.

I'm glad you don't like me, Brian. It means you're less likely to stalk me like you do Willie Rodriguez and Carol Brouillet.

I don't cling to any elves, nor do I cling to thermite. I simply dispute some of the untrue statements that are made about thermite in this forum. I don't know anything about elves. Unicorns, elves, gossip and such girly stuff seem to be your area of expertise.

"Girly". Classic Brian Good right there, especially when he's pissed off. Also, stop lying about clinging to thermite, Brian.

There is no need for any hypotheses to establish the need for new investigations.

Right, it'd be a waste of time and money because we'd come to the same conclusions we came to the last time....and then you'd cry foul and start babbling about thermite and meatballs and Willie Rodriguez and smoldering carpets and the imminent invasion of Canada and Willie Rodriguez and rakes and pyroclastic flows and Willie Rodriguez and SAMs and al Qaeda's attempt to not kill people and Willie Rodriguez again.

The fact of the dishonesty of the existing reports has been established by Dr. Zelikow's conflicts of interest, Condi's unpunished perjury, the omission of pertinent information, NIST's specious excuses for refusing to run needed tests, and NIST's refusal to look into certain areas of vital inquiry--such as everything that happened after its partial and asymmetrical collapse allegedly began.

Brian, I told you to look the word "fact" up before using it again. You're making yourself look like an idiot again.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:25, Blogger Triterope said...

I noticed that too, Triterope, but I let it go so he could claim "that's petgoat's model" as he just did. It's too easy...

Sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes there. Carry on.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the dishonesty of the reports is a fact to anyone who bothers to look.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the dishonesty of the reports is a fact to anyone who bothers to look.

False.

 
At 20 October, 2010 16:53, Blogger Pat said...

Snug bug, perhaps you can point me to where somebody says that the "alleged" hijackers were indentified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board?

No, of course you can't, because it didn't happen. Ryan is a dolt trying to con other dolts and apparently succeeding.

 
At 20 October, 2010 18:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

The CIA issued an "all points bulletin" on Al Hazmi and al Mihdhar on August 23, to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, instructing them to put Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar on the terrorist watch list. This did not, however get to the FAA.

At Dulles, they did trigger CAPPS screening, which is probably what Ryan is referring to. The 9/11 Commission called the Alhazmi brothers’ passports “suspicious” and said they could have been linked to al-Qaeda, but it does not explain why or how.

 
At 20 October, 2010 18:15, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

A union official in OZ said 9/11 was an inside jobbie:

'Kevin Bracken, the president of the Victorian Trades Hall and secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, sparked anger this morning after claiming the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.

"I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny," Mr Bracken told ABC talk-back host Jon Faine.

"In my mind the buildings were imploded."

Faine initially thought the call was a hoax.

"I challenge you to a public debate," Mr Bracken said to Faine.

"Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/trades-hall-president-kevin-bracken-calls-911-conspiracy/story-e6frf7kx-1225941158523?from=public_rss

His union president does not agree:

'MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin later on Wednesday distanced the union from the comment, releasing a statement saying its position on the attack was "unambiguous".

"The 9/11 tragedy was a result of a terrorist attack by international terrorists who claimed responsibility," he said.

"It is the MUA's position - one that I passionately support as national secretary - that this attack is one of the greatest affronts and abuses of human and civil rights in contemporary history"'

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/union-rejects-officials-911-comment-20101020-16tlb.html

The Oz Prime Minister, called Braken 'stupid'.

 
At 20 October, 2010 19:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

The CIA issued an "all points bulletin" on Al Hazmi and al Mihdhar on August 23, to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, instructing them to put Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar on the terrorist watch list. This did not, however get to the FAA.

Sorry, I missed the part where this occurrence was not typical bureaucratic backlogs but something sinister and intentional. Can you let us know where your evidence that this was intentional is?

At Dulles, they did trigger CAPPS screening, which is probably what Ryan is referring to. The 9/11 Commission called the Alhazmi brothers’ passports “suspicious” and said they could have been linked to al-Qaeda, but it does not explain why or how.

So what?

 
At 20 October, 2010 21:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is as bad as your understanding of everyday physics, but that's your mom's fault, not mine.

I'm also sorry that the notion that somebody might simply want to clarify the facts, as opposed to argue a case, is foreign to you.

I was trying to clarify Ryan's statement, which is overly simplified. Al Hazmi and Al Mihdhar were on a terrorist watch list because they had been identified as connected to al Qaeda. Since they subsequently bought 10 airline tickets for the same day under their own names, and this could have been found out from a simple credit-card check, that is a major boo boo.

Then Pat claimed that they were not identified as security risks at the gate. And I pointed out that they did receive the special CAPPS screening.

I never said there was anything sinister about it. I was clarifying the facts.

 
At 20 October, 2010 21:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never said there was anything sinister about it. I was clarifying the facts.

Ah, that's nice.

Brian, do you plan on ever presenting any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Remember, your wild hypotheticals do not constitute evidence among those of us who live on planet earth. Neither do your scribbles of "rake on rake" or "meatball on a fork".

 
At 20 October, 2010 21:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am not interested in the "inside job" framing which I've always thought was really really dumb. I am interested in what can be proven: the reports are dishonest, incomplete, unbelievable, inconsistent with known facts, and unacceptable. The widows' questions have not been answered.

 
At 20 October, 2010 22:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

I am interested in what can be proven: the reports are dishonest, incomplete, unbelievable, inconsistent with known facts, and unacceptable.

False. The reports are honest, complete, believable, consistent with all known facts and have been accepted by everyone but you. You lose, Brian, as always.

The widows' questions have not been answered.

False. The widows have no questions.

 
At 20 October, 2010 22:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

In your dreamworld, Ian.

 
At 20 October, 2010 22:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

In your dreamworld, Ian.

 
At 21 October, 2010 03:46, Blogger CoffePrinceAddict said...

Need help on your how to's. Get What you need in www.sharedhowtos.com

 
At 21 October, 2010 06:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

In your dreamworld, Ian.

You lose, Brian. As always.

 
At 21 October, 2010 09:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This idiot thinks questions alone are enough to warrant a new investigation! As if the inability of a few nobodies is sufficient to overture what is regarded as accurate by the most knowledgeable people in the fields of structural engineering (NIST) and the actions of AQ on 9/11. Sorry but we don't listen to the tiny percent of the dumbest people in the US.

You see this tactic often used by creationist, they want biological science book redone to accommodate their inability to understand evolution. Their question mean nothing same as truther question mean nothing.

You will note the best and brightest in the respective fields consider creationism and controlled demolition the agenda driven dogma of the loony class.

 
At 21 October, 2010 09:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The big question is, why is the truth movement made up of the lowest people the world. The un-evolved, the room temperature IQ types. The Brian Good types.

You can tell the quality of any cause by the people it draws. Debunkers and skeptic are for the most part educated professional people. Truthers are for the most part young (mentally) and your basic losers in life. Again Brian represents this so well, 50 something and the best he can do in life is mop floors and has to live with mom and dad because he is too challenged to take care of himself.

The fact they can be conned into so many other conspiracy theorist scams is very telling, belief in chemtrails, fake Moon landings and other obvious sucker bait run rampant with truthers. One over at Facebook is convinced fluoridation is an evil plot. Too funny for words.

 
At 21 October, 2010 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dave, since you haven't a leg to stand on in your CD argument except your specious argument from authority, you choose to win the battle (in your own mind) through a proxy fight over creationism, chemtrails, the moon landing, and fluoride.

Your premise is flawed. Since the purpose of an investigation is to answer questions, yes, the persistence of such questions justifies continued investigations.

Your comments about Brian Good not only reveal your ignorance, but your epistemic incompetence as well.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Since the purpose of an investigation is to answer questions,

The questions have been answered, at least to those with the necessary gray matter to understand the answers. Of course you as a retarded janitor will never get it so your questions mean nothing.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

The questions have not been answered. All we have gotten is a plausible-sounding cover story based on the logically fallacious assumption of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Since NIST terminated their report at the moment of collapse initiation, they never addressed the most baffling aspect of the towers' destruction--its speed, totality, and symmetry, the pulverization of the concrete, and the persistence of molten iron in the wreckage.

Your persistent and delusional claims that I am mentally retarded only make you look stupid, Dave.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:33, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And of course this is not you posting as snug.bug when Kevin Barrett called you out Brian Good.

"Slandered by Sex-Stalker "Brian Good" and Op-Ed News Editor"

Comments:
"snug.bug said...
Gosh Kevin, if you're going to write fiction about me can't you at least make it interesting? ("me" being snug.bug aka Brian Good)

Are you ever going to discuss the extremely destructive things you have done to make Truthers look like idiots, or are you going to continue to be a Gutless Wonder forever?

So I take it you still won't admit that Willie Rodriguez's story was a lie and you either knew it was a lie or didn't know because you didn't bother to check?

July 31, 2009 2:09 PM"

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/07/slandered-by-sex-stalker-brian-good-and.html

Note how the profile links go to the same Blogger profile on both pages.

Gee Brian, not only are you an idiot but a coward as well. I can see why you would what to hide your real name with all the stupid things you say, but have some guts.

I post under my own name and have nothing to hide from a low life like you.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:36, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Your persistent and delusional claims that I am mentally retarded"

It's only natural, someone with a metal capacity as low as you would be what is called "challenged". Maybe that is why at 50 or so you still need to live at home. Must be tough on mom and dad caring for a delusional man-child.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your persistent and delusional claims that I am mentally retarded only make you look stupid, Dave.

FWIW, I don't think you're retarded, Brian. I just think you're suffering from several mental illnesses (OCD and narcissistic personality disorder come to mind), have a below-average intellect, and have some severe sexuality issues.

That's all.

Also, all questions have been answered. The widows didn't have questions answered because they never had any.

 
At 21 October, 2010 10:51, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Why such a coward Snug.Bug?

My name is David F Kyte, I live in Detroit, I think all truthers are low life scum. I can say that because of who I am compared to who truthers are. And I can degrade them online or in person because they’re nothing but cowardly little dirtbags who run away when challenged. And nobody will criticize me for doing so because no one likes truthers.

 
At 21 October, 2010 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

So now we're back to pure personal attack, once again based on the authority of a known lying scumbag, Kevin Barrett, who like Willie Rodriguez is highly motivated to lie about me because it's the only defense he can offer to my charges that he is a bigot, a liar, an advocate of violence, an incompetent and negligent scholar, and persistent purveyor of misinformation that makes the truth movement look bad.

You guys have utterly failed to support your positions on the 9/11 issues, and you resort to catty libels to try to distract from that fact, and to try to intimidate me.

 
At 21 October, 2010 11:48, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Kevin Barrett, who like Willie Rodriguez is highly motivated to lie about me"

But... Kevin was posting about what a scumbag Brian Good is.... and, you say you are NOT Brian Good. So which is it?

Wow, you should really think first before you post, Brian.

 
At 21 October, 2010 11:49, Blogger Billman said...

Brian, I think a lot of us here have done quite well supporting our posistions on 9/11 with facts, and rational observations, as well as real world experience that many of us can apply to similar situations.

 
At 21 October, 2010 11:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"you resort to catty libels"

We are talking about a low life idiot janitor Brian Good, which you claim you are not, so how is it we are libeling you?

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dave, if you think you can support your positions, then why don't you?
Why do you insist on talking about fluoride and chemtrails and Brian Good and petgoat and Willie Rodriguez?

What you guys all do, is invent plausible rationalizations for what happened, without bothering to learn the facts. I did the same thing. I assumed the air war was over in 15 minutes--because that was the only thing that made sense. When I found there was no air defense for 100 minutes, that's when I started investigating the facts.

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:42, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian the fact that the entire 9/11 truth thing is only I the mind of intellectual inferiors like you is the point. The fact are known by all smart enough to understand. The issue is you, why is it loonies like you buy the 9/11 scam? Why are there NO quality people on the truther side?

People look at a loser like you and then look at me and the right choice becomes clear. Quality of the messenger is key. And the reason you will always lose.

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

What you guys all do, is invent plausible rationalizations for what happened, without bothering to learn the facts.

Brian, your delusions are not "facts" here on planet earth, k?

I did the same thing. I assumed the air war was over in 15 minutes--because that was the only thing that made sense. When I found there was no air defense for 100 minutes, that's when I started investigating the facts.

Exactly, your grasp on reality is....tenuous, so you went off to planet petgoat to find insane explanations for the mundane.

Anyway,

Why do you insist on talking about fluoride and chemtrails and Brian Good and petgoat and Willie Rodriguez?

Um, YOU'RE the one who babbles endlessly about that strutting, bragging, sassy, fabulous piece of manhood, Willie Rodriguez, remember?

 
At 21 October, 2010 12:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK wrote: Quality of the messenger is key.

And he managed to incorporate two logical fallacies in just six words: argument from authority and argumentum ad hominem. No, Dave. The quality of the message is key. When one party operates from facts, and the other operates from irrational assumptions and logical fallacies, the side that has the quality argument is clear.

You may as well argue that Gallileo, because he was a jailbird, can not possibly be right--and His Eminence the cardinal can not possibly be wrong.
That's a shortcut argument for the intellectually lazy, fearful, self-deceivers.duped.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

The quality of the message is key. When one party operates from facts, and the other operates from irrational assumptions and logical fallacies, the side that has the quality argument is clear.

PRECISELY. This is why the "truth" movement was dead before it ever got off the ground. The irrational assumptions and logical fallacies doomed it from the start. And that's why nobody pays you any mind anymore, except for those of us who laugh at you guys.

You may as well argue that Gallileo, because he was a jailbird, can not possibly be right--and His Eminence the cardinal can not possibly be wrong.

This is the modus operandi of the entire "truth" movement summed up very well.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

The irrational fallacies are only among fringe members of the truth community who are pushing goofy theories. There are no assumptions or fallacies involved in pointing out that the official reports are full of holes, bad evidence, faulty inferences, and dishonesty.

So your argument here is to completely reverse yourself--you abandon your "The Messenger is Key" is credo, and agree with me that the message is key, and then you basically say "I know you are, but what am I?"

Your high regard for your own intellect is not justified, Dave Kyte.

 
At 21 October, 2010 13:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

The irrational fallacies are only among fringe members of the truth community who are pushing goofy theories.

Right, because "birds nest on a pole" is such a brilliant theory. Brian, every member of the "truth" "community" is pushing goofy "theories".

There are no assumptions or fallacies involved in pointing out that the official reports are full of holes, bad evidence, faulty inferences, and dishonesty.

Even if all that's true (and it's not), you still have to put forth a competing theory, which you haven't done.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish a theory from a model is rather telling.

No Ian, no competing theory is necessary. If the existing investigation does not honestly and convincingly prove its case, we need a new one that can--based on facts, not theories.

On the one hand you say the truth movement is nothing but a bunch of goofy theories, and on the other you criticize it for not having a theory. You just want to have it both ways.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Your high regard for your own intellect is not justified, Dave Kyte.

And it burns you up no end that I and the rest of the debunkers here are mile ahead of you in the smarts department. That is not saying much give your limited ability to think rationally.

I am sure no one refers to you as a smart guy like they do of me.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish a theory from a model is rather telling.

OK, let me start over: your "birds nest on a pole" model is rather telling: it tells us that you have a rather tenuous grasp on reality and do not understand the first thing about physics or engineering.

No Ian, no competing theory is necessary.

Perhaps not on Planet Petgoat, but here on earth, we're going to want an explanation of what you think happened on 9/11. Babbling about meatballs and carpets and Willie Rodriguez isn't going to get anyone to take you seriously.

If the existing investigation does not honestly and convincingly prove its case, we need a new one that can--based on facts, not theories.

Well, the original investigation honestly and convincingly proved its case with facts, so we don't have to worry about this.

On the one hand you say the truth movement is nothing but a bunch of goofy theories, and on the other you criticize it for not having a theory. You just want to have it both ways.

Brian, this might be too subtle for someone of your intellect to grasp, I use the word theory in its loosest sense when describing the deranged fantasies of the "truth" movement. What I want from the "truth" movement is a real theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny. After 9 years, nobody has come close.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"no competing theory is necessary."

Well yes you do. If you expect the government to spend millions re investigating something they goy right the first time. So where is your compelling proof?

By your own words you say you don't know what happened. Ignorantiam, Argumentum. Questions do not count. Questions are just the shoulder shrug and "I Duh No" of the truly ignorant.

 
At 21 October, 2010 14:32, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

By the way Brian, Gallileo had the support of the scientific community of the time, unlike the truthers who are regarded as kooks. The church was the only ones who saw him as wrong.

 
At 21 October, 2010 15:08, Blogger Billman said...

Well, by that rationale, Stephen Jones and his ilk are unique because they are at least attempting to form a scientific theory to base the truth movement on. They just also fail at it, really badly, and then refuse to acknowledge their errors. Which makes you question their motives (bilking money out of truthers) and credibility (they have none).

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

smug.mug wrote, "You may as well argue that Gallileo [SIC], because he was a jailbird, can not possibly be right--and His Eminence the cardinal can not possibly be wrong.
That's a shortcut argument for the intellectually lazy, fearful, self-deceivers.duped."


You forgot to accuse Dave Kyte of persecution and to compare yourself to Galileo.

And if that doesn't work, repeat yourself, call Dave Kyte a dirty name, suggest that Dave Kyte is part of a conspiracy to conceal the "truth" about 9/11, and, of course, compare yourself to Galileo.

You're slipping, Brian.

 
At 21 October, 2010 16:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, in my circles there's no need to say I'm a smart guy. It's assumed. We're all smart folks.

Ian, it's a waste of time for me to answer your fallacious bald assertions.

DK, to demand proof before allowing an investigation is not scientific. The 9/11 Commission failed to follow many leads, based many of its conclusions on tortured testimony, and simply invented its facts about the air defense because the NORAD accounts were contradictory and made no sense. Dr. Zelikow's dishonesty was particularly egregious.

I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. You think you do only because you fill in the blanks with your own unjustified assumptions--just as I did until I started to examine the facts for myself. Questions that have not been answered are not ignorant. Answers that have not been questioned are ignorant.

That Gallileo had support of other scientists has nothing to do with the point. What? That bunch of misfits, dilletantes, criminals and heretics? Against the His Exaltation, the cardinal? You're in the Church of Condi Rice, Phil Zelikow, Shyam Sunder, and Gene Corley.

GuitarBill, there's no reason for me to compare myself to Galileo. I'm not pushing any theories. There's no reason for me to call Dave Kyte any dirty names. Poorly informed, irrational, and not as bright as he thinks he is will do just fine.

 
At 21 October, 2010 18:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, in my circles there's no need to say I'm a smart guy. It's assumed. We're all smart folks.

Who is "we", Brian?

DK, to demand proof before allowing an investigation is not scientific. The 9/11 Commission failed to follow many leads, based many of its conclusions on tortured testimony, and simply invented its facts about the air defense because the NORAD accounts were contradictory and made no sense. Dr. Zelikow's dishonesty was particularly egregious.

False.

I don't know what happened.

I do.

You don't know what happened.

False.

You think you do only because you fill in the blanks with your own unjustified assumptions--just as I did until I started to examine the facts for myself.

No, we fill in the blanks with evidence and reason. You fill it in with insane delusions and your undying love for Willie Rodriguez.

Questions that have not been answered are not ignorant. Answers that have not been questioned are ignorant.

Meaningless babble.

That Gallileo had support of other scientists has nothing to do with the point. What? That bunch of misfits, dilletantes, criminals and heretics? Against the His Exaltation, the cardinal? You're in the Church of Condi Rice, Phil Zelikow, Shyam Sunder, and Gene Corley.

Don't forget Willie Rodriguez!

GuitarBill, there's no reason for me to compare myself to Galileo. I'm not pushing any theories. There's no reason for me to call Dave Kyte any dirty names. Poorly informed, irrational, and not as bright as he thinks he is will do just fine.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 22 October, 2010 09:14, Blogger Triterope said...

DK, in my circles there's no need to say I'm a smart guy. It's assumed. We're all smart folks.

Quit flattering yourself, Brian.

 
At 22 October, 2010 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Quit fluttering yourself, DK.

 
At 22 October, 2010 17:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stop flogging yourself, Brian. After all, you could go blind.

 
At 23 October, 2010 05:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The widows' questions have not been answered."

And nobody still doesn't give a flying fuck.

 
At 23 October, 2010 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I guess LL considers it manly and macho to express contempt for the victims of 9/11.

How about Condi's lie to their faces under oath? Is that how government is supposed to act?

 
At 23 October, 2010 11:15, Blogger Billman said...

I wonder if Brian Good could explain what Condi lied about.

 
At 23 October, 2010 12:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't suppose you could google "Condi lied" and find out.

No..... 'cause if it's not 911myths it doesn't exist.

 
At 23 October, 2010 12:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

So I guess LL considers it manly and macho to express contempt for the victims of 9/11.

Where did he do that?

Anyway, are you having a good weekend, Brian? Why not take some time off from stalking Willie Rodriguez and babbling about magic thermite elves and watch the San Francisco Giants tonight? They could make it to the World Series with a win.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:14, Blogger Billman said...

Oh, I'm sorry snug.bug. That question was directed at Brian Good to get his opinion on the question, so YOU don't need to reply to it unless you are in fact, Brian Good.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:19, Blogger Billman said...

It's funny how when you type "Condi Lied" into Google as snug.bug (who caims he is not Brian Good) recommends, then you get videos by punxatawneybarney (also "not" Brian Good), as well as a link from www.pakistan.tv that leads to the same video posted on punxatawneybarney's (still allegedly not Brian Good) youtube page. And what's funny, whoever runs that particular page on www.pakistan.tv has recreated the same comments posted on punxatawneybarney's video.

 
At 23 October, 2010 13:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, I get it! Brian Good is an insurgent in a cave in Pakistan! And Kevin Barrett has Kalashnikov-envy. It all makes sense now!

 
At 23 October, 2010 14:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh, I get it! Brian Good is an insurgent in a cave in Pakistan!

No, Brian Good is an unemployed middle-aged janitor who lives with his parents in Palo Alto, CA. He posts all over the internet as "snug.bug", "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", "watson", and probably many others. He is obsessed with Willie Rodriguez and became insanely jealous when Willie rejected his sexual advances.

I don't think he's an insurgent in Pakistan.

And nobody cares about Kevin Barrett.

 
At 23 October, 2010 14:23, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"How about Condi's lie to their faces under oath?"

She didn't lie, and nobody gives a flying fuck.

 
At 23 October, 2010 14:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
DK, in my circles there's no need to say I'm a smart guy. It's assumed. We're all smart folks."

Brian, you believe there was a pyroclasic flow from the collapse of the WTC towers.

That is so stooooopid that, if you're lucky, you are a few IQ points above retarded.

And, Boron? I'm being kind.

 
At 23 October, 2010 14:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I don't know what happened."

THAT is the most honest thing you've ever said, Boron.

You know nothing of what happened.

 
At 23 October, 2010 18:28, Blogger Billman said...

Oh, I get it! Brian Good is an insurgent in a cave in Pakistan! And Kevin Barrett has Kalashnikov-envy. It all makes sense now!

Wow, that's quite a leap there. I just figured www.pakistan.tv was a website that was stealing Brain Gone's video and comments.

 
At 25 October, 2010 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL wrote: THAT is the most honest thing you've ever said.

Too bad youse guys don't have the same honesty.

 
At 25 October, 2010 12:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Too bad youse guys don't have the same honesty.

Says the guy who continues to lie about his various internet identities and his motivations for stalking Willie Rodriguez....

Brian, would you like to point out an example of dishonesty from anyone here?

 
At 25 October, 2010 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

One topic at a time, Ian. We're still talking about the lack of honesty that leads you guy to think you know what happened on 9/11, even though you show yourself to be woefully uninformed on the subject.

 
At 26 October, 2010 07:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

We're still talking about the lack of honesty that leads you guy to think you know what happened on 9/11, even though you show yourself to be woefully uninformed on the subject.

OK, examples of such?

 
At 26 October, 2010 14:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your oft stated assertions that the widows have no questions.

 
At 26 October, 2010 14:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, Pat's belief that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi had not been identified as al Qaeda.

 
At 26 October, 2010 18:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your oft stated assertions that the widows have no questions.

Nobody cares about your widows, Brian. Try finding something of relevance to the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

Also, Pat's belief that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi had not been identified as al Qaeda.

False.

 
At 26 October, 2010 19:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 26 October, 2010 19:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

See what I mean?

Yes I see what you mean, and nobody cares because it's a whole bunch of irrelevant babbling.

 
At 27 October, 2010 04:35, Blogger Triterope said...

Your oft stated assertions that the widows have no questions.

This should really be on the "Bravely slaying the strawmen of his imagination" thread.

 
At 27 October, 2010 06:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Your oft stated assertions that the widows have no questions."

They don't.

And guess what?

Nobody gives a flying fuck.

 
At 27 October, 2010 08:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, over 17,000 people have signed a petition in support of the widows. So your claim that nobody cares would appear to be not just despicable, but delusional.

And of course, whether anybody cares is beside the point of the fact that the questions are not answered. For irrationality your only rivals are Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke.

 
At 27 October, 2010 10:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

LL, over 17,000 people have signed a petition in support of the widows.

Wow, over 17,000. That's over .2% of the population of New York City! That's quite a popular uprising you've got going there, Brian.

So your claim that nobody cares would appear to be not just despicable, but delusional.

Actually, his claim appears quite accurate.

And of course, whether anybody cares is beside the point of the fact that the questions are not answered.

That would be true if only there were any questions.

For irrationality your only rivals are Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke.

What about Willie Rodriguez?

 
At 28 October, 2010 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian shifts the goalposts from "nobody" to "popular". Typical Ian. Wasting even his own time.

The widows rate only 27 of the responses to their 300 questions as adequate. 200 of their questions were not addressed at all. And of course that did not include anything related to (un)scientific reports on the towers. Ian's claim that they have no questions is a lie.

I have rarely found Willie to be irrational. Mostly he's just extremely dishonest. His supporters, however, are extremely irrational, employing Ian-like reasoning such as he was there and you weren't; therefore he tells the truth and you don't.

 
At 28 October, 2010 12:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

So Ian shifts the goalposts from "nobody" to "popular". Typical Ian. Wasting even his own time.

Brian, would you care to explain to me why I'm supposed to care about some petition signed by .2% of the population of New York City on behalf of 4 utterly irrelevant people?

The widows rate only 27 of the responses to their 300 questions as adequate.

And nobody cares.

200 of their questions were not addressed at all. And of course that did not include anything related to (un)scientific reports on the towers.

And nobody cares.

Ian's claim that they have no questions is a lie.

False.

I have rarely found Willie to be irrational. Mostly he's just extremely dishonest. His supporters, however, are extremely irrational, employing Ian-like reasoning such as he was there and you weren't; therefore he tells the truth and you don't.

Nobody cares about your infatuation with the man, Brian. Also, his supporters are right that you're a liar, regardless of what Rodriguez' story is.

 
At 28 October, 2010 14:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, even if I were a liar--and I'm not--there is no need of lies to hang Willie Ropdriguez with his own bogus claims.

Your claim that the widows have no questions is a lie. They had 300 questions, they got 27 answers. That leaves 273 questions unanswered.

Your aggressive unconcern about this shows you to be a person lacking in normal compassion, probably living in an ideologically-based fantasy world, and no patriot.

 
At 28 October, 2010 15:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, even if I were a liar--and I'm not--there is no need of lies to hang Willie Ropdriguez with his own bogus claims.

Actually, you are a liar, you're just really bad at it. Regardless, nobody but you cares about Willie Rodriguez. And speaking of people nobody cares about:

Your claim that the widows have no questions is a lie. They had 300 questions, they got 27 answers. That leaves 273 questions unanswered.

False. They have no questions. Even if they did have questions, nobody would care except you.

Your aggressive unconcern about this shows you to be a person lacking in normal compassion, probably living in an ideologically-based fantasy world, and no patriot.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 29 October, 2010 10:59, Blogger Triterope said...

The widows rate only 27 of the responses to their 300 questions as adequate.

They also said "the report did not answer all our questions, but its recommendations were reforms we could endorse."

Jesus, I didn't have to look it up this time. I have that quote memorized. I've got family members whose birthdays I can't remember. But I can remember that. Christ.

 
At 29 October, 2010 11:07, Blogger Triterope said...

They had 300 questions, they got 27 answers. That leaves 273 questions unanswered.

You've obviously never even read the list, or you'd know the actual number of questions is indeterminable. There are sub-questions, run-on questions, numbered items that aren't questions, questions that depend upon certain answers to previous questions, and so on. Same with the answers; some are unmarked, some are marked affirmative but with negative notes written in the margin, and so on.

Your unending assertion that there are exactly X questions and exactly Y answers is the sort of false precision that is a hallmark of conspiracy arguments.

 
At 29 October, 2010 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, the fact that the widows could endorse the (proposed) reforms has nothing to do with the fact that the questions weren't answered. Gee, the dentist filled the wrong tooth but he gave me a cookie afterward--isn't that nice?

Yes, I have read the widows' 300 questions, and your assumption that I have not is irrational.
Questions, sub-questions, and followup questions are a measure of the degree of organization of the presentation of these well-educated women. I'm sorry you find it difficult to follow.

 
At 29 October, 2010 14:20, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, try reading what I said again. You obviously missed both points.

 
At 29 October, 2010 20:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

TR, the fact that the widows could endorse the (proposed) reforms has nothing to do with the fact that the questions weren't answered. Gee, the dentist filled the wrong tooth but he gave me a cookie afterward--isn't that nice?

What?

Yes, I have read the widows' 300 questions, and your assumption that I have not is irrational.
Questions, sub-questions, and followup questions are a measure of the degree of organization of the presentation of these well-educated women. I'm sorry you find it difficult to follow.


Nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 30 October, 2010 18:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, what I missed was your quibbling. By my count only 27 of the widows' actual questions were marked as satisfactorily answered. Your actual mileage may vary. So fucking what? All you can do is quibble about trivialties.

 
At 30 October, 2010 21:14, Blogger Triterope said...

By my count only 27 of the widows' actual questions were marked as satisfactorily answered. Your actual mileage may vary. So fucking what? All you can do is quibble about trivialties.

Check your script, Brian, I'm pretty sure that's my line.

 
At 31 October, 2010 13:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fact that only 9% of the widows' questions have been answered is trivial only to someone suffering from hysterical blindness. Like you.

 
At 31 October, 2010 14:57, Blogger Triterope said...

You're a deluded nutcase, Brian.

 
At 31 October, 2010 16:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

The fact that only 9% of the widows' questions have been answered is trivial only to someone suffering from hysterical blindness. Like you.

Brian, the widows have no questions. Stop babbling about nothing.

 
At 31 October, 2010 18:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

So how about those San Francisco Giants, Brian?

 
At 31 October, 2010 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody cares about the Giants.

Why anyone with half a brain wants to sit around watching a bunch of guys standing around in their union suits scratching their balls is a mystery to me.

 
At 31 October, 2010 19:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares about the Giants.

False. 3 million attended their games this year. 11.5 million people watched last night's game. Compare those numbers to the ones you grasp at in desperation when you babble about your widows or Richard Gage's army.

Why anyone with half a brain wants to sit around watching a bunch of guys standing around in their union suits scratching their balls is a mystery to me.

What?

Anyway, I just threw that out there since they're your local team, and watching a ballgame is a far more enjoyable and less self-destructive experience than stalking people on the internet all day.

 
At 31 October, 2010 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing destructive about taking down con artists.

 
At 31 October, 2010 20:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

There's nothing destructive about taking down con artists.

You're not "taking down" anyone, Brian. You're obsessed with the guy and you stalk him online. Jesus, one mention of his name here and you start babbling about him as if anyone here cares. It's a pavlovian response.

Anyway, Buster Posey just went deep for San Francisco. He's kinda cute, Brian. Why don't you make cute little videos telling the world about how much you have a schoolgirl crush on him? It will be a lot healthier than your deranged psychosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 01 November, 2010 16:06, Blogger SJCP said...

My goodness, Ian G and Dave Kyte are classic assholes. No wonder no one takes the debunkers seriously.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home