Friday, November 26, 2010

Another Blogger for Reason

Welcome, Mr Rational! Solid writing style, sensible conclusions, worth a regular visit.

So how can this notion be applied to the 9/11 truth movement? The following is a common example of special pleading (e.g., How can the govt. continue to conceal the conspiracy if literally thousands of people were involved? Special plead: you don’t understand the concept of compartmentalization within the government).

This argument is special pleading because it avoids having to answer the real problem, namely that even with compartmentalization there still remain thousands of people who have to remain silent. Lets take the people who set up the demolition charges for instance. If they were only given instructions to set charges and nothing else, then I find it a little odd that not a single one of them has come forward with this information. The notion of compartmentalization fails when we realize that if one link in the chain fails, then the entire conspiracy fails.


Indeed. No matter how compartmentalized the work was, there would be a hell of a lot of people who would say, "You know, I wonder if those weird ceiling tiles I installed at the WTC had anything to do with the collapse."

Labels: ,

72 Comments:

At 26 November, 2010 12:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

GIGO. What makes you think thousands would have to be involved? And if Dr.Jones's suggestion is true that nanothermite was sprayed on the structural members, why would you think that the workmen who did the spraying had any knowledge of what was in the "paint"?

 
At 26 November, 2010 12:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

GIGO. What makes you think thousands would have to be involved?

I'm guessing our failed janitor here doesn't have a masters degree in operations management....

And if Dr.Jones's suggestion is true that nanothermite was sprayed on the structural members, why would you think that the workmen who did the spraying had any knowledge of what was in the "paint"?

Yeah, and if the modified attack baboons placed the micro-nukes in the towers, we wouldn't even have someone who could confess to the crime!

 
At 26 November, 2010 16:15, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The first rule of Modified Attack Baboons is: No one talks about Modified Attack Baboons.

The second rule of Modified Attack Baboons is : No one talks about Modified Attack Baboons.

Finally, so you can spray nanothermite...and it looks like paint...and a professional painter would never spot any difference in the consistancy of the wet paint as it is applied...and this Dr. Jones guy believes this...

Forget the fact that nobody found any thermite in the WTC wreckage, nano or regular, for thermite to work in the way your asshat-theory needs it to it has to be in a shaped or concentrated charge.If you want to cut a steel beam "Surgically" you just cannot spread the thermite around like butter.

Even though you lack the basic understanding for the simple things like gravity, I am continually amazed at how uninhibited you are to demonstrate your galactic stupidity on a wide range of topics here on SLC.

 
At 26 November, 2010 16:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian Good (aka Smug.mug) is a psychopath. In other words, he's an habitual liar with no conscience.

"Cosmos/Pat Cowardly" (aka Andrew Bernstein) is a psychopath, as well.

 
At 26 November, 2010 19:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Gwegowy Fawwis, the official explanation of the collapse is that the fires weakened the steel columns. You're right, sprayed nanothermite would not "surgically" cut steel beams and columns. Instead it would simply weaken them in the same manner that NIST claims the fires did.

I understand gravity just fine. It ain't rocket science.

GutterBall, when did I ever lie? You lie repeatedly when you claim that Leslie Robertson and Dr. Harris and Dr. Kausel are independent advocates of the NIST report. None of them are independent.

 
At 26 November, 2010 20:12, Blogger angrysoba said...

Well, sure!

NIST weren't told about the false flag operation. All they were told was to fabricate a fire-induced collapse. They obviously said, "Sure! Why not?" and never even stopped to think that they were part of the cover-up of the most elaborate conspiracy in history.

I suppose they may have been a little surprised that they were being asked to completely trash their reputations but as we all know it is only the Truthers whose ideas need to be taken seriously on the basis that they are risking their reputations.

 
At 26 November, 2010 20:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

M Gwegowy Fawwis, the official explanation of the collapse is that the fires weakened the steel columns. You're right, sprayed nanothermite would not "surgically" cut steel beams and columns. Instead it would simply weaken them in the same manner that NIST claims the fires did.

We wouldn't have to worry about that if we just used micro-nukes placed in the towers by modified attack baboons.

I understand gravity just fine. It ain't rocket science.

You sure haven't demonstrated that understanding of gravity, given all the babbling about "path of greatest resistance" and how certain elements of the collapse are "baffling".

GutterBall, when did I ever lie?

You lie when you claim you're not petgoat, and you lie when you say that Bill hasn't named any independent engineers.

You lie repeatedly when you claim that Leslie Robertson and Dr. Harris and Dr. Kausel are independent advocates of the NIST report. None of them are independent.

See?

 
At 26 November, 2010 21:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

angry soba, Shyam Sunder trashed his reputation when he told NOVA that the WTC was scattered because of the need for rescue ops.

Ian, GutterBall has not named independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

 
At 26 November, 2010 23:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying psychopath, Brian Good, prevaricates, "...GutterBall, when did I ever lie? You lie repeatedly when you claim that Leslie Robertson and Dr. Harris and Dr. Kausel are independent advocates of the NIST report."

You constantly lie, asshole, as I've proven time-and-time again.

You're a psychopath--and that's obvious.

 
At 27 November, 2010 07:38, Blogger Garry said...

'What makes you think thousands would have to be involved?'

Yeah, all they needed to do was get Boris and Natasha from the 'Rocky and Bullwinkle Show' to do the job with a Hushaboom.

You are a complete spaz, Brian. Go and swallow some drano and stop wasting everyone's time.

 
At 27 November, 2010 07:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, GutterBall has not named independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

False.

Also, I named one. My uncle Steve endorses the NIST report. You lose again, Brian.

 
At 27 November, 2010 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, so you can't answer the question? What makes you think thousands of people would have to be involved in a plot that was allegedly pulled off by just 19 guys? If 19 guys can do it without cooperation, why are thousands needed to provide cooperation?

Ian, there is no reason to believe that GutterBall has named any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. The first four I checked were all tainted--one got an award from NIST, one got an appointment to a committee from NIST, one had a contract with NIST, and one was the head of a firm that had a contract with NIST.

When and where did your uncle Steve endorse the NIST report? What kind of engineering does he do? What's his name?

 
At 27 November, 2010 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still working on the definition of independent, Pinocchio?

Believe it or not, this idiot actually said, "Independent doesn't mean not dependent" (Never mind that the prefix "in" means not).

Don't mind Brian, He has a soft heart and a head to match.

 
At 27 November, 2010 11:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

What makes you think thousands of people would have to be involved in a plot that was allegedly pulled off by just 19 guys? If 19 guys can do it without cooperation, why are thousands needed to provide cooperation?

The fact that you think only 19 people were involved in the non-fantasy planning and execution of 9/11 shows just how tenuous your grasp of reality is, Brian.

Ian, there is no reason to believe that GutterBall has named any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. The first four I checked were all tainted--one got an award from NIST, one got an appointment to a committee from NIST, one had a contract with NIST, and one was the head of a firm that had a contract with NIST.

False. He named independent engineers. Learn to read.

When and where did your uncle Steve endorse the NIST report? What kind of engineering does he do? What's his name?

His name is Steve, Brian. Learn to read.

Also, he's a civil engineer and he endorsed the report last week.

 
At 27 November, 2010 13:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, it seems that your unwillingness to admit that you are wrong outweighs your reluctance to look like an idiot. "Independent" means many other things than "not dependent". For instance, the first words in the Random House definition are "not influenced or controlled by others". By focusing on control you are missing influence entirely.

Ian, GutterBall did not show that any of his allegedly independent engineers had endorsed the NIST report. The first four I checked were not independent, and I declined to investigate any further.

Where did Steve endorse the NIST report? Why is he afraid to give his full name? Why should we take seriously so furtive an endorsement? You didn't say what his specialty in engineering was.

 
At 27 November, 2010 13:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

"Independent" means many other things than "not dependent". For instance, the first words in the Random House definition are "not influenced or controlled by others". By focusing on control you are missing influence entirely.

Wow, Brian, that's amazing! Can you tell me what this has to do with 9/11 being an inside job?

Ian, GutterBall did not show that any of his allegedly independent engineers had endorsed the NIST report.

False.

The first four I checked were not independent, and I declined to investigate any further.

Brian, learn what "independent" means. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Where did Steve endorse the NIST report?

From his home in Santa Monica, CA.

Why is he afraid to give his full name?

He isn't.

Why should we take seriously so furtive an endorsement?

"we"?

You didn't say what his specialty in engineering was.

Bridge design. He knows all about the theory of gravity that you apparently reject.

 
At 27 November, 2010 15:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bug.fuck prevaricates, "...For instance, the first words in the Random House definition are 'not influenced or controlled by others'."

Don't lecture me--you dunce. You don't have the brains or the education to lecture me, janitor boy.

Furthermore, you've never proven that so much as one of the engineers I cite as independent is controlled or influenced by NIST--and your idiotic, biased opinion isn't evidence.

Providing information in support of an investigation doesn't prove control or influence--you dolt.

Now, either provide evidence to substantiate your assertions, or STFU.

 
At 28 November, 2010 12:19, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, so you can't answer the question? What makes you think thousands of people would have to be involved in a plot that was allegedly pulled off by just 19 guys? If 19 guys can do it without cooperation, why are thousands needed to provide cooperation?'

You are a complete and utter twat.

Mohamed Atta and his 18 fellow hijackers did not do the job 'without cooperation'. They were amongst thousands of Arabs and other foreign Muslims who had travelled to Afghanistan in the 1990s to train in Al Qaeda's camps, all under the protection of the Taliban regime.

If you think that Al Qaeda in 2001 is just a bunch of guys who just suddenly decide to hijack some jets and crash them somewhere, it just goes to show what a dribbling idiot you are.

Furthermore, if you are talking about 9/11 being an 'inside job', ask yourself how many people you need to rig the Twin Towers and Building 7 for demolition (without anyone working in the WTC noticing); how many first responders and personnel in the FAA, FBI, CIA, NORAD and the news media are required to perpetuate the cover-up; and (above) explain why qualified structural engineers, forensic experts, controlled demolition experts, aviation specialists and an array of professional and qualified scientist (i.e. not people like Boxboy or Waterboy) refuse to corroborate your deranged fantasies.

 
At 28 November, 2010 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your inability to comprehend that professional conflicts of interest involve appearances rather than proof shows you to be a very naive person with no inexperience in the business and professional world.

Garry, okay, how many do you think were directly involved in the 9/11 conspiracy? 30? 50? 100? 300?

How many to rig the towers? Dr. Jones estimated that 40 men taking 10 trips each could have placed the charges. Dr. Van Romero said that only a few charges were necessary to bring the towers down. Dr. Eagar's zipper theory, which was allegedly conventional wisdom for three years, says the same thing. Of course if the thermitic material was sprayed on, it may have been applied by painters who didn't know what it was. Or thermobaric devices dropped down the elevator shafts could have been installed by a crew of just a few.

So where do you get your thousands? And why is it necessary for NORAD, FAA, CIA, etc. to cover up any more than they already are when (according to you) there was no inside job at all? What's to cover up?

Actually there are qualified structural engineers, forensic experts, controlled demolition experts, aviation specialists and an array of professional and qualified scientist that have signed the petition calling for new 9/11 investigations. Not all of them agree with all of the claims made my Mr. Gage.

It appears that there are more qualified experts that question the official story than there are independent experts that are willing to stick their necks out and endorse the NIST report. In fact GutterBall can't even name one.

 
At 28 November, 2010 19:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

It appears that there are more qualified experts that question the official story than there are independent experts that are willing to stick their necks out and endorse the NIST report. In fact GutterBall can't even name one.

False and false.

 
At 29 November, 2010 05:26, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, okay, how many do you think were directly involved in the 9/11 conspiracy? 30? 50? 100? 300?'

I've told you, numbnuts. It takes just two groups of people, al Qaeda (using Afghanistan as their sanctuary) and the Taliban (offering OBL, KSM et al the shelter and security needed to plan 9/11 - and for that matter earlier attacks like the 'Cole' and the Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam bombings). I think some basic remedial reading is required for our sex-pest friend.

'How many to rig the towers? Dr. Jones estimated that 40 men taking 10 trips each could have placed the charges.'

Stop right there. An 'estimate' is what an expert in an accredited field can provide. Stephen Jones is not an expert in controlled demolition. He knows fuck-all about the subject, and assumes that some top-secret explosive called supa-doopa nanothermite was involved. He is a fucking fruitcake, Brian, and I would no sooner seek his advice on this subject than I would seek yours on how to court a woman.

'Dr. Van Romero said that only a few charges were necessary to bring the towers down.'

Oh really, and how were these planted in the buildings concerned without anyone working in them not noticing anything amiss?

'Dr. Eagar's zipper theory, which was allegedly conventional wisdom for three years, says the same thing. Of course if the thermitic material was sprayed on, it may have been applied by painters who didn't know what it was.'

This is getting beyond retarded now.

'Or thermobaric devices dropped down the elevator shafts could have been installed by a crew of just a few'.

Yeah, and maybe Danny Ocean and his crew were in on it as well. They just suddenly decided that rather than rip off a Las Vegas casino they'd just murder thousands of people for the sake of it. As you do.

 
At 29 November, 2010 05:27, Blogger Garry said...

'So where do you get your thousands? And why is it necessary for NORAD, FAA, CIA, etc. to cover up any more than they already are when (according to you) there was no inside job at all? What's to cover up?'

Erm, let me see ...

(1) We need FAA and NORAD to smooth over the details of the hijackings to make them convincing (and, as mentioned before, NORAD is a binational command so the Canucks need to be complicit as well).

(2) We need every first responder on the scene to cover up details of the supposed explosions that brought the towers down, and to hide all the evidence pointing to a CD (no det cords, no traces of explosive residue on the ruins etc), and also to lie about the circumstances in which brother police officers and fire-fighters died. Naturally, the FDNY and NYPD is full of cold-blooded creeps who would be fully compliant in that respect.

(3) We need someone to plant the DNA of fake hijackers on all the crash sites, and we need the FBI and CIA to create ghost identities for the terrorists, and to chase them. Because there's nothing that the Feds and the spooks like doing more than creating a wild-goose chase for themselves.

(4) We need people to fake all the video and audio statements (hundreds of them) that AQ have made since 9/11 admitting responsibility, and all the internet chatter on jihadi websites doing the same. And we need thousands of journalists and media workers across the globe fabricating the stories implicating AQ.

(5) We also need hundreds of thousands of scientists - including qualified engineers and explosive experts - and practitioners of CD to miss what's in front of their eyes, and to fail to join Jones, Gage et al in their crusade for the 'troof'. To quote Uncle Fetzer:

'I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth and have kept their mouths shut. There's a special place in hell deserved for them'.

(5) Finally, we need operatives from intelligence services across the globe - SIS, SVR, MOSSAD, DGSE, BND et al - to corroborate the 'false' story that AQ did 9/11, and to cover up for the real conspirators.

But of course in your fucked-up fantasy world, all of that is plausible.

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Garry, between Taliban and al Qaeda, how many people do you think were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?
1000? 10,000? 50,000?

About how many needed to rig the towers, you asked a question, and I answered you. If you don't like Jones's answer, how about providing one of your own? As I pointed out, it would not take very many people to drop thermobaric weapons down the elevator shafts.

Jones doesn't assume nanothermite was involved. He concludes it after examining the magnetic material he found in the dust. If you think the chips were paint, why don't you get some dust, get a SEM team, and compare Jones's chips to paint chips? Make a name for yourself! Shoot the famous 9/11 Truthers Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan out of the water? But you won't do it. You'd rather sit and snigger than establish a scientific fact.

The core columns of the WTC were hollow box columns, and most of them could be accessed from the elevator shafts. In the 6 months before 9/11 the largest elevator renovation project in history went on there. Charges could easily be concealed inside the hollow core columns, or disguised as electrical conduit, or applied as a spray-on coating.

Your own ignorance about thermobaric weapons does not justify your incredulity.

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, I want you to prove that the WTC was not destroyed by micro-nuked planted by modified attack baboons. So far, you have presented no evidence to disprove this theory.

 
At 29 November, 2010 12:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You know the more I read bug.fuck the more I convinced that he's an unreconstructed neo-Nazi.

After all, he practices the Big Lie technique. For example, he believes that if you repeat a lie often enough it will magically become the "truth."

Maybe that's what the head injury outpatients who staff the 9/11 "truth" movement mean when they say "truth"?

 
At 29 November, 2010 13:36, Blogger Garry said...

'So Garry, between Taliban and al Qaeda, how many people do you think were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?
1000? 10,000? 50,000?'

Are actually pretending to be retarded, or is it coming naturally? I think it might be the latter.

Do you think it beyond the realms of impossibility that an organisation like AQ - which had free rein in Taliban-run Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 - can't plan, train and conduct an attack like 9/11? Do you think the 'USS Cole' and the Nairobi/Dar es-Salaam attacks were inside jobs too?

How much more do I need to do to spell this out to you, Brian?

 
At 29 November, 2010 13:45, Blogger Garry said...

'About how many needed to rig the towers, you asked a question, and I answered you'.

And your answer was complete and utter drivel.

'If you don't like Jones's answer, how about providing one of your own?'

I don't like his answer because he knows fuck-all about civil engineering or controlled demolitions. He is a complete ignoramus when it comes to structural engineering. Why should I believe a word he says?

'As I pointed out, it would not take very many people to drop thermobaric weapons down the elevator shafts'.

What, like these?

http://yowusa.com/war/2001/war-2001-10a/FAE3.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/12/jmWORLDbomb_wideweb__470x358,0.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-thermobaric.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-warhead.jpg

Yeah, these look like just the kind of things you could smuggle into a crowded office building with no one noticing, don't they?

'Jones doesn't assume nanothermite was involved. He concludes it after examining the magnetic material he found in the dust.'

And he won't let anyone else examine his samples. Wonder why?

'If you think the chips were paint, why don't you get some dust, get a SEM team, and compare Jones's chips to paint chips? Make a name for yourself! Shoot the famous 9/11 Truthers Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan out of the water?'

Why should I? No one believes a fucking word they say beyond your special needs fraternity. They sure as fuck aren't 'famous'. Why should I disprove them, anymore than I should disprove the man who says he regularly goes out drinking with the Loch Ness Monster and the Roswell Space Alien?

'But you won't do it. You'd rather sit and snigger than establish a scientific fact'.

Says the man who needs to have the theory of gravity proved to him.

'The core columns of the WTC were hollow box columns, and most of them could be accessed from the elevator shafts. In the 6 months before 9/11 the largest elevator renovation project in history went on there. Charges could easily be concealed inside the hollow core columns, or disguised as electrical conduit, or applied as a spray-on coating'.

So they taught you building demolitions and architecture 101 as well as how to use a mop?

'Your own ignorance about thermobaric weapons does not justify your incredulity'.

See my links above, arsehole. And talking of thermobaric weapons, when were you in the military, and when did you see them employed? Because that's the only way you'll know anything about them.

 
At 29 November, 2010 14:33, Blogger John said...

I usually just lurk, but this was too good.

"So Garry, between Taliban and al Qaeda, how many people do you think were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?"

The 19 hijackers and the upper echelon of Al Qaeda leadership (say, a total of 23 people). But their plan was to only hijack 4 planes and ram them into buildings. Their plan was not to hijack planes & ram them into buildings AND wire 3 buildings in downtown Manhattan with explosives and/or thermite AND fire a missile at the Pentagon without anyone seeing it AND shoot down a plane in Pennsylvania AND ask the military to stand down during the entire exercise AND pay or intimidate the entire mass media from questioning the account, etc. etc.

"As I pointed out, it would not take very many people to drop thermobaric weapons down the elevator shafts."

This is a new one on me. What are "thermobaric" weapons? And they did this without anyone noticing?

"Jones doesn't assume nanothermite was involved. He concludes it after examining the magnetic material he found in the dust."

Magnetic material could've come from other sources, like the magnets in the thousands of computers that were in the WTC.

"In the 6 months before 9/11 the largest elevator renovation project in history went on there."

Another new one. What's the source for this?

"Charges could easily be concealed inside the hollow core columns, or disguised as electrical conduit, or applied as a spray-on coating."

Yet these charges not only survived the initial explosion from the planes, but the ensuing fires without detonating? And you use the word "could" a lot. Absolutely no proof that it was.

 
At 29 November, 2010 17:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

And you use the word "could" a lot. Absolutely no proof that it was.

That's his whole modus operandi, John. He says this, that, and the other thing could have happened, thus we should have reason to suspect it did happen. He doesn't understand that the world doesn't work this way.

 
At 30 November, 2010 00:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, for something to be a theory, there has to be some evidence. You have no evidence of attack baboons, so there is nothing to disprove. Dr. Jones believes he has evidence of thermite, and so far nobody has proven that he does not.

GutterBall, you haven't got a leg to stand on--all you can do is namecalling.

Garry, your tactic of responding to a question with another unrelated question is rather odd.
Do I think al Qaeda could bomb the Cole, the embassies, and hijack airplanes? Sure. What's the point. It doesn't matter if they have 40,000 people in Afghanistan--they are not needed to help 19 guys hijack airplanes.
So why won't you answer the question? How many people do you think were necessary for al Qaeda to do the 9/11 attacks?

John, the material Dr. Jones found had many other properties aside from its magnetism. He believes it to be a manufactured nanomaterial. That nobody has the guts to refute his claims is quite
disappointing to me.

ACE Elevator's project was described by "Elevator World" as
"one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history."

John, when somebody says something is impossible, I respond by saying how it could be done. That's not saying it was done. Somebody said the charges could not be hidden and I said how they could be hidden. If I said they were hidden I would be crazy, because I don't know that. But the fact is, explosive charges can be hidden in hollow box columns.

There's no need for explosives on the fire floors. The impact floors could be predicted if the plane flew in on the autopilot homing in on a radio beacon. I was told by a retired airline pilot that such a system would accurate within a vertical tolerance of +/- ten feet.

Ian, you seem to be missing the fact that NIST offers no proof of their theories--in fact they even refuse to share the data from their computer models.

 
At 30 November, 2010 05:26, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, your tactic of responding to a question with another unrelated question is rather odd.
Do I think al Qaeda could bomb the Cole, the embassies, and hijack airplanes? Sure. What's the point. It doesn't matter if they have 40,000 people in Afghanistan--they are not needed to help 19 guys hijack airplanes.
So why won't you answer the question? How many people do you think were necessary for al Qaeda to do the 9/11 attacks?'

Brian, you are officially a fucking retard. This comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Incidentally, you take me for task for knowing nothing about thermobaric bombs. This is what these weapons look like. Explain to me how they could be smuggled into WTCs 1, 2, and 7, and then dropped down a lift-shaft, with no one noticing:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-warhead.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-thermobaric.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6990815.stm

Notice the fact that the Russian device tested in September 2007 (the one referred to in the BBC report which destroyed a four-storey building) was air-dropped by a TU-160 bomber. This is what they look like:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu160-pic.jpg

I'd stick to stalking and mopping up piss in urinals if I were you.

 
At 30 November, 2010 06:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, for something to be a theory, there has to be some evidence. You have no evidence of attack baboons, so there is nothing to disprove. Dr. Jones believes he has evidence of thermite, and so far nobody has proven that he does not.

False. I have just as much evidence for attack baboons as Jones has for thermite. So far, nobody has proven that I do not have evidence of micro-nukes planted by attack baboons.

John, the material Dr. Jones found had many other properties aside from its magnetism. He believes it to be a manufactured nanomaterial. That nobody has the guts to refute his claims is quite
disappointing to me.


And you don't have the guts to refute Deagle's micro-nukes theory.

But the fact is, explosive charges can be hidden in hollow box columns.

That's nice.

There's no need for explosives on the fire floors. The impact floors could be predicted if the plane flew in on the autopilot homing in on a radio beacon. I was told by a retired airline pilot that such a system would accurate within a vertical tolerance of +/- ten feet.

False. My Uncle Steve says this is impossible.

Ian, you seem to be missing the fact that NIST offers no proof of their theories--in fact they even refuse to share the data from their computer models.

False. The proof is in the NIST report. You lose again, Brian "petgoat" Good.

 
At 30 November, 2010 08:05, Blogger John said...

"John, the material Dr. Jones found had many other properties aside from its magnetism. He believes it to be a manufactured nanomaterial."

I assume you mean Stephen Jones. His degree is in nuclear physics, not building engineering, nanotechnology or demolition. He may be aware of these sciences, but is no expert on them. According to wikipedia, he based his claim on "the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings, partially vaporized beams, molten metal in the basements which was still red hot weeks after the event, and the notion that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire". Since there were no explosions on the lower floors, as any video of the WTC collapse will show, and that the Madrid Tower (a steel building) partially collapsed from fire (and it wasn't hit by a plane), I have to say his critical thinking on 9/11 is highly suspect.

"ACE Elevator's project was described by 'Elevator World' as
'one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history.' "

I googled "Elevator World+World Trade Center" and could not find this info. If you have a link, could you please provide it? Else I'm going to think you got this from a truther site

"John, when somebody says something is impossible, I respond by saying how it could be done. That's not saying it was done."

True, but this is pure speculation. The hijackers could have been Cuban. Or American, for that matter. But the evidence points otherwise.

"There's no need for explosives on the fire floors. The impact floors could be predicted if the plane flew in on the autopilot homing in on a radio beacon. I was told by a retired airline pilot that such a system would accurate within a vertical tolerance of +/- ten feet."

More speculation, and no proof. First of all, someone would have to either install a radio beacon, or modify an existing radio, adding another person to the conspiracy. And your reference to an unnamed retired airline pilot means nothing, as there's no way to confirm what he said.

 
At 30 November, 2010 08:51, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, your tactic of responding to a question with another unrelated question is rather odd.
Do I think al Qaeda could bomb the Cole, the embassies, and hijack airplanes? Sure. What's the point. It doesn't matter if they have 40,000 people in Afghanistan--they are not needed to help 19 guys hijack airplanes.
So why won't you answer the question? How many people do you think were necessary for al Qaeda to do the 9/11 attacks?'

Brian, do you have special needs? I have answered your question, which in any case is a pointless digression. And as John notes, the objective AQ had to achieve was far simpler than the scenario that you outline for an inside job.

Talking of which, have you actually seen what thermobaric bombs look like? Of course you haven't. Try checking out the following:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-thermobaric.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/blu-118b-warhead.jpg

Not exactly the kind of thing you can smuggle into an occupied building without anyone noticing, are they?

 
At 30 November, 2010 08:55, Blogger Garry said...

Now what about the capabilities of these devices? Here's an example of one tested by the Russian military in September 2007. It contained 7.8 tons of HE, had a blast radius of 300m, and brought down a 4 storey building. It also had to be airdropped on its target by a Tu-160 strategic bomber:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6990815.stm

And you think it's likely that a man-portable thermobaric bomb could have brought down a skyscraper ...

 
At 30 November, 2010 09:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

I have answered your question, which in any case is a pointless digression.

That's one of the things that makes Brian so entertaining. If you point out his errors in logic or facts, he simply digs his heels in and refuses to concede error. Ever.

It's how we got to such hilarious discussions of smoldering carpets and pyroclastic flows at the WTC and SAMs at the Pentagon and the imminent US invasion of Canada.

 
At 30 November, 2010 13:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 November, 2010 13:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

The topic of thermobaric weapons shows just how utterly out of touch with reality our little snug.bug is.

Or thermobaric devices dropped down the elevator shafts could have been installed by a crew of just a few.

Now what are thermobaric weapons? Well, they're the "fuel-rich" bombs that use oxygen from the surrounding environment in the combustion process. Now regardless of whether the above hypothetical could have brought down the WTC, one thing Brian is certain of is that the WTC was oxygen starved because the fires produced black smoke.

So to sum up, the WTC is oxygen-starved when it's convenient for Brian, and oxygen-rich when it's convenient for him too. As long as the "inside job" delusion is maintained, he has no problem holding multiple contradictory views.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 02 December, 2010 22:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I see you refuse to answer as to how many al Qaeda were necessary to pull off the 9/11 attacks. And yet you seem to be quite confident that you can gauge how many would be necessary to pull off "inside job" attacks. Why the double standard?

Your massive thermobaric pictures are just the delivery systems. In the WTC the material could be delivered right to the site, or distributed over many floors, obviating multi-ton infrastructure.

Ian, you have provided no evidence for attack baboons, and you'd need to explain how they were smuggled into the towers unnoticed.

You have not provided any evidence that your Uncle Steve even exists, let alone that he has expertise in avionics.

NIST provides no proof in their report that the steel was weakened by fire. In fact they have not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it.

John, you're mixing up Dr. Jones's initial paper on the Newtonian physics of 9/11 and his later paper on the nano-themite. You have no way of knowing there were no explosions on the lower floors. There was too much dust to see. The Madrid Tower is not comparable to the WTC. The steel was not fireproofed at all, and it was only a partial collapse.

You didn't try very hard to find the Ace Elevator article. I googled .... elevator world ace ... and it was the third hit.

http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0103-002.html-ssi

You don't need an extra person to set up a radio beacon. Existing personnel could do that. And they wouldn't necessarily know what they were doing.

Ian, I never said US invasion of Canada was imminent. But if you take a look at a map of global oil reserves, I think you'll be surprised by what Canada has.

There's no contradiction between the fires being oxygen starved on the fire floors, and thermobaric weapons using ambient oxygen on non-fire floors. You're mixing apples and oranges. Buildings are designed with firestops to prevent oxygen from migrating from floor to floor.

 
At 03 December, 2010 05:32, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I see you refuse to answer as to how many al Qaeda were necessary to pull off the 9/11 attacks. And yet you seem to be quite confident that you can gauge how many would be necessary to pull off "inside job" attacks. Why the double standard?'

Brian, your question is a red herring. If you have a situation where a transnational terrorist network is able to organise itself and gather recruits under the protection of a sovereign state, determining how many members of AQ were actually involved in the plot is an irrelevance.

'Your massive thermobaric pictures are just the delivery systems. In the WTC the material could be delivered right to the site, or distributed over many floors, obviating multi-ton infrastructure'.

Oh really, and you know that because of what. Your extensive military experience? Your qualifications as a structural engineer? Your knowledge of explosives?

The weapons I've shown you are as big as they are, warhead and all. The Russian device I linked to is a FUCKING BOMB that was so heavy it had to be fitted to the bay of a Tu-160 and then airdropped onto its target. You try telling me that devices that size could have been placed across the WTC buildings without office workers or security staff noticing, and I'll tell you to stop sniffing the solvents you use to clean floors.

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

In the WTC the material could be delivered right to the site, or distributed over many floors, obviating multi-ton infrastructure.

Yes, and the modified attack baboons could have climbed to the roof in the dead of night and slipped down into the elevator shafts with their micro-nukes, waiting for the right time to detonate them.

You have not provided any evidence that your Uncle Steve even exists, let alone that he has expertise in avionics.

He does exist, Brian. Also, his area of expertise is not avionics, it's bridge design. However, he knows a lot about homing beacons.

NIST provides no proof in their report that the steel was weakened by fire. In fact they have not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it.

Stop lying, petgoat.

John, you're mixing up Dr. Jones's initial paper on the Newtonian physics of 9/11 and his later paper on the nano-themite. You have no way of knowing there were no explosions on the lower floors. There was too much dust to see. The Madrid Tower is not comparable to the WTC. The steel was not fireproofed at all, and it was only a partial collapse.

Nobody cares about Dr. Jones. Also, Brian, you can detect explosions without seeing them. I know this is hard to grasp for someone who does nothing but post nonsense online all day and whose "research" consists of watching youtube videos.

Also, the Madrid Tower is comparable. You lose again, petgoat.

You don't need an extra person to set up a radio beacon. Existing personnel could do that. And they wouldn't necessarily know what they were doing.

You wouldn't even need radio beacons if the planes were holograms.

Ian, I never said US invasion of Canada was imminent. But if you take a look at a map of global oil reserves, I think you'll be surprised by what Canada has.

I'm well aware of what oil reserves Canada has. What point are you trying to make?

There's no contradiction between the fires being oxygen starved on the fire floors, and thermobaric weapons using ambient oxygen on non-fire floors. You're mixing apples and oranges. Buildings are designed with firestops to prevent oxygen from migrating from floor to floor.

What did I say above?

"That's one of the things that makes Brian so entertaining. If you point out his errors in logic or facts, he simply digs his heels in and refuses to concede error. Ever."

So now apparently the WTC was airtight from floor to floor. The floors with gigantic holes in them from aircraft impact were especially airtight.

How did the people who worked in the WTC on a normal day not suffocate, Brian?

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:36, Blogger John said...

"John, you're mixing up Dr. Jones's initial paper on the Newtonian physics of 9/11 and his later paper on the nano-themite."

There is no conflict between the papers here. He thought that the towers were brought down because "the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings, partially vaporized beams, molten metal in the basements which was still red hot weeks after the event, and the notion that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire" and then postulates thermite as the cause. Since his original premise is wrong, then his thoughts about themite is wrong.

"You have no way of knowing there were no explosions on the lower floors. There was too much dust to see."

If there was no way of knowing there were no explosions on the lower floors, how can we know there were explosions? For the record, I believe that there were explosions on the lower floors due to the fireball traveling down the elevator shafts. The passenger who exited an elevator on fire would agree with me.

+"The Madrid Tower is not comparable to the WTC. The steel was not fireproofed at all, and it was only a partial collapse."

It is totally comparable to WTC, as that it's a steel building collapsed due to fire. Te part that didn't collapse was made of concrete. The fireproofing in WTC was blown off of the steel in the WTC by the planes exploding inside the building.

"You didn't try very hard to find the Ace Elevator article. I googled .... elevator world ace ... and it was the third hit."


Thanks. But maybe all they were doing were modernizing the elevators. If they were installing explosives or thermite or thermobaric weapons, then The Ace Elevator Company, the Port Authority Transit and Elevator World would have to be in on the cover-up. With at least one person from the Ace Elevator Company being a government operative.

+"You don't need an extra person to set up a radio beacon. Existing personnel could do that. And they wouldn't necessarily know what they were doing."

Um, yes they would. If they didn't know what they were doing, it wouldn't have worked. I'm predicting you didn't even get this from a truther site - you just made this up

 
At 03 December, 2010 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you don't want to answer the question because doing so would reveal that your claim that an "inside job" 9/11 op would require thousands of participants does not square with the fact that a supposed al Qaeda attack required fewer than 50 to accomplish exactly the same thing--including the escape of thousands of al Qaeda from Afghanistan and media silence and investigatory coverup.

I know your massive weapons are just delivery systems because I know, as any common sense person does, that a decentralized system of many small parts can accomplish the same work as one big centralized one.

Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry?

Ian, you have not provided any evidence other than your own unreliable assertion that your uncle steve exists.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it. Show me wrong. the section in the report about the steel samples is short enough that even you can probably get through it in a few days.

The Madrid tower is not comparable. The steel that collapsed was totally unfireproofed, and the collapse was asymmetrical and partial, as you expect a fire-induced collapsed to be.

Ian, modern office buildings are designed both with ventilation systems to supply breathing air, and with firestops to isolate fires. I know you're still trying to figure out how someone can drink water without drowning, but life is sometimes paradoxical.

John, what makes you think Dr. Jones's initial conclusion (not premise) was wrong?

The thermitic hypothesis does not depend on the first paper at all. It's built on the Appendix C samples of sulfidated steel and on the thermitic material found in the dust.

I didn't say there were explosions in the lower floors. You said "there were no explosions on the lower floors" and seemed to think that this showed poor critical thinking on Dr. Jones's part. You seem to have a habit of linking false beliefs to false conclusions about unrelated issues.

The Madrid towers is not comparable to the WTC because it was an unfireproofed building and the collapse was partial and asymmetrical, as one would expect from a fire-induced collapse.

Non-impact floors had no fireproofing stripped off. Any fireproofing that was blown off the WTC would have been along narrow strips of debris damage on 6 separate floors. The Madrid tower had no fireproofing at all.

As to Ace Elevator, there's no reason to think they would have to know that somebody was using their work in the elevator shafts as a cover for installing explosives in the core columns. There were 15 miles of elevator shafts in the WTC.

You think a radio beacon is so complicated that a turnkey system in a black box is impossible? I can't make a fluorescent lightbulb in my garage, but it's no great shakes to screw one in.

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know your massive weapons are just delivery systems because I know, as any common sense person does, that a decentralized system of many small parts can accomplish the same work as one big centralized one.

Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about, as usual.

Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry?

You're not. You're unemployed because you were a failure as a janitor.

Ian, you have not provided any evidence other than your own unreliable assertion that your uncle steve exists.

Brian, if one's own "unreliable assertions" were removed from the conversation, you'd have nothing left to babble about.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it.

False.

The Madrid tower is not comparable.

False.

As to Ace Elevator, there's no reason to think they would have to know that somebody was using their work in the elevator shafts as a cover for installing explosives in the core columns. There were 15 miles of elevator shafts in the WTC.

What was that you just said about "unreliable assertions"? Anyway, my Uncle Steve says that it would be impossible to demolish a building rigging the elevator shafts alone.

You think a radio beacon is so complicated that a turnkey system in a black box is impossible? I can't make a fluorescent lightbulb in my garage, but it's no great shakes to screw one in.

Brian, did your other personality write that whole thing about "unreliable assertions"? You're just babbling nonsense as if anyone it going to take it seriously.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:13, Blogger John said...

"John, what makes you think Dr. Jones's initial conclusion (not premise) was wrong? "

Wrong premises always lead to wrong conclusions. For example, the premise "All men are immortal" is wrong leading to the wrong conclusion "I am immortal"

"The thermitic hypothesis does not depend on the first paper at all. It's built on the Appendix C samples of sulfidated steel and on the thermitic material found in the dust."

As I said before, the material Stephen. Jones thinks is thermite could have come from other sources. Just because it's magnetic doesn't mean it's thermite. And as for the other properties of material found in the dust, that could have come from other materials too.

"I didn't say there were explosions in the lower floors. You said "there were no explosions on the lower floors" and seemed to think that this showed poor critical thinking on Dr. Jones's part."

I did say that, and after research, I admit I was wrong - there were explosions in the lobby and basement levels. However, these explosions happened just after the planes hit and hours before the collapse, and could be explained by fireballs traveling down the elevator shaft. If it had been a controlled demolition, the explosions would have happened a few seconds before the crash.

"The Madrid towers is not comparable to the WTC because it was an unfireproofed building and the collapse was partial and asymmetrical, as one would expect from a fire-induced collapse."

Who says that fire-induced collapse has to always be asymmetrical? It could be symmetrical for a lot of reasons - the way the building was designed, which which steel trusses lost their strength, etc. Also remember, the Madrid Tower didn't have a plane explode inside. That make a huge difference.

And guess what? Even after the fire was put out, the Madrid Fire chief was still afraid it was going to collapse:

'Several top floors have slumped onto lower ones, and Madrid fire chief Javier Sanz told local radio the 106m (350ft) tall building was still unstable. "It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," he said.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4261315.stm

"Any fireproofing that was blown off the WTC would have been along narrow strips of debris damage on 6 separate floors."

Which is where the collapse initiated, as any WTC video will show. Also they wouldn't be narrow strips, as damage wasn't just done just by the debris, but also by the huge explosion when the plane hit

"As to Ace Elevator, there's no reason to think they would have to know that somebody was using their work in the elevator shafts as a cover for installing explosives in the core columns."

There's a very good reason. The manager of the modernization teams of ACE Elevator, or one of the team members would have to notice that one of the workers was installing something strange or at the very least, not doing their job.

"You think a radio beacon is so complicated that a turnkey system in a black box is impossible?"

Complicated to operate, no. Complicated to install without anyone noticing, yes. And remember - there were 2 buildings and 2 planes, so in your theory there had to be 2 beacons.

This post is going to be archived soon, so I'm not writing any more responses. It's obvious to me that any time I point out the illogic of your theories, you just make up a new one. That's why Ian uses the example of modified attack baboons. That's just as plausible a theory as your radio beacons and workers for Ace Elevators installing explosives. Only Ian's not serious.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:17, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:20, Blogger John said...

"John, what makes you think Dr. Jones's initial conclusion (not premise) was wrong? "

Wrong premises always lead to wrong conclusions. For example, the premise "All men are immortal" is wrong leading to the wrong conclusion "I am immortal"

"The thermitic hypothesis does not depend on the first paper at all. It's built on the Appendix C samples of sulfidated steel and on the thermitic material found in the dust."

As I said before, the material Stephen. Jones thinks is thermite could have come from other sources. Just because it's magnetic doesn't mean it's thermite. And as for the other properties of material found in the dust, that could have come from other materials too.

"I didn't say there were explosions in the lower floors. You said "there were no explosions on the lower floors" and seemed to think that this showed poor critical thinking on Dr. Jones's part."

I did say that, and after research, I admit I was wrong - there were explosions in the lobby and basement levels. However, these explosions happened just after the planes hit and hours before the collapse, and could be explained by fireballs traveling down the elevator shaft. If it had been a controlled demolition, the explosions would have happened a few seconds before the crash.

"The Madrid towers is not comparable to the WTC because it was an unfireproofed building and the collapse was partial and asymmetrical, as one would expect from a fire-induced collapse."

Who says that fire-induced collapse has to always be asymmetrical? It could be symmetrical for a lot of reasons - the way the building was designed, which which steel trusses lost their strength, etc. Also remember, the Madrid Tower didn't have a plane explode inside. That make a huge difference.

And guess what? Even after the fire was put out, the Madrid Fire chief was still afraid it was going to collapse:

'Several top floors have slumped onto lower ones, and Madrid fire chief Javier Sanz told local radio the 106m (350ft) tall building was still unstable. "It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," he said.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4261315.stm

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:20, Blogger John said...

Any fireproofing that was blown off the WTC would have been along narrow strips of debris damage on 6 separate floors."

Which is where the collapse initiated, as any WTC video will show. Also they wouldn't be narrow strips, as damage wasn't just done just by the debris, but also by the huge explosion when the plane hit

"As to Ace Elevator, there's no reason to think they would have to know that somebody was using their work in the elevator shafts as a cover for installing explosives in the core columns."

There's a very good reason. The manager of the modernization teams of ACE Elevator, or one of the team members would have to notice that one of the workers was installing something strange or at the very least, not doing their job.

"You think a radio beacon is so complicated that a turnkey system in a black box is impossible?"

Complicated to operate, no. Complicated to install without anyone noticing, yes. And remember - there were 2 buildings and 2 planes, so in your theory there had to be 2 beacons.

This post is going to be archived soon, so I'm not writing any more responses. It's obvious to me that any time I point out the illogic of your theories, you just make up a new one. That's why Ian uses the example of modified attack baboons. That's just as plausible a theory as your radio beacons and workers for Ace Elevators installing explosives. Only Ian's not serious.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:22, Blogger John said...

"If it had been a controlled demolition, the explosions would have happened a few seconds before the crash."

That should have read " If it had been a controlled demolition, the explosions would have happened a few seconds before the collapse".

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:37, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, you don't want to answer the question because doing so would reveal that your claim that an "inside job" 9/11 op would require thousands of participants does not square with the fact that a supposed al Qaeda attack required fewer than 50 to accomplish exactly the same thing ...'

Right, numbnuts, let me make this clear to you. Do you think that there might be a difference in the number of people required to do the following?:

(1) Plan the hijacking of four passenger jets, recruit 19 volunteers (out of thousands of Arab fighters in Afghanistan), train them in basic combat tactics, provide them with funds and passports, and let them them lose to take over four planes from three airports on one day, and to turn them into suicide craft, and

(2) Rig the WTC buildings for explosives (without anyone noticing), fake the takeover of four passenger planes, and then ensure that a variety of agencies, institutions and individuals (the military, FAA, FBI, CIA, FDNY, NYPD, paramedics on the scene, eyewitnesses to the attacks on NY and Washington, survivors, the US and international media, relatives of victims, academic specialists in a variety of disciplines (from civil engineering to the study of terrorism) from across the globe) all tell the same lies that implicate AQ and exculpate the real plotters, and all co-operate in a cover-up.

I think there might be a slight difference in the numbers involved in these scenarios, Brian.

'including the escape of thousands of al Qaeda from Afghanistan and media silence and investigatory coverup'.

This account appears to have been as convincing as any, unless you think Bergen is 'in on it' as well:

http://www.tnr.com/print/article/the-battle-tora-bora

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:39, Blogger Garry said...

'I know your massive weapons are just delivery systems because I know, as any common sense person does, that a decentralized system of many small parts can accomplish the same work as one big centralized one'.

Right, so if we take bombs apart and scatter their components over a building, they'll still detonate, right?

You really are a retard, aren't you?

'Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry?'

You are Brian Good. You work as a janitor, and you've got into trouble with fellow troofers for stalking Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your mind is a blunt instrument. Your unreliable assertions have nothing to do with my nuanced discussion with John.

John, I haven't seen any evidence of an "explosion" when the plane hit, and I don't think NIST has claimed that there was one. Fireballs do not exert explosive pressure, and you will note that the fireball rising from the south tower did not break the adjacent glass.

Explosives ops would not necessarily have to be ACE workers, nor would they necessarily have to work where the team was working. It is known that there were contemporaneous operations installing fiber cables and work done on the sprinkler systems. There might be lots of excuses for being in the elevator shafts.

Your constant inventions of "someone would have seen it, someone would have talked, too complicated, impossible... yadda yadda yadda" only exhibit the "can't do" spirit that has unfortunately infected America in the last thirty years.

Do you really believe that determined people could not blow up the WTC if they wanted to? Radio beacons are a common technology used in airports around the world. Attack baboons are not.

In a large and semi-covert demolition as in the WTC it would make sense to weaken the structure symmetrically through the use of many small explosions and/or cuts before finally the accumulated weakness brings the tower down, so the expectation that there would be loud massive explosions at the moment of collapse initiation is unreasonable. However, given eyewitness accounts I wouldn't say there weren't such explosions at the moment of collapse initiation.

Garry, since a distributed system must remain functional, "scattering" would not work. It must be decentralized. For instance--instead of one giant fire extinguisher in a skyscraper, 1000 portable fire extinguishers.

Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry? Did Ian's uncle steve tell you that?

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your mind is a blunt instrument. Your unreliable assertions have nothing to do with my nuanced discussion with John.

What "nuanced discusstion"? You're just grasping at straws.

Fireballs do not exert explosive pressure, and you will note that the fireball rising from the south tower did not break the adjacent glass.

This shit again?

Your constant inventions of "someone would have seen it, someone would have talked, too complicated, impossible... yadda yadda yadda" only exhibit the "can't do" spirit that has unfortunately infected America in the last thirty years.

What the hell are you talking about? In the last 30 years, we had Iran-Contra, Lewinsky, and all of the Bush-Cheney black site operations (Abu Ghraib, anyone?) exposed, and none of them would hold a candle to the scale of murder and treason that 9/11 would be if it was an inside job.

Do you really believe that determined people could not blow up the WTC if they wanted to? Radio beacons are a common technology used in airports around the world. Attack baboons are not.

Ramzi Yousef tried and (fortunately) failed. And yes, radio beacons are common technology. So are hybrid-electric cars. What relevance does this have to anything?

Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry? Did Ian's uncle steve tell you that?

Uncle Steve doesn't know you, Brian. Also, you're not a janitor. You're an unemployed bum.

 
At 04 December, 2010 03:06, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, since a distributed system must remain functional, "scattering" would not work. It must be decentralized. For instance--instead of one giant fire extinguisher in a skyscraper, 1000 portable fire extinguishers'.

Wow, the fire-extinguishers were all really thermobaric bombs. You're really getting close to buying a ticket for the short-bus, aren't you?

'Where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor, Garry? Did Ian's uncle steve tell you that?'

Brian, your background is an open secret on this site, as on a variety of troofer ones. Even Kevin Barrett was able to out you. And let's be frank, judging by your emails you haven't exactly got the mental faculties to do more than mop piss of restroom floors.

 
At 05 December, 2010 12:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I was talking about distributed systems, and I used fire extinguishers as an example. I was not suggesting that fire extinguishers are thermobarics. I'm sorry such points elude you, but your inability to distinguish between e-mails and blog comments suggests why they do.

What passes for "open secrets" on this site is a bunch of crap. Kevin Barrett is a proven liar.

 
At 05 December, 2010 16:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, I was talking about distributed systems, and I used fire extinguishers as an example. I was not suggesting that fire extinguishers are thermobarics.

Yes you were. You were making an absurd comparison between two things that are in no way alike, and you were doing it to prevent ever having to admit error. That's why you're so entertaining, Brian. You get even more and more absurd as you dig your heels in on a point.

What passes for "open secrets" on this site is a bunch of crap. Kevin Barrett is a proven liar.

He is a liar, but he's right about you. Your identity is well known.

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

At least you look the part of the unemployed lunatic. Jesus, Brian, there's no better photo of yourself you could have used? Would you like me to lend you one of myself?

 
At 05 December, 2010 17:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian I was not comparing thermobaric weapons to fire extinguishers. I used fire extinguishers as an example of a distributed system. I'm sorry abstract thought is beyond your capabilities, but it's not my fault.

 
At 05 December, 2010 19:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian I was not comparing thermobaric weapons to fire extinguishers. I used fire extinguishers as an example of a distributed system.

Yes, in order to try to further your lunatic assertion that thermobaric weapons may have been placed in the elevator shafts of the WTC.

I'm sorry abstract thought is beyond your capabilities, but it's not my fault.

Brian....seek professional help.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:05, Blogger Garry said...

'What passes for "open secrets" on this site is a bunch of crap. Kevin Barrett is a proven liar'.

Of course he is. He is a troofer after all. But even a stopped clock tells the right time twice daily, and he was correct to out you as a stalker and a freak.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you don't know what you're talking about.

For instance, where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor?

 
At 06 December, 2010 10:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

For instance, where did you get the idea that I'm a janitor?

You're not a janitor, Brian. You're an unemployed bum and lunatic.

 
At 06 December, 2010 12:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

And how do you know, Garry? Did Ian's uncle steve tell you that?

 
At 06 December, 2010 19:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

And how do you know, Garry? Did Ian's uncle steve tell you that?

Brian, one reason why I've been reluctant to give out more information about my Uncle Steve is that I'm afraid you'll start sexually stalking him like you do Willie Rodriguez. Uncle Steve is about your age...

 
At 06 December, 2010 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are very confused.

William Rodriguez is a 9/11 con artist who found it convenient to float wild tales about his detractors in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from his fundamental dishonesty. There is no more truth to these tales than there is to his hero claims.

 
At 07 December, 2010 05:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

William Rodriguez is a 9/11 con artist who found it convenient to float wild tales about his detractors in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from his fundamental dishonesty. There is no more truth to these tales than there is to his hero claims.

And this is also true of your heroes Dickey Gage and David Ray Griffin.

Brian, it's obvious you have a homosexual obsession with Rodriguez and you hate him because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life with an unemployed middle-aged liar and lunatic like you.

 
At 07 December, 2010 11:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, lots of things that are obvious to you are not true.

 
At 07 December, 2010 11:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, lots of things that are obvious to you are not true.

False.

 
At 07 December, 2010 14:23, Blogger Garry said...

Oh, I'm so sorry Brian. I got the impression that I was talking to a complete and utter fuck-up who keeps changing his story with every post, and keeps repeating the same tired lies even though they've been refuted time and time again.

I wasn't aware that I was talking to a Nobel Prize-winning intellect. My apologies. You are Matt Damon's character in 'Good Will Hunting', and one day you will have the international acclaim that is your due for unravelling the troof about 9/11. And Carol and Willie will want a bi threesome with you. Honest.

 
At 07 December, 2010 22:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, are you 15 years old?

 
At 08 December, 2010 05:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, are you 15 years old?

I love this question coming from a guy who uses "girls" as an insult. I guess 15 is too mature for Brian. We should all be at the intellectual and emotional level of an 8-year-old the way he is.

 
At 08 December, 2010 08:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

I call you girls when you act like 8-year-old girls, which is most of the time.

Your "You need professional help" line was a favorite of an 8-year-old girl I knew.

 
At 10 December, 2010 10:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

I call you girls when you act like 8-year-old girls, which is most of the time.

Please keep it up. There's nothing funnier than a grown man who lives with his parents because he's unemployed calling people "girls" on the internet for 15 hours a day.

Jesus, Brian, you're old enough to be my father and yet I feel like I'd have to take care of you like a child if you were a member of my family.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home