Saturday, November 27, 2010

Taxpayer Funded Truthers?

OK, well I am not a Canadian citizen, but I don't think they are anymore happy about subsidizing Truther "research" than I would be. From Jonathan Kay:

As I can report from my personal encounters with Hall at 9/11 Truth events in Montreal and Walkerton, Ont., the man is very passionate about his Trutherdom. But as long as he keeps it out of the classroom, he’s free to believe in whatever conspiracy theories he likes.

Unfortunately, Hall seems to be using his post at Lethbridge as a training ground for 9/11 Trutherdom. His star pupil in this regard is British graduate student Joshua Blakeney, who can be seen in this 2009 video harassing a female CBC reporter with his dark theories about the CBC’s failure to investigate the 9/11 “cover-up.” Blakeney also wrote this charming article expressing delight that author Christopher Hitchens had been sickened with cancer.

On Wednesday afternoon, Hall proudly announced that the University of Lethbridge has awarded Blakeney a $7,714 Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to pursue his research. (The scholarship is listed as being funded through the “ongoing financial commitment of the Province of Alberta.”) Blakeney’s first $3,857 cheque will be available for pick-up on Dec. 1.


Labels:

92 Comments:

At 27 November, 2010 12:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855

 
At 27 November, 2010 12:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855


And a significant majority of Americans believe in either creationism or evolution guided by God. How many times do I have to tell you that reality is not a popularity contest?

 
At 27 November, 2010 12:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

When you're talking about AE911Truth's 1380 architects and engineers, you seem to believe that reality is a popularity contest--even though you can't name a single independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

When you're talking about Canadians' beliefs about 9/11, all of a sudden reality is not a popularity contest. I didn't say it was. I brought up the issue because I'm going to predict that there will not be significant Canadian opposition to Mr. Blakeney's research grant. By all means feel free to organize a campaign to have the grant rescinded. It might give you a reality check.

 
At 27 November, 2010 12:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

When you're talking about AE911Truth's 1380 architects and engineers, you seem to believe that reality is a popularity contest--even though you can't name a single independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

Uh, no Brian. You're the one who cites this collection of frauds and lunatics as if the numbers represent something meaningful. I keep telling you they don't. Reality is not a popularity contest.

When you're talking about Canadians' beliefs about 9/11, all of a sudden reality is not a popularity contest. I didn't say it was. I brought up the issue because I'm going to predict that there will not be significant Canadian opposition to Mr. Blakeney's research grant. By all means feel free to organize a campaign to have the grant rescinded. It might give you a reality check.

I don't care what happens in Canada. I don't live there, I don't pay taxes there.

 
At 27 November, 2010 15:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll also add that I'm far more concerned with things like creationism, since a substantial number of people in the US believe in that. It's much more important that we in the reality-based community fight against that than against 9/11 truth, since only a tiny fringe of lunatics believe the latter.

That's why Richard Gage gets ignored by the greater scientific community, while groups like the Discovery Institute actually get attention from scientists.

 
At 27 November, 2010 16:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Do I need to be a Canadian citizen to get in on this?

I'd like money to research the chicks who host the Naked News. I don't know that they're involved in anything sinister, which is all the more reason I need to get to Canada to look into this.

I just need money.

Just because a lot of people think that something is true doesn't mean that thing is true.

That or maybe I can search for Bigfoot in Costa Rica.

 
At 27 November, 2010 23:26, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Kay's article links to GlobalResearch.ca, which is a compendium all anti-western and anti-capitalist fanatics. Proving once again, 9/11 twoof has nothing to do with "science" its all ideology. The "science" is simply invented to make the ideology more appealing.

Snuggy, "prior knowledge" can mean anything it doesn't imply the "inside job" crap your ilk spews.

 
At 28 November, 2010 06:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

When you're talking about AE911Truth's 1380 architects and engineers, you seem to believe that reality is a popularity contest--even though you can't name a single independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

Can you name a single independent engineer who opposes the NIST report?

 
At 28 November, 2010 08:31, Blogger MarkyX said...

"On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act."

Big deal. This is the same country that still keeps Harper around, elects Ford as mayor of Toronto despite his racist views, and elected Dalton McGuinty to screw up Ontario.

This is speaking as a Canadian. Also, 9/11 denialism is anti-American, and that type of garbage sticks around here.

 
At 28 November, 2010 08:32, Blogger MarkyX said...

"On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act."

Big deal. This is the same country that still keeps Harper around, elects Ford as mayor of Toronto despite his racist views, and elected Dalton McGuinty to screw up Ontario.

This is speaking as a Canadian. Also, 9/11 denialism is anti-American, and that type of garbage sticks around here.

 
At 28 November, 2010 08:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act."

And yet nobody gives a flying fuck.

 
At 28 November, 2010 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, several hundred independent engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation and expressing doubt about the "official story". I would suggest that this constitutes an implicit vote of no confidence in the NIST investigation.

 
At 28 November, 2010 17:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, several hundred independent engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation and expressing doubt about the "official story".

And nobody cares.

 
At 28 November, 2010 17:16, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"RGT, several hundred independent engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation and expressing doubt about the "official story"."

And nobody gives a flying fuck.

 
At 28 November, 2010 18:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Who gives a fuck?" is not an argument normally employed by somebody with truth on his side.

Your entire enterprise of spending time ridiculing a movement you believe nobody cares about seems quite silly.

 
At 28 November, 2010 18:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Remember folks, in the rarefied air bug.fuck inhabits truth is defined as lies, spin, deceptive videos, propaganda and obfuscation.

 
At 28 November, 2010 19:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

"Who gives a fuck?" is not an argument normally employed by somebody with truth on his side.

Right, but this is not a normal situation, since we're dealing with a babbling lunatic. If someone was making a sound argument based on evidence and logic, I wouldn't reply with "nobody cares".

Your entire enterprise of spending time ridiculing a movement you believe nobody cares about seems quite silly.

True, but as I've often explained, I do it for the entertainment value of reading your obsessed babblings.

 
At 28 November, 2010 21:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

The response "nobody cares" was not to an argument. The response was to a fact.

Your constant babbling about logic and insanity might have a bit more gravitas if you were capable of distinguishing between facts and arguments.

 
At 29 November, 2010 01:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, several hundred independent engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation and expressing doubt about the "official story". I would suggest that this constitutes an implicit vote of no confidence in the NIST investigation.

By your standards, failure to expressly comment on the NIST report (silence) can't be counted either way.

If you're referring to the AE911Truth petition, those signatories cannot be considered independent, again by your standards. Contact with a 9/11 Truth organization taints one's impartiality in the same way that contact with NIST does.

Can you name a single independent engineer who opposes the NIST report?

 
At 29 November, 2010 01:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OT1: Now here is an interesting "Personal 9/11 Statement" at AE911Truth. This poor guy actually asks legitimate questions; I wonder if he realizes what the hell he has signed up to.

OT2: Best 9/11 Troofer Name Ever.

OT3: In browsing these Personal Statements I'm getting one dominant theme: "I didn't expect that to happen." Well, no shit guys. Nobody did. Adjusting what you know in light of what you have observed is called "science". Hypothesizing outside factors to avoid adjusting what you know is called "stupidity".

 
At 29 November, 2010 07:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

The response "nobody cares" was not to an argument. The response was to a fact.

Yes, an irrelevant fact in the context of the question, "was 9/11 an inside job?"

Your constant babbling about logic and insanity might have a bit more gravitas if you were capable of distinguishing between facts and arguments.

Brian, you're babbling about nothing again. Please try to make sense.

 
At 29 November, 2010 08:14, Blogger Len said...

On May 26th, 2004, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians were convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855


Do you have a reliable citation for that all that your link has is truther saying that what the result was. Troofers have a proven tendency to sponsor leadingly worded push polls

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:40, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

I brought up the issue because I'm going to predict that there will not be significant Canadian opposition to Mr. Blakeney's research grant.

Blakeney is a loon. The outcome of his "research" is certain before he even starts and can summed up as "9/11 was an inside job". Consider me opposed, but then I'm opposed to loons getting money from any source.

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, contact with a 9/11 Truth organization does not represent a conflict of interest because the contact is strictly voluntary, there is no compensation involved, and the effect on one's career can be expected to be negative rather than positive. All of the AE911Truth engineers are independent. There is no comparison between the clear conflict of interest shown by the people GutterBall cites and the independent engineers of AE911Truth. It's like comparing the oil-company-sponsored shills who denied climate change with the independent scientists who believe client change it's happening.

Mr. Boardman's statement seems to reflect much doubt about the honesty of the FEMA and NIST investigations, which is enough to make him a truther. He signed the petition which calls for investigation of the controlled demolition hypothesis, so he knows what he's in for.

The statement that "I was surprised" seems to me to refer to the initial cause of the engineer's curiosity. You seem to be claiming that they never moved beyond curiosity to actual investigation. The dishonesty of the NIST investigation is obvious to anyone who bothers to look. Unfortunately, few look. It is NIST and its supporters who have refused to adjust what they know. They started with the assumption that since the planes hit the buildings, therefore the planes must have brought down the buildings, and they refused to look at any of the evidence to the contrary. Why do you expect independent engineers to adjust what they know--things like Newton's 3rd law, the 1rst law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of angular momentum?

Len, the writeup of the Toronto Star poll appears on Zogby's own website. I have a hard time imagining why Zogby would knowingly post false stuff on his website. The Toronto Star conducted the poll. Do you suppose the Toronto Star is truther-dominated so as to deliberately run a push-poll?

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

All of the AE911Truth engineers are independent.

False. They're liars and lunatics with axes to grind.

It's like comparing the oil-company-sponsored shills who denied climate change with the independent scientists who believe client change it's happening.

Actually, you're right, Brian. 9/11 truth is very similar to climate change denial. Both movements have nothing but innuendo and ignorance on their side.

The dishonesty of the NIST investigation is obvious to anyone who bothers to look.

False.

They started with the assumption that since the planes hit the buildings, therefore the planes must have brought down the buildings, and they refused to look at any of the evidence to the contrary.

False. We looked for evidence and found none. Your babblings about meatballs and rakes and widows is not evidence. Sorry.

Len, the writeup of the Toronto Star poll appears on Zogby's own website. I have a hard time imagining why Zogby would knowingly post false stuff on his website. The Toronto Star conducted the poll. Do you suppose the Toronto Star is truther-dominated so as to deliberately run a push-poll?

As usual, nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 29 November, 2010 15:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, contact with a 9/11 Truth organization does not represent a conflict of interest because the contact is strictly voluntary, there is no compensation involved, and the effect on one's career can be expected to be negative rather than positive.

Those factors by themselves are not enough to make one independent. The overwhelming majority of AE911Truth signatories have already decided that the truth involves explosives, and such prejudice destroys independence. Even if they were "independent" under some definition, I see no rejection of NIST's report by any such signatory.

I'm also curious how you know that AE911Truth has not paid for any signatures.

Mr. Boardman's statement seems to reflect much doubt about the honesty of the FEMA and NIST investigations, which is enough to make him a truther.

Mr. Boardman's statement implicates nothing that took place during or after the attacks. His concerns relate fully to conditions that existed at the time. Why do you think he has doubts about the FEMA and NIST investigations?

[NIST] started with the assumption that since the planes hit the buildings, therefore the planes must have brought down the buildings, and they refused to look at any of the evidence to the contrary.

"Refused" is inaccurate; explosives were investigated and ruled out. However, it is true that the investigations centered on the extraordinary conditions (planes and uncontrolled fires). Can you think of a reason that the investigations should have centered elsewhere?

Why do you expect independent engineers to adjust what they know--things like Newton's 3rd law, the 1rst law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of angular momentum?

Given a choice between "everything I saw has been faked" and "my perception is imperfect", the rational mind chooses "my perception is imperfect". Declaring yourself to be correct and the consensus to be incorrect is unscientific, not to mention undemocratic.

 
At 29 November, 2010 17:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
The response "nobody cares" was not to an argument."

Nobody gives a flying fuck what you think.

"The response was to a fact."

Brian, you wouldn't know a fact if it grew teeth, snuck up on you and bit you in your shriveled little scrotum.

 
At 29 November, 2010 17:29, Blogger Billman said...

On November 29th, 2010, the commentors at ScrewLooseChange.BlogSpot.com reported a local poll showing that 92.3867% of Commentors were convinced that blog leaders had 'prior knowledge' of Brian's mental condition yet declined to act.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=5894821585951290089


Anybody can make up a statistic.

 
At 29 November, 2010 18:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 
At 29 November, 2010 23:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Polls are meaningless tripe.

In fact, polls are routinely manipulated by pollsters to provide any outcome desired by the purchaser of the poll.

Penn & Teller destroy Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

And it doesn't matter if the poll was created by the right or the left, polls are meaningless.

 
At 30 November, 2010 01:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the claim was made that AE911Truth's 1370 architects and engineers is statistically meaningless because a million or a hundred thousand or whatever engineers support the NIST report.
I asked for a few names of engineers that support the NIST report. All of them turned out to have connections to NIST. No one has named anyone without connections to NIST, except Ian has claimed an Uncle Steve who he refuses to identify, and it's obvious that Ian gets some kind of thrill out of lying or he wouldn't do it so compulsively.

To challenge the AE engineers' on grounds of an alleged lack of independence is to dodge the issue with an "I know you are but what am I" argument. And for you to shift the issue from institutional relationships to NIST representing a conflict of interest to the claim that people who have voluntarily gathered around an idea (at great personal sacrifice) are similarly tainted is ludicrous.

The AE engineers are independent because they have none of the conflicts of interest represented by GutterBall's NIST supporters--contracts with NIST, awards from NIST, appointments to committees by NIST.

I think Mr. Boardman's statement reflects doubts on the honesty of the official reports because he lists a number of "concerns" about various possible engineering or construction defects in the building which, if they existed, it seems the official reports covered up.

Explosives were not investigated in connection with the twin towers. The investigation of explosives with WTC7 was a sham, which deliberately chose the loudest explosive possible and set the unrealistic condition that it blow out the whole column. No investigation was made of thermite either, even though it's the best explanation of the sulfidation attack on WTC7 steel reported in FEMA Appendix C. NIST not only didn't investigate these samples, they pretended they didn't exist.

The WTC fires were not extraordinary. The jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, says Shyam Sunder. After that it was just an ordinary office fire, and they only burn 20 minutes in an area before the fuel is consumed.

Investigations should have included controlled demolition because the symmetrical, total, and rapid collapse of the towers was unprecedented for office fires. That kind of collapse only happens when a building is deliberately demolished. The investigation should have examined
the only hypothesis that explains ALL the observable features of rhe collapse.

"Everything has been faked" is a straw man argument, I never said such a thing. There's nothing fake about blowing up a building. If that's what happened, they didn't even try to make it look like a natural collapse.

There's nothing imperfect about the perception of symmetry, totality, speed, the squibs, and the pulverization of the concrete.
These are on videos. You can slow them down and watch them frame by frame.

You are claiming a consensus you have not demonstrated. Before 2005, the alleged consensus was the zipper-pancake theory, which any interested layman can debunk easily. In 2005, the mechanism was reversed, and there was not a peep from the engineering community in support of the previous "consensus". That's not consensus, that's apathy.

How many engineers support the NIST report who do not have connections to NIST? Looks like 0 so far.

Billman, anyone can make up a statistic. Is that what you are accusing the Toronto Star of doing? Do you have proof that they did?

Wow, statistics are bunk, and polls are punk. A fine lot of scientists you are.

 
At 30 November, 2010 02:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 November, 2010 02:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bug.fuck continues to lie, "...Explosives were not investigated in connection with the twin towers"

Stop lying, bug.fuck.

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

Have you no shame, bug.fuck?

Now, slither back into your neo-Nazi cesspool of bald-faced lies and neo-fascist propaganda.

 
At 30 November, 2010 06:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, the claim was made that AE911Truth's 1370 architects and engineers is statistically meaningless because a million or a hundred thousand or whatever engineers support the NIST report.

True.

I asked for a few names of engineers that support the NIST report. All of them turned out to have connections to NIST. No one has named anyone without connections to NIST, except Ian has claimed an Uncle Steve who he refuses to identify, and it's obvious that Ian gets some kind of thrill out of lying or he wouldn't do it so compulsively.

Well, Bill named a bunch of engineers who are independent. Also, you haven't managed to refute the idea that Uncle Steve is not independent.

The AE engineers are independent because they have none of the conflicts of interest represented by GutterBall's NIST supporters--contracts with NIST, awards from NIST, appointments to committees by NIST.

Nobody cares.

And the rest is Brian Good babbling about his isane/ignorant beliefs about what happened at the WTC. No need to respond to any individual part of it.

Suffice to say, Brian should get his new investigation around the same time a journal of engineering publishes his "meatball on a fork" model.

 
At 30 November, 2010 14:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I asked for a few names of engineers that support the NIST report.

You seem unwilling to accept anything less than an explicitly worded "I support the NIST report" statement as evidence of agreement with NIST. Unfortunatly, you're unable to cite any similar cases in which a lack of affirmative assent constitutes a lack of agreement. Widespread silence in the wake of a government pronouncement indicates assent; you seem to believe that the widespread silence means something else in this case, but you cannot articulate what it is or why you think that.

The AE engineers are independent because they have none of the conflicts of interest represented by GutterBall's NIST supporters...

Really? I wonder how many of them would be willing to sign a statement to that effect?

No investigation was made of thermite either, even though it's the best explanation of the sulfidation attack on WTC7 steel reported in FEMA Appendix C. NIST not only didn't investigate these samples, they pretended they didn't exist.

Why is thermite a better explanation of the sulfidation than fire combined with battery acid? Fire and battery acid are known to have been present in the building.

That kind of collapse only happens when a building is deliberately demolished.

It's true that it was not observed prior to 9/11. To declare that it is therefore impossible is a logical fallacy.

The investigation should have examined the only hypothesis that explains ALL the observable features of the collapse.

Controlled demolition is inconsistent with all three collapses in terms of sounds produced, lack of explosive or incendiary residue found, and the absence of observed preparations. Those factors outweigh the apparent similarities.

There's nothing imperfect about the perception of symmetry, totality, speed, the squibs, and the pulverization of the concrete.
These are on videos. You can slow them down and watch them frame by frame.


"What I perceive is real, because I can perceive it". A fallacy of perception.

You are claiming a consensus you have not demonstrated. Before 2005, the alleged consensus was the zipper-pancake theory, which any interested layman can debunk easily. In 2005, the mechanism was reversed, and there was not a peep from the engineering community in support of the previous "consensus". That's not consensus, that's apathy.

What you're describing is consistent with the scientific method: moving from one hypothesis to a better hypothesis as better information becomes available. The widespread failure to oppose, condemn, reject, question, or improve upon NIST's final hypothesis constitutes acceptance by a consensus. And you are correct about the apathy as well: there is widespread disinterest in controlled demolition theories, because they are implausible.

Your 3,328-word response to me has been remarkably devoid of substance. But thank you for responding.

 
At 30 November, 2010 15:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 November, 2010 15:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 November, 2010 15:03, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 November, 2010 15:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 December, 2010 04:46, Blogger Garry said...

'When you're talking about AE911Truth's 1380 shysters and lunatics ...'

A slight amendment was required here.

 
At 01 December, 2010 08:21, Blogger Len said...

Brian wrote:

Len, the writeup of the Toronto Star poll appears on Zogby's own website. I have a hard time imagining why Zogby would knowingly post false stuff on his website. The Toronto Star conducted the poll. Do you suppose the Toronto Star is truther-dominated so as to deliberately run a push-poll?

You need to brush up on your reading skills Brian. The passage you are referring to is a direct quote of "W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org" and he only said that the Star "reported" the poll that they carried it out. Do you deny 911truth sponsors push polls?

 
At 02 December, 2010 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, there's no need for det cord if radio-controlled detonators are used.

There is evidence of explosives in the form of squibs that are quite conspicuous in the collapse videos.

Ian, Bill named some engineers who may or may not be independent. The first four I checked were not independent, so I didn't check any further. He provided no evidence that any of those I didn't check had endorsed the NIST report.

If you won't give me your uncle steve's real name and particulars of his engineering practice, I can't determine whether he is independent or not. You give me no reason to believe he's an engineer, or that he exists at all.

RGT, your assumption that silence gives assent to the report is not justified. Fear of ridicule is a factor, professional ethics are a factor, fear of career damage and of loss of government funds are a factor. If silence gives assent then it was equally applicable to the bogus FEMA report as to the NIST report, which greatly damages the credibility of your silent assenters, as the shortcoming of FEMA were obvious even to laymen.

Even if your battery acid hypothesis is as valid as thermite, the fact that NIST didn't study either one is damning. I'm always willing to entertain plausible alternative hypotheses--battery acid, drywall, defective construction, seismic shock--but it much amuses me when people act as if these hypotheses NIST did not examine are somehow defensis of NIST. If you think battery acid did the Appendix C samples, then you should be calling for test to see if it did, not saying "nothing to see here, move on."

Yes, the WTC might have collapsed in totality, symmetry, and near-free-fall speed from fire--and monkeys might fly out my butt.

Sounds of explosions were reported by first responders in the oral histories. Explosive residue was not found because NIST refused to test for it. Incendiary residue was found by Jones and Harrit. Why would you expect to find preparations for demolition if the explosives were hidden in hollow steel box columns accessible only from the elevator shafts?

Nice job of shifting goal posts from "your perception is imperfect" to "You're claiming your perception is real." I don't claim it's real--I claim it deserves investigation and refutation.

You shift goal posts again in attributing engineers' apathy about the official reports (as demonstrated by their total disinterest in defending the FEMA report that was previously accepted as apparent consensus) to their disinterest in controlled demolition. The apathy is obviously equally atrributable to all aspect of 9/11--which I can again attribute to fear of ridicule, professional ethics, fear of career damage and of loss of government funds.

My response was not 3,000 words. It was 541.

 
At 02 December, 2010 23:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, what possible conflict of interest could induce an engineer to oppose NIST? Are you one of those loons who thinks George Soros is out to rule the world?

The fact that you made essentially the same lengthy post three times suggests that you, and paul w, are deliberately trying to bury my substantive post in spam.

Len, thank you for pointing out my mistake about the poll. The fact remains that the Toronto Star reported the poll, apparently uncritically. I know push-polls are done. If you want to discuss specifics, you'll have to name them.

 
At 03 December, 2010 05:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, your assumption that silence gives assent to the report is not justified. Fear of ridicule is a factor, professional ethics are a factor, fear of career damage and of loss of government funds are a factor.

Can you cite an incident in which widespread silence in the wake of government findings has constituted something besides assent?

Even if your battery acid hypothesis is as valid as thermite, the fact that NIST didn't study either one is damning. ... If you think battery acid did the Appendix C samples, then you should be calling for test to see if it did, not saying "nothing to see here, move on."

That's where you're wrong. You're confusing real life with detective fiction, in which every observation is either an unambiguous clue or a quickly-discovered false lead. You're suspicious of the Appendix C sample merely because NIST didn't deal with it one of those two ways, not for any rational scientific reason.

Sounds of explosions were reported by first responders in the oral histories.

Correct. But what they described is inconsistent with the sounds of controlled demolition.

Explosive residue was not found because NIST refused to test for it. Incendiary residue was found by Jones and Harrit.

No. Iron was found by Jones and Harrit, and declared to be incendiary residue.

Why would you expect to find preparations for demolition if the explosives were hidden in hollow steel box columns accessible only from the elevator shafts?

The ongoing preparations would have been noticed by the occupants of the building. It is irrational to suggest otherwise.

I apologize for the multiple posts -- Google/Blogger claimed that my initial post was too large, so I kept trimming it. Then the originals showed up. I have deleted all but the first.

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, petgoat is back! I was afraid your parents had kicked you out of the house, Brian. I'm glad you still have internet access to post your nonsense.

There is evidence of explosives in the form of squibs that are quite conspicuous in the collapse videos.

This is the best you can do, Brian? This is why I love "truthers". The evidence is so completely against the CD idea that they grasp at straws like this.

Ian, Bill named some engineers who may or may not be independent. The first four I checked were not independent, so I didn't check any further. He provided no evidence that any of those I didn't check had endorsed the NIST report.

False. Also, you forgot about my Uncle Steve, Brian. He's an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

Yes, the WTC might have collapsed in totality, symmetry, and near-free-fall speed from fire--and monkeys might fly out my butt.

A perfect distillation of the ignorance and stupidity of Brian Good. Thanks, petgoat, for this one.

Nice job of shifting goal posts from "your perception is imperfect" to "You're claiming your perception is real." I don't claim it's real--I claim it deserves investigation and refutation.

We had an investigation, Brian. None of your claims have any merit. Deal with it.

The apathy is obviously equally atrributable to all aspect of 9/11--which I can again attribute to fear of ridicule, professional ethics, fear of career damage and of loss of government funds.

False. Seek professional help, Brian.

RGT, what possible conflict of interest could induce an engineer to oppose NIST? Are you one of those loons who thinks George Soros is out to rule the world?

Brian, you're the lunatic who thinks George Soros rules the world. We're not the conspiracy nuts, remember?

The fact that you made essentially the same lengthy post three times suggests that you, and paul w, are deliberately trying to bury my substantive post in spam.

Brian, nobody wants your posts buried. They're too much fun to read and laugh at, especially as you desperately try to evade the fact that you can't name one independent engineer who has expressed doubts about the NIST report.

Also, Brian, do you plan on addressing my point about Uncle Steve, or are you just going to bury my post in spam?

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the fact that nobody here can name an independent engineer who has overtly endorsed the NIST report suggests the difference between silence and assent.

I'm suspicious of the Appendix C sample because of the coverup. The scientists who studied it found it quite mystifying and called for further studies, the NYT called it something like "the deepest mystery of the WTC", Frank Greening (a chemist who should have known better) proposed a ludicrous source for the sulfur--and NIST pretended that the samples did not exist. That is extremely unscientific behavior.

Expecting the destruction of the towers to match some stereotyped typical demolition is unreasonable. You might as well argue: "Peach ice cream is not ice cream because everybody knows ice cream is vanilla".

Iron was found, and incendiary residue in the form of partially-reacted thermitic chips were also found in the dust.

Why would preparations in the elevator shafts have been noticed by the building occupants when there was a nine-month elevator renovations program ongoing? Office workers in my experience are notoriously uncurious types.
All that's needed to plant explosives is to drill a hole in the core column and pump or spray them in. Or they can be hidden in phony (or even real) electrical conduit in the elevator shaft, disguised as fiber optic cables, water supply lines, sewer lines, or placed in air conditioning ducts.

OK, sorry for accusing you of spamming. Paul w seems to have employed the tactic deliberately.

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian you don't have a point about your uncle Steve until you prove that he exists and show where he has verifiably endorsed the NIST report, and identify him so I can check his independence.

The fact that you can't seem to recognize that the claims of an anonymous internet poster are meaningless goes a long way to explain why your opinions about 9/11 are so divorced from reality.

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, the fact that nobody here can name an independent engineer who has overtly endorsed the NIST report suggests the difference between silence and assent.

False. Bill named independent engineers. I named Uncle Steve too.

Expecting the destruction of the towers to match some stereotyped typical demolition is unreasonable. You might as well argue: "Peach ice cream is not ice cream because everybody knows ice cream is vanilla".

Another thing that makes Brian so amusing: pointless, absurd analogies. He still hasn't topped "meatball on a fork", however.

Iron was found, and incendiary residue in the form of partially-reacted thermitic chips were also found in the dust.

Iron was found is the wreckage of a steel-framed skyscraper? HOLY SHIT!!!

Why would preparations in the elevator shafts have been noticed by the building occupants when there was a nine-month elevator renovations program ongoing? Office workers in my experience are notoriously uncurious types.

Nobody cares about your experience, Brian, since few people are deranged sex stalkers like you.

All that's needed to plant explosives is to drill a hole in the core column and pump or spray them in. Or they can be hidden in phony (or even real) electrical conduit in the elevator shaft, disguised as fiber optic cables, water supply lines, sewer lines, or placed in air conditioning ducts.

Or you could avoid all this by destroying the towers with death ray beams from space. You have not provided a shred of evidence against the death ray beam hypothesis. Why not?

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian you don't have a point about your uncle Steve until you prove that he exists and show where he has verifiably endorsed the NIST report, and identify him so I can check his independence.

I already identified him: he's my Uncle Steve. He's a civil engineer. And he endorsed the NIST report a few weeks ago after returning from a 10 year stint at the Rongbuk Monastery.

The fact that you can't seem to recognize that the claims of an anonymous internet poster are meaningless goes a long way to explain why your opinions about 9/11 are so divorced from reality.

Brian, I really have a hard time believing you can write something like this with a straight face. Seek professional help.

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, I'd also add that this is all meaningless, since you've never actually named an independent engineer who rejects the NIST report.

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't have any evidence against the death ray hypothesis. I know nothing about death rays. I prefer to avoid unnecessary conspiracy theories and focus on conspiracy facts: the coverups represented by the official reports.

Your uncle steve has not been identified in a specific enough manner to allow me to check him for independence, and you provide no evidence other than your wothless say-so that he even exists, let alone that he's endorsed the NIST report.

Ian, nobody has ever shown any evidence that any of the AE911Truth engineers have any conflicts of interest with respect to their opinions on the NIST report. Your empty, evidence-free assertions are a waste of time. What, do you imagine that they're all paid off by George Soros?

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I don't have any evidence against the death ray hypothesis. I know nothing about death rays. I prefer to avoid unnecessary conspiracy theories and focus on conspiracy facts: the coverups represented by the official reports.

Brian, just because you declare something a "fact" doesn't make it one, OK? We've all seen how tenuous your grasp of reality is.

Your uncle steve has not been identified in a specific enough manner to allow me to check him for independence, and you provide no evidence other than your wothless say-so that he even exists, let alone that he's endorsed the NIST report.

That's not my problem. I don't care if you accept that he's endorsed the NIST report.

Ian, nobody has ever shown any evidence that any of the AE911Truth engineers have any conflicts of interest with respect to their opinions on the NIST report.

False. They're members of Gage's cult and thus are not independent.

What, do you imagine that they're all paid off by George Soros?

George Soros is not a "truther", so I'm not sure why he would waste his time and money on a bunch of imbeciles and charlatans like Gage's group.

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the fact that nobody here can name an independent engineer who has overtly endorsed the NIST report suggests the difference between silence and assent.

If overt endorsements were the norm, then maybe. But I can find no case in which overt endorsements have been considered the norm, and you haven't provided one. I believe it's just a standard you invented.

I'm suspicious of the Appendix C sample because of the coverup.

The sample received lots of attention initially because it was thought to be a clue to the building's failure. As it turned out, it wasn't. "Disregarding" isn't the same thing as "concealing".

Expecting the destruction of the towers to match some stereotyped typical demolition is unreasonable.

You're trying to have it both ways -- "if it looks like a CD then that weighs in favor of CD; but if it doesn't, that doesn't weigh against CD". Think about it.

Iron was found, and incendiary residue in the form of partially-reacted thermitic chips were also found in the dust.

The scientific community has not adopted Jones' findings. Until they do, then I'm not either.

All that's needed to plant explosives is to drill a hole in the core column and pump or spray them in.

And wire them. And keep them stable until detonation. And how do we get the crew to take precautions with the stuff without telling them what the stuff is? What do we do if the stuff goes off prematurely? How do we transport and store this much kaboom in secret? Where do we get it without leaving a paper trail? See, these are the mundane things that a "real investigation" into CD would cover. Troofers never seem to want to bother with these boring details; they're too preoccupied with the intriguing James Bond stuff.

 
At 05 December, 2010 12:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, overt endorsements are a perfectly reasonable standard. 1380 architects and engineers have overtly endorsed calls for new investigations by signing a petition.

So where are the overt endorsers of the NIST reports? Are you going to claim that a million engineers "covertly endorse" the NIST report?

How do you know the Appendix C samples weren't a clue to the buildings' failure? The followup studies requested by the original investigators were never done. The alternative expanations (like Dr. Greening's drywall hypothesis) have been debunked. The only credible hypothesis offered has been thermite.

The destruction of the buildings looks like CD. Experts such as Dr. Van Romero and Danny Jowenko have commented on the similiarities between the collapses and CD. That's the behavior of the building.

The CD operation is a different matter. It is unreasonable to conflate building behavior and conventional CD operation, claiming that if it doesn't lool like a conventional CD op, then the fact that the building's behavior resembles CD should be discarded.

You might as well claim that wikileaks can not be claimed to have "published" anything, because publishing means books, and publishing a million pages is obviously impractical, therefore they must not have published anything.

I don't expect you to adopt Jones's findings. I haven't adopted Jones's findings, and will not do so until his results are independently replicated.

Yes, the details are what a real investigation into CD would cover. And we've never had one. If the crew thought they were spraying paint, they wouldn't know they were spraying nanothemite. Thermite is difficult to ignite--you need a high-temp magnesium match--and so it is very stable. It's not my job to prove how it was done, I need only show that claims that it's impossible are ignorant. Why do you expect a paper trail for aluminum and iron oxide?

 
At 05 December, 2010 16:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, overt endorsements are a perfectly reasonable standard. 1380 architects and engineers have overtly endorsed calls for new investigations by signing a petition.

Nobody cares.

So where are the overt endorsers of the NIST reports? Are you going to claim that a million engineers "covertly endorse" the NIST report?

I don't see any over endorsers of the law of gravity either. I guess we need to investigate that fraudulent claim too, eh petgoat?

The only credible hypothesis offered has been thermite.

False.

The destruction of the buildings looks like CD. Experts such as Dr. Van Romero and Danny Jowenko have commented on the similiarities between the collapses and CD. That's the behavior of the building.

The moon looks like its covered with oceans, too.

The CD operation is a different matter. It is unreasonable to conflate building behavior and conventional CD operation, claiming that if it doesn't lool like a conventional CD op, then the fact that the building's behavior resembles CD should be discarded.

Or it could be that the buildings were struck by airplanes, and the damage from the impact and the fires from the jet fuel caused the collapse. I know, it's a wild hypothesis, but I'm going to throw it out there.

You might as well claim that wikileaks can not be claimed to have "published" anything, because publishing means books, and publishing a million pages is obviously impractical, therefore they must not have published anything.

Meaningless babble from a failed janitor and obsessed lunatic.

I don't expect you to adopt Jones's findings. I haven't adopted Jones's findings, and will not do so until his results are independently replicated.

Which they never will be. Call it a hunch.

Yes, the details are what a real investigation into CD would cover. And we've never had one.

We had a real investigation, petgoat. Sorry.

If the crew thought they were spraying paint, they wouldn't know they were spraying nanothemite.

And if the crew was actually modified attack baboons and not humans, we wouldn't have to worry about whether they knew what they were spraying.

Thermite is difficult to ignite--you need a high-temp magnesium match--and so it is very stable.

That's nice. It's also not used in demolitions, which is a tiny detail that doesn't seem to bother you.

It's not my job to prove how it was done, I need only show that claims that it's impossible are ignorant.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 05 December, 2010 19:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, overt endorsements are a perfectly reasonable standard. 1380 architects and engineers have overtly endorsed calls for new investigations by signing a petition.

And nobody cares.

Yes, the details are what a real investigation into CD would cover. And we've never had one. If the crew thought they were spraying paint, they wouldn't know they were spraying nanothemite. Thermite is difficult to ignite--you need a high-temp magnesium match--and so it is very stable. It's not my job to prove how it was done, I need only show that claims that it's impossible are ignorant. Why do you expect a paper trail for aluminum and iron oxide?

Or....perhaps the towers were brought down by the combined damage from the airplane impacts and the subsequent fires. Have you ever considered this possibility, Brian?

 
At 05 December, 2010 21:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course I've considered the possibility, Ian, and I am very disappointed that NIST has done such a piss-poor job on their report, because I would really really like to believe it.

But since their report was blatantly dishonest and didn't even address, let alone explain, the most baffling aspects of the towers' demise, I don't have that luxury.

 
At 06 December, 2010 04:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Of course I've considered the possibility, Ian, and I am very disappointed that NIST has done such a piss-poor job on their report, because I would really really like to believe it.

But since their report was blatantly dishonest and didn't even address, let alone explain, the most baffling aspects of the towers' demise, I don't have that luxury.


Stop lying, Brian. The NIST report is fine. You reject it because you're a delusional liar who thinks the utter failure that is your life will be redeemed when people realize that "meatball on a fork" describes what happened. Then you'll get a tenured position at Stanford and you'll win the love of Willie Rodriguez That's why you cling desperately to nonsense about spray-on nanothermite.

You really need to seek professional help.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, nobody believes "meatball on a fork is what happened". You are one very confused guy.

I wouldn't take a tenured position at a college that employs Condoleezza Rice.

 
At 06 December, 2010 10:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, nobody believes "meatball on a fork is what happened". You are one very confused guy.

You're right, nobody believes "meatball on a fork" is what happened or what should have happened because the person who suggested it (you) is a deranged lunatic sex stalker.

I wouldn't take a tenured position at a college that employs Condoleezza Rice.

Brian, no college would offer you a tenured position because you're a hopelessly ignorant delusional lunatic. I must say, your references to "incurious" office workers just shows how much you're driven by resentment. You think you're a genius, but the world disagrees, leaving you to be an unemployed loser. Given the intellectual deficiencies I've seen on display here from you, I'm thinking the world is right.

 
At 06 December, 2010 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never suggested that "meatball on a fork is what happened." Nor did petgoat suggest that "meatball on a fork is what happened."

You live in a world of miscomprehension.

 
At 06 December, 2010 19:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I never suggested that "meatball on a fork is what happened." Nor did petgoat suggest that "meatball on a fork is what happened."

You are petgoat, Brian. Everyone knows this, just as everyone knows you're an unemployed janitor and sex stalker.

Anyway, I know you didn't suggest that "meatball on a fork" is what happened. You think it's what should have happened if not for the devious actions of magic thermite elves armed with explosive spray paint hiding in the elevator shafts. And you wonder why I tell you to see a psychiatrist.

 
At 07 December, 2010 21:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, overt endorsements are a perfectly reasonable standard.

Are they? When has there ever been widespread overt endorsements of a government's technical findings? When has an absence of such endorsements ever called the findings into question? Until the silence of the majority can be demonstrated to mean something else in this case, I will take it to mean assent as it always does.

How do you know the Appendix C samples weren't a clue to the buildings' failure?

I don't. But the correct inquiry is "Does this piece of rubble fit a coherent theory of the failure", not "How can we build a theory to include this intriguing piece of rubble?". Not every observation is relevant.

The only credible hypothesis offered has been thermite.

The practical problems of getting the thermite in there and igniting it, plus the absence of a plausible motive for doing so, weigh against the credibility of thermite.

The destruction of the buildings looks like CD. Experts such as Dr. Van Romero and Danny Jowenko have commented on the similiarities between the collapses and CD. That's the behavior of the building.

Correct.

The CD operation is a different matter. It is unreasonable to conflate building behavior and conventional CD operation, claiming that if it doesn't lool like a conventional CD op, then the fact that the building's behavior resembles CD should be discarded.

It's not a matter of discarding, it's a matter of ascribing appropriate weight to the evidence. I think you'd agree that it's fallacious to call visual evidence conclusive. It doesn't become less fallacious simply because the observer happens to be an expert.

You might as well claim that wikileaks can not be claimed to have "published" anything, because publishing means books, and publishing a million pages is obviously impractical, therefore they must not have published anything.

Well... "publish" does indeed have a specific meaning in US copyright law, and battles have been fought over the definition. But I think I see what you mean.

I don't expect you to adopt Jones's findings. I haven't adopted Jones's findings, and will not do so until his results are independently replicated.

Nor should you.

Yes, the details are what a real investigation into CD would cover. And we've never had one. If the crew thought they were spraying paint, they wouldn't know they were spraying nanothemite. Thermite is difficult to ignite--you need a high-temp magnesium match--and so it is very stable. It's not my job to prove how it was done, I need only show that claims that it's impossible are ignorant. Why do you expect a paper trail for aluminum and iron oxide?

Somebody had to supply it. To supply it, they had to have materials from another supplier. Who had another supplier. Then it was stored somewhere, and transported somewhere by some means. Already we're up to dozens of transactions, and I simply don't buy the idea of just telling everybody to keep it off the books, wink wink. Painters would probably notice when directed to paint internal structures that nobody sees with something that didn't smell or behave quite like paint. And wouldn't they need to confiscate all the painters' clothes to keep nanothermite evidence from going home with them? Again, the theoretical possibility is outweighed by the mundane details.

 
At 07 December, 2010 22:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the argument is made that AE911's 1400 architects and engineers are statistically insignificant in terms of the entire pool of architects and engineers. But to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples, we must compare the number of those overtly dissatisfied with the NIST report to the number of those overtly satisfied with it. Silence is silence, nothing more.
Ron Brookman sent out a poll to over 100 structural engineering
colleagues, and all but one refused to return the poll. Taking silence as assent is unscientific--especially given the social and professional price that dissident engineers must pay.

Also unscientific is your demand that evidence fit a coherent theory in order to be considered evidence. NIST pretended that the Appendix C samples did not exist. And what is incoherent about the theory that sulfur-enhanced incendiaries attacked some of the structural steel? It explains symmetry, totality and speed of collapse where the natural fire-induced collapse theory does not.

What practical problems are there in placing thermite? It could be placed in hollow box columns through holes drilled in the walls. It could be secreted in dummy electrical conduit or optical cables. It could be sprayed on as a paint. The plausible motive for using thermite is to bring the building down. A mere plane crash would not terrorize like total collapse did--it would be a tale of survival and endurance, not death and destruction.

I never said the visual evidence (or any evidence) was conclusive. I said the official reports are dishonest and incomplete and unbelievable, and that democracy demands that we be able to trust our government reports.

You think that the purchase of a few tons of scrap aluminum and scrap iron would attract attention? Like somebody's going to say "Wow, I wonder if that truckload of aluminum cans I sold is going to get ground up and made into thermite?" What makes you think that paint with aluminum chips and iron oxide chips will smell any different from any other kind of paint? There's already iron oxide in red primer. Why would anyone care about nanothermite evidence on the painter's clothes? There's nanothermite evidence in the dust and nobody cares!

You can't argue--the plan is imperfect and therefore it didn't happen. You have to remember this op was planned by lunatics.

 
At 08 December, 2010 05:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, the argument is made that AE911's 1400 architects and engineers are statistically insignificant in terms of the entire pool of architects and engineers.

Even if they weren't, it still wouldn't matter. A plurality of Americans believe in young-earth creationism. It doesn't mean that creationism has any scientific validity.

But to be sure that we are comparing apples to apples, we must compare the number of those overtly dissatisfied with the NIST report to the number of those overtly satisfied with it.

False.

Ron Brookman sent out a poll to over 100 structural engineering
colleagues, and all but one refused to return the poll.


Because they're busy people who don't waste their time with lunatic conspiracy theories.

Taking silence as assent is unscientific--especially given the social and professional price that dissident engineers must pay.

Yes, failed janitors know all about the academic community.

Also unscientific is your demand that evidence fit a coherent theory in order to be considered evidence.

Aaaand we can stop right here. I'm amazed that Brian comes out and says that his beliefs are unfalsifiable, and that he'll take any scrap of evidence and conjecture as "proof" of his insane beliefs.

Sure enough, there's more babbling about thermite and his insane hypotheticals. Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 08 December, 2010 08:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, comparing the educated scientists of the architects and engineers for truth to ignorant and/or uneducated creationists is illogical.

Mr. Brookman's poll was not a loony conspiracy theory. It was a poll asking about structural engineers about their attitudes about and knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures.

Ian, where did you get the idea that I failed as a janitor? I wasn't talking about the academic community. I was talking about the professional community.

I never said my beliefs are unfalsifiable and never claimed proof of any theories. (Note that NIST does not offer any proof of its theories.)

You are so hysterical you can't even calm down enough to understand what my beliefs are. Actually I entertain as few "beliefs" as possible. That's why I find your faith-based acceptance of dishonest, shoddy, incomplete, and fabricated reports amusing.

 
At 08 December, 2010 09:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, comparing the educated scientists of the architects and engineers for truth to ignorant and/or uneducated creationists is illogical.

False. They're both religious loons with no scientific basis for their beliefs. Also, creationists like to dress their views up in "science" (The Discovery Institute) just as much as "truthers" do. They think it lends legitimacy to their loony views.

Mr. Brookman's poll was not a loony conspiracy theory. It was a poll asking about structural engineers about their attitudes about and knowledge of the 9/11 structural failures.

And nobody cared enough to reply because they have better things to do than respond to conspiracy nuts. I'm not surprised that you don't understand how science and academia work, given that your previous work life had you mopping the floors of real scientists long after they had left to go home.

Ian, where did you get the idea that I failed as a janitor?

From every "truther" who knows you.

I wasn't talking about the academic community. I was talking about the professional community.

You know nothing about either.

I never said my beliefs are unfalsifiable and never claimed proof of any theories. (Note that NIST does not offer any proof of its theories.)

You don't say it, you just indicate that your beliefs are unfalsifiable with all your ignorant babbling about what "might" have happened at the WTC. At least you recognize that your scattershot lunatic conjecture doesn't amount to a working hypothesis.

You are so hysterical you can't even calm down enough to understand what my beliefs are.

You believe 9/11 is an inside job. That's why you babble endlessly about thermite.

Actually I entertain as few "beliefs" as possible.

Yes, there's one monomaniacal belief in the 9/11 "truth" religion.

That's why I find your faith-based acceptance of dishonest, shoddy, incomplete, and fabricated reports amusing.

QED. Brian's belief that NIST is dishonest is unfalsifiable. And he does the usual desperate creationist tactic of claiming the side with evidence and reason on its side is a "religion".

Your desperation is amusing, petgoat.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you clearly know nothing about me, but that doesn't stop you from indulging in a lot of fantasies about me.

I have never said I believe 9/11 is an inside job. I don't know if it was or not. The official reports are so bad that its your duty as a citizen to try to find out what they're covering up.

My belief that the NIST report is dishonest has been proven.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you clearly know nothing about me, but that doesn't stop you from indulging in a lot of fantasies about me.

False. I know plenty about you from what other truthers say about you. They're all pretty much in agreement that you're Brian Good, an unemployed janitor from Palo Alto, CA who has been stalking and harassing Kevin Barrett, Carol Brouillet, and Willie Rodriguez. You go by various internet aliases, such as "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", "watson", and "truetruther".

You'd think if this stuff were untrue, someone other than you would be disputing it. And remember, it's the people who agree with you about 9/11 that point out what an insane loser you are.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

I have never said I believe 9/11 is an inside job.

Perhaps you never said those exact words, but it's obvious you believe in it with religious certainty.

I don't know if it was or not.

I do: it wasn't. Now maybe you can do something more productive with your life?

The official reports are so bad that its your duty as a citizen to try to find out what they're covering up.

What did I say about religious certainty? You keep babbling about the official reports being bad, but you never back that up with anything more than your own incredulity. Given how tenuous your grasp on reality is, I'm not necessarily surprised, just don't expect normal people to take your claims seriously.

My belief that the NIST report is dishonest has been proven.

I rest my case.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, my belief that the official reports are bad is based on much more than incredulity. It is based on an analysis of their faulty methodology and their blatant dishonesty.

Ian, Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez lie about their detractors, and also fall into the habit of imagining that all the people who say negative things about them must be sock puppets. Your reliance on the representations of a con artist like Willie and a bigoted nutjob like Barrett is quite naive.

NIST's dishonesty has been proven. They ignored inconvenient evidence, they reverse-engineered their results, and Shyam Sunder lied to NOVA when he claimed that the scattering of the steel evidence was necessitated by rescue efforts.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, my belief that the official reports are bad is based on much more than incredulity. It is based on an analysis of their faulty methodology and their blatant dishonesty.

And nobody cares. If we wanted the opinions of a failed janitor on a topic he doesn't understand in the least, we'd ask you for it, Brian.

Ian, Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez lie about their detractors, and also fall into the habit of imagining that all the people who say negative things about them must be sock puppets. Your reliance on the representations of a con artist like Willie and a bigoted nutjob like Barrett is quite naive.

Well, it's a good thing Richard Gage has backed up their assertions, huh? And Carol Brouillet, and a whole host of other people who know you....

NIST's dishonesty has been proven.

False.

They ignored inconvenient evidence, they reverse-engineered their results, and Shyam Sunder lied to NOVA when he claimed that the scattering of the steel evidence was necessitated by rescue efforts.

False, false, and false. Man, you're even worse at lying than you are at mopping floors.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's all a game for Ian--lie his way into a corner until it's game over, and then he pulls the plug with a whole stack of lies, and then he can start all over again.

He's shitting all over his own forum, and nobody here has the integrity to call him on it. At least the truth movement finally got rid of Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

It's all a game for Ian--lie his way into a corner until it's game over, and then he pulls the plug with a whole stack of lies, and then he can start all over again.

Yes, this is a game. I get to laugh at you and all the gibberish you post. It's fun!

He's shitting all over his own forum, and nobody here has the integrity to call him on it.

Aww, poor petgoat is upset!

At least the truth movement finally got rid of Willie Rodriguez.

Actually, from what I can tell, the truthers kept Rodriguez and dumped you. Keep deluding yourself, petgoat.

 
At 08 December, 2010 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you don't know what you're talking about, and most of what you say you just pull out of your ass. You are thus very discrediting to your own positions.

 
At 08 December, 2010 12:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you don't know what you're talking about, and most of what you say you just pull out of your ass. You are thus very discrediting to your own positions.

Such desperate squealing!

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not desperate. Disgusted by your cynical lies.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Not desperate. Disgusted by your cynical lies.

Would you care to cite any of these
"lies", petgoat?

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

"False", "false", "false", "false", "false", "false", "false", and "false" will do for starters.

 
At 08 December, 2010 20:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

"False", "false", "false", "false", "false", "false", "false", and "false" will do for starters.

So in other words, you can't cite a single lie from me.

I, on the other hand, can cite your most amusing lie: that the NIST report says the WTC towers came down at essentially free-fall speed.

 
At 08 December, 2010 21:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, every one of those "false" statements by you was a lie.

Section 6.14.4 of the NIST report says the WTC towers came down at essentially free-fall speed.

 
At 09 December, 2010 00:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...essentially free-fall speed."

Essentially is a weasel word, stupid.

The phrase can be translated as "the building didn't fall at free fall speed."

The word essentially has all the meaning of the word virtually.

For example,

Cascade leaves dishes virtually spotless."

In other words, Cascade leaves spots on your dishes.

Now, go soak your head, janitor boy.

 
At 09 December, 2010 05:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, every one of those "false" statements by you was a lie.

False.

Section 6.14.4 of the NIST report says the WTC towers came down at essentially free-fall speed.

No.

 
At 09 December, 2010 05:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Essentially is a weasel word, stupid.

The phrase can be translated as "the building didn't fall at free fall speed."

The word essentially has all the meaning of the word virtually.


Bill, don't humor him. For one, we can watch videos (the standard truther research method) and see pieces of the buildings hitting the ground well before the large mass of collapsing building did. The towers didn't fall at anywhere near free-fall speed.

Now, we could laugh all we want at Brian citing a "dishonest" report as gospel truth, but the NIST report doesn't say what Brian claims it does.

Let's take the entire sentence, which Brian never does:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

So in other words, the section above the impact zone crashed into the section below it "essentially in free fall". The entire collapse wasn't in free fall, just the initiation.

Brian leaves this out because he is a delusional liar.

 
At 09 December, 2010 05:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

So to sum up, Brian constantly cites a report he rejects as dishonest to tell us something than anyone with 15 seconds and access to youtube can tell you is an absurd falsehood, and the section he cites to back up his claim doesn't even say what he claims it does.

And he does this again and again and again.

He really is a breed apart as far as delusional liars and lunatics go.

 
At 09 December, 2010 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, yes, "essentially" is something of a weasel-word, practically a synonym for "virtually". So what's your point? Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. What difference if they were actually 9.5 seconds and 12 seconds? It's still too fast. It still represents (as NIST says) an overwhelming of the resistance of the supporting structure below.

Ian, whether the towers hit the ground at feee-fall speed is not the point. The point is that NIST says they did. If their $20 million investigation is wrong, it needs to be done over.

I didn't cite a dishonest report as gospel truth. Your mind is a blunt instrument, getting blunter every day. I cited a dishonest report for what it said--and you continue to lie about what it says.

Ian, your interpretation of the sentence, limiting it to collapse initiation, is wrong because the video does not show the collapse initiation occurring at free fall speed. However, the video does show a very rapid collapse, which Dr. Sunder tells us took 9 seconds in WTC2 and 11 seconds in WTC1--essentially free fall.

I'm not telling you any falsehoods. I'm telling you what NIST said. If you have a problem with what NIST said, take it up with NIST.

 
At 09 December, 2010 10:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Oh yes, this ridiculous lie gets repeated again and again by out li'l petgoat too.

Ian, whether the towers hit the ground at feee-fall speed is not the point. The point is that NIST says they did.

Stop lying, petgoat.

If their $20 million investigation is wrong, it needs to be done over.

It's not wrong. You just can't read.

I didn't cite a dishonest report as gospel truth. Your mind is a blunt instrument, getting blunter every day. I cited a dishonest report for what it said--and you continue to lie about what it says.

False.

Ian, your interpretation of the sentence, limiting it to collapse initiation, is wrong because the video does not show the collapse initiation occurring at free fall speed.

Ah yes, a failed janitor and sex stalker can tell what the collapse initiation speed was based on youtube. What do we need experts in engineering for when petgoat can tell us these things?

However, the video does show a very rapid collapse, which Dr. Sunder tells us took 9 seconds in WTC2 and 11 seconds in WTC1--essentially free fall.

Brian, you already lied about Dr. Sunder above. Try to keep your lies on the same topic to one per post, OK?

I'm not telling you any falsehoods. I'm telling you what NIST said. If you have a problem with what NIST said, take it up with NIST.

I don't have a problem with what NIST said. I have a problem with what an obsessed liar and lunatic keeps saying about NIST.

You fail again, petgoat. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 09 December, 2010 15:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

If it is your intention to protect truth from a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists, why then do you lie so persistently?

 
At 09 December, 2010 17:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)

False. This is what NIST said:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

The first exterior panels are not the towers, Brian. Learn to read.

If it is your intention to protect truth from a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists, why then do you lie so persistently?

"Protect the truth"? Brian, the truth is in no danger from an irrelevant band of lunatics like you and your former friends in Gage's group.

Also, I don't lie.

 
At 10 December, 2010 00:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

That's "tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds" and "tower two collapsed in about 9 seconds", not "the first exterior panels to strike the ground".

You like to quote NIST when you think it supports your position, but when they don't support your lies you pretend that they don't say what they said.

 
At 10 December, 2010 04:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


That's not what the measurements say, petgoat.

That's "tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds" and "tower two collapsed in about 9 seconds", not "the first exterior panels to strike the ground".

False. For people you consider dishonest hacks, you sure like to cite them a lot when it can help you prop up your delusional fantasies about what happened on 9/11....

You like to quote NIST when you think it supports your position, but when they don't support your lies you pretend that they don't say what they said.

The mask is slipping. Brian is beginning to admit that he's been lying about NIST.

 
At 10 December, 2010 09:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish between "what the measurements say" and what Dr. Sunder said shows why you are so confused about 9/11.

Dr. Sunder said "tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds" and "tower two collapsed in about 9 seconds". For you to lie about that when anyone can go to 1:03 of the recording and confirm that makes you as stupidly self-discrediting as Kevin Barrett.

I am only citing Dr. Sunder to support my assertions about what Dr. Sunder says.

I have not been lying about NIST. You have been lying about NIST, as anyone who checks section 6.14.4 and Dr. Sunder's NOVA statement can see.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home