Saturday, February 12, 2011

Calling David Ray Griffin...


Eric Larson, AKA Loose Nuke at 9-11 Blogger and Rancho Truth at Truth Action, takes on the guru of the movement over the phone calls. There's some solid debunking in the piece, like this:

In this section Griffin does not present evidence of faked calls. Instead, he cites a number of media reports and witness statements to the FBI regarding passengers and crew using cell phones, and argues, based on other reports, that cell phone calls from planes were impossible in 2001. From this, he argues the reported calls from the flights must have been faked, and the FBI and 9/11 Commission have covered this up. However, some of the reports of cell phones being used are contradicted by reports of air phones being used, as well as call records that show air phones being used. There’s also evidence that cell phone calls from planes were possible before 2001. In addition, Griffin doesn’t consider the possibility that cell phone repeaters could have been placed on the 9/11 flights.


And:

Certainly, ‘debunker’ websites such as 9/11 Myths have easily exposed flaws in the voice morphing theory: For instance, though the technology existed at the time, the inventor, George Papcun, has commented that voice-morphing a conversation in near real time would be more complex than fabricating a simple recorded statement, and would require an extensive recording as a sample. It would be even more difficult to fool the subject’s family members, who, in addition to being familiar with the person’s voice, would be familiar with their unique communication style and intimate details of their lives. One victim, Linda Gronlund, even left the combination to her safe on her sister’s voice mail.


However, he ruins it with the usual muttering about how they already have enough evidence of an inside job/coverup:

The truth is that the official 9/11 story quickly falls apart when examined from many different angles. For instance, it’s false that US, Saudi, Pakistani and Israeli intelligence agencies have not exploited terrorist organizations in proxy wars and operations, including Al Qaeda, and that there are no connections between them and the 9/11 plot. It's false that all of the alleged hijackers were Islamic radicals; some of them drank, used drugs, bought lap dances and prostitutes, and some activities were facilitated by FAA, INS and CIA actions and inactions. It’s false that no one in the US government imagined a planes-as-missiles attack on US cities, that there were no warning signs and intelligence pointing to the 9/11 plot, and that key people at State, NSA, CIA, INS, FBI, FAA, NMCC, NORAD, Secret Service and the White House were unaware of and/or incapable of preventing the 9/11 plot, as the public was originally told. Though it documented some new facts about what was known and not done prior to and on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission Report largely ignored, glossed over or explained away the issues raised by the links above. Things like the Project for the New American Century, PTech, pre-9/11 Afghanistan war planning, pre-9/11 Iraq war planning, unusual financial transactions, coincident military exercises and the 2001 Anthrax attack got similar treatment, as did suspicious behavior, strange decisions and false statements on the part of principals such George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, Richard Myers, Ralph Eberhart and others.


Still it's nice to see the other side washing off least some of the garbage that David Ray Griffin flings against the wall, hoping it will stick.

78 Comments:

At 12 February, 2011 08:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Griffin's arguments about cell phone usage on the planes is the Brian Good method of argument: take a throwaway line in the media and cling to it as the smoking gun that proves an inside job despite all the other evidence against the smoking gun.

It's no different than Brian babbling about Dr. Sunder and "the towers came down in 9 and 11 seconds" when all you have to do is watch a video of the collapse to know they didn't come down in 9 and 11 seconds.

 
At 12 February, 2011 15:28, Blogger paul w said...

The truth is that the official 9/11 story quickly falls apart when examined from many different angles.

This is often the opening line of a truther; lying right from the start.

Still, it's instant confirmation of their credentials.

 
At 13 February, 2011 06:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I've been puzzling for a long time about why so many Troofers seem to have selective critical thinking skills. That is, why they can smell BS in the context of Pentagon "flyover" witness accounts but cannot smell it the context of WTC7 "explosion" witness accounts. Or why they reject the absurdity of a secret voice morphing operation (because of logistical problems) but then accept the absurdity of a secret explosives planting operation (in spite of logistical problems).

Anybody have insights into what causes this?

 
At 13 February, 2011 08:39, Blogger Triterope said...

Has any Truther ever called out Griffin like that? He used to be one of the unassailable leaders of the 9-11 Truth movement.

 
At 13 February, 2011 10:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Anybody have insights into what causes this?

You are talking about logic here. And most truthers just don't get it. The part of the brain that makes one a critical thinkers and the type to ask themselves hard question in the process of analyzing an issue is not there is some people, they buy shit on faith alone, it's all part of the dogma in their little religion.

They will never get it. And for people who do think critically, we will never understand how these idiots can't see the holes in their own logic.

 
At 13 February, 2011 12:07, Blogger Pat said...

RGT, it's called confirmation bias and it afflicts us all to some degree. Whether it's politics, sports, or conspiracy theories, we all see quite clearly the weaknesses in the other side's case while glossing over or minimizing the deficiencies in our own.

 
At 13 February, 2011 12:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

People are social animals, and most economic and social success depends on compliance and conformity. Critical thinking is not needed to decide whether to choose Coke or Pepsi. Few people have any need to develop actual logical skills.

9/11 Truthers are no different from the population of which they are a subset. No less or more rational than anyone else. I find it quite amusing how much those who hang out here resemble certain elements in the truth movement--the pathetic mutual admiration, the shoddy research, the confident assertion of made-up "facts", the wildly speculative extrapolations and the circular reasoning are the same.

 
At 13 February, 2011 12:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

People are social animals, and most economic and social success depends on compliance and conformity. Critical thinking is not needed to decide whether to choose Coke or Pepsi. Few people have any need to develop actual logical skills.

Can someone please translate this passage into "sane" for me?

9/11 Truthers are no different from the population of which they are a subset. No less or more rational than anyone else.

I suppose this is true to some extent. Instead of placing their faith in an invisible sky god, they place their faith in invisible magic thermite.

I find it quite amusing how much those who hang out here resemble certain elements in the truth movement--the pathetic mutual admiration, the shoddy research, the confident assertion of made-up "facts", the wildly speculative extrapolations and the circular reasoning are the same.

And here's the bitterness of our failed janitor on display: "I'm a genius and yet the world laughs at me!"

Meanwhile, he inadvertently described himself to a T.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, it's called confirmation bias and it afflicts us all to some degree. Whether it's politics, sports, or conspiracy theories, we all see quite clearly the weaknesses in the other side's case while glossing over or minimizing the deficiencies in our own."

True. In Francis Bacon's "The Four Idols" he would have called this "The Idol of the Tribe" where once a belief is established any new information that undermines/threatens the belief if ignored and attacked. At the same time information is sought to reinforce the established belief or truth.

The psychological pathology of any consiracy nut is that they believe themselves to be intellectually superior to everyone else. They attach themselves to a conspiracy theory because it becomes a vehicle to prove their superiority over the masses because only the conspiracy nut is the only one smart enough to see the truth.

This is a character flaw.

It is a flaw based on a perceived inferiority to others. This stems from a lack of ability to socialize in an acceptable way, and instead of adjusting their behavior they withdraw and become angry. The anger feeds on them dangerously inflating their damaged ego to a point where they refuse to listen to anybody about anything.

This video is a perfect example of the kind of behavior that is rampant in any conspiracy circuit weather it's JFK, UFOs, the Illuminatti, or who killed Brian the Soccer Octopus. You have two whack-jobs with competing conspiracy theories about the same event; it is only a matter of time before angry words are exchanged, and embarrasing confrontations happen. The nastiest fights I have ever seen are over the JFK Assassination. It was the Mob, no it was the CIA, no it was Texas oil,etc...

Since I've been posting here we have had a few heated debates about things, but in the end we've agreed to disagree and moved on. We are rational adults. Then in contrast you have Cosmo log in and rant about something that Pat said three or four years ago. He then makes obscene remarks about Pat's father. He will do this at every opportunity.

Then there's Brian, who talks in circles, and cites Newton and complex demolition procedures yet clearly understands neither. Supports a theory one day, then denies support the next day. When his theories are torn appart he changes the subject and goes on the attack.

Contrast the debate we had here about Jarad Loughner, the Arizona shooter. Guitar Bill has his own opinion and others disagreed. You don't see Bill harping on it week after week, and you don't see others jumping his case about it week after week.

This is how you can spot the rational adults around here.

Happy Valentines to everyone.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...Happy Valentines to everyone."

Doh!!!!!!

Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot. I'd better run to the Stanford Mall and find my wife a present.

%^)

 
At 14 February, 2011 07:47, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anybody have insights into what causes this?"

They are fucking insane.

Case in point:

Brian Good.

 
At 14 February, 2011 07:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
People are social animals, and most economic and social success depends on compliance and conformity."

Most successful business people think outside the box, boron, are non-compliant and non-conformist.

Hence, your statement is pure, insane bullshit.

 
At 14 February, 2011 07:49, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"And here's the bitterness of our failed janitor on display: "I'm a genius and yet the world laughs at me!"

Meanwhile, he inadvertently described himself to a T."

It's called "projection", and is part of boron's insanity.

 
At 14 February, 2011 09:29, Blogger Pat said...

LL, that is very much the truth. Brian first came to our attention when he posted some incomprehensible drawings on Democratic Underground along with a prediction that we would soon be seeing them in major engineering journals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x205525

 
At 14 February, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's incomprehensible about those sketches? Obviously the first two are distinguishing structurally between the core and the floors--something that NIST fails to do in considering the top portion of the building to be a monolithic piledriving block.

The third obviously shows the termination of collapse on the core, as the debris piles up and expends its kinetic energy in friction.

The fourth exaggerates the degree to which the top portion of the tower fails to hammer the lower portion of the tower.

They all make perfect sense to anyone with any construction-drawing literacy.

And what was it that made you think I am petgoat again?

 
At 14 February, 2011 12:19, Blogger Ian said...

That's right, Brian isn't petgoat. petgoat is a close friend of mine who told me Brian was kicked out of the truth movement for stalking Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 14 February, 2011 12:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

They all make perfect sense to anyone with any construction-drawing literacy.

But you're just a dead beat janitor, Brian.

 
At 14 February, 2011 13:12, Blogger Pat said...

Anybody with construction drawing literacy would laugh those off as crayon scribbles unworthy of a second-grader.

 
At 14 February, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 February, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, I have a great deal of construction-drawing literacy, having taken college classes in architectural drawing. Yes, petgoat's drawings are crude but they are perfectly clear. If you are unable to recognize the floors and the core of the WTC when you see it in cross-section, maybe that relects insufficient study of the subject on your part.

 
At 14 February, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You'd lie to your mother if you thought for one moment that you could gain some advantage from the lie, wouldn't you, goat molester?

Psychiatric diagnosis: Deranged psychopath.

 
At 14 February, 2011 14:40, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, I have a great deal of construction-drawing literacy, having taken college classes in architectural drawing. Yes, petgoat's drawings are crude but they are perfectly clear. If you are unable to recognize the floors and the core of the WTC when you see it in cross-section, maybe that relects insufficient study of the subject on your part.

Brian, petgoat says the widows have no questions and that you're lying about it. Lies like that and your sexual obsession is why you were thrown out of the truth movement, according to him.

What do you say to that, given that you believe petgoat to be a reputable truther?

 
At 14 February, 2011 16:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Pat, I have a great deal of construction-drawing literacy, having taken college classes in architectural drawing. Yes, petgoat's drawings are crude but they are perfectly clear.

I told you he was insane.

 
At 14 February, 2011 17:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, it's called confirmation bias and it afflicts us all to some degree.

But what's the distinction between "Pentagon flyover" and "molten steel", for example? The evidence for each is about the same: dubious eyewitness accounts without physical or photographic evidence. Yet one has fallen out of favor with Troofers while the other one remains a foundation of their beliefs.

There must be something that distinguishes the two but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's just that one is conceivably possible and the other is so patently absurd, even confirmation bias can't save it.

 
At 14 February, 2011 17:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So, snug.bug: what do you do?

 
At 14 February, 2011 18:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say petgoat is a reputable truther. I simply pointed out that the drawings Pat said were incomprehensible were perfectly comprehensible.

RGT: There's a big difference between "Pentagon Flyover" and
"molten steel". There is not a shred of eyewitness evidence for the former and a great deal of contradicting physical evidence. For the latter there is eyewitness testimony from Captain Ruvolo and Dr. Astaneh-Asl, among others, there is a 40 pound ingot of formerly molten iron from which Dr. Jones has taken a sample, and there is photographic evidence cited by Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...For the latter there is eyewitness testimony from Captain Ruvolo and Dr. Astaneh-Asl..."

Lying again, goat molester?

Of course you're lying.

How did Dr. Astaneh-Asl determine the composition of the "molten metal"? After all, the term "molten metal" is meaningless. Unless, of course, you're willing to tell another whopper and claim that "metal" is an element.

Anything short of an assay of the substance to determine its composition is meaningless speculation.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...there is a 40 pound ingot of formerly molten iron from which Dr. Jones has taken a sample"

Bullshit!

There's not one iota of evidence to support the claim that "molten iron" was found at ground zero.

Thus, the goat molester continues to lie habitually without providing any information from a credible source to substantiate his groundless assertions.

Psychiatric diagnosis: Deranged psychopath.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering. I think he knows a steel girder when he sees one. Actually, pretty much any competent male knows steel from aluminum and plastic and all the other stuff you incompetents think can be confused for steel.

The testimony from Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem and Captain Ruvolo is considerably more than an iota. You are a liar, Bill.

If you believe the truth is on your side, why do you stoop to lying to defend it? I doubt that you even believe the stuff you say, or you wouldn't lie about it.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the proof that the goat molester pulled the "40 pound ingot of formerly molten iron" assertion out of his ass.

A Google search on the terms "40 pound ingot molten iron steven jones" returns nothing, with the exception of two hits.

And guess who made the "40 pound ingot of formerly molten iron" assertion?

I'll give you one guess.

Answer: The goat molester.

Source: TruthMove Forum and 911oz.com.

So there you have it. More proof that you cannot believe one word that emanates from the maw of the goat molester.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, Dr. Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering. I think he knows a steel girder when he sees one. Actually, pretty much any competent male knows steel from aluminum and plastic and all the other stuff you incompetents think can be confused for steel."

That doesn't prove that anyone witnessed or found "molten metal" or "molten iron" at ground zero.

Where's the assay to prove or disprove the claim that "molten iron" was found at ground zero?

I'll tell you where you can find the assay: Nowhere!

"...The testimony from Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem and Captain Ruvolo is considerably more than an iota. You are a liar, Bill."

Testimony without an assay to verify their claims is not evidence, it's speculation. You're an idiot, goat molester.

Grade: F-

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:12, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I didn't say petgoat is a reputable truther. I simply pointed out that the drawings Pat said were incomprehensible were perfectly comprehensible.

You have nothing to say about petgoat's claims about you? Given what we know about you, I find petgoat's claims that you're a liar and sex stalker to be perfectly reasonable.

GutterBall, Dr. Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering. I think he knows a steel girder when he sees one. Actually, pretty much any competent male knows steel from aluminum and plastic and all the other stuff you incompetents think can be confused for steel.

Tranlsation: once again, I have no evidence, just innuendo.

The testimony from Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem and Captain Ruvolo is considerably more than an iota. You are a liar, Bill.

False.

Anyway, Brian, do you have anything to say about petgoat's assertion that the widows have no questions, or are you going to bury my questions in dumbspam?

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you are as quick to claim "proof" as are the worst of the "twoofers". You're en embarrassment to your own cause.

Here at slide 146 is a photo of the 40-pound ingot of previously-molten iron:

http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm

GutterBall, if you think a UCB structural engineer, a MIT mechanical engineer, and a FDNY fire captain don't know melted steel when they see it, you're only showing yourself for an idiot.

Why are you lawyering to hide the truth?

Ian, if petgoat said what you claim, then petgoat is a liar and an idiot. But I consider it more likely that you're lying about what petgoat said.

 
At 14 February, 2011 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 February, 2011 21:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

"40 pound ingot molten iron steven jones"

 
At 14 February, 2011 22:42, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if petgoat said what you claim, then petgoat is a liar and an idiot. But I consider it more likely that you're lying about what petgoat said.

So you're saying petgoat is a liar? How do you know his sketches aren't just bullshit designed to make failed janitors like you look like idiots defending those drawings? Given what I know about petgoat and his disdain for you (all truthers hate your guts), I think he's laughing at you right now.

 
At 15 February, 2011 00:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

All I said was that the drawings are not incomprehensible. It is quite clear what they refer to. The first two show the tower in cross section with a number of collapsed floors off to the side of the core. It makes an important point in separating the collapse of the floors (pancake theory) from the collapse of the core. NIST does not make this separation, and their report suffers in credibility because of it.

The third drawing shows how the rubble of the upper core is incapable of taking down the lower core because of frictional damping of kinetic energy.

The fourth shows the inapplicability of the piledriver theory. They're not bullshit.

Some people in the truth movement have had a problem with my opposition to the con artist Willie Rodriguez and the bigot Kevin Barrett, but I think I've been vindicated by now.

 
At 15 February, 2011 04:09, Blogger Triterope said...

Some people in the truth movement have had a problem with my opposition to the con artist Willie Rodriguez and the bigot Kevin Barrett, but I think I've been vindicated by now.

Insane.

 
At 15 February, 2011 07:04, Blogger Ian said...

See Brian, it's still like your claims that the drawings aren't just the scribbles of a 4-year-old that make you so entertaining.

 
At 15 February, 2011 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

OH, so TR, I haven't been vindicated in my opposition to Barrett and Rodriguez? Rodriguez hasn't been shown to be a con artist? His status in the truth movement has not been degraded? And Barrett hasn't been shown to be a bigot? And he hasn't been isolated? Do you have any evidence to share?

 
At 15 February, 2011 09:12, Blogger Ian said...

OH, so TR, I haven't been vindicated in my opposition to Barrett and Rodriguez?

No, they're still esteemed truthers and you've been thrown out of the movement.

From the perspective of sane people, you're all equally loony.

Rodriguez hasn't been shown to be a con artist? His status in the truth movement has not been degraded? And Barrett hasn't been shown to be a bigot? And he hasn't been isolated? Do you have any evidence to share?

Rodriguez is a con arists, Barrett is a bigot, and you're a sex stalker. You're all equally disgusting.

 
At 15 February, 2011 11:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat molester,

I see you have a link. Now try giving us a link to a credible website.

Grade: F-

 
At 15 February, 2011 15:10, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian, regarding your ingot photo -- troofers have an unfortunate history with photos and video (by the way, doesn't the Ruvalo clip end abruptly,). You will have to source the origin of the photo.

Also, under the photo are the words
"Small chip sent to physicist Steven Jones for analysis". Bearing in mind that website has been missing in action since 2006, where is Jones' analysis.

 
At 15 February, 2011 19:17, Blogger Triterope said...

OH, so TR, I haven't been vindicated in my opposition to Barrett and Rodriguez?

Do I think you're vindicated?

Sure, why not.

This little War of the Roses you're fighting doesn't even exist, except in your rotten little mind. So why not? You won. You proved it to the whole 9-11 Truth movement. Your years of effort have paid off. You took down a guy who slighted you in a public meeting years ago, and a guy who wrote a blog post criticizing your behavior towards women. Congratulations, hero.

Of course, there's no evidence that anyone in or out of the 9-11 Truth movement regards you as anything other than a total joke. Which makes the whole concept of vindication difficult to construct. But hey, it's your fantasy. If it keeps you from a shooting up a Safeway, I'll indulge you in it.

By the way, Dr. Edgemar from Total Recall would like to have a word with you.

 
At 15 February, 2011 22:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you claimed there was no source for my claim that Jones took a sample from a 40-pound ingot of previously-molten iron.

I provided the source for that claim. It was in the "Blueprint for Truth" slide show done by Richard Gage. If you wish to dispute the authenticity of the material, take it up with Mr. Gage.

DU, Dr. Jones's analysis concluded that the previously molten metal was elemental iron form thermite based on the absence of chromium in the sample. That should give you sufficient information to find his analysis. I believe he may have been mistaken on this, because A36 structural steel does not contain chromium. So the material may have been previously- molten steel.

TR, neither Willie nor Kevin ever slighted me in a public meeting that I know about, so I'm curious as to where you get your information.

I suspect that Willie cost the truth movement a good relationship with C-Span, and if that is true then he was no small fish. Barrett has appeared on Fox News and Russia Today, making him no small fish either.

 
At 16 February, 2011 02:10, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian, thanks for not directing me to Jones' analysis of the ingot chip. In view of 'I believe he may have been mistaken on this, because A36 structural steel does not contain chromium', it certainly isn't worth my time.

 
At 16 February, 2011 02:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester whines, "...GutterBall, you claimed there was no source for my claim that Jones took a sample from a 40-pound ingot of previously-molten iron...I provided the source for that claim. It was in the "Blueprint for Truth" slide show done by Richard Gage. If you wish to dispute the authenticity of the material, take it up with Mr. Gage."

How many times must I explain this to you goat molester? Hyperlinks to 100% fact-free conspiracy websites are not evidence--they're a circle jerk.

Grade: F-

 
At 16 February, 2011 04:41, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, neither Willie nor Kevin ever slighted me in a public meeting that I know about, so I'm curious as to where you get your information.

This is the sort of comment that proves that Brian Good has crossed the line from delusional eccentric to full-fledged insane.

One, that I'm being asked to provide sources for his fantasies. I think I was pretty clear about that when I said "This little war you're fighting doesn't even exist, except in your rotten little mind."

Two, that Brian is apparently unsure which of his two enemies I'm referring to with the "slighted in a public meeting" comment. A sane person would have at least realized that "a guy who wrote a blog post criticizing your behavior towards women" was Kevin Barrett, and deduced that the other comment was about Rodriguez. But not this guy.

Three -- and this is the kicker -- it ends with a request to keep talking. I get the feeling Brian imagines himself a great provocateur, and gets his jollies from other people acknowledging his efforts. Why else would he feign ignorance of the only thing he really cares about? Himself.

 
At 16 February, 2011 06:00, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Another nutjob withdraws support for
CIT. Brian will be pleased.

 
At 16 February, 2011 06:02, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Got the link wgong. It's here

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=6434823244321573621

 
At 16 February, 2011 09:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, since your reference was to public meetings and I could not recall any incident matching that specification, I was then and am now still puzzled as to what you were talking about and where you get your information.

Your belief that I am feigning ignorance about something that never happened is another example of circular reasoning.

 
At 16 February, 2011 09:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, the chromium issue is not pertinent to the existence of the 40-pound ingot of molten steel, but only to Dr. Jones's belief that this was not steel but elemental iron, a byproduct of the thermitic reaction.

 
At 16 February, 2011 10:17, Blogger Ian said...

TR, since your reference was to public meetings and I could not recall any incident matching that specification, I was then and am now still puzzled as to what you were talking about and where you get your information.

Your belief that I am feigning ignorance about something that never happened is another example of circular reasoning.


My, such squealing!

DU, the chromium issue is not pertinent to the existence of the 40-pound ingot of molten steel, but only to Dr. Jones's belief that this was not steel but elemental iron, a byproduct of the thermitic reaction.

Nobody cares what Dr. Jones believes. Well, you care, but that's because you're a liar and failed janitor.

 
At 16 February, 2011 11:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Your belief that I am feigning ignorance about something that never happened is another example of circular reasoning."

Shut the fuck up, goat molester.

After all, I've already proven that you don't understand the meaning of circular reasoning.

 
At 16 February, 2011 11:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...DU, the chromium issue is not pertinent to the existence of the 40-pound ingot of molten steel, but only to Dr. Jones's belief that this was not steel but elemental iron, a byproduct of the thermitic reaction."

Belief?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Who gives a damn what you or Steven Jones believe?

Where's the assay of the alleged "40-pound ingot of molten steel"?

If you can't show me an assay of the alleged "40-pound ingot of molten steel", then it's safe to conclude that you're blowing smoke up our collective ass.

No assay, no cigar, goat molester.

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Jones did a chemical analysis and found that the sample was iron. As I said, he inferred (incorrectly, IMHO) from the absence of chromium that the sample was elemental iron and not steel. Do you deny that a forty-pound ingot of formerly molten iron is probably formerly-molten steel?

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Dr. Jones did a chemical analysis and found that the sample was iron."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Dr. Jones, as I proved months ago, botched the SEM analysis of his WTC dust samples. Thus, without independent confirmation of his results, I don't believe anything he says, or the validity of his "results." That's why I make the big bucks, while you remain a failed janitor, sex stalker and all-purpose cretin.

"...As I said, he inferred (incorrectly, IMHO) from the absence of chromium that the sample was elemental iron and not steel."

No one cares what you think, goat molester. Your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

"...Do you deny that a forty-pound ingot of formerly molten iron is probably formerly-molten steel?"

I have no need to deny anything. I would, however, bet the "forty-pound ingot of formerly molten iron" is actually aluminum.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

A fool can easily convince himself of what he wants to believe.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...A fool can easily convince himself of what he wants to believe."

Yes, and you're living proof that "[a] fool can easily convince himself of what he wants to believe."

And you still haven't provided one iota of evidence from a credible source to substantiate your assertion.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:51, Blogger Ian said...

A fool can easily convince himself of what he wants to believe.

Yup. I can think of this guy from the Bay Area named Brian Good. He's a total failure in life, with no friends, no family (except his elderly parents who support him) and no job, but he thinks he's a genius whose beliefs in 9/11 truth will one day be vindicated.

As you said, a fool can easily convince himself of what he wants to believe. What makes you an extra fool is that you think you can convince us of what you want to believe. That's why you're so entertaining, Brian.

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:12, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, since your reference was to public meetings and I could not recall any incident matching that specification

I refer to the incident in which $1400 from a collection box at a 9-11 Truth gathering in your area was given to Willie Rodriguez against your wishes.

I suppose "slighted you" isn't the clearest wording of the above. But you've since been stomping around the Internet with this vendetta for over three years, I would expect you to be able to put two and two together.

 
At 16 February, 2011 18:03, Blogger Triterope said...

he thinks he's a genius whose beliefs in 9/11 truth will one day be vindicated.

What, haven't you been reading this thread? They HAVE been vindicated!

 
At 16 February, 2011 18:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I couldn't convince you guys that the widows exist. That's not my fault.

TR, Willie didn't slight me. On the contrary, he threatened to fly a camera crew out to San Francisco specifically to shoot video of me and embarrass me.

 
At 16 February, 2011 19:18, Blogger Triterope said...

And again Brian just keeps dancing around the subject so I have to keep repeating what the fuck it is I'm talking about... when it's him.

 
At 16 February, 2011 21:20, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I couldn't convince you guys that the widows exist. That's not my fault.

Well, if you weren't a hopelessly deranged liar, maybe we'd listen to you.

Also, if you could stop stalking your "strutting, bragging, lying, sexy hunk of latin manhood" (your words) Willie Rodriguez, maybe we'd listen to you.

 
At 17 February, 2011 01:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I think you must have misread me. I must have said that Willie is a bragging blob of latin manboob.

 
At 17 February, 2011 07:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I think you must have misread me. I must have said that Willie is a bragging blob of latin manboob.

False. You are sexually infatuated with him.

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sexually infatuated with a bragging, lying, blob of manboob?

 
At 17 February, 2011 13:33, Blogger Ian said...

Sexually infatuated with a bragging, lying, blob of manboob?

Yes. That's why you stalk him. You can't accept that he rejected you.

 
At 17 February, 2011 21:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie didn't reject me. He simply refused to answer my questions about his story of the 22-story invisible collapse in the twin towers. His cowardly behavior in that regard caused me to look into other aspects of his story which soon led to the understanding that almost none of it was true. At that point he offered to put me in his movie, but I told him not to bother.

 
At 18 February, 2011 07:48, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, Brian, you know all about the man! It's like an 8-year-old girl with Justin Bieber.

 
At 18 February, 2011 09:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Willie didn't reject me. He simply refused to answer my questions about his story of the 22-story invisible collapse in the twin towers.

Right. But when I said Rodriguez "slighted you" you acted like you had no clue what I was talking about.

Christ, why do I waste my time with you? You're insane. Get help.

 
At 18 February, 2011 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Willie's refusal to answer my questions was not in public. That's why I didn't recognize your claim that he "slighted you in a public meeting years ago".

I would much enjoy an opportunity to confront Willie in public.

 
At 19 February, 2011 04:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Well, excuse me. But a sane person would still have known what I was talking about. You're just pretending you don't know what I'm talking about so I'll keep talking about it.

 
At 21 February, 2011 12:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 February, 2011 12:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

No TR, Willie has never slighted me in public. But I have promised him that if he ever gives a program in the Bay Area I will picket the theater and leaflet and call him out for a con artist and a liar. And he has not appeared in the Bay Area in over three years.

 
At 23 February, 2011 15:47, Blogger Triterope said...

** facepalm **

 
At 23 February, 2011 16:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sticks and stones will break your bones.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home