Proof of Voice-Morphing BS by Ventura
Pay particular attention to the bit starting around 2:50 in where the expert used by Ventura, Kent Gibson, notes that he can take a tape of Obama's voice saying something, and then say those same words and using the program, make it conform to Obama's voice. But of course, that is absolutely useless for the voice-morphing claims of Grifter and Ventura, since if you had, for example, tape of Mark Bingham talking about hijackers on the plane, there would be no need for the morphing; just play the tape back.
posted by Pat @ 1:07 PM
148 comments
148 Comments:
You missed the best part, starting at 6:30 the audio engineer says faking the calls was imposible and 7:12 he said "no fucking way"
Yepper er eee
How much was the govt paying that shill to say that you mother fucker?
And God dammit... Pat you guys... James... I need to show you something... give me a few moments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The mop jockey and/or his cohorts are following this bog James and Pat.
Yeah. I've had this for over 1 year but havent showed it publically. This was back in the day when anybody could pretend they were anybody. It was kind of funny how the courts ignored the mop jockey when it was all said and done.
http://img714.imageshack.us/f/memories2005.jpg/
24 February, 2011 18:22
Teresa Warner and I would have a good laugh at them, as do I and my probation officer, Ray Herbert.
Another twoofer bites the dust. Charlie Sheen's show got canceled after he appeared on Alex Jones' show and made all sorts of wild statements. It couldn't have happened to a nicer scumbag. At least in Sheen's case, everyone knows he is certifiable, its time to make the same conclusion about all twoofers.
time to make the same conclusion about all twoofers
Duh, that sounds logical.
The show wasn't canceled, it was just suspended for the rest of the season. It may or may not come back.
To be fair, it should be said that the comments that prompted the move weren't conspiracy-related (other than Sheen calling Charles Levine "Chaim", implying he's hiding his Jewishness).
Still, Sheen's response letter indicates he's nuttier than a fruitcake:
I wish him nothing but pain in his silly travels especially if they wind up in my octagon. Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words -- imagine what I would have done with my fire breathing fists. I urge all my beautiful and loyal fans who embraced this show for almost a decade to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong.
Uh... OK.
Any theories of voice morphing related to the events of 9/11/2001 has always been speculative, unsubstantiated in any way, and harmful to honest investigation of what really happened.
Duh, that sounds logical.
Well, you've already demonstrated that you're insane, Brian. Just look at all the dumbspam you've posted here over the last 2 years.
I wish him nothing but pain in his silly travels especially if they wind up in my octagon.
Every truther really is just an angry little boy.
"Any theories of voice morphing related to the events of 9/11/2001 has always been speculative, unsubstantiated in any way, and harmful to honest investigation of what really happened."
Kind of like saying the iron came from fly ash, after insisting it came from cutting torches? Yeah, I can see the stupidity.
Yes, it's kind of like saying "I'm a family member," and then saying "I've never claimed to be a family member."
"Yes, it's kind of like saying "I'm a family member," and then saying "I've never claimed to be a family member."
Curley the researcher strikes again! Too bad I'm not Cosmos, whoever that is. Now you have more to admit you were wrong about, son. You like to pretend you've figured things out, and then you make a fool of yourself for all to see. Too typical.
So where's the admission, Pat? How often do you have to be wrong to make a simple statement? Why would you accuse truthers of doing something in a hypothetical future, when you can't even do it in the demonstrable present?
What kind of an asshole would use his own weakness as a debate tactic, to accuse others of the same weakness?
"Now you have more to admit you were wrong about, son. You like to pretend you've figured things out, and then you make a fool of yourself for all to see. Too typical."
Doesn't that just sound like you in a big way Andrew?
"What kind of an asshole would use his own weakness as a debate tactic, to accuse others of the same weakness?"
Look in a mirror & say that! LOL!
"...Kind of like saying the iron came from fly ash...[blah][blah][blah]."
Fly ash doesn't consist of iron-rich spheres?
Really? No kidding?
What's this "Cosmos"?
Here's a photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000 x magnification.
Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.
It looks like you're bleeding from the ass again, "Cosmos." Maybe your homosexual lover, Jon Gold, can get you to the hospital before you wither up and croak.
You're so full of shit, "Cosmos," that if I beat it out of you with a boat oar we could bury your sorry ass in a match box.
Why would you accuse truthers of doing something in a hypothetical future, when you can't even do it in the demonstrable present?
Can't do what?
"Cosmos," you're a troofer, so naturally you're "brilliant." Right, sphincter boi?
Since you're so "brilliant," "Cosmos," I have three (3) questions for you:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
Surely, given your sage wisdom, you can easily answer those three little questios. Right, sphincter boi?
Failure to answer the aforementioned questions will be used as evidence to prove that you're a 'tard of Goodian proportions.
And Pat shuts the fuck up yet again...
Wow.
It's been an hour, and not one word from the "brilliant" "Cosmos."
All I hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
For all your whining about "iron-rich microsphers," you certainly don't seem to know much about them, "Cosmos."
Grade: F-
GarterBelt:
The spheres came from fly ash!
Real Scientists at RJ Lee:
"The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral
wool. These dust and heat-processed constituents are not typically found
associated with typical office building environments."
so much for fly ash from the concrete...
Pat and GarterBelt: But it's from the concrete! No Really! We don't NEED to study the dust! How retarded do you have to be to think it didn't come from the cutting torches- er.. uh... I mean fly ash. You know I mean...uh...but troofers will never admit they're wrong. Yeah, that's it.
Good on ya, Pat. That's showing 'em.
Real Scientists at RJ Lee:
So, no thermite?
You didn't answer my questions, "Cosmos."
Quote mining the RJ Lee Report doesn't answer my questions, and it doesn't disprove my explanation for the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
Grade: F-
And how does the portion of the RJ Lee Report you quote mined explain the presence of 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres, "Cosmos"?
The short answer: It doesn't.
Grade: F-
So we should trust the word of someone who has never studied the dust at all?
Interesting perspective, Pat. Next you'll want to tell us how melted molybdenum is also used in concrete, right? What's its melting point again? Where did NIST say the fires reached those temps again?
Try again, loser.
Clearly, "Cosmos" has no idea what constitutes a valid scientific theory.
A scientific theory--you douche-bag--is a causal explanation of phenomenon that is based of verifiable evidence.
Hence, a working scientific theory allows us to [1] predict future observations; [2] allows us to explain observations and their causes; [3] allows us to account for the observed phenomenon.
Thus, we can see the RJ Lee Report utterly fails to support your theory, because it fails the third requirement for a working, valid theory.
The RJ Lee Report cannot account for the 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that covered lower Manhattan.
My theory, on the other hand, does account for the observed phenomenon. After all, the towers concrete floors, when pulverized, could EASILY produce 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
Have another heaping helping of FAIL, "Cosmos."
Grade: F-
"it doesn't disprove my explanation..."
-Whining Superpussy
and YOU'VE PROVEN your "explanation" how, exactly? When did you study the dust samples, and how did you determine that the iron spheres were concrete components, and not products of extreme temperatures, as clearly stated in the RJ Lee report? Did you discuss it with them? At what point did your credibility exceed theirs? Show your work, son.
and where the fuck did Pat get is "torches" explanation, anyway?
Oh yeah, and did he ever admit he was wrong? Would you?
"Cosmos" whines, "...So we should trust the word of someone who has never studied the dust at all?"
I don't need to study the dust in order to question the methodology and the conclusions found therein.
And the RJ Lee Report doesn't support your theory, and it certainly doesn't explain how 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan.
Have another heaping helping of FAIL, "Cosmos."
Grade: F-
Pat sure is afraid to say anything today...
Must be the effort from shitting on his father's family name so much.
Take deep breath, Pat.
"I don't need to study the dust in order to question the methodology and the conclusions found therein."
So now the dust has methodology and conclusions?
GarterBelt, ladies and gentlemen. Making Pat look almost intelligent by comparison.
And oh look, Pat agrees with him now, since he waffled on his "torch" explanation. That's more flexibility than Fat Pat has shown in 40 years!
But he's still terrified of admitting he's wrong. He sure brings a lot to the discussion...
"Cosmos" prevaricates, "...and YOU'VE PROVEN your "explanation" how, exactly? When did you study the dust samples, and how did you determine that the iron spheres were concrete components, and not products of extreme temperatures, as clearly stated in the RJ Lee report?"
I've proven my theory dozens of times, Mr. Fail Monkey.
Besides the obvious sources of iron-rich sphere--cranes, excavators, the thermitic lances used by clean up workers, concrete saws, clutches and brake pads--there's another super abundant source of iron-rich sphere: The Tower's lightweight concrete.
Fly ash, moreover, is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Thus, iron-rich spheres were present in the World Trade Center Towers before the destruction of the buildings. As we all know, concrete was pulverized when the Towers collapsed; thus, fly ash, weighing thousands of tons, covered the pile as well as Manhattan.
Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:
Source: Google: fly ash used as aggregate in lightweight concrete.
Furthermore, the US Department of Energy confirms my argument.
Continued...
Continued...
The US Department of Energy wrote, "...All of the fly ash samples were comprised mainly of amorphous alumino-silicate spheres and a smaller amount of iron-rich spheres."
Source: US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Fly ash characterization by SEM–EDS.
Here's a photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000 x magnification.
Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.
Continued...
Continued...
The World Trade Centers' lightweight concrete, which employed fly ash and pumice as aggregate.
Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.
Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."
Source: WTC--Structural Design.
Continued...
The US Department of Energy wrote, "...All of the fly ash samples were comprised mainly of amorphous alumino-silicate spheres and a smaller amount of iron-rich spheres."
Source: US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Fly ash characterization by SEM–EDS.
Here's a photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000 x magnification.
Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Now, answer my questions, "Cosmos:"
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
"Cosmos" the illiterate scribbles, "...So now the dust has methodology and conclusions?"
I'm referring to the RJ Lee Report--you idiot.
"Cosmos", question: HOW DOES THE RJ LEE REPORT EXPLAIN THE PRESENCE OF 10,000 TONS OF IRON-RICH AND ALUMINO-SILICATE SPHERES?
If you can't answer that question, your theory is a FAILURE.
Now, put up, or shut up, loser.
"Cosmos," I'm waiting for your answers to the following questions:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
All I hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
Yoo hoo! "Cosmos"!
I'm waiting for your answers and all I hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
Clearly, "Cosmos" has no idea what constitutes a valid scientific theory.
Since when do Troofers give a rat's ass about science? Or common sense? The 9/11 Truth Movement is a world of drug addicts and sexual deviants, where dim characters like Jon Gold become important.
"I've proven my theory dozens of times" (with no scientific experimentation whatsoever)
"Besides the obvious sources of iron-rich sphere--cranes, excavators, the thermitic lances"
(which produce iron oxide, not iron spheres).
"here's another super abundant source of iron-rich sphere: The Tower's lightweight concrete."
So now you're accusing the RJ Lee group of A.) not knowing the difference between iron and rust, and B.) being unable to distinguish concrete components from metals vaporized in the event.
All this, and you've never even seen the dust.
You're also terrified of addressing the other vaporized metals and melted molybdenum. Hint: they're not in fly ash, son.
What happened, Garterbelt? You were Pat's HERO when he waffled on his torches trope. Don't let him down now! He might have to admit he's been stupidly mistaken (or worse) for YEARS now. Ask James for help: he knows how to build narratives that discount the facts.
That's not an answer, ass face. That's an evasion.
I'm not accusing the RJ Lee Group of anything. I'm accusing you of quote mining the report and misrepresenting the data found therein.
"...You're also terrified of addressing the other vaporized metals and melted molybdenum. Hint: they're not in fly ash, son."
And there wasn't 10,000 TONS of "other vaporized metals and melted molybdenum" found in the debris pile.
So when will you explain how an office fire produced 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres?
Besides the obvious failure of your theory to explain the quantities iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that covered lower Manhattan, you've also failed to answer my questions.
Answer the questions, and stop the evasion.
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
But you'll never answer the questions, because you know to do so will prove that you're lying about the source of the spheres.
What's that I hear? You guessed it
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
Grade: F-
Folks, it's easy to prove that "Cosmos" is lying.
Notice that he won't answer my questions, and he ALWAYS resorts to an evasive response or changes the subject.
He's like a cuttlefish squirting out ink, his words are copious and they create the illusion of providing an answer, but in the end his argument can never explain the 10,000 TONS of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that covered lower Manhattan
Only my theory can explain the presence of that enormous quantity of spheres.
Got a Mac and want to be a big time voice morphing expert?
http://www.fluxhome.com/products/
Where do you get 10,000 tons?
Go fuck yourself, goat molester.
Use your alleged "Google skills" to find the answer. After all, I've already provided the link to the relevant information.
And by the way, the RJ Lee Report claims that "56,000 tons" of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan.
(But that figure, as I've already shown, is erroneous, and is contradicted by US governement figures.)
So you won't back up your claims, eh? That puts you solidly into the fraternity of wackos like Ranke, Barrett, and Rodroguez.
The RJ Lee Report "WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, Summary Report" of 12/03 doesn't say anything about 256,000 tons of spheres. It says on p. 24 that 6% of the dust's "composition" was iron spheres, but I'm not clear on whether "composition" is by weight or by number of particles. Are you clear on that? I bet you're not.
It also says on page 5 about the source of the spheres: "...spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event."
So you're disagreeing with your source's conclusions, thus hypocritically defying your own standards of intellectual integrity.
Also, why would lightweight concrete be manufactured with 10,000 tons of unnecessary iron in it when it could simply be extracted with a magnet? Your theory makes little sense.
Goat molester, you didn't read one of the links I provided, did you?
That's the only explanation for the stupid questions you ask.
For example, if you had read the links I provided, you would understand that fly ash and pumice are employed as aggregate in lightweight concrete.
Another example of your inability to think: If the RJ Lee Report cites a figure of 6%, it's child's play to extrapolate from the total amount of dust that covered Manhattan and arrive at a quantity for the amount of iron-rich and alumino-silcate spheres.
But that would require you to understand how to extrapolate from the data, which is completely over your empty head.
This is why I refuse to respond to you. You're an idiot. It's not my job to spoon-feed information to you. If you won't read the links, that's not my problem.
OT. 9110z administrator, Hereward Fenton, talks about fascism, 911 and the coming catastrophe.
Part 1 starts with Hitler, and Part 2 continues Fenton's spiel.
It's boring, but the description (Part 2) of tazers as 'totally dehumanizing instruments of torture' is a laugh, as is the photo at 4:28. Some people I know would like this...
Interestingly, he uses the media to back up his claims of new world orderish laws.
Hmm. I thought they said the media was part of the problem?
"It is hoped that this video will serve as a wake-up call and a warning to those who are still slumbering in ignorance of the approaching catastrophe."
Hmm. That must be us.
Oh they're trying to spam away the fact that I totally pwned GutterBall and his fly ash theory!
He hypocritically cites a report that 1) does not say what he claims it says and 2) presents conclusions opposite to his own conclusions. He shows his scientific ineptitude in being unable to distinguish between composition by weight and composition by number of particles.
And I show that the notion of manufacturing 180,000 tons of lightweight concrete with 10,000 tons of unnecessary steel weights in it is ludicrous. That's 45 tons a floor.
Have a nice weekend, chump.
I love the smell of burning bullshitters.
http://www.slatev.com/video/charlie-sheens-rant-animated/
"...And I show that the notion of manufacturing 180,000 tons of lightweight concrete with 10,000 tons of unnecessary steel weights in it is ludicrous. That's 45 tons a floor."
What's this, Pinocchio?
Wikipedia wrote, "...Concrete is a composite construction material, composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) and other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate made of gravels or crushed rocks such as limestone, or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures."
Wikipedia continues, "...Pumice [alumino-silicate spheres] is widely used to make lightweight concrete or insulative low-density breeze blocks. When used as an additive for cement, a fine-grained version of pumice called pozzolan is mixed with lime to form a light-weight, smooth, plaster-like concrete. This form of concrete was used as far back as Roman times. Roman engineers used it to build the huge dome of the Pantheon and as construction material for many aqueducts."
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
"...I love the smell of burning bullshitters."
Obviously, you smell your upper lip, goat molester.
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
"...He hypocritically cites a report that 1) does not say what he claims it says and 2) presents conclusions opposite to his own conclusions. He shows his scientific ineptitude in being unable to distinguish between composition by weight and composition by number of particles."
And what evidence does the goat molester present to substantiate his assertions?
Allow me to provide a conservative estimate: ZIP, NADA, ZILCH.
And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
Prediction: The goat molester will ignore that question like plague.
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
And what's this, goat molester?
Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materia.
The careful reader will pay special attention to Chemistry Figure 1.
It's not looking good for you, goat molester.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
The goat molester bald-faced lies, "....He hypocritically cites a report that 1) does not say what he claims it says"
Really? No kidding?
What's this, goat molester?
The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...7.0 Summary of Specific Grounds for Each Opinion
Source of Dust Constituents...The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event."
Question: What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Now, who is lying, goat molester?
It's not looking good for you, goat molester.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The goat molester bald-faced lies, "....He hypocritically cites a report that 1) does not say what he claims it says"
Really? No kidding?
What's this, goat molester?
The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...7.0 Summary of Specific Grounds for Each Opinion
Source of Dust Constituents...The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event."
Question: What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Now, who is lying, goat molester?
It's not looking good for you, goat molester.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
So, let's take an inventory of the goat molester's accusations. Shall we?
[1] He claims that lightweight concrete doesn't contain iron-rich spheres or alumino-silicate spheres.
My post at 16:32 proves he's wrong.
[2] He claims that 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres couldn't have fallen on lower Manhattan.
My post at 17:19 proves he's wrong.
[3] He claims that I "won't back up [my] claims."
My post at 17:23 proves he's wrong.
[4] He claims that the RJ Lee Report doesn't make the claim that 56,000 to 70,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan.
My post at 18:01 proves he's wrong.
That's called a categorical refutation of your lies, goat molester.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
So basically, this thread tell us that
a) Andrew Bernstein is a sexless loser who wants to marry Pat Curley
b) Brian Good is a sexless loser who wants to marry Willie Rodriguez.
I think that sums it up.
Andrew Bernstein is a sexless loser who wants to marry Pat Curley
The "Pat Cowardly" thing certainly is. But I'm starting to have my doubts that Cowardly is Cosmos or that Cosmos is Bernstein. Basically, it's because the Andrew Bernstein from Penn State 2002 actually has a career and life of sorts and looks fairly normal. I don't see how this could also be the derelict psycho known as Cosmos. Truthers are generally not achievers.
Does it matter who Pat Cowardly is?
He's just another pouge who angry that he doesn't qualify for a sex change operation because mainstream medicine doesn't consider Panada Bears to be a gender.
So he takes it out on Pat, probably because Pat resembles the father that disowned him.
The RJ Lee report does not support his asshat theory because the real scientists who put together the report didn't think anything was unusual.
Cowardly cannot admit that he's wrong because like all Troofer he is a sociopath. He is incapable of believing that he is wrong.
His fixation on iron microspheres indicates a form of OCD common with borderline schizophrenics. The microshperes mean nothing, he (and other troofers) need them because they think that they prove demolition was used to bring the towers and WTC7 down. This fixation with the spheres allows his mind to not linger on the problems involved with planting such charges, the fact that nobody saw any evidence of thermite use in the "Pile', and that in the almost ten years since the attacks nobody has come forward to claim any knowledge about charges being planted.
Cowardly is a sad nobody.
Jesus, Andrew & Brian are still fighting over the rust particles?
Sure, rust is a compound in Thermite (iron oxide & aluminum powder) but to make a big fucking scene about those iron spheres (rust) is childish.
Grow the fuck up Andrew & Brian. You two had your time to discuss thermite and haven't proven anything because you both haven't shown evidence.
Money talks & bullshit walks. Put your money where your mouth is.
GutterBall, as usual your blustering bluff misses the point. The fact that fly ash is used in lightweight concrete does not change the fact that leaving the iron microspheres in it would be silly when they could so easily be extracted with magnets.
Wiki says that fly ash is used to replace 1/3 of the Cement. In Schundler Co's lightweight recipe, cement represents 40% of the weight of the concrete, so 16% of the total weight (180,000 tons) might be fly ash (29,000 tons).
Do you really think the manufacturers left 10,000 tons of useless iron microspheres in 30,000 tons of lightweight fly ash?
Also, you're typically missing the point of the RJ Lee's 6% figure. You're assuming that's 6% by weight, but they don't say that. By "composition" they might mean 6% by number of particles.
It's pretty easy to see why you don't have a job, guy.
RJ Lee said the microspheres were created during the fires. You are using their paper as an authority to claim that the microspheres were NOT created by the fires. That is contrary to your research code of ethics, making you a hypocrite.
Of the four claims you ascribe to me, three are of your own invention. The fourth, the claim that you haven't backed up your claims, I did make.
So thanks for another heaping bowl of FAIL, bull. You never disappoint. Almost everything you post is a heap of fail.
And Ian, I see that at 9:00 pm your time you were having a glorious Friday night posting on the internet calling other people losers. You're silly.
And Ian, I see that at 9:00 pm your time you were having a glorious Friday night posting on the internet calling other people losers. You're silly.
What should I have been doing, Brian? Stalking Carol Brouillet? Sniffing glue?
This squealing spam, of course, is a desperate attempt to hide my question: what makes you think Laurie Van Auken is a widow? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?
I think Lorie Van Auken is a widow because she has told a Congressional briefing that she was, because her widowhood has been widely publicized in the press, because her ongoing efforts in the pursuit of truth and justice had become controversial among the family members, because she has been vilified for these efforts by hateful people and accused of profiting form her husband's death and enjoying her widowhood, and her enemies such as Ann Coulter would surely have publicized it if she was not in fact a widow.
It is thus not reasonable to claim she is not a widow, and the only people who do are ignorant nutcases who can't even spell her name right, and who seem to get some kinky thrill out of lying on the internet about people they don't even know.
I think Lorie Van Auken is a widow because she has told a Congressional briefing that she was, because her widowhood has been widely publicized in the press, because her ongoing efforts in the pursuit of truth and justice had become controversial among the family members, because she has been vilified for these efforts by hateful people and accused of profiting form her husband's death and enjoying her widowhood, and her enemies such as Ann Coulter would surely have publicized it if she was not in fact a widow.
How do you know she didn't plant the thermite that destroyed the towers? I wouldn't consider someone in on the 9/11 plot to be a widow, would you?
It is thus not reasonable to claim she is not a widow, and the only people who do are ignorant nutcases who can't even spell her name right, and who seem to get some kinky thrill out of lying on the internet about people they don't even know.
Brian, this dumbspam is amusing, but it's obvious that you're desperate to cover up the evidence that the "Jersey Widows" aren't what you claim them to be. You don't even know how to spell their names!
Also, I'd like to know what Willie Rodriguez thinks of the "Jersey Widows", since he's a real truther. Brian, on the other hand, has been thrown out of the truth movement.
I'm going to have to stop kicking poor little GutterBilge, and stop letting Ian bait me with nonsense. Ian's tactic is to spam over substantive information with gossipy lies.
GutterBilge's claims that 10,000 tons of fly ash microspheres came from 180,000 tons of concrete makes no sense. Fly ash is used to replace 30% of the cement, making fly ash 16% of the mix, or 30,000 tons. So GutterBilge thinks that the manufacturers of lightweight concrete will incorporate an element that is 1/3 useless iron when they could simply extract the stuff with a magnet and probably sell it as scrap? Fly Ash is worth $50 a ton. Scrap iron is worth $400 a ton.
That makes $4 million worth of iron in $1/2 million of fly ash. Put that in your pipe, Mr. Applied Mathematics Genius.
Ian's tactic is to spam over substantive information with gossipy lies.
What substantive information? Brian, don't you think if the truthers had any substantive information, they would have presented it by now and we'd have that new investigation you demand?
The substantive information is my complete debunking of GutterBilge's silly fly ash microspheres theory.
The substantive information is my complete debunking of GutterBilge's silly fly ash microspheres theory.
Where? I just see you babbling incoherently because it's yet another topic you don't understand.
Brian, If you weren't smart enough to mop floors (and you weren't), you really shouldn't dig your hole further by talking physics and engineering. Leave that to the adults.
Ian, you're just making it worse. How did a guy who's not smart enough to mop floors just pwn UtterBilge with his claimed advanced degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science? (Though the fact that Bilge put forth a question from freshman calculus as a test of mathematical acumen makes those claims somewhat suspect.)
Instead of argument by libel, why don't you try to address the points in the microsphere debate? Was the 6% microspheres in the JR Lee report by weight as Bilge claims with no justification, or was it by number of particles?
Was it or was it not dishonest of Bilge to use a report that concludes that the spheres were formed in the fires to try to show that they were inherent in the concrete?
Does it make any sense for a supplier to add 10,000 tons of unnecessary weight to the concrete when that material could easily be removed with magnets and sold for up to 8X the price of the fly ash itself?
Ian, you're just making it worse. How did a guy who's not smart enough to mop floors just pwn UtterBilge with his claimed advanced degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science?
He didn't. He just posted a bunch of nonsense and declared victory. Meanwhile, sane people laughed at him.
Instead of argument by libel, why don't you try to address the points in the microsphere debate?
Learn what "libel" means, Brian. And for that matter, learn what "debate" means. There is no debate over the microspheres.
The squeals of protest from a failed janitor don't change that.
So you can't respond to any of my points about the microspheres. How about on the other thread, my points about the Bentham paper?
I know what libel means. It means defamation by printed word. Your continued lies about me are libelous, Ian. I am not a public figure.
I know what libel means. It means defamation by printed word. Your continued lies about me are libelous, Ian. I am not a public figure.
Uh, you know that true words can't be libel, right? Calling Stalin a mass murderer might hurt his feelings, but it's not libel. You might squeal and babble over the fact that you're a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement for being a sex stalker, but that's not libel.
So you can't respond to any of my points about the microspheres.
Obviously, they were placed there by modified attack baboons so that failed janitors with too much time would babble about them mindlessly at an obscure blog 10 years later.
How about on the other thread, my points about the Bentham paper?
I'll address them when you admit that the widows have no questions.
Ian, your statements are not true. You have not and can not show them to be true. They are thus libelous.
You are polluting this forum with your nonsense, exercising the "Samson Strategy" when you fail.
You are creating a false dichotomy about an issue you refuse to try to discuss intelligently, claiming that either the microspheres were in the concrete as Bilge says, or they were placed by baboons. That's childish and cynical.
GutterBilge's claims that 10,000 tons of fly ash microspheres came from 180,000 tons of concrete makes no sense. Fly ash is used to replace 30% of the cement, making fly ash 16% of the mix, or 30,000 tons. So GutterBilge thinks that the manufacturers of lightweight concrete will incorporate an element that is 1/3 useless iron when they could simply extract the stuff with a magnet and probably sell it as scrap? Fly Ash is worth $50 a ton. Scrap iron is worth $400 a ton. That makes $4 million worth of iron in $1/2 million of fly ash.
Brian, now that Adam Wainwright is going to have Tommy John surgery and is lost for the season, who do you think wins the NL Central, Milwaukee or Cincinnati?
I figured it's time we stopped talking about this 9/11 nonsense. It's not good for one's mental health.
Ian, clearly your 9/11 nonsense is not good for your mental health. I never heard of this Wainwright clown. Is he related to Loudon Wainwright III?
Ian, clearly your 9/11 nonsense is not good for your mental health.
No, I was referring to you, since you're a middle-aged man who spends every waking hour babbling about this stuff.
I never heard of this Wainwright clown.
He's a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. Perhaps you've heard of the city of St. Louis? Maybe you've also heard of the game of baseball? Sometimes I think you haven't left your parents' basement in 30 years.
Is he related to Loudon Wainwright III?
No.
You'll have to excuse us, Brian.
See the problem is that on 9/11 two 767s flew into each tower of the Word Trade Center. It was bad. The towers collapsed from the combination of the impact damage and the fires. The collapse of one tower caused damage to WTC7 which included a fire which burned out of control for eight hours. WTC7 collapsed too.
Pretty fucking simple...except for knee-jerk morons who see conspiracy everywhere.
Where Guitar Bill, and Ian get into trouble is that in their zeal they lose sight of a classic maxim: Explaining the obvious to stupid people always leads to problems.
You're not looking for answers, Brian, you are simpley stirring shit for your own twisted amusement. Fly ash, iron spheres? Who cares? There is no mystery, and the maze of questions are questions that do not require answers.
Worse you aren't even looking for answers...you're just asking questions.
Ian, I don't spend every waking hour. I just drop by now and then to set you clowns straight.
I've been to St. Louis more times than I can count. Last time I was there it seemed to have one of the finest collection of boarded-up buildings in the country.
MGF, correlation does not prove causation. Asymmetrical impact damage and asymmetrical fire damage can not cause symmetrical collapse. If there was any way in hell NIST could have shown how that happened, they would have done so instead of glossing over the issue in one handwaving paragraph that was practically the same for each of the two towers.
Their refusal to address the actual collapse and that they stopped their analysis at initiation is another damning gloss. If you would bother to look at the opening pages to NCSTAR1, you will see on page xxix that specific objectives of the report included the determination of "why and how" the towers collapsed. "How" would seem to require addressing the nature of the collapses themselves. They didn't do it. They dodged ALL of the persistent mysteries of the worst structural failures in history: symmetry, speed, totality, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten metal. And they lied.
A lying report may be good enough for someone who wants simple and comforting answers, but it's not good enough for democracy.
I care about arriving at the truth. Gage claims the iron spheres are evidence of thermite. Bilge claims they're not. You guys believe Bilge, even when his theory is shown to be nonsense, and you say that doesn't matter.
Maybe truth doesn't matter to you, but it matters to democracy.
A cover-up report is not acceptable to democracy. A report that even looks like a cover-up report, as these ones do, is not acceptable to a democracy. I'm looking for a report that I can believe. NIST didn't even try. It's an arrogant, 10,000-page snow job.
Don't try to pass off your laziness, cowardice, and cynicism as pragmatic wisdom.
The goat molester proves he's an idiot and scribbles, "...GutterBall, as usual your blustering bluff misses the point. The fact that fly ash is used in lightweight concrete does not change the fact that leaving the iron microspheres in it would be silly when they could so easily be extracted with magnets."
Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.
Fly ash consists of Silicon dioxide (20-60%); Aluminum oxide (5-35%); and iron oxide (10-40%). If you remove the iron oxide, the fly ash loses virtually all its strength and durability.
Wikipedia wrote, "...Owing to its pozzolanic properties, fly ash is used as a replacement for some of the Portland cement content of concrete. The use of fly ash as a pozzolanic ingredient was recognized as early as 1914, although the earliest noteworthy study of its use was in 1937. Before its use was lost to the Dark Ages, Roman structures such as aqueducts or the Pantheon in Rome used volcanic ash (which possesses similar properties to fly ash) as pozzolan in their concrete. As pozzolan greatly improves the strength and durability of concrete, the use of ash is a key factor in their preservation."
Thus, the iron-rich microspheres are essential to the production of lightweight concrete. Without the iron-rich spheres, the strength and durability of the concrete would be nonexistent.
As M Gregory Ferris wrote, "...Explaining the obvious to stupid people always leads to problems."
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
Grade: F-
Silicon dioxide, by the way, is quartz (or glass, if you prefer). Silicon dioxide provides high-temperature thermal protection.
Aluminum dioxide is desirable in the production of concrete because it acts as high temperature insulation.
So now we can add chemical engineering to the long list of the goat molester's areas of "expertise."
What a joke.
What would the world do without SLC's resident failed janitor, sex stalker and all-purpose babbling idiot?
Ian, I don't spend every waking hour. I just drop by now and then to set you clowns straight.
Right, the rest of the time you stalk Willie Rodriguez.
Also, you've never set anyone straight, Brian. You've failed at that attempt, just as you failed as a janitor.
And after two days, my questions remained unanswered:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
[4] And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
[5] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
There's a very good reason why our resident troofer idiots avoid those 5 little questions like plague.
And this is proof that the goat molester and "Cosmos" refuse to debate in good faith.
Debate involves addressing your opponents' questions in a direct manner. Notice that neither the goat molester or "Cosmos" will address my perfectly legitimate questions.
Instead, the goat molester babbles about weight and composition, while ignoring the RJ Lee Report's direct reference to "1.2 million tons of building materials [that] were pulverized during the WTC Event."
Again, we are not witnessing "debate," because the troofers can't debate the facts. We are instead subjected to a stream of distortion, obfuscation and bald-faced lies, garnished with idiotic babbling, bluster and bullshit as opposed to debate.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
Grade: F-
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for the bowl of FAIL, Bilge. I'll put it right where I put Ranke, Rodriguez and will, one of these days, Barrett.
As usual you bluff completely, trying to fool people like Ian who think "pozzolanic" is a big word. You provide no evidence whatsoever for your claim that the iron is essential to the strength of the pozzolanic mix. What, do you think microspheres act like rebar?
You're a bullshitter, Bilge.
GutterBall, I don't need to be an expert in anything. I need only check your claims and note that your sources do not support them. Any idiot can do that.
You're still missing the point that it's not at all clear that RJ Lee's 6% is by weight. A quick scan suggests that the figure is based on number of particles, not weight.
The fact that RJ Lee refers to 1.2 million tons of debris does not mean their 6% was by weight. Your frequent logical errors suggest that you are 1) careless or 2) incompetent or 3) dishonest or some combination of the three.
So thanks for the FAIL, Bilge. You really need to find another hobby because you haven't got the talent for this one. Have you considered basketry or war kites?
"...You provide no evidence whatsoever for your claim that the iron is essential to the strength of the pozzolanic mix. What, do you think microspheres act like rebar?"
Another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your stupidity, mangina?
The formation of calcium-silicon-hydrate is essential to the production of lightweight concrete. During the hydration phase of the reaction, aluminum and iron react with gypsum to complete the formation of calcium hydroxide and calcium-silicon-hydrate. Thus, no iron, no strength or durability.
"...GutterBall, I don't need to be an expert in anything. I need only check your claims and note that your sources do not support them. Any idiot can do that."
Really? No kidding?
Then why do you offer nothing more than your opinion in rebuttal to my well-documented argument? The answer is simple: You have no facts, so you try to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact. Thus, you fail to produce anything other than your opinion in support of your idiotic argument.
"...You're still missing the point that it's not at all clear that RJ Lee's 6% is by weight. A quick scan suggests that the figure is based on number of particles, not weight."
That's right, asshole, just keep pretending that the following passage from the RJ Lee Report doesn't exist:
"...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event."
FAIL!
"...The fact that RJ Lee refers to 1.2 million tons of debris does not mean their 6% was by weight."
According to whom? A failed janitor who deliberately omitted the aforementioned passage from the RJ Lee Report because it destroys your idiotic argument?
And yes, you've done a fine job of demonstrating your boundless capacity for slipshod analysis, incompetence and dishonesty.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, mangina.
Grade: F-
GutterBall, you're only proving my point. You cite no source for your claim that iron is essential to the reaction, and then you repeat your meaningless factoid from the RJ Lee report when it has nothing to do with the question of whether the 6% figure is by weight or number of particles.
If you were telling the truth it would not be necessary for you to "prove" your points with lying ad hominem attacks. You could simply cite your source and also show where RJ Lee says that the 6% is by weight, and make a fool of me legitimately. Instead you cheat, trying to claim with no evidence whatsoever that I'm already a fool.
"...GutterBall, you're only proving my point. You cite no source for your claim that iron is essential to the reaction...[blah][blah][blah]."
Try Google. After all, you're the self-proclaimed "google expert." (That's over 800 hits, jackass)
"...and then you repeat your meaningless factoid from the RJ Lee report when it has nothing to do with the question of whether the 6% figure is by weight or number of particles."
Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.
In fact, your argument is a logical fallacy, because you're asking me to prove a negative, which is a classic argument from ignorance.
Thus, it's proven, once again, that the intellectually dishonest mangina can't debate without resorting to logical fallacies.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, mangina.
Grade: F-
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
"...GutterBall, you're only proving my point. You cite no source for your claim that iron is essential to the reaction...[blah][blah][blah]."
Try Google. After all, you're the self-proclaimed "google expert." (That's over 800 hits, jackass)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=915&bih=490&q=lightweight+concrete+hydration+phase+gypsum+calcium+hydroxide+calcium-silicon-hydrate&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq="
"...and then you repeat your meaningless factoid from the RJ Lee report when it has nothing to do with the question of whether the 6% figure is by weight or number of particles."
Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.
In fact, your argument is a logical fallacy, because you're asking me to prove a negative, which is a classic argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Thus, it's proven, once again, that the intellectually dishonest mangina can't debate without resorting to logical fallacies.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, mangina.
Grade: F-
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
And lo and behold, Dr. Frank Greening also agrees with my theory for the explanation of the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
"...And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile." -- Dr Frank Greening
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=70&MMN_position=186:186
Check and mate
GoiterBoob, you certainly keep dishing out heaps of FAIL.
As I've come to expect from you, your link provides a long list of hits and the first one does not say what you claim. It says nothing there about iron being part of the cement reaction. You have quite a history of making claims you can not support, and then lying to cover up the fact that you can't support them.
I'm not arguing from ignorance or asking you to prove a negative. I asked you to show where you got the idea that RJ Lee's 6% was a measure of weight. You can't answer this question, and you're trying to cover it up.
I agree with Dr. Legge that some microspheres might come from the concrete. Neither he nor I agree with you, however, in claiming that we know all of them did. And your theory that there were 10,000 tons of microspheres in the concrete is just loony.
So thanks for another FAIL, GoiterBoob. You're a joke.
"...I'm not arguing from ignorance or asking you to prove a negative. I asked you to show where you got the idea that RJ Lee's 6% was a measure of weight. You can't answer this question, and you're trying to cover it up."
Repeating an argument from ignorance ad nauseum will not change the facts.
In fact, I've already shown that the report is arguing from the stand point of weight. Your inability to admit the truth is not a convincing argument.
Furthermore, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your argument. If you want to claim the RJ Lee Report does not use the 6% figure in terms of weigh, THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT FALLACIOUS CLAIM FALLS ON YOUR SHOULDERS, NOT MINE--YOU BRAIN-DEAD CRETIN.
"...I agree with Dr. Legge that some microspheres might come from the concrete. Neither he nor I agree with you, however, in claiming that we know all of them did."
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
I never claimed that all of the spheres find there origin in the concrete. Most does not mean all--you cretin. And, once again, we see that the mangina can't debate without resorting to logical fallacies.
FAIL.
"...And your theory that there were 10,000 tons of microspheres in the concrete is just loony."
Repeated attempts to elevate your opinion to the realm of fact is neither convincing or intellectually honest.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, mangina.
Grade: F-
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
GutterBall, you have not shown that the report is "arguing from the stand point of weight." You only quote-mined a statement that mentions weight.
It's incumbent upon you to prove your argument. If you want to claim the RJ Lee Report uses the 6% figure in terms of weigh, THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CLAIM IS YOURS.
If you're not claiming that all of the spheres find their origin in the concrete, what are you claiming? 10,000 tons of spheres leaves a lot of room for a hell of a lot of nanothermitic spheres. Have you seen the picture of the sphere on the partially reacted red/gray chip?
"...GutterBall, you have not shown that the report is "arguing from the stand point of weight." You only quote-mined a statement that mentions weight."
I have to remember that you don't know the meaning of the term "quote mining."
Before you can claim that I quote mined the Report, you must first prove that I took the statement out of context--which you have never done.
FAIL.
"...It's incumbent upon you to prove your argument. If you want to claim the RJ Lee Report uses the 6% figure in terms of weigh, THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CLAIM IS YOURS."
And I have done so. You have utterly failed to prove your point, and you admit as much when you wrote, "...It says on p. 24 that 6% of the dust's 'composition' was iron spheres, but I'm not clear on whether 'composition' is by weight or by number of particles."
Thus, the burden of proof is yours, and yours alone.
And so far, you've proven nothing.
"...If you're not claiming that all of the spheres find their origin in the concrete, what are you claiming? 10,000 tons of spheres leaves a lot of room for a hell of a lot of nanothermitic spheres. Have you seen the picture of the sphere on the partially reacted red/gray chip?"
Steven Jones wrote, "...Scaling to the 110-story WTC towers, roughly 1300 lbs [590 kg] of explosives per tower would suffice."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Would you care to explain how 3,900 lbs. of "nanothermite" produced 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres?
And don't forget to violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass--you cretin.
And you still haven't answered my questions--you cretin:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
[4] And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
[5] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.
You took the statement out of context. The fact that they quoted a weight figure for the dust in no way says that the "composition" determination was by weight.
You are the one that has, simply by assuming that Lee's 6% was a weight figure, calculated 10,000 tons of microspheres. I think Jones's estimate, based on the four dust samples that he got, is much smaller, and you provide no confidence that your calculation is correct.
3,900 lbs. of "nanothermite" didn't produce 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres? But since you're not claiming that concrete prodiced all the spheres, the point is moot. We could just as well have concrete-based spheres and nanothermite-based spheres. So all your speculations and sophistry are pointless.
"...You took the statement out of context. The fact that they quoted a weight figure for the dust in no way says that the "composition" determination was by weight."
There you go again. You haven't proven that the figures aren't related to weight. All you've given us is your opinion--and the opinion of an habitual liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.
In fact, you're quote mining. You're taking the word "composition" out of context.
Produce the direct quote from the RJ Lee Report or STFU.
"...3,900 lbs. of "nanothermite" didn't produce 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres? But since you're not claiming that concrete prodiced all the spheres, the point is moot. We could just as well have concrete-based spheres and nanothermite-based spheres. So all your speculations and sophistry are pointless."
That's not an answer, that's an evasion.
Answer the question: Explain how 3,900 lbs. of "nanothermite" produced 10,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres?
Obviously 2 tons of nano theremite didn't produce 10,000 tons of microspheres, but since you haven't shown that there were 10,000 tons of microspheres, your question is meaningless as well as being rhetorical.
Your theory doesn't prove anything even if it's correct. It's a waste of time.
That's not an answer, that's another evasion.
Once again, you didn't answer my question, and you didn't provide the direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report.
And that's all the proof we need to see that you're quote mining and lying about the content found therein.
Produce direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your claims as concerns "composition". I also want a direct quote as concerns the alleged "6%." And I want the page numbers, too.
Put up, or shut up, goat molester.
I'm sorry, GutterBall, but your inability to support your lying claims is not my fault.
And there you have it folks! Proof positive that the goat molester can't back up his claims.
And why can't he back up his claims. The answer is simple: The RJ Lee Report, which I have open in front of me at this moment, doesn't say or imply the things the goat molester claims.
As usual, I provide mountains of evidence to substantiate my argument, but once we ask the goat molester to substantiate his claims, he changes the subject.
Grade: F-
Here's another question for the lying goat molester: Does the RJ Lee Report mention fly ash?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
If the answer is "yes," on what page(s) can we find the reference(s) to fly ash? And please provide the relevant direct quotation from the RJ Lee Report.
It has been 20 minutes, and all I hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
You're a fraud, charlatan and a sophist, goat molester.
GutterBall, I didn't say the RJ Lee report implied or said anything. YOU claimed that it said there were 10,000 tons of microspheres, which it doesn't, and you have refused repeatedly to substantiate the assumptions behind your calculations.
Instead you spend your time composing irrelevant and meaningless interrogatories.
"...YOU claimed that it said there were 10,000 tons of microspheres...[blah][blah][blah]."
I did no such thing. Produce a direct quote or STFU.
And now we have more proof that you're an habitual liar.
Do you see your problem, goat molester?
Your problem is simple to explain: You tell so many lies that you can't keep them all straight in your head.
2/25 15:00 above you wrote: "The RJ Lee Report claims that '56,000 tons' of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan."
You can't remember what you wrote from one day to the next.
It sucks to be you, huh? Which is why you have to pretend to be a guitarist, pretend to be an IT guy with a master's degree, pretend every day you're here that you know what you're talking about when most of it you just make up as you go along.
"...2/25 15:00 above you wrote: "The RJ Lee Report claims that '56,000 tons' of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan.'"
Oh, I see. In the world of the habitual liar, 56,000 tons equals 10,000 tons?!?!?!?
56,000 = 10,000
FAIL
Is that what you're trying to tell me?
Here's the relevant quote: "...He [goat molester] claims that the RJ Lee Report doesn't make the claim that 56,000 to 70,000 tons of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan."
And didn't I also write the following: "...And by the way, the RJ Lee Report claims that "56,000 tons" of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan...(But that figure, as I've already shown, is erroneous, and is contradicted by US governement figures.)"
So, we can see that the 56,000 to 70,000 ton numbers are based on the RJ Lee Report, and the 10,000 number is based on the USGS report.
FAIL
Now answer my question, bullshitter: What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
And when you're finished, what's 6% of 180,000 tons?
Come on, goat molester, answer my questions for once. Or will it take you another 20 minutes to formulate another pack of lies and distortions?
I never said 56 = 10. But yes, certainly 56 is ten. If you owe me 10 dollars and you give me 56, you've given me my 10.
OK, well since you lied about the Lee report, saying it claimed there were 56,000 tons when it didn't, I saw no reason to look at the USGS report.
I also see no need for your math quizzes. Do your own arithmetic, Mr. Applied Lies genius.
"...I never said 56 = 10. But yes, certainly 56 is ten. If you owe me 10 dollars and you give me 56, you've given me my 10."
More hair splitting and sophistry, goat fucker?
FACT: You took my statements out of context, and then lied about my claims.
"...I also see no need for your math quizzes. Do your own arithmetic, Mr. Applied Lies genius."
I already know the answers--you fucking queer.
NOW, ANSWER THE GOD DAMNED QUESTIONS--YOU SON-OF-A-BITCH!
[1] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
[2] And when you're finished, what's 6% of 180,000 tons?
You won't answer the questions, because you know I've got you by the short hairs.
Coward!
Come on, goat molester, what's the matter? You can't do elementary mathematics?
Here, I'll give you a clue.
The relevant equation is as follows:
[part]/[whole] * 100 = %
In this case, you'll need to solve for "part." That is, assuming you can do elementary algebra, which I seriously doubt.
Got it, cretin?
Pathetic.
see what I mean?
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's not an answer, goat molester. That's another cowardly evasion.
You're the first "sciencey" guy (your words) I've ever encountered who can't do elementary algebra.
It's no wonder that you're a failed janitor. You're an idiot who couldn't pass the GED exam, let alone finish high school.
Where did you get the idea that I can't do algebra? Did Ian's Uncle Steve tell you that?
"...Where did you get the idea that I can't do algebra?"
Because you can't answer the question.
Furthermore, resorting to stonewalling tactics does not constitute debate. You repeatedly resort to appeal to permanent unknowability or unknowable statistics, which is a tactic designed to end debate. When asked to substantiate your argument with quotes from the RJ Lee Report, you ignored my requests for the relevant information, which is another tactic designed to cut off further discussion (ie., blatant stonewalling). The reason you ignored my requests is easy to determine. You ignored my requests because you lied about the contents of the RJ Lee Report. In fact, you refused to answer my questions because to do so would instantly nullify your argument.
Thus, you lose the debate because you failed to provide confirming evidence in the face of repeated opportunities to do so--which is intellectually dishonest, and constitutes blatant stonewalling.
Conclusion: Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.
GutterBall, to conclude from the fact that I didn't answer your questions that I can not answer your questions is irrational. You have the mind of a child.
I didn't lie about the RJ Lee report. You did. You claimed that it said there were 56,000 tons of microspheres. It did not.
You're lying, goat molester.
And I'll prove that you're lying just as soon as you answer the following questions:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
[4] And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
[5] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
[6] Produce direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your claims as concerns "composition". I also want a direct quote as concerns the alleged "6%." And I want the page numbers, too.
Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.
Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.
So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?
Now, get to work, goat molester, because you're sinking fast.
GutterFail, your scavenger hunt is typical for you--all bluff and insinutation. If you have a point, please make it. You have probably made 50 post on the subject since you claimed falsely that RJ Lee reported 56,000 tons of microspheres, and I'll you've done is obfuscate and bluster.
That's an an answer, goat molester. You're stonewalling and lying through your teeth.
Now, answer the questions:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
[4] And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
[5] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
[6] Produce direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your claims as concerns "composition". I also want a direct quote as concerns the alleged "6%." And I want the page numbers, too.
If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.
Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.
So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?
GutterBall, you're the one that brought up the RJ Lee report, and you're the one that keeps asking what's 6% of 180,000 tons.
So how about you telling us if you have a point?
That's an an answer, goat molester. You're stonewalling and lying through your teeth.
Now, answer the questions:
[1] What's the meaning of the word pozzolan?
[2] How is modern-day fly ash produced?
[3] What is the primary application for fly ash?
[4] And tell us, goat molester: What's 6% of 180,000 tons?
[5] What's 6% of 1.2 million tons?
[6] Produce direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your claims as concerns "composition". I also want a direct quote as concerns the alleged "6%." And I want the page numbers, too.
If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.
Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.
So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?
IF YOU EVADE MY QUESTIONS ONE MORE TIME, YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT THE DEBATE--PERIOD.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
GutterBall, there is no debate. I don't have to answer your list of rhetorical questions.
That you conclude from my failure to answer your questions that I can not answer your questions is irrational. You have the mind of a child. You are not worth my time.
You are simply exercising the Sampson strategy of trying to bring down the roof to cover over your inability to prove your point (if you have one).
THAT'S IT. GAME OVER! YOU FORFEIT THE DEBATE BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO DEBATE IN GOOD FAITH.
FAIL.
YOU LOSE.
Adios, pendejo!
I lost nothing. I'm not here to play some stupid game with an incompetent sophist who thinks he can lead me into some Socratic cesspool. You have the mind of child. At one time you were a clever child with valued technical skills. Now you're as used up as an old paper towel, and it's made you bitter and mean.
RetardBully thought he found an easy target in an unemployed janitor. He thought wrong.
THAT'S IT. GAME OVER! YOU FORFEIT THE DEBATE BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO DEBATE IN GOOD FAITH.
STONEWALLING IS NOT DEBATE! AND IT WILL GET YOU A BIG FAT "F" IN A COLLEGE DEBATE COURSE.
FAIL.
YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.
You're done. Now, put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.
There was no debate, UtterFool. You were all over the place yammering about RJ Lee and USGS, you never made clear what your point was, and you proved nothing except your ability to blather on and on about nothing. Finally you tried to pick a fight by imposing a set of silly questions, and now you're claiming victory in a contest that never existed except in your wooly mind.
Stonewalling is NOT debate--you lying scumbag! Stonewalling will earn you a big, fat "F" in a college debate course.
I gave you at least a DOZEN chances to answer the questions, and you continued to stonewall; thus,
FAIL.
END OF STORY. YOU LOSE.
Now put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.
GutterBall, there never was a debate. You never had a point.
"...GutterBall, there never was a debate. You never had a point."
According to whom? A horse's ass who can't do elementary algebra? An idiot who quote mines source material and then lies about it?
Your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.
FAIL
You lost the debate because you're stonewalling. And you're stonewalling because to answer my questions will lead to another loss for you and the idiotic 9/11 "truth" movement.
FAIL
It appears that you can't recognize that that the syllogism "He doesn't, therefore he can't" is unworthy of an eight year old.
I don't debate liars.
Shove it, you self-righteous liar.
You've proven nothing. You'll stop at nothing to "win" a "debate." And then when you're proven wrong, or asked questions that invalidate your argument, you STONEWALL.
You're a liar. And the bogus excuses you toss around for your bad faith and dishonesty are as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap.
Post a Comment
<< Home