Joshua Blakeny: Israel Did It (Maybe)
Blakeney attracted some attention last year when he got a scholarship to study 9-11 Troof. In this video, prepared as a class for an upper level university course by his Masters advisor, Anthony J. Hall, we learn just what kind of a Troofer he is (starts about 9:00 in):
"I took sociology and came out an avid Marxist and any Marxist has to be a conspiracy theorist... I'm also very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict... I helped to found a Solidarity for Palestine chapter at my university... Israel's fingerprints are all over 9-11 as well as elements in the United States..."
Well, that got him some negative attention from the commenters at 9-11 Flogger.
I have one bugbear - and that is the opening statement by grad student (Joshua if I'm not mistaken?). Anthony Hall handed over the opening statement to this guy (acknowledging he was junior to the others) and this young student proceeded to issue the following ill-advised speculative statement, unsupported by evidence: "Israel's fingerprints are all over 911".
Does this not gift people like journalist Jonathan Kay, who label us speculative or 'anti-Semitic'? This statement made our group cringe - I was watching with a couple of grad students. None of us is lucky enough to be on a $7700 scholarship, but we would never have presumed to make such a (non-scholarly) generalisation.
Blakeney stops by to elaborate:
If you had bothered to watch the rest of this video you would have seen that the next time I was provided with an opportunity to speak I began to elaborate on my irrefutable contention that the fingerprints of elements within the Israeli government are all over 9/11.
But later:
To say that someone's fingerprints are all over a crime is not to say they are definitely guilty of the crime. If I had said "Israel was behind 9/11" (as Prof. Truscello misinterpreted my words) I would have been implying that it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel did 9/11. I did not claim this. I think most astute readers would not conceive of the two statements cited as being at odds with each other. I think most lawyers and judges would be able to distinguish between someone being guilty of a crime and someone's fingerprints being all over a crime. Sometimes it is the case that the fingerprints are those of the criminal. On other occasions the fingerprints are not those of the criminal.
It makes perfect sense. Just because their fingerprints are all over the operation doesn't mean they did it. Blakeney starts with a hatred for Israel, and so he naturally culls all the usual evidence which confirms his bias (Odigo, the Dancing Jews, etc.,).
It kind of makes me picture the Justice League of America sitting around their conference table, trying to dope out the perpetrator of the latest nefarious scheme:
Superman: Well, I see Luthor's fingerprints all over this crime.
Batman: Luthor? Nah, it's gotta be the Joker.
Flash: Personally I think the Mirror Master is behind it all.
Atom: You're all wrong, it's obviously Chronos!
posted by Pat @ 2:58 PM
97 comments
97 Comments:
To say that someone's fingerprints are all over a crime is not to say they are definitely guilty of the crime.
What a backtracking crock of shit.
As always, truthers make outrageous, unfounded statements because it appeals to their ego/racism/stupiity, then when found out, babble incoherently about what they REALLY meant.
Not just liars and charlatans, but gutless, too.
I'm not sure how Israel could have benefited by an act like 9/11. Bin Laden's whole point to attacking the US was to drive a wedge in our support of Israel, and in the last ten years this seems to be starting to work in his favor.
Not to mention the fallout once we'd discovered they were behind it.
Stupid...
Witness the evolution of an academic crackpot. Last year he was just another dumb kid invoking David Ray Griffin, but look at him now.
Just wanted to add this from Slates advice column:
Q. Conspiracy Love: My fiance and I are about to be married. We are both very opposite when it comes to our philosophy. I have been involved with the government for over 20 years in one capacity or another. He has always worked for himself and has never really been on his own. (He still lives with his parents.) I see the world as "bad things sometimes happen to good people" or "bad things happen to bad people." He sees the world as if something bad happens, the U.S. government or some ruling family is behind it. For example, he believes that Charlie Sheen wasn't always crazy and that someone targeted him to make him look crazy because he said that 9/11 was an "inside job." He believes that the earthquake in Japan was caused by the U.S. government using a large antenna array, called HAARP, to target the Japanese and cause nuclear power to be vilified or for some other nefarious purpose. He focuses on it so much (every conversation is about subjects such as these), instead of the things he should be focusing on, that it scares me. I've never seen any evidence to support such philosophy, but it is out there on the Internet. I'm not sure what to do anymore. I don't want to wake up one day with him moving us to some other place because he suspects we are being targeted for depopulation. Everything that happens is taken at less than face value and there is always an underlying plot of some kind. Not sure quite what to do.
A: Charlie Sheen is rich and famous, and crazy, but the rich and famous part helps explain why women keep marrying him. Your fiance isn't rich and famous. So you need to call off the wedding and figure out why you were planning to marry someone who is mentally ill.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288290/pagenum/all/#p2
Excellent advice, if you ask me.
"Fuck you, beaner" -Troy Sexton, calling in to a radio show.
"My disappointment turned to anger. This is where I goofed up. ...I picked him up about a foot off the ground said something like “why wont you guys even try” and pushed him to the ground." -Troy Sexton, on the public abuse of his son.
"You piece of trash...you piece of trash...filthy scum...piece of trash..."
-Troy Sexton, to Bob McIlvaine, whose son was killed on 9/11/2001.
"Troy is my buddy from West Virginia"
-Pat Curley, to a radio audience.
"It doesn't MEAN anything (giggle)" -James Bennett, laughing off the evidence.
"debunking" at its finest. Be proud.
"we’ve got confessions of at least 7 of the 9/11 terrorists ... plus Osama Bin Laden, we have all the forensic evidence…" -JamesB.
Source? who's "we"? What vaporized the lead and melted the molybdenum? Was it in the fly ash? Exactly what forensic evidence are you talking about, James? You weren't just "debating" out of your ass again, were you?
Pat Cowardly,
Why so angry?
"Why so angry?" -Dreg
Stop huffing paint, son.
"It kind of makes me picture the Justice League of America ..." -Shat Slurry
A teen-aged fantasy from a 60 year-old... can another food metaphor be far behind? Greg thinks you're deep.
"It doesn't MEAN anything (giggle)" -James Bennett, laughing off the evidence.
James understands the evidence better than you do. That's because he is more intelligent than you.
PatCowardly, the vaporized lead was found on fiberglass insulation, right? RJ Lee? That suggests to me that it was in electrical wiring with "tinned" wire ends that was subject to short circuits. It may also have been in soldered copper pipe that became electrically "hot" from short circuits.
There was only one molybdenum spherule found. That thing could have been hundreds of millions of years old, and turned up in paint pigment or concrete somehow.
Greg, kids generally don't thank their parents for telling them there's no Santa Claus.
I just edited this You Tube video for those who would like to hear what exactly I said during the academic Skype Conference rather than read the selective quotations cited by this anonymous blogger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20fJtsWIMCQ
Sincerely,
Joshua Blakeney
I can think of lots of ways to blow $7,714. Giving it to an anti-Semitic Marxist dipshit, whose video shows him to be a contemptible little troofer, would not be one of them.
Sincerely,
Dylan Unsavery.
I can think of lots of ways to blow $7,714.
A vacation to a the Swiss and Austrian Alps would be on the top of my list.
9/11 truth would be at the bottom, maybe right above front-row seats to a Justin Bieber concert.
Joshua Blakeney is a scumbag of Goodian proportions. Here's a fine example of the brand of hypocisy that underscores troofer scholarship--to say nothing of "logic." Notice that Joshua Blakeney excoriates Christopher Hitchens for attacking Edward Said before his death from cancer, and then Blakeney slithers behind his word processor and engages in the same despicable act while Hitchens is dying from cancer--and I quote:
"...Celebrating and exploiting somebody’s sickness, weakness or even death is something Hitchens often does himself, so I feel that I have licence [SIC] to say that his illness is a boon for humanity."
http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=535
Hypocrisy, thy name is troofer.
I rest my case.
I just edited this You Tube video for those who would like to hear what exactly I said during the academic Skype Conference rather than read the selective quotations cited by this anonymous blogger.
Joshua, why are you and Professor Hall so obsessed with academic titles and calling your activities "academic"? You both seem to be using that in an attempt to mask an inability to apply your ideas to the real world.
Joshua Blakeney is a "no hijacker" idiot. Ignore him.
"...Joshua Blakeney is a "no hijacker" idiot. Ignore him."
Does that make him worse than a garden variety idiot, such as yourself?
Joshua Blakeney is a "no hijacker" idiot. Ignore him.
"No hijacker" is a lot more plausible than "spray-on thermite". They're both asinine ideas, but his is more plausible.
BTW, Brian, you've been thrown out of the truth movement, so stop trying to tell us who to ignore and who to take seriously.
If I want to know who is a serious truther or not, I'll ask someone like Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett or Bill Deagle.
Ian, iron oxide is a common component of paint. Aluminum powder is commonly used in metal-flake auto paint.
So what, pray tell, is difficult about simply mixing up a batch of metal-flake primer and spraying it on steel?
Where do you get the idea that I've been thrown out of the truth movement? Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?
"So what, pray tell, is difficult about simply mixing up a batch of metal-flake primer and spraying it on steel?"
The difficult part is not being noticed, and then covering it up. But that's irrelevant. For the sake of the argument lets accept that it's so easy that even you could pull it off. The real issue is that it wouldn't DO anything. Do you honestly not understand this, or are you just trolling?
Ian, iron oxide is a common component of paint. Aluminum powder is commonly used in metal-flake auto paint.
That's nice.
So what, pray tell, is difficult about simply mixing up a batch of metal-flake primer and spraying it on steel?
Nothing.
Brian, I know that being a failed janitor doesn't make you much of an expert on things, but paint isn't normally used to destroy structures. Heck, they recently repainted the Queensboro Bridge, and not only was it not destroyed in the process, the bridge didn't even collapse when it caught fire at one point.
Where do you get the idea that I've been thrown out of the truth movement? Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?
Uncle Steve is not a truther. Brian, if you're still in good standing with the truth movement, kindly present evidence for that assertion.
Ian, the issue was not: Does paint destroy structures?
The issue was: Can thermite be sprayed on?"
You claimed quite stupidly that "spray on thermite" was an asinine idea, less plausible than "no hijackers".
I showed you that spray on thermite is completely plausible, and you move the goal posts.
The issue was: Can thermite be sprayed on?"
So we're not talking about the destruction of the WTC anymore? I guess you wouldn't want to, since you were babbling about explosive paint destroying the buildings.
You claimed quite stupidly that "spray on thermite" was an asinine idea, less plausible than "no hijackers".
Spray-on thermite is an asinine idea, and only someone insane and/or stupid enough to be a failed janitor could come up with it.
No hijackers makes much more sense. No wonder Blakeny is still in good standing with the truth movement, while you've been kicked out.
I showed you that spray on thermite is completely plausible, and you move the goal posts.
False.
Anyway, enough about that. Have your "widows" gotten their questions answered yet? HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Ian, spray-on thermite is perfectly feasible. More feasible, of course, is spray-in thermite through a 3/8" hole in the core box columns.
Ian, spray-on thermite is perfectly feasible. More feasible, of course, is spray-in thermite through a 3/8" hole in the core box columns.
Even more feasible is modified attack baboons planting micro-nukes in the columns. I asked my Uncle Steve about this, and he says micro-nukes and attack baboons are more likely than spray-on thermite as a cause for the towers' destruction.
Attack baboons are too easily detected. There would have been baboon shit all over the place. Somebody would have noticed.
Attack baboons are too easily detected. There would have been baboon shit all over the place. Somebody would have noticed.
Brian, you don't know much about attack baboons, do you? Perhaps the esteemed truther Bill Deagle can enlighten you. You're very naive.
I don't need to know anything about attack baboons to know that their shit would be a problem and make their deployment at the towers impractical.
Jesus, Brian. For a man who thinks all sorts of weird things are possible, why do you think it is impossible to teach baboons not to shit indoors? If it it can be done with dogs and cats, why not baboons? Especially modified attack baboons.
The point is not "Can thermite be sprayed on?" The point is can thermite be sprayed on and used to cut what it has been sprayed onto?
According to one of Brian's favorite videos, Jonathan Cole's cutting with thermite, showed, a simple surface application fails to cut the beams. It takes building specialized boxes and carefully bolting them into place.
People cutting into the core box columns, drilling out boltholes and installing numerous boxes at critical joints all over the building is something I'm certain no one would have noticed, right?
DU, cats and dogs that are housetrained inform the homeowner that they need to go outside.
That would be real great for the op, if the attack baboon goes around scratching on doors, demanding that somebody open a window so it can take a dump.
Cats and dogs in tall buildings are trained to use boxes. If you have a baboon litter box you still have a problem with conspicuous evidence of their presence.
JR The thermite doesn't have to cut the steel. All it has to do is weaken it. Actually weakening would be a far better way to demolish than cutting, because then the debris columns would look like fire-damage.
The walls of the upper columns are only 1/4" thick. Drilling a small hole in them is no big deal. Lower columns have thicker walls. There are ways to achieve these things.
Problem is, that same video and the famous Mythbusters video both show the thermite doesn't heat up the steel enough to weaken it when simply layered on as painting would do. It has to be confined so it can be concentrated during its entire burn time.
Paint all the thermite you want, it wouldn't cause a collapse.
And if all we have to do is weaken the steel, why do we have to include thermite at all to explain it? There was already an extensively compromised structure and fires hot enough to weaken the remaing supports till they gave out.
Both the National Geographic and Mythbusters "tests" of thermite were clearly jokes, incompetently applied. I wouldn't be surprised if DHS asked them to sabotage the experiments because they don't want Joe Spudgun to know how destructive aluminum and rust can be.
The Van Romero experiment doesn't look very serious either. If the stuff was pumped inside the hollow columns it wouldn't matter if it never dried or if it dripped and ran, so you could put it on as thick as you want.
The reason we need thermite to explain the collapse is because asymmetrical damage from plane impact and fires can not cause symmetrical collapse (2d law of thermodynamics), nor can a gravitational collapse occur "essentially in freefall" as NIST says in section 6.14.4 and in the FAQs that it does (1st law of thermodynamics).
NIST's 236 steel samples do not show the heat damage they claim brought down the building. 233 of them were heated no more than 480 F. 3 of them were not subjected to heat above 600 C for more than 15 minutes.
Office fires burn in one place at most 20 minutes, says NIST, and the thermal conductance of steel was not considered in their report.
If NIST had done an honest report,
and if Building 7 hadn't been so obvious, we wouldn't be thinking about thermite. Since we have to wonder why NIST was so dishonest, we have to consider all the possibilities.
You didn't account for the fact that Jonathan Cole's video experiments, the ones you keep promoting show the same failure of unfocused thermite to sufficiently warm up the steel.
Are you thinking that perhaps the DHS paid him off also to fake the experiment, or is it more logical to think the fact all the empirical tests ageree because they are all correct?
Unfocused coatings of thermite have not been shown to raise the temperature of the steel enough to weaken it sufficiently, even in truther videos.
Where is your evidence that it can indeed cause sufficient heating when painted on? You proposed the scenario, you have to prove it would work. So far all the empirical tests I've seen show it fails to work.
Both the National Geographic and Mythbusters "tests" of thermite were clearly jokes, incompetently applied. I wouldn't be surprised if DHS asked them to sabotage the experiments because they don't want Joe Spudgun to know how destructive aluminum and rust can be.
"Clearly". I mean, who knows better than a failed janitor and liar like Brian?
If NIST had done an honest report,
and if Building 7 hadn't been so obvious, we wouldn't be thinking about thermite. Since we have to wonder why NIST was so dishonest, we have to consider all the possibilities.
No, Brian, you're just an insane liar who believes thermite is magic. That's why you want a new investigation, and that's why everyone laughs at you.
JR, all of the TV demonstrations of thermite that I have seen have shown it to be incompetently applied. I am not aware that Jonathan Cole attempted to use thermite to heat up the steel. I think his efforts were always focused on trying to cut the steel.
I guess I should have known better than to suggest that the mainstream media might cooperate with DHS in suppressing information about vernacular incendiaries. The reason I entertain the idea is that years ago I saw a TV detective show (may have been Hawaii 5-0) involving a perp who was trying to make an explosive out of diesel fuel and "thanatrine nitrate". From my construction experience I already knew of the use of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel as an explosive, and it was pretty obvious that the TV show was trying to keep that knowledge away from the public by inventing a nonsense material.
I present the idea of "heat-weakening thermite" as opposed to "cutting thermite" simply as a suggestion for further investigation. I don't have the resources to test it myself. Maybe I'll bring it up with Mr. Cole.
Ian, please, the grownups are talking. Why don't you go play with your William Rodriguez action figure?
The reason I entertain the idea is that years ago I saw a TV detective show (may have been Hawaii 5-0) involving a perp who was trying to make an explosive out of diesel fuel and "thanatrine nitrate". From my construction experience I already knew of the use of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel as an explosive, and it was pretty obvious that the TV show was trying to keep that knowledge away from the public by inventing a nonsense material.
How many drugs were you doing while watching this show in your parents' basement, Brian?
Christ, please see a psychiatrist.
I present the idea of "heat-weakening thermite" as opposed to "cutting thermite" simply as a suggestion for further investigation. I don't have the resources to test it myself. Maybe I'll bring it up with Mr. Cole.
You bring it up because you're insane and you're desperate to believe 9/11 truth nonsense.
Ian, please, the grownups are talking. Why don't you go play with your William Rodriguez action figure?
Brian, you're the one obsessed with Rodriguez, remember? You post nonsensical videos about him on youtube as "punxsutawneybarney". You got banned from wikipedia for vandalizing his page as "contrivance". You're the obsessed liar and lunatic, remember?
Ian, you live in a fantasy world. Do you think I'd waste a good buzz on "Hawaii Five-0"?
JR, all of the TV demonstrations of thermite that I have seen have shown it to be incompetently applied. I am not aware that Jonathan Cole attempted to use thermite to heat up the steel. I think his efforts were always focused on trying to cut the steel.
I thought you had watched his video? At about the 7 minute mark he applies thermite with a light "roof tile" holder that is simply holding the thermite in place against the steel and it didn't damage the steel. It accomplished nothing with a five pound application on each side of a girder being held against the steel, a paint application that would have been several inches thick in an actual application. There just isn't enough heat and pressure to damage the steel.
It is after that that he designs his "box cutter" something that simply could not be applied secretly.
His experiments pretty clearly prove that thermite simply would not have done the things truther claim it was used to do. Exactly as the MB and NG experiments did.
I guess I should have known better than to suggest that the mainstream media might cooperate with DHS in suppressing information about vernacular incendiaries. The reason I entertain the idea is that years ago I saw a TV detective show (may have been Hawaii 5-0) involving a perp who was trying to make an explosive out of diesel fuel and "thanatrine nitrate". From my construction experience I already knew of the use of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel as an explosive, and it was pretty obvious that the TV show was trying to keep that knowledge away from the public by inventing a nonsense material.
Perhaps intelligent adults find the idea of indisriminatly passing out the recipes for explosives and incendiaries as part of an entertainment to be morally reprehensible? The old McGyver shows did the same thing. That isn't a coverup. Can you prove that either NG or MB did the same?
Perhaps you can prove why Mythbusters and National Geographics experiments, that have the same results as Cole's, are wrong but his are right?
JR, the formulation used by Mr. Cole and the others was ordinary thermite or thermate--not the nanothermite that would have been applied with a spray gun. None of these experiments included the fireproofing that would have been applied over the thermitic spray and would have confined the thermitic reaction.
Also, there were no annealing studies conducted to determine the effect of the thermite on the steel. My suggestion was that spray-on nanothermite might have weakened the steel. You have provided no evidence that the no-load steel in your experiments was not weakened, and the assumption that it was not is unjustified.
So you agree that the media would try to suppress information about effective vernacular weapons. Thank you.
Ian, you live in a fantasy world. Do you think I'd waste a good buzz on "Hawaii Five-0"?
Brian, there's plenty of glue for you to sniff, no matter if it's "Hawaii 5-0", "The A Team", "Days of Our Lives" or all the other shows you wasted your life watching.
JR, the formulation used by Mr. Cole and the others was ordinary thermite or thermate--not the nanothermite that would have been applied with a spray gun.
Yup, if the actual substance can't do the trick, give it magical properties! And yet Brian continues to reject the micro-nukes hypothesis....
My suggestion was that spray-on nanothermite might have weakened the steel. You have provided no evidence that the no-load steel in your experiments was not weakened, and the assumption that it was not is unjustified.
Brian, you've also provided no evidence that micro-nukes were not planted by modified attack baboons.
So you agree that the media would try to suppress information about effective vernacular weapons. Thank you.
What point are you trying to make, Brian?
The point is that JR is mixing apples and oranges, claiming that the failure of paint-on thermite to cut steel has something to do with the question of whether paint-on thermite would weaken the steel.
No tests were done in any of the paint-on experiments to see if the steel had been weakened. Thus my hypothesis that spray-on incendiaries might have been employed to weaken, rather than cut, the supporting columns of the building remains one worthy of testing.
The point is that JR is mixing apples and oranges, claiming that the failure of paint-on thermite to cut steel has something to do with the question of whether paint-on thermite would weaken the steel.
No, that's you moving the goalposts halfway around the world. As dumb as you are, Brian, even you know you can't keep the bullshit about thermite going. You know the towers weren't brought down by the stuff.
No tests were done in any of the paint-on experiments to see if the steel had been weakened.
No tests were done to see if micro-nukes could weaken steel either.
Thus my hypothesis that spray-on incendiaries might have been employed to weaken, rather than cut, the supporting columns of the building remains one worthy of testing.
It's not a hypothesis, Brian. A hypothesis is based on evidence and logic. Your ideas are based on the fact that you're insane and dumber than a box of rocks. No wonder you're a failed janitor.
Also, Brian, do you know what else weakens steel? Fire. And wouldn't you know it, there was an intense fire caused by a plane crashing into the tower. You'd know this if you'd learn to Google.
Ian, the thermite-weakened steel hypothesis is based on evidence and logic.
There is evidence of sulfidation attacks on the steel, evidence of molten iron in the wreckage, evidence of thermite in the dust,
and there is the damning evidence of a very orderly collapse contrary to the 2d Law of Thermodynamics.
The "intense fire" burned out on less than ten minutes as the jet fuel burned off. You have not shown me a picture of an intense fire after the first ten minutes.
Ian, the thermite-weakened steel hypothesis is based on evidence and logic.
False. It's based on the insane delusions of a failed janitor who squeals because Willie Rodriguez won't be his lover.
There is evidence of sulfidation attacks on the steel, evidence of molten iron in the wreckage, evidence of thermite in the dust,
and there is the damning evidence of a very orderly collapse contrary to the 2d Law of Thermodynamics.
False. There's just a failed janitor who makes up his facts. Your belief that there is evidence of thermite is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?
The "intense fire" burned out on less than ten minutes as the jet fuel burned off. You have not shown me a picture of an intense fire after the first ten minutes.
I will show you a picture when you admit that you are petgoat. Otherwise, good luck convincing anyone of your babbling lies!
The evidence of thermite was the presence of molten iron, the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it came down, the sulfidation attacks on the Appendix C steel, the presence of exothermic mixtures of aluminum and iron in the dust, the presence of iron microspheres in the dust, and the symmetry and speed and totality of collapse.
Also evidence of the use of incendiaries is your inability to produce a picture showing intense fires after the first ten minutes.
Your belief that your obstinate stupidity is humorous is juvenile.
Brian, posting the same dumbspam again and again isn't going to get you anywhere. That's why after a decade, you still haven't accomplished a thing related to "truth" goals. There's a reason the government recruited experts to investigate 9/11 instead of recruiting failed janitors like you.
But by all means, continue to babble your nonsense here. Everyone gets a good laugh out of it.
Ian, we've gotten somewhere. People like Amy Goodman and Jimmy Carter have expressed support for new investigations. People like you and Pat Curley and Matt Taibbi have expressed support for new investigations.
Our biggest problem is lies--lies by the media, lies by people like you, and lies by people like Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke that make us look bad.
Ian, we've gotten somewhere. People like Amy Goodman and Jimmy Carter have expressed support for new investigations. People like you and Pat Curley and Matt Taibbi have expressed support for new investigations.
But there haven't actually been new investigations, huh?
Also, I have my doubts that Taibbi or Pat or Jimmy Carter or Amy Goodman are interested in investigating whether a missile was fired at the Pentagon or whether spray-on nanothermite or a death ray beam from space destroyed the towers. I know I'm not interested in investigating the paranoid lunacy of the truth movement.
Our biggest problem is lies--lies by the media, lies by people like you, and lies by people like Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke that make us look bad.
Yes, Brian, your biggest problem is lies, so maybe you should stop lying about the NIST report, or the 9/11 commission, or what Dr. Sunder or Ray Downey or any number of people said, huh?
Ian, I haven't lied about what anybody said. You have, persistently and obstinately.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
Much of the "new investigation" has already been done. Mr. Cole's experiments and Mr. Chandler's analyses have been seminal. The nanothermite work, if replicated, is important. Areas needing inquiry and discrepancies in the official accounts have been identified.
Ian, I haven't lied about what anybody said. You have, persistently and obstinately.
False and false.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
See what I mean?
Much of the "new investigation" has already been done. Mr. Cole's experiments and Mr. Chandler's analyses have been seminal. The nanothermite work, if replicated, is important. Areas needing inquiry and discrepancies in the official accounts have been identified.
And now the goalposts move halfway around the world because even you understand that there will never be new investigations undertaken by the government or any serious academic or professional organizations, so a few pointless "experiments" by crackpots will suffice. Good to see that you've got such high standards, Brian!
Ian, if truth is on your side, why is it necessary for you to lie?
You are lying about Sunder at the NOVA program, as anyone who takes one minute to check can see. Please join the reality-based community.
The independent experiments are not pointless Ian. Mr. Cole's experiments, for instance, in burning steel with gypsum to see if he could generate a sulfidation attack is one that NIST should have done themselves--and perhaps they did but they just don't want to admit it because the results were not to their liking.
Mr. Chandler's analysis of the WTC7 videos was not pointless--he got NIST to admit that for 2-1/2 seconds the building came down in freefall--something that had earlier declared to be impossible.
Chris Sarns's analysis of the fires in WTC7 was not pointless--he showed that NIST's fire sims were not consistent with the photographic evidence.
Mr. Szamboti's "missing jolt" paper is not pointless. It shows that the dynamic loading of a free-falling top block that was supposed by the official theory did not happen.
Why should there not be respectable institutional investigations to debunk these findings?
Ian, if truth is on your side, why is it necessary for you to lie?
Well, I don't lie. You're just too stupid to realize the difference between truth and lie.
You are lying about Sunder at the NOVA program, as anyone who takes one minute to check can see. Please join the reality-based community.
See what I mean?
And all those "experiments" you list are pointless nonsense, Brian. Sorry.
Ian, you lie repetively, persistently, obstinately, and shamelessly--like someone who thinks it's clever.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
The experiments and the papers are not pointless. Cole falsified the hypothesis that gypsum could sulfidate the steel. Chandler got NIST to admit that for 2-1/2 seconds the building came down in freefall--something that had earlier declared to be impossible.
Sarns showed that NIST's fire sims were not consistent with the photographic evidence. Szamboti showed that the official hypothesis's dynamic loading of a free-falling top block did not happen.
That may be pointless to someone who thinks there are no widows and they don't have any questions, but to people in the reality-based community they have a point.
Ian, you lie repetively, persistently, obstinately, and shamelessly--like someone who thinks it's clever.
False. Squealing about it won't change this, Brian.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements indicate that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (at 1:03)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html
What did I just say about squealing, Brian?
The experiments and the papers are not pointless. Cole falsified the hypothesis that gypsum could sulfidate the steel. Chandler got NIST to admit that for 2-1/2 seconds the building came down in freefall--something that had earlier declared to be impossible.
Sarns showed that NIST's fire sims were not consistent with the photographic evidence. Szamboti showed that the official hypothesis's dynamic loading of a free-falling top block did not happen.
It looks pointless to me. If you think they have a point, that explains a lot: like why you're a failed janitor who lives with your parents.
That may be pointless to someone who thinks there are no widows and they don't have any questions, but to people in the reality-based community they have a point.
Brian, I never said there are no widows. My grandmother is a widow, for instance.
13 January, 2011 09:54, You said I babble 'about phony "widows" all day.'
08 February, 2011 11:10,you wrote "you're constantly here babbling about magic thermite elves and imaginary widows."
06 February, 2011 08:52, after I had said "You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding," you wrote in response: "This is true. Brian, you're aware that things that are true are not 'lies', right?"
Ape, you lie damnably. You lie like a Calormene. You lie like an Ape.
See what I mean? You babble about imaginary widows and magic thermite elves all the time. No wonder the truth movement threw you out. You hurt their cause.
The only one babbling about imaginary widows and magic thermite elves is you.
The only one babbling about imaginary widows and magic thermite elves is you.
False. Brian, can you name a single independent widow who has any questions?
Why do you ask? Can you name one who has answers?
Why do you ask? Can you name one who has answers?
That's not what we're talking about. Learn to read.
What we were talking about was your stupid claims that thermite (metal-flake primer)can not be sprayed on and that science is pointless. We were talking about your inability to produce a picture showing intense fires after the first ten minutes.
We were talking about JR's apparent agreement that my suspicion was reasonable that the thermite demonstrations on Nat'l Geo and Mythbusters were deliberately sabotaged.
We were talking about evidence of sulfidation attacks on the steel, evidence of molten iron in the wreckage, evidence of thermite in the dust, and evidence of a very orderly collapse contrary to the 2d Law of Thermodynamics.
We were talking about the fact that Mr. Cole falsified the hypothesis that gypsum could sulfidate the steel, that Mr. Chandler got NIST to admit that for 2-1/2 seconds the building came down in freefall--something NIST had earlier declared to be impossible, that Mr. Sarns showed that NIST's fire sims were not consistent with the photographic evidence, and that Mr. Szamboti showed that the official hypothesis's dynamic loading of a free-falling top block did not happen.
But you want to squeal like an attention-seeking 8-year-old girl about imaginary widows and thermite elves.
What we were talking about was your stupid claims that thermite (metal-flake primer)can not be sprayed on and that science is pointless. We were talking about your inability to produce a picture showing intense fires after the first ten minutes.
False. You are babbling about that stuff, but nobody cares because it's irrelevant nonsense. Just like everything else in your dumbspam post. But at least you called me a "girl" again. I always enjoy that.
Ian doesn't know what a simile is.
We were talking about JR's apparent agreement that my suspicion was reasonable that the thermite demonstrations on Nat'l Geo and Mythbusters were deliberately sabotaged.
How wrong can you possibly get?
I pointed out that entertainment programs frequently fake how explosives are created, butI asked you for your evidence that NG and/or MB faked theirs. You haven't provided any.
I also pointed out the Mr. Cole's videos show that thermite can't be used to cut if sprayed on or applied topically, but must be focused so it can be used as a cutting torch to appreciable affect the steel.
In other words, Mr. Cole's videos support the findings of NG and MB, despite his and your claims they don't.
So again, prove that MB or NG faked any part of their videos or accept that they and Mr. Cole prove that your supposed spary on thermite simply can't cause the failure you want to believe it did.
Ian doesn't know what a simile is.
False. Let's see, who here teaches English language skills to business professionals, and who here lives with his parents because he couldn't hack it mopping floors?
Ian, you don't know what a simile is and you don't know where I live.
JR, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your remark "intelligent adults find the idea of indisriminatly passing out the recipes for explosives and incendiaries as part of an entertainment to be morally reprehensible?" as a validation of my suspicion that Nat'l Geo and Mythbusters sabotaged their own experiments, making thermite look ineffectual and thus unattractive to sociopathic TV viewers who might otherwise get the urge to grind up some beercans and mix it with rust and melt padlocks and stuff.
I never said sprayed on thermite would cut. I suggested it might weaken the steel--particularly if applied inside hollow box columns where it could be sprayed on as thick as needed.
I didn't say any videos were faked. I said the experiments were sabotaged--through incompetent application of the thermite at least.
None of the experiments that you cite showed that topical thermite would not weaken the steel, and your demands for obviously impossible proofs are just silly.
Ian, you don't know what a simile is and you don't know where I live.
False and false. You live in Palo Alto, CA with your parents because you're a failed janitor with no employment prospects, mainly because most employers don't look kindly on a resume that says you spent the last decade babbling about magic thermite elves and calling people "girls" on the internet.
I never said sprayed on thermite would cut. I suggested it might weaken the steel--particularly if applied inside hollow box columns where it could be sprayed on as thick as needed.
Nobody cares.
I didn't say any videos were faked. I said the experiments were sabotaged--through incompetent application of the thermite at least.
And we should take Brian's word for this. He's an expert in chemical engineering at Stanford.
Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who is unemployed and lives with his parents.
Ian, how do you know where I live? You seem to think you know all kind of stuff that you don't.
JR, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your remark "intelligent adults find the idea of indisriminatly passing out the recipes for explosives and incendiaries as part of an entertainment to be morally reprehensible?" as a validation of my suspicion that Nat'l Geo and Mythbusters sabotaged their own experiments, making thermite look ineffectual and thus unattractive to sociopathic TV viewers who might otherwise get the urge to grind up some beercans and mix it with rust and melt padlocks and stuff.
Actually I was trying to point out to you that comparing entertainment programs with no claims to scientific rigor to programs that at least make the claim is absurd on the face of it. I guess the message was too subtle. Let me try it again. You are an idiot if you think that McGuyver lying about how anexplosive is combined is proof that a National Geographic documentary did the same thing with out proof.
I never said sprayed on thermite would cut. I suggested it might weaken the steel--particularly if applied inside hollow box columns where it could be sprayed on as thick as needed.
Yet you use Cole's video os some kind of support fo this claim, when that video clearly shows it has no such effect. Or do you have a link to a video showing that sprayed on thermite can do exactly that?
I didn't say any videos were faked. I said the experiments were sabotaged--through incompetent application of the thermite at least.
But you still show no evidence to support that claim, and Cole's video that you keep pointing to actually shows the same results as the videos you claim were sabatoged, still unproven. Did Cole sabotage his video?
None of the experiments that you cite showed that topical thermite would not weaken the steel, and your demands for obviously impossible proofs are just silly.
But you keep pointing to Cole's video to claim it could be used, and that video clearly does not prove that, as you just admitted. What evidence do you have that an application of thermite of any reasonable depth could heat the steel high enough to cause failure?
Evidence, not opinion is what proves your claims. Provide some.
Ian, how do you know where I live?
It's common knowledge. Or are you going to lie about where you live just as you lie about being petgoat?
Ian, to think you know something because "it's common knowledge" is simply circular reasoning. Most of what you believe is common knowledge about me is lies.
JR, I point to Cole's video only as a demonstration of the fact that despite debunkers' can't-do claims of years standing, a clever gadgeteer can with a little bit of ingenuity find a way to make thermite cut vertically.
I am not aware of any evidence to support my hypothesis that thermite can heat-weaken steel so as to cause it to fail. It's a subject for investigation. Having been shown to possess the ability to cut steel, Thermite may be presumed to have the ability to weaken it.
Demanding impossible proofs is silly.
I have yet to ask you for an impossible proof, I have only asked you repeatedly, on several subjects, to provide evidence for any of your contentions.
Your hypothesis is that sprayed on thermite can weaken steel. Provide some evidence it can be done. That is not an impossible proof, unless of course, thermite can not be used for that purpose.
After all, you would agree that you having made the claim, the requirement to prove it is yours.
My point is that MB, NG and Mr. Cole's videos all show it to be highly unlikely. And you can't claim that the experiments are sabotaged unless you can provide evidence they were, since each of the three serves to prove the validity of the other two. So far we have three pieces of empirical evidence on my side, and no evidence at all on yours.
It is axiomatic that if 4200 degree thermite can cut steel, then when used in a less concentrated manner it can heat steel.
I did not make any claims, I suggested an hypothesis that I am not in a position to test. Were I to ignite incendiaries in a public park, the police would soon arrive.
None of the three experiments are relevant to my hypothesis because they all purported to aspire to cut the steel, not to heat-weaken it.
The MythBusters' failure to cut through the roof of a car shows their thermite was incompetently employed. They made no effort to contain it, and it ran down the windshield.
The NG experiment I have not seen, but Dr. Griffin's review suggests it was similarly incompetent.
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-152920.html
Mr. Cole's results, far from validating the others', contradict them because he succeeded in cutting the steel.
I did not make any claims, I suggested an hypothesis that I am not in a position to test. Were I to ignite incendiaries in a public park, the police would soon arrive.
In other words, you can not prove you contention. Thank you for admitting that.
The MythBusters' failure to cut through the roof of a car shows their thermite was incompetently employed. They made no effort to contain it, and it ran down the windshield.
Exactly what ignited spray on paint on a vertical surface would do, thereby proving that paint on thermite would not remain in contact with the steel long enough to weaken it. Since the thermite on a surface significantly more horizontal then column interior surfaces could not keep the thermite in contact long enough for failure, it is, to use your word, axiomatic that a much more vertical surface would be even less affected. Again, thank you for pointing out your error.
The NG experiment I have not seen, but Dr. Griffin's review suggests it was similarly incompetent.
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-152920.html
So all you have to claim that the NG is flawed is an appeal to authority? No actual evidence at all?
Mr. Cole's results, far from validating the others', contradict them because he succeeded in cutting the steel.
But he was unable to cut or even weaken the steel with a simple topical application, as he showed in his video, thereby agreeing with the findings from the others that sprayed on thermite would be useless to cut or weaken the steel.
Brian has been pwn3d again by J Rebori, and now he'll begin to split hairs and post dumbspam in an attempt to obscure the fact that he's always wrong. It's hilarious.
Nope, JR's mischaracterization of the issues failed completely.
The experiments had nothing to do with the question of whether thermite has the capability of heating steel to the point that it loses strength.
Nope, JR's mischaracterization of the issues failed completely.
False. Poor Brian, he's so stupid he doesn't even know how stupid he is. No wonder he couldn't hack it mopping floors.
The experiments had nothing to do with the question of whether thermite has the capability of heating steel to the point that it loses strength.
Nobody cares about thermite, Brian. You keep babbling about this as if anyone take you seriously. It's amusing.
Y'all care enough about thermite to lie about it. You're like someone who spends every evening in front of the TV complaining about how boring it is.
Unfortunatly for you, we are not required to only pay attention to the claims bassed on a nexperiment, but we can look at the experiment ourselves and draw further conclusions from them.
Cole and Mb both laid thermite on a horizontal surface with out appreciably weakening the material, you even commented on how it "ran down the windshield" because it wasn't properly "contained". Yet you think that on an almost perfectly vertical surface a straight forward topical paint application would contain burning thermite long enough to do that.
The experiments prove your scenario is simply not possible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
JR, your analysis of the experiments contains much speculation, many assumptions, and premature conclusions.
No metallographic analysis of the steel was conducted, so you can not conclude that the the burn took place "with out appreciably weakening the material". If it were weakened, how would you know? Also, the majority of the car roof that the thermite burned through was not just appreciably weakened but melted.
Also, the presence of thermite powder of unknown quality on a horizontal surface can hardly be compared to painted-on high-quality micro- or nano-particle thermate.
Did you read about Dr. Griffin's "Well I can't hit a wiffle ball out of the park and therefore Babe Ruth couldn't hit a hardball out of the park" analogy?
The cant-do spirit infests you guys. Mr. Cole showed that with a little bit of experimentation and ingenuity, vertical thermite cuts are practical--this after all those years when you guys said it couldn't be done.
Also, the presence of thermite powder of unknown quality on a horizontal surface can hardly be compared to painted-on high-quality micro- or nano-particle thermate.
Very true, since we can actually prove thermite exists. So far no one has proven that this "micro- or nano-particle thermate" you keeep going back to even exists, never mind shown what it can actually do.
One would think the first thing to show when claiming some material could accomplish a desired effect is to actually prove such material exists.
And your claim that it could weaken the steel is still unproven. I don't have to prove that it can't be done, you have to provide proof that it can.
So far you have not even provided evidence it is feasable, never mind was or could be used in a practical manner.
Until it is proven to exist and it's properties clearly defined your claims are pure fantasy, no more valid then the no-planer or space ray truthers arguments.
JR, Jones and Harrit have provided evidence of nanothermite, and no peer-reviewed paper refuting their findings has been published.
It ain't rocket science. Nanoparticles of iron oxide have been much studied because of their importance in magnetic data-storage media. Aluminum powder is commonly used in paint and as flash powder in pyrotechnics, and can easily be produced by grinding.
It is a scientific fact that the thermitic reaction produces temperatures capable of cutting or welding steel. It is therefore axiomatic that a more diffuse application can heat steel to a lesser temperature. I don't have to prove anything. I didn't offer a theory, but merely a suggestion for further research.
If you are disputing the proposition that heat can weaken steel, you are simply showing your ignorance. Your attempt to dispose of a reasonable axiom by demanding proofs that are impossible for me is rather hysterical, but I've grown accustomed to such behavior by now from defenders of the official nonsense.
JR, Jones and Harrit have provided evidence of nanothermite, and no peer-reviewed paper refuting their findings has been published.
Brian, I wrote a paper proving that modified attack baboons armed with micro-nukes destroyed the World Trade Center, and no peer-reviewed paper refuting my findings has ever been published either.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You tell me where I can read it and I'll refute it. Nukes would have left detectable radiation.
Please, Brian. My paper has already been peer-reviewed by medical experts like Bill Deagle and leading researchers in the field of 9/11 studies like Jim Fetzer and Craig Ranke.
Nobody is going to care if a failed janitor like you disagrees with the paper.
Also, please provide evidence that radiation was not detected after the WTC attacks.
Ian thinks he's clever. He also thinks he's successful.
Ian thinks he's clever. He also thinks he's successful.
Right, because I am clever and successful.
I also think you're a failed janitor, liar, lunatic, unemployed loser who lives with your parents, sex stalker, "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance" because you are all these things.
No wonder the truth movement threw you out.
JR, Jones and Harrit have provided evidence of nanothermite, and no peer-reviewed paper refuting their findings has been published.
I must have missed it, what peer reviewed journal published their proof?
Until they can actually prove it exists, there is no need to disprove it. Until then, it is nonexistant.
JR, I said "evidence", not proof.
Nobody has refuted their evidence.
Post a Comment
<< Home