Some Updates
Jim Duensing, the idiot Troofer who got himself shot by Las Vegas police a couple years back, has announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for president in 2012.
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, claims to have been beaten by Bill Maher's security guards when he interrupted a taping of Maher's show in February.
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel of WeAreChangeLA was just beaten bloody and arrested for interrupting a live broadcast of the Real Time with Bill Maher television show. Video from the live broadcast clearly shows Jeremy screaming “That’s Battery! If you ask me to leave, I will leave on my own accord” There is no reason for his battery and illegal arrest.
Pretty good entertainment value there.
While we're on the topic of WACLA, there has been a curious silence from that quarter on Bruno Bruhwiler's case. As you may recall, Bruno got his sorry ass kicked out of a courtroom for making "involuntary facial expressions" at the trial of another idiot Troofer, then was arrested for making a terrorist threat to one of the officers who removed him from the premises. The website that was set up, Free-Bruno, is now blank and has been for a couple of months now. Could it possibly be that terrorist threats from a Troofer are no longer considered a source of amusement in the wake of Jared Loughner's shooting of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords and others in January? Hey, I'm just asking questions.
posted by Pat @ 11:07 AM
110 comments
110 Comments:
Listen to that nut bag, Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, rant and rave. He deserves to be beaten to a pulp.
And that goofy hyphenated last name. What's up with that?
On the other hand, notice that Jeremy Rothe-Kushel has a cat on his chin, just like our buddy, "Cosmos." I wonder if Rothe-Kushel foams at the mouth, too.
And then there's the "creative facial hair" thing. What is it with deranged troofers and "creative facial hair"? Perhaps that's how the freaks identify one another?
Question: Doesn't Bruno Bruhwiler comply with the troofer's "creative facial hair" paradigm?
What do they have against razors? Are troofers afraid they'll go into an uncontrollable spazmatic fit and slit their throats (we can only hope) with the razor?
Inquiring minds want to know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Check the comments section. Of course truthers are dumb enough to think Kevin Smith is a truther; Patriots for Twoof told me so!!!
Bill, I figured out the creative facial hair thing awhile ago. Like being a "Truther", It's just another way of saying, "I'm different, look at me!"
For proof, check out the Blogs page of 9-11 Flogger. Right now, there are two different people on the first page there, with, I kid you not, BLUE hair!
Yep, the Smurfs are "just askin' questions."
Check the comments section.
Oh, Lord, yes. That is a total train wreck.
Nice contrast there between Kevin Smith and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel. One's a fat geek who became rich and famous making funny movies, while the other is a fat geek who joined a loony conspiracy cult and gets tossed in jail all the time.
Yes, join the "truth" movement and make something of yourself!
Also, why is it always Bill Maher's show that these knuckleheads invade? Why not Oprah or Judge Judy? I mean, it's not like they have jobs and can't crash daytime TV.
Ah, Jeremy. His biggest disappointment with this is probably that they didn't actually show him acting like a moron. The videos I've seen him produce feature him prominently, even though he looks like someone gave Kevin Smith ten more whacks with the ugly stick.
VP Biden told Jeremy "If I had your hair, I'd be President."
"Hey, I'm just asking questions"
-Fat Cur
You mean like this, Pat?
"How Retarded Do You Have To Be
to think there's no way the iron microspheres could have come from this?" (shows photos of metal workers)
Since you've backpedaled off this BS nonsense, Pat, why don't you tell us how 'retarded' YOU have to be to believe it?
And what was it about GarterBelt's posts that finally convinced you that you were utterly, embarrassingly wrong? You clearly have a lot of respect for him (and his proven experience working with the dust, of course).
Hmmm... Pat SHUTS THE FUCK UP again.
C'mon Pat, sound it out. You can do it.
(and don't forget your sources).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's the proof that you're misrepresenting the contents of the RJ Lee Report.
The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust. The unique characteristics of this dust are collectively referred to as the WTC Dust Signature."
Notice the text in bold. The text clearly states that the dust is "a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers," not fire alone. Thus, the pulverization of concrete, which is a result of the collapse, is a potential source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
The RJ Lee Report also states--and I quote: "...Dr. Lee has used these techniques to investigate dust and debris in buildings throughout the United States. He has studied respirable asbestos, mineral wool, lead, fly ash, and other particle types found in WTC Dust."
Thus, the RJ Lee Report clearly states that fly ash was "found in WTC Dust."
Fly ash is composed of iron-rich spheres.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete.
Page 5 says "Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event...."
Page 17 says "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
That's not talking about fly ash.
You're a con man, goat molester. Thus, your comments will be ignored--relegated to the shit heap, where they belong.
Now, go fuck yourself, goat molester.
Impressive response from Pat, as always. Way to defend your views, Fat Bald Bitch. People admire you, especially GuitarBill.
If only GB could provide a rebuttal to that pesky RJ Lee report...
"You're a con man, goat molester. Thus, your comments will be ignored--" -GarterBelt
Nope. no refutation there. Pat and James lose again.
And Pat, keep shutting THE FUCK UP. I'm commanding you.
"Cosmos," here's more evidence that you're misrepresenting the contents of the RJ Lee Report.
The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos, mainly from insulation and from fireproofing. It is estimated that 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately four pounds of lead. Additionally, tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed, releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment. Other building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include structural steel, non-asbestos containing insulating fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate (concrete)..."
Thus, the RJ Lee Report makes it clear that "cement and aggregate (concrete)" were a significant component of the dust samples.
Continued...
Continued...
The World Trade Centers' lightweight concrete, was composed of two types of aggregate: [1] fly ash and [2] pumice.
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.
Fly ash is a abundant source of iron-rich spheres. Pumice, on the other hand, is an abundant source of alumino-silicate spheres.
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.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete. Please include any reference to differentiation in volume in terms of the aforementioned iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
"Cosmos" wrote, "...If only GB could provide a rebuttal to that pesky RJ Lee report..."
That's not an answer, "Cosmos," that an evasion.
I asked you several questions, and you ignored each question. Debate demands that you answer your opponents' questions. To do otherwise is STONEWALLING, which means you forfeit the debate by default.
So, what's it going to be, "Cosmos"? Will you answer the questions, or continue to stonewall? The choice is yours.
GB, no one cares about your pretengineering. Just because you desperately want the spheres to come from fly ash, doesn't mean the RJ Lee report isn't unequivocal about where they actually came from.
You're forming a conclusion without any experimentation, and expecting your word to be taken over real scientists. Pat may like it when you speak for him, but everyone else can see right through your nonsense. Stop acting like Pat's mouthpiece, and let the man speak for himself. You clearly have nothing to say.
You go right ahead and ignore me, UtterFail. Ignorance is what you're best at. I already answered your question. The RJ Lee report that you cited for your 6% figure says on Page 5:
"Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event...."
Page 17 says "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."
Your own report thus says that the spheres were produced in the fires, not that they were pre-existing constituents of the concrete.
Maybe you should consider taking a few science classes at De Anza college. Logic would help too.
"...You go right ahead and ignore me, UtterFail."
I will ignore you and your dishonest bullshit, thank you very much.
Now, go fuck yourself--you disgusting psychopath.
"...GB, no one cares about your pretengineering. Just because you desperately want the spheres to come from fly ash, doesn't mean the RJ Lee report isn't unequivocal about where they actually came from."
That's not an answer, "Cosmos."
The RJ Lee Report is not an "engineering" investigation. The RJ Lee Report is an analysis of environmental contaminants found in the building located at 130 Liberty Street, New York, NY. Get your lies straight, "Cosmos."
I gave you direct quotes form the report that prove fly ash was in the dust, and that the dust particles "are a result of the collapse of the WTC Tower," not fire alone.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report claims that all the particles, iron-rich or otherwise, are solely the product of the fires.
"Cosmos" prevaricates, "...You're forming a conclusion without any experimentation...[blah][blah][blah]."
False.
I'm using the RJ Lee Report, and the contents found therein, to prove that the report doesn't agree with your thoroughly dishonest interpretation of the reports' conclusions.
"Cosmos" prevaricates, "...You're forming a conclusion without any experimentation...[blah][blah][blah]."
The RJ Lee Report also states--and I quote: "...Dr. Lee has used these techniques to investigate dust and debris in buildings throughout the United States. He has studied respirable asbestos, mineral wool, lead, fly ash, and other particle types found in WTC Dust."
The RJ Lee Report continues--and I quote: "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including...cement and aggregate (concrete)..."
Question: How do you explain the RJ Lee Report's direct reference to fly ash and "cement and aggregate (concrete)," which is composed of iron-rich microspheres?
Answer the questions, "Cosmos." To do otherwise is STONEWALLING.
"Cosmos," I have another question for you.
What is 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Hint: Percentage is calculated with the following formula:
[part]/[whole] * 100 = %
In this case, you know the value for whole (1.2 million tons). Please, solve the equation for the unknown variable "part."
"I will ignore you and your dishonest bullshit, thank you very much.
Now, go fuck yourself--you disgusting psychopath."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Nice refutation, GutterBilge. Really.
"How do you explain the RJ Lee Report's direct reference to fly ash and "cement and aggregate (concrete)," which is composed of iron-rich microspheres?" -GoiterBile
You're still pushing the idea that scientists who worked with the dust couldn't distinguish between concrete components and iron that melted in the fire. Why don't you call them 'goat molester' too? That's about the level of your criticism, son. Bring something better, or continue discrediting yourself.
Even Pat is terrified of ever weighing in on this. That's why he's shutting his fat mouth again.
GutterBall, you're quote-mining.
The "final" report says (p. 3 and 7) that fly ash can be formed from the WTC fires. It doesn't say anything about fly ash as a building material.
RJ Lee nowhere says that microspheres come from cement.
"And that goofy hyphenated last name. What's up with that?" UtterFail
A scientist at work, folks. Brilliant analysis, as usual. I suppose you'd prefer everyone to look like Pat?
*shudder*
That's not an answer, Cosmos."
Your desperation is palpable.
Try answering my questions directly without resort to obfuscation and bullshit.
If you can't answer the questions, simply admit that you can't answer them.
"...The "final" report says (p. 3 and 7) that fly ash can be formed from the WTC fires. It doesn't say anything about fly ash as a building material."
Go away, goat molester. I've already proven that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete (my post at 13:50). In addition, the RJ Lee Report states "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including...cement and aggregate (concrete)..."
Thus, you are a proven liar, once again.
Now, go away, goat molester. I've had enough of your con man routine.
Even Frank Greening admits that fly ash is a component of lightweight concrete.
"...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.
Now, enough of the evasion. Answer my questions, otherwise you're STONEWALLING, which means you forfeit the debate by default.
It's awfully quiet over here, "Cosmos."
All I can hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
I guess all you can do is quote mine the RJ Lee Report, obfuscate, distort and make an ass of yourself. Or is it time to groom your "creative facial hair"?
Pathetic.
UtterFail, I didn't lie about anything, but you quotemining RJ Lee for support for your pet theory is very dishonest. As I proved, RJ Lee says the fly ash was an artifact of the fires. You have provided no proof that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete. You're a hypocrite, violating your own principles on not using sources when you disagree with their conclusions.
Give it up, UtterFail. You're not equipped for this.
More of your disgusting con artist routine, goat molester?
"...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including...cement and aggregate (concrete)..." -- The RJ Lee Report
"...Dr. Lee has used these techniques to investigate dust and debris in buildings throughout the United States. He has studied respirable asbestos, mineral wool, lead, fly ash, and other particle types found in WTC Dust." -- The RJ Lee Report
"...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.
You don't know the meaning of the term "quote mining," which always involves taking a quote OUT OF CONTEXT.
The only person who quote mines is you, goat molester.
Now, fuck off, liar.
GoiterBilge, since we know you can't handle the clear language of the RJ Lee report, and since you think fly ash is completely indistinguishable from the spheres of melted iron, and since you project this idiocy onto the scientists whose work you're quote-mining, then try to answer just one thing honestly:
How retarded DOES Pat have to be to think they couldn't have come from Iron-oxide-producing torches?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete. Please include any reference to differentiation in volume in terms of the aforementioned iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report claims that all the particles, iron-rich or otherwise, are solely the product of the fires.
Question: How do you explain the RJ Lee Report's direct reference to fly ash and "cement and aggregate (concrete)," which is composed of iron-rich microspheres?
Question: What is 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Hint: Percentage is calculated with the following formula:
[part]/[whole] * 100 = %
In this case, you know the value for whole (1.2 million tons). Please, solve the equation for the unknown variable "part."
=============
That's five (5) questions, and not one answer so far (and I'm certain I never will get an answer, because troofers don't debate in good faith. Con artists, as we all know, are incapable of honest debate).
So, when do you intend to answer my five (5) simple questions, "Cosmos"?
I asked you five (5) questions, and you ignored each question. Debate demands that you answer your opponents' questions. To do otherwise is STONEWALLING, which means you forfeit the debate by default.
So, what's it going to be, "Cosmos"? Will you answer the questions, or continue to stonewall? The choice is yours.
Fucking TORCHES, Pat!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"...GoiterBilge, since we know you can't handle the clear language of the RJ Lee report, and since you think fly ash is completely indistinguishable from the spheres of melted iron..."
Fly ash IS melted iron--you idiot.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report makes a distinction between iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres which resulted from fire versus iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres that resulted from the pulverization of the twin tower's lightweight concrete. Please include any reference to differentiation in volume in terms of the aforementioned iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres.
Question: Show me where the RJ Lee Report claims that all the particles, iron-rich or otherwise, are solely the product of the fires.
Question: How do you explain the RJ Lee Report's direct reference to fly ash and "cement and aggregate (concrete)," which is composed of iron-rich microspheres?
Question: What is 6% of 1.2 million tons?
Hint: Percentage is calculated with the following formula:
[part]/[whole] * 100 = %
In this case, you know the value for whole (1.2 million tons). Please, solve the equation for the unknown variable "part."
Continued...
All fly ash samples are comprised mainly of amorphous alumino-silicate spheres and a smaller amount of iron-rich spheres. The majority of the iron-rich spheres found in fly ash have two components: iron oxide and amorphous alumino-silicate.
And I still don't see answers to my questions, "Cosmos."
I guess you're a con man, just like the goat molester.
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.
Wikipedia wrote, "...Fly ash is generally captured by electrostatic precipitators or other particle filtration equipments before the flue gases reach the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, and together with bottom ash removed from the bottom of the furnace is in this case jointly known as coal ash."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
Thus, fly ash is produced by coal fired power plants.
Here's another question you'll avoid like plague.
Question: At what temperature does a coal fired power plant operate?
You see, "Cosmos," I teach by the Socratic Method.
There's only one problem: The Socratic Method doesn't work in an environment where the students hold intellectual honesty in contempt.
And, as we all know, troofer con men and women disdain intellectual honesty. After all, intellectual honesty and illogical conspiracy theories don't mix.
It's awfully quiet over here, "Cosmos."
All I can hear are--you guessed it--
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
And I certainly don't see any answers to my six (6) questions.
Grade: F-
UtterFail, your dataspam is very reminiscent of the tactics of the supporters of CIT. But theirs is better, they have pictures.
I know what quote mining is. You mine quotes from RJ Lee in support of a claim directly opposite to what they said. They said the iron microspheres came from the fires. You said they came from the concrete. And then you try to use a RJ Lee quote to the effect that there was concrete in the dust (well duh) as if it showed that there were microspheres from the dust. You're dishonest.
Goat molester, why do you continue to post your con artist SPAM?
After all, I told you that you are persona non-grata. That means you are fully unacceptable or unwelcome, and I will no longer respond to your baiting and con artist routine--and especially so since I've already provided the evidence that proves you're wrong.
As Gregory M. Ferris wrote:
"...Like I said, it's not that he doesn't actually believe that there was no scientific investigation (he frequently quotes RJ Lee), it's just that he doesn't care. It's about winning his little argument, not about advancing a solid theory. Pick a thread on SLC that's over 70 posts and you can often see Brian defend opposite sides of an issue. That's the mental defect, the psychopathy, it's all about the win and not about the cause."
Go somewhere else and masturbate to your black heart's content, goat molester. I'm sure they'll ban you as quickly as everyone else has, once they catch on to your con game routine.
If you won't answer my questions, FUCK YOU!
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Is that clear enough for you, goat molester?
Adios, pendejo!
GutterBall, your questions are silly, pseudo-socratic, entirely rhetorical, and they're dishonest.
Tell me when you're going to stop beating your wife and maybe I'll answer.
You have failed to provide any evidence supporting your claim that USGS monitored the temps of the pre-collapse fires.
You have lied repeatedly. And rather than prove your points you must resort to childish snoopy art.
You are truly pathetic.
Yawn.
No doubt, I always yawn when I'm interested.
You're not interested in your inability to support your lying claims. Thanks for making that clear, UtterFail.
Hey Brian, remember that time when you called me a liar?
Yeah, that was funny!
No, I"m fed up with your bullshit, goat molester.
For example, pontificating on the subject of computer simulation and modeling, and dismissing the data from said modeling, while you know nothing about the subject.
Or claiming "no investigation of ground zero was allowed," while quoting the RJ Lee Report, etc.
You're a hypocrite and a liar--not to mention duplicitous.
Now, go play in the freeway, goat molester.
"Fucking TORCHES, Pat!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
So says the guy who thinks the spheres came from a magic controlled demolition setup that
• was invisible to office workers, maintenance staff, and security
• functioned perfectly after getting plowed through by planes and roasted by fire
• produced "hushaboom" explosions which audio recordings failed to pick up
• left no traces visible to cleanup crews
• was planted by a ninja demolition team whose members either (a) thought it was a peachy idea to mass murder their fellow citizens or (b) were tricked into mass murder and are inexplicably keeping quiet about their deceivers.
Yeah, that crazy Pat and his torches. (And now fly ash in the concrete! Jeez, when will the madness end?)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh look! The compulsive liar and charlatan, "Cosmos," changed his handle to "Gost."
Shouldn't you change your handle to "Toast"?
And I still don't see any answer to my questions, "Cosmos."
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
What's the matter, dust boi, did the library close before you could answer my questions? (Yeah, right)
Mr. Wurstfingers, I didn't dismiss the results of the sims. I pointed out that you didn't provide the source of the input temperature data, and that you claimed that USGS did pre-collapse temperature studies but you refuse to back up that claim.
I did not say no investigation of ground zero was allowed, while quoting the RJ Lee Report. You yourself in this very thread (3/3 14:21) said "The RJ Lee Report is not an 'engineering' investigation. The RJ Lee Report is an analysis of environmental contaminants."
What I said (3/1 11:30 in the "Jesse Ventura Exposed" thread) was:
"Given that most of the wreckage was just scooped up with heavy equipment, no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted."
You have whirled, dodged, weaved, and deceived, but you can't change that fact.
Gost, a nine-month elevator-renovations project allowed ample opportunity to install incendiaries in the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts. How often do you think security inspects the elevator shafts?
Charges hidden inside hollow box columns would be protected from fire and impact.
Traces from the incendiaries were visible to cleanup crews. They commented on the molten steel at the site. Thermite cuts without making booms, and once the collapse was underway, the sound of debris hitting floors would mask sounds of cutter charges.
The habitual liar, goat molester, makes a complete ass of himself and bald-faced lies, "...Mr. Wurstfingers, I didn't dismiss the results of the sims...[blah][blah][blah]."
Really, Pinocchio? No kidding?
Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, Pinocchio?
Then why did you write the following?
"...I deliberately threw out the modeling data because...[blah][blah][blah]." -- The Goat Molester, 1 March 2011.
And that's precisely why "debate" with you is a waste of time. You're a liar who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
Mr. TallowPaws, you're quote-mining. I "threw out the modeling data" in the context of a discussion of the fact that no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
You were citing Dr. Bazant's erroneous claim that NIST's annealing studies showed widespread heating to 600 C, when in fact, NIST's report showed that their annealing studies showed quite the opposite result.
I did not, contrary to your claim, throw out the modeling data in general. In the limited context I "threw out the modeling data" because they are not relevant to the fact that no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
Yeah, I'm guilty of "quote mining."
I must be a terrible "quote miner," because I gave a direct link back to your entire comment.
Any more lies for us, goat molester?
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
GlitterFool, the link has nothing to do with a quote being mined or not. Quote-mining is taking something out of context. The context was quite clear in that quote: the results of computer models were irrelevant to the point that no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
Your invocation of Dr. Bazant's reference to what he called NIST annealing studies was dishonest or incompetent or both because what NIST called annealing studies was studies of the physical steel, not the computer models Bazant was citing.
LOL!
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
We're gonna chase those Crazy Baldheads out of town.
So from your failure to back up your claim that USGS did pre-collapse temperature studies on the towers and found temps of 1800 F, am I to conclude that the claim was another one of your lies?
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers 15 minutes after impact(e.g., see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36, page 127).
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
FAIL
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
Still spamming, Mr. Spam-hands McSpammy?
GutterBall, NIST invented whatever specs they needed to make the building fall down.
You claimed (3/1 14:32) that "The USGS confirms that the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers."
You refuse to provide a source for that claim. I think you made it up.
SPAMMING the threads again with lies, psychopath?
I gave you the link to the NIST Report, and the report clearly states the towers reached a peak temperature of 1000 degrees C (1800 degrees F) for at least 15 minutes.
FAIL
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
"...GutterBall, NIST invented whatever specs they needed to make the building fall down."
Says whom? A lying psychopath with zero credibility? Of course, your response is 100% fact-free. When will you learn that your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.
You just make shit up. Go away, goat molester, you have no credibility.
Stop wasting SLC's bandwidth.
GutterBall, your NIST link has nothing to do with your USGS claim, and anyone with half a brain or more can see that that. You were wrong about the USGS. Your refusal to admit you were wrong turns your error into a lie.
It's obvious that NIST invented the temperature data, because their annealing studies show that they have no physical samples showing heating sufficient to damage them.
Another day, another load of mindless dumbspam from Brian Good. I guess if it keeps him from stalking Carol Brouillet, so much the better....
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
Your refusal to admit you were wrong turns your error into a lie.
Would that also relate to your refusal to admit that you were wrong about impeachment removing a President from office and thus stripping him of his pension?
47b, I may have been wrong, but you didn't show it. All you offered was the opinion of an unqualified and anonymous internet poster. I am not going to take the time to determine whether I was wrong or right. It was a trivial and irrelevant point.
GutterBall, however, lies blatantly, and then continues to lie again and again and again to try to cover up the original lie.
Under current consideration is GutterBall's claim that USGS studies showed that the towers had 1800 F temps before the collapse. He continues to cites NIST's claims, not studies, as if they somehow disproved the fact that he lied about the USGS.
47b, I may have been wrong, but you didn't show it. All you offered was the opinion of an unqualified and anonymous internet poster. I am not going to take the time to determine whether I was wrong or right. It was a trivial and irrelevant point.
Liar.
I offered you the two clear unambiguous paragraphs from the US Constitution that spell out the procedure. And coupled that to the historic fact that neither impeached president was removed from office.
You continue to prove you have no interest in facts, only propping up your own disproven claims.
The quintessential truther.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
47b, "impeachment" means the process by which presidents are removed from office. It is used that way in the NYT and in WaPo and there is nothing wrong with using it in that way, which is the way I was using it.
I have no interest in litigating constitutional interpretations with an anonymous internet poster who cites no authorities and admits that he is not an expert, but insists on quibbling over semantics. I may or may not have been wrong about whether impeachment after the offender has left office can remove the offender's pension, but it's a trivial point and you have not shown that I was wrong.
GutterBall, however, lies blatantly, and then continues to lie again and again and again to try to cover up the original lie.
Under current consideration is GutterBall's claim that USGS studies showed that the towers had 1800 F temps before the collapse. He continues to cites NIST's claims, not studies, as if they somehow disproved the fact that he lied about the USGS.
As per the goat molester's SOP, he's trying to cover up the evidence that proves he's wrong under an avalanche of squealing gay boi SPAM.
Again, NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers 15 minutes after impact(e.g., see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36, page 127).
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
FAIL
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
I have no interest in litigating constitutional interpretations with an anonymous internet poster who cites no authorities and admits that he is not an expert, but insists on quibbling over semantics. I may or may not have been wrong about whether impeachment after the offender has left office can remove the offender's pension, but it's a trivial point and you have not shown that I was wrong.
I cited the US Constitution, you cited the NYT and WaPo. I'm afraid my source trumps your references. You were referring to a legal issue, the meaning of the words is determined by the laws involved, not newpapers.
I pointed out the clear cut history of two presidents impeached and neither removed from office.
If no president impeached has ever been removed from office, impeachment does not equate to removal from office, QED.
Apparently that short direct single step of logic is too much for you to take.
You were proven wrong, you refuse to admit it, by your standard you are a liar.
By rational peoples standards, you are a model truther.
If no president impeached has ever been removed from office, impeachment does not equate to removal from office, QED.
True. Impeachment is legally distinct from conviction & removal from office. A former president gets his pension as long as he was not removed from office by a conviction.
I'm not aware of any law that would operate to strip a pension once it's been started. Maybe it's possible to win a judgment against a former president and have his pension payments diverted to a trust for the plaintiff's benefit.
You were proven wrong, you refuse to admit it, by your standard you are a liar.
Yup, but what sets Brian apart is that he'll dig his heels in and argue with you for all eternity over this as well, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It's just that he's psychologically incapable of conceding error.
It's just that he's psychologically incapable of conceding error.
Which is the point of the exercise.
Had he admitted the error and accepted that he had made a common mistake when it was first pointed out, he would be being viewed as a person who is perhaps mistaken but actually interested in finding out the truth. That his reaction was and still is to deny even so simple and common an error despite the overwhelming evidence disproving his claim shows he is not interested in actual truth.
He is the typical truther, only interested in propping up his mistaken beliefs no matter how obviously wrong they have already been proven to be.
47b, I admit to errors when I am shown to be wrong. The legal judgments of an anonymous internet poster who refuses to cite any actual authority and who admits he is not an expert hardly show that I am wrong.
GutterBall, you claimed that the USGS had done studies that showed that before the towers came down, temps were 1800 F. You refuse to substantiate that claim, instead repeatedly spamming claims made in the NIST report. Will you now admit that USGS never said what you claim?
47b, I admit to errors when I am shown to be wrong. The legal judgments of an anonymous internet poster who refuses to cite any actual authority and who admits he is not an expert hardly show that I am wrong.
You have been proven absolutly wrong by both citations of the law and historical fact. No expert is needed to assess either one in this particular case.
Your spin will not change that the clear language of the law, and plain historic facts prove you wrong.
You lie and have no interest in facts or truth. You have no intellectual honesty and are not worth debating.
And so we see that you want to apply a standard, that not admitting an error after being shown it is lying, to everyone else but yourself.
Dishonest and now we can add hypucritical.
47b, your inability to recognize that the constitutional interpretations of an anonymous internet poster are worthless shows that you are, indeed, not an expert on constitutional law.
I didn't lie. I repeated what I was told by activists whose expertise I trusted. Maybe what they told me was wrong, but your unauthoritative opinions have not shown that to be true, IMHO. I have no reason to trust your expertise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I've cleared the problem with my name showing, so you can relax about the 47b and use this name to refer to me.
The fact you can not grasp the clear statements in the Constitution that show the House impeachs and the Senate removes from office simply prove you have no place attempting to prove anything. It isn't the least bit ambiguous to anyone with a HS education.
I challenge you to find a single constitutional scholar who will state that impeachment equates to removal from office. It is simply not true.
Granting, for arguments sake only, that it can't be clear from the written document. You have not addressed the simple fact that 2 presidents were impeached and neither was removed from office. That fact alone proves your position untenable.
That you believed activists who claimed impeachment meant removal from office, when anyone who graduated high school in the last century or more would know at least one president had been impeached and remained in office calls into question your ability to exercise critical thinking skills and judge the validity of your sources.
You were wrong, as proven by a reading of the document, and by well known historic facts. By the standard you set in this very thread, that if you are proven wrong and refuse to correct or acknowledge the error you are lying, you are a liar.
By your actions refusing to accept the same standard you propose for others, you are proven a hypocrite.
It's not a fact that I "can not grasp the clear statements".
I knew that a president had been impeached and remained in office. Do you think I'm so ignorant I don't know that? You, however, seem to be wilfully ignorant of the fact that "impeachment" also means the process of removing a president from office, that the NYT and WaPo use it in that sense, and that reasonable people recognize that. You are splitting hairs over an irrelevancy. And you are deliberately and dishonestly confusing two different meanings of the word in doing so.
You seem to be trying to cover over UtterFail's blatant lie about the USGS, his claim that they reported pre-collapse temps of 1800 F, which is not an irrelevancy. Your selective and disproportionate outrage is duly noted.
Still can't admit that you were wrong when you made the claim that the legal action of impeachment meant the president was removed from office.
It does not, and your unwillingness to admit even so minor an error is proof of your adherence to a dogma of trutherism, and not an interest in actual truth.
I gave you that chance when I first pointed out the error, even commenting that it was a common enough error, but when discussing legal actions, one should stick to legal definitions.
Had you admitted your error at that point, you would have not had to listen to me repeatedly point out that you are a liar and a hypocrite. It would have merely been a case of sloppy speech, something we all do, and not sloppy reasoning, the hallmark of the truther movement.
No, I can't admit I was wrong. To do so would be irresponsible when you cite no constitutional authorities but instead rely upon your own inexpert reading, and especially when you dishonestly smear the difference between the one definition of impeachment (meaning a trial) and the other (meaning the process of removing someone from office).
In other words, you still refuse to read the clear english of the US Constituion's rules on impeachment and ignore the historic evidence proving you wrong just so you can avoid admitting an error many people have made.
Have no fear, I will be here a long time, pointing out that you are a hypocrite, unable to read and comprehend a simple pair of paragraphs, wish to ignore commonly known historic facts, can not comprehend that a legal argument must use the legal definitions of words and all that just to avoid admitting an error everyone else here can see you have made.
So like a truther to have no regard for actual truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes, and I refuse to get into a discussion of the relative merits of Kawasaki v. Suzuki, Colt v. Remington, or Ginger v. Mary Ann.
I am not going to litigate a legal point with an anonymous internet poster on a trivial and irrelevant point, especially when he shows hypocritically selective outrage and dishonestly smears the difference between the one definition of impeachment (meaning a trial) and the other (meaning the process of removing someone from office).
You seem to be trying to cover over UtterFail's blatant lie about the USGS, his claim that they reported pre-collapse temps of 1800 F, which is not an irrelevancy.
BTW, Ginger is definitely under-rated. People hung up on the obvious don't notice that she has a soul.
Yes, and I refuse to get into a discussion of the relative merits of Kawasaki v. Suzuki, Colt v. Remington, or Ginger v. Mary Ann.
Strawman
Your apples and oranges comparision is humorous. You must be getting desperate. We didn't discuss the relative merits of anything. I pointed out obvious, clear, straight forward misuse of a legal term in a legal argument, you refuse to recognixze reality.
I am not going to litigate a legal point with an anonymous internet poster on a trivial and irrelevant point, especially when he shows hypocritically selective outrage and dishonestly smears the difference between the one definition of impeachment (meaning a trial) and the other (meaning the process of removing someone from office).
We are not "litigating", the argument is over. The jury is back, and you are convicted of dishonesty and hypocracy.
You were proven wrong with simple clear evidence that you ignored when you made your claim and refuse to acknowledge even now. You want to use the common, nonlegal meaning of a word in a legal setting. That is incorrect and leads to wrong statements. Many words have differeing meanings in a legal useage versus the common useage.
Insanity comes to mind as another example of that.
You were proven wrong, you refuse to admit it, and I will not let it go. You want to claim you are searching for someo truth, and you aren't. You are seeking only to feed your own delusions.
The clear relevance is that you aer a dishonest debater, uninterested in truth, and willing to spin in any direction possible to avoid admitting even a minor error. Clearly you would be as dishonest or more in attempting to avoid admitting an error on the issue of 9/11.
You seem to be trying to cover over UtterFail's blatant lie about the USGS, his claim that they reported pre-collapse temps of 1800 F, which is not an irrelevancy.
Nope, but nice try at changing the subject. I have taken no part in that discussion. I am not going to take part in it. I am going to continuously come here and point out to the world that you are dishonest and hypocritical. I am going to repeatedly point out to readers that you are proven to not be willing to admit to proven truths, and I am going to keep in everyone's mind that you are a proven demogogue with no ability to adjust your beliefs when confronted by reality.
And to think, this all could have been avoided if you had the research skills, command of the english language, or intellectual honesty to simple say "I misspoke, I meant removal from office by the Senate." way back when I first pointed out the error or after any of my many presentations of the overwhelming evidence.
J Rebori, I don't refuse to recognize reality. I refuse to discuss trivial, off-topic, irrelevancies.
GutterBall, you claimed that the USGS had done studies that showed that before the towers came down, temps were 1800 F. You refuse to substantiate that claim, instead repeatedly spamming claims made in the NIST report. Will you now admit that USGS never said what you claim?
I find it astonishing that someone considers hard irrefutable proof of their own inability to read and understand two simple english sentences, to apply common historic knowledge to judge claims by others, and, when confronted with irrefutable facts, their inability to adjust their position to reality to be "trivial, off-topic, irrelevancies".
Most rational people would have seen that as shaming, or at least embarrassing.
Let's argue about something interesting, like whether Jesus was crucified with nails or with ropes. Or Kennewick Man. Or the Battle of Hastings. How about Wheat Rust in China?
Certainly let's not talk about 9/11, or the fact that UtterFail bluffs and bullshits.
Brian, why should we talk about 9/11? There's not much left to discuss there for sane people with a grasp of reality.
I'm not addressing GuitarBill.
I'm simply pointing out your inability to admit an obvious error, make a simple logical deduction, and basically, just reason logically and consistantly.
Maybe it's best for you that we do change the subject, hunh?
Considering that you have proven yourself dishonest and hypocritical, I wonder why anyone would bother to debate you. That just gives you too much respect.
You are obsessed with a disruptive, off-topic, and trivial point. In other words, a troll.
You have proven yourself dishonest by deliberately obscuring the difference between impeachment meaning a trial, and impeachment meaning the process of removing someone from office.
You have not shown me to be dishonest or hypocritical in the least. I have always admitted that I might be wrong on that trivial technical point. I am not going to take the time to determine whether I am wrong or not.
Your lack of interest in GutterBall's blatant lies is hypocritical. He claimed that the USGS had done studies that showed that before the towers came down, temps were 1800 F, but he refuses to substantiate that claim, instead repeatedly spamming claims made in the NIST report.
Brian, your babbling dumbspam about impeachment is a sad attempt to obscure the fact that the widows have no questions.
300 questions got 27 answers, Ian. The widows have questions, and you are a liar. Drop dead.
I'm the troll?
Laughable
I'm not the one dragging the same arguments into every thread on the site. I only show up when you make a verfiably disprovable claim, such as "I admit when I am wrong".
You made a legal claim that was wrong, when it was pointed out to you, you insisted it was right.
When the documentary evidence was presented to you, you insisted it couldn't be understood without an advanced degree.
When historical evdence was presented you insisted that you ahd trusted "activists" that you couldn't recall the names of on the subject.
When the idiocy of those positions were proven, you announced it was insignificant and that we should all look over there at the shiny.....
When I challanged you to provide one single Constitutional Scholar who took the position that impeachment of a president is removal from office, you ignored the challenge.
But you are right in one statement. "I am not going to take the time to determine whether I am wrong or not."
Is that the Truther motto?
Let's talk about 9/11 J Rebori. You have not shown that you have any knowledge of, or interest in, 9/11.
And while you are quick to claim "gotcha" over an irrelevant technicality, which you assert dishonestly in smearing over the differences between two definitions of "impeachment", you have no interest in impugning the integrity of the blatant liars Guitar Bill and Ian.
Your selective outrage is hypocritical.
GutterBall claimed that the USGS had done studies that showed that before the towers came down, temps were 1800 F, but he refuses to substantiate that claim, instead repeatedly spamming claims made in the NIST report.
300 questions got 27 answers, Ian. The widows have questions, and you are a liar. Drop dead.
Brian, your desperate squealing about widows is not going to obscure the fact that Laurie Van Auken has not answered my 167 questions about whether she planted thermite in the towers.
Maybe that's because you sent them to the wrong person, chucklehead.
Maybe that's because you sent them to the wrong person, chucklehead.
False. I sent them to Laurie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Monica Gabrielle, and Patty Cassaza. None of them answered.
I think you know what that means about their complicity in the 9/11 attacks, Brian.
You misspelled two of the names, yokel. Drop dead. You're not funny.
Post a Comment
<< Home