Tuesday, April 26, 2011

How America became the land of Truthers, Triggers, Birthers, and Dan Brown fans

Slate previews Jonathan Kay's upcoming book Among the Truthers. Looking forward to reading it.

It's a familiar rationale for conspiracy theorists: They investigate as much in sorrow as in anger. They are always just one confession away from the truth. This kind of logic is much more understandable, if no more sensible, after reading Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground, a smart and serious new book by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay. His book shows why Americans are becoming so willing to believe lurid fantasies about the government or politicians they don't like or vaccines or the theory that the federal government was behind the attacks of 9/11 (these believers are the "truthers" of his title). And you realize that the world of conspiracies is only going to get larger.

There are basically two reasons for this, and they're entwined. The media, as Kay points out, is more fragmented than ever. Information is easier to come across, and bogus information has a way of jumping to the top of Google's search pages. That fragmentation is happening at a time of intense partisan anger and economic angst.

Labels: ,

82 Comments:

At 26 April, 2011 20:09, Blogger EL Cid said...

PRO FACEBOOK HACK V 1.5 BY HACKERS ZMAIM |

Check out my blog

http://facebook-14.blogspot.com/

 
At 26 April, 2011 20:34, Blogger Ian said...

Reading the NY Times magazine article on MMR-autism fraud Andrew Wakefield the other day, I was struck by how much his supporters seem to cling to him because he gives them comforting answers. For a desperate parent who doesn't understand why their child has autism and can't get answers from doctors, Wakefield gives them that comfort.

It's the same with truthers. When you think about it, it's quite frightening to know that the most powerful nation in human history was attacked so successfully by 19 guys with boxcutters. For the Jon Golds and Brian Goods of the world, it's easier to sleep at night thinking that the omnipotent US government was responsible for the attack.

 
At 26 April, 2011 21:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 April, 2011 22:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's easier for debunkers to sleep at night by simply labeling inconvenient facts as artifacts of someone else's mental illness.

If the government and the news media would give us honest, factual, and believable investigations, then perhaps conspiracy theories would not find support.

Talking about the destruction of the WTC steel, Rep. Joseph Crowley told the House Science Committee 3/6/02 that "Conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park.... There is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal."

http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20021128021952/http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

The NIST report on the twin towers didn't even have the scientific integrity to express regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it.

 
At 27 April, 2011 01:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer scribbles, "...If the government and the news media would give us honest, factual, and believable investigations, then perhaps conspiracy theories would not find support."

False.

As long as there's a buck to be made by selling tin foil hats to delusional goobers and madmen of your ilk, conspiracy theories will always be with us.

Now go play in the freeway, goat molester.

 
At 27 April, 2011 03:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's easier for debunkers to sleep at night by simply labeling inconvenient facts as artifacts of someone else's mental illness.

Facts are facts. Ascribing improper meaning and importance to facts does indeed indicate mental illness. For example, it is indeed a fact that 273 of the widows' questions have not been answered. That fact carries no practical significance, yet some people insist it underscores the need for a new investigation into 9/11.

 
At 27 April, 2011 04:45, Blogger Ian said...

It's easier for debunkers to sleep at night by simply labeling inconvenient facts as artifacts of someone else's mental illness.

Brian, you are mentally ill. That's why you post endless dumbspam about widows and Willie Rodriguez.

If the government and the news media would give us honest, factual, and believable investigations, then perhaps conspiracy theories would not find support.

They did. That's why the truth movement is a tiny fringe group. The reason you don't believe the reports is that you're an ignorant failed janitor who wants some justification for hating the Bush administration. You think 9/11 truth gives you that justification.

 
At 27 April, 2011 08:18, Blogger Mads said...

Obama's Long Form Birth certificate released:

http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/27/white-house-barack-obama-birth-certificate-hawaii/

Birthers still crazy.

 
At 27 April, 2011 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the fact that 91% of the widows' questions remain unanswered is an indication of the superficial nature of the official investigations, especially when you consider that fact in conjunction with the superficial nature of the NIST and FEMA reports.

The fact of the unanswered questions is of great practical significance because in giving the impression that the government has much to hide, it gives much fodder for conspiracy theories.

Ian, the government investigations were not honest, factual, thorough, or believable. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, had been a Bush flunkie and colleague of Condi Rice, and since he was the architect of Richard Clarke's demotion he was as much to blame for the so-called intelligence failures as anyone within the Bush administration.

The NIST report failed to consider the most mysterious aspects of the WTC "collapses": their totality, speed, symmetry, the pulverization of concrete and the molten iron found in the rubble.

 
At 27 April, 2011 10:34, Blogger Triterope said...

There are basically two reasons for this, and they're entwined. The media, as Kay points out, is more fragmented than ever. Information is easier to come across, and bogus information has a way of jumping to the top of Google's search pages. That fragmentation is happening at a time of intense partisan anger and economic angst.

Kay forgot the third reason: more and more Americans are just plain fucking stupid. Just read the comments on any CNN article. And those are the ones that pass moderation.

 
At 27 April, 2011 10:46, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The NIST report on the twin towers didn't even have the scientific integrity to express regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it.

Probably because it isn't true. Talk about artifacts of your mind.

 
At 27 April, 2011 10:52, Blogger Pat said...

"The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse. The FSC then focused our efforts on ensuring that those recommendations would be implemented. Congress responded by holding hearings and drafting legislation. After a rigorous battle, a bill incorporating many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law on December 17, 2004."

From the final statement of the Family Steering Committee.

 
At 27 April, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 April, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, when did NIST express regret that the twin tower steel evidence was destroyed before experts could examine it?

Pat, thanks for pointing out that the FSC stated that not all their questions were answered. Ms. Van Auken and Ms. Kleinberg did a tally of the 300 questions and found that in fact only 27 of them had been answered.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 27 April, 2011 14:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Just. Plain. Fucking. Stupid.

 
At 27 April, 2011 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself, TR. You're not half as stupid as GutterBall and Ian are. Or Dave Kyte, for that matter.

He disappeared after I challenged him to take the meanest nastiest ugliest structural engineers he could find to go make a fool of Richard Gage at Gage's Detroit shindig. He hasn't been back. Guess he couldn't find any structural engineers who were man enough for the job.

 
At 27 April, 2011 15:40, Blogger Triterope said...

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester--he was shot through the stupid forest and he didn't miss a tree.

In fact, the goat molester is so brain-dead that he'd happily steal the straw from his mother's kennel.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat molester! What's the matter, goat fucker? Are you still smarting from the ass kicking you received yesterday?

No doubt, man springs from the apes; too bad you didn't spring far enough.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the fact that you consider insults cribbed from stale-and-hackneyed.com to be clever tells all anyone need know about you.

Kick my ass? You'd need a tall set of stilts even to reach my ass, and you'd sure look silly trying.

 
At 27 April, 2011 18:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, maintain the facade of "victory," while you're bleeding and near death.

Are you by any chance related to this guy? God knows you're just as delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

"...Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left."

"...Yes, I have!"

"...Look!"

"...'Tis but a flesh wound."

"...I'm invincible!"

"...You're a loony!"

 
At 27 April, 2011 18:44, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian's pretty much self-mocking these days.

 
At 28 April, 2011 01:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 28 April, 2011 07:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, goat fucker? Still bleeding?

You resort to every logical fallacy in the book while you distort your opponents argument, lie with abandon and ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong. And then you demand respect for that nonsense.

You're lower than a snake's belly, sex predator.

Now go play in the freeway.

 
At 28 April, 2011 09:04, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, when did NIST express regret that the twin tower steel evidence was destroyed before experts could examine it?

They didn't need to because the figment of your imagination that the steel wasn't examined is false.

He disappeared after I challenged him to take the meanest nastiest ugliest structural engineers he could find to go make a fool of Richard Gage at Gage's Detroit shindig. He hasn't been back.

I would imagine any structural engineer that took the time to watch his debates with either Mark Roberts or Chris Mohr would know it isn't worth their time. Even people without any education in engineering repeatedly make him look like a fool. He's the Kent Hovind of truthers.

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, if the experts were able to examine the steel, then you must agree that fires did not bring down the buildings. NIST can not provide samples showing heat damage. Only 3 of their 236 samples show heating above 480 F.

Interestingly, neither Mark Roberts nor Chris Mohr are structural engineers. If in fact they pwned Mr. Gage, why then are structural engineers who can simply crib their talking points from Mohr and Roberts unwilling to
confront him at his appearances?

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:19, Blogger roo said...

Brain,

When are you going to understand that 98% of the world doesn't care about 9/11 conspiracies like you do.

The reason people refuse to debate Gage is because it's a waste of time.

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

A structural engineer is not necessary to destroy Richard Gage's propaganda. Kim Hill, a radio personality, trashed Richard Gage as the following MP3 proves beyond a doubt.

http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20091121_kimhill_richardgage.mp3

Now go honk a cock, goat fucker.

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

roo, if I were a structural engineer and I thought that Richard Gage was going around lying to impressionable young people, I would consider it my duty to go and expose him.

Engineers may use the excuse that they're too busy, but the fact is that (though he makes an occasional error or oversimplification as we all do) Gage's basic points can not be refuted--and NIST's major points can not be defended.

UtterFail, Kim Hill, like you, was seriously misinformed and did not trash anybody.

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...GMS, if the experts were able to examine the steel, then you must agree that fires did not bring down the buildings. NIST can not provide samples showing heat damage. Only 3 of their 236 samples show heating above 480 F."

Liar.

WTC structural steel is stored at two locations in New York City and was examined by dozens of experts.

As the BBC points out, Professor Richard Sisson, of Worcester Polytechnic Institute near Boston, examined the piece of structural steel the goat fucker claims was described as "melted" by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. As per standard operating procedure for the goat fucker, he takes speculation by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and holds up the speculation as though it was scientifically determined evidence, which it is not.

The BBC wrote--and I quote: "...Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

"Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

"However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"'I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect.'"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

Thus, you're proven to be a liar once again, goat fucker.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer bald-faced lies, "...UtterFail, Kim Hill, like you, was seriously misinformed and did not trash anybody."

Another 100% fact-free non-response, goat fucker? Or merely another pack of lies?

Anyone who listens to the MP3 I've presented knows that you're full-of-shit up to your eyebrows.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker talks out of both sides of his mouth and scribbles, "...GMS, if the experts were able to examine the steel, then you must agree that fires did not bring down the buildings. NIST can not provide samples showing heat damage. Only 3 of their 236 samples show heating above 480 F."

Another pack of lies!

Yet, in a previous thread, he claims the structural steel melted--and I quote:

"...BBC on 9/13 quoted structural engineer Chris Wise, who said 'The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted' and on
10/17 quoted Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton: 'The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel.'"
-- The goat fucker talking out of both sides of his mealy mouth.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-stupid-is.html#c1227516181088326372

Thus, we have more proof that the goat fucker talks out of both sides of his mouth.

So which is it, ass face? Did the steel melt or weaken? The fact is that you're contradicting yourself once again, which is proof positive that you're an insane liar who will say anything in order to "win" the lie fest you deliberately mislabel "debate." The steel "melted" when it suits your twisted propaganda, and at the same time, the steel weakened when it suits your nefarious lies.

Now go honk a cock--you lying, duplicitous pig.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 11:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Fuck you, goat fucker.

Debating you is absurd. You lie, deliberately misrepresent the argument of your opponent, contradict yourself and resort to every logical fallacy in the book.

Talking to you is like talking to a goat.

Thus, you stand thoroughly discredited.

Now go honk a cock, goat fucker.

 
At 28 April, 2011 12:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pat, thanks for pointing out that the FSC stated that not all their questions were answered. Ms. Van Auken and Ms. Kleinberg did a tally of the 300 questions and found that in fact only 27 of them had been answered.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings"


Only 27 question were answered because all the rest are bullshit. Political circuses, and delusional rantings are not valid in the real world.

If you weren't mentally ill, Brian, you'd know this. Not that you care, you're a psychopath, you fuck over the 9/11 widows every time you post one of your asshat theories. You don't care about their feelings and you don't care about the truth. All you care about is yourself. Everything else is a game that traces back to your mental illness.

It's not about the truth, it's only about Brian and the delusional world he occupies. Whenever reality intrudes he has a meltdown.

Get help, Brian. These things always end bad.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, spamming multiple threads with your off-topic posts pollutes this forum--because it forces me to copy my responses from other threads else it give the impression that I can not answer your nonsense.

So pray tell, where does Kim Hill demolish Richard Gage? Prove it. Don't make me listen to an hour of nonsense only to find out that she doesn't.

I didn't lie about anything. Dr. Sisson's remarks have nothing to do with the fact that NIST does not have the steel samples that show the heat damage that it claims, and that three college professors claimed that the steel melted and two more claimed that it could have melted.

GutterBall, it is not talking out of both sides of my mouth to report two different facts: 1) college professors reported that the steel melted and 2) NIST doesn't have samples of heat-damaged steel.

Two rational resolutions come to mind:

a) the college professors were wrong
b) NIST has samples of heat-damaged steel but doesn't want to admit it.

But you don't do rational resolutions, do you?

Why do you set up a false dichotomy between melted and weakened steel? Why can't you have both?

MGF, we've already been through this. What's bullshit about
these questions?

To Bush: Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?

To Cheney: On the morning of September 11th, when did you first become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you?

Please describe any discussions/negotiations between the Taliban and either public or private agents prior to September 11th regarding Osama bin Laden and/or rights to pass a pipeline through Afghanistan, or any other subject pertaining to Afghanistan.

Please explain your opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request that Senator Daschle quash an investigation.

In addressing the issue of domestic terrorism, which you were asked to oversee by President Bush in May, 2001, whom did you consult and/or from whom did you request briefings?

Were you given Cipro on the evening of September 11? If so, why?

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if the steel was not destroyed, then why was NIST unable to provide samples to prove their case that it was heat-weakened?

You show no connection between Dr. Astaneh's observation of "melting of girders" and Dr. Sisson's samples. There were over a dozen reports of melted steel in the rubble.

The FEMA Appendix C report said they could not explain the source of the sulfur. It said nothing about drywall, and surely Dr. Barnett, a PhD. fire scientist, would know if drywall could vaporize steel. Yet Dr. Barnett does not corroborate Dr. Sisson's claims.

Please advise where in the Kim Hill interview she defeats Mr. Gage. What did she say?

It is not talking out of both sides to report two separate facts:

1) college professors said the steel melted

2) NIST does not have samples showing that heat damage weakened the building

The facts are the facts. "Melted or weakened" is a false dichotomy. Why not both?

MGF, we've already been over this about the questions.

What was bullshit about these questions?


To Cheney:

Were you given Cipro on the evening of September 11? If so, why?

In addressing the issue of domestic terrorism, which you were asked to oversee by President Bush in May, 2001, whom did you consult and/or from whom did you request briefings?

Please explain your opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request that Senator Daschle quash an investigation.

On the morning of September 11th, when did you first become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you?

Please describe any discussions/negotiations between the Taliban and either public or private agents prior to September 11th regarding Osama bin Laden and/or rights to pass a pipeline through Afghanistan, or any other subject pertaining to Afghanistan.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, if the steel was not destroyed, then why was NIST unable to provide samples to prove their case that it was heat-weakened?"

False. The statement assumes facts not in evidence. NIST has dozens of samples that proves the steel was weakened, and the evidence is stored in two locations in New York City.

Again, you're making assertions and pretending that the assertions are "facts."

"...You show no connection between Dr. Astaneh's observation of 'melting of girders' and Dr. Sisson's samples. There were over a dozen reports of melted steel in the rubble."

False. You're bald-faced lying again without presenting evidence to substantiate your lies.

The BBC wrote, "...The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts...The New York Times described this as 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

I've proven that the sample was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation"; thus, the burden of proof as regards your claim that they are not the same sample of structural steel falls on your shoulder's and your shoulder's alone.

So far, all we have is your opinion. And the opinion of a proven double-talking liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

So where's your alleged "evidence" to support your bogus assertion--you damnable psychopath?

And remember, felcher, your opinion is NOT evidence.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 14:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 April, 2011 14:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the proof that you're lying about the unavailability of WTC steel for forensic investigation.

"...To retrieve the steel, a crew from the county’s Buildings and Grounds Division will drive today to Hangar 17 at the JFK Airport. An 80,000-square-foot warehouse, the hangar is where the Port Authority stores steel, ambulances, PATH turnstiles and other artifacts connected to 9/11 and the felled towers."

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/03/mercer_county_to_receive_its_o.html

Thus, you stand thoroughly discredited once again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 15:14, Blogger Triterope said...

What was bullshit about these questions?

To Cheney:

Were you given Cipro on the evening of September 11? If so, why?


See what I mean?

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:33, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, the fact that 91% of the widows' questions remain unanswered is an indication of the superficial nature of the official investigations, especially when you consider that fact in conjunction with the superficial nature of the NIST and FEMA reports.

False.

Ian, the government investigations were not honest, factual, thorough, or believable.

Brian, nobody cares what an ignorant, insane failed janitor thinks of the investigations.

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ms. Van Auken and Ms. Kleinberg did a tally of the 300 questions and found that in fact only 27 of them had been answered.

And nobody cares! Weeeee!

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:36, Blogger Ian said...

He disappeared after I challenged him to take the meanest nastiest ugliest structural engineers he could find to go make a fool of Richard Gage at Gage's Detroit shindig. He hasn't been back. Guess he couldn't find any structural engineers who were man enough for the job.

Why would any structural engineers waste their time with a fraud like Richard Gage?

Brian, I know this is hard for you to understand because you have no job and just sit at home babbling on the internet all day, but normal people have busy lives and aren't going to go out of their way to waste their time with a few frauds from a tiny fringe movement.

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

roo, if I were a structural engineer and I thought that Richard Gage was going around lying to impressionable young people, I would consider it my duty to go and expose him.

Brian, you're not a structural engineer. You're a failed janitor who believe in magic thermite elves. Nobody cares what you think.

Engineers may use the excuse that they're too busy, but the fact is that (though he makes an occasional error or oversimplification as we all do) Gage's basic points can not be refuted--and NIST's major points can not be defended.

False.

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:41, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, when you go to sleep tonight, just remember: today was another day in which the widows did not have their questions answered.

I love falling asleep to such wonderful thoughts.

 
At 28 April, 2011 17:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You ask:

"What was bullshit about these questions?"

Then the very first of your vital unanswered questions is this little gem:


"To Cheney:

Were you given Cipro on the evening of September 11? If so, why? "

WTF? Seriously? This is a burning question that will resolve the events of 9/11/2001? For whom?

Lets say he did get Cipro on the evening of 9/11, so what? Washington DC had been attacked, obviously nobody at the White House was expecting it, and a biological weapons attack could have been executed at the same time. Cipro would have been a precaution.

Again, so what? That is standard SOP in the real world. As it turned out there was no bio attack (thank God), so why is this even an issue in anybody's mind?

Are you then going to ask why only the leadership was vaccinated while the larger population was not, even though there was no attack? Seriously?

This is a joke question forwarded by someone who's sicker then you are.

"In addressing the issue of domestic terrorism, which you were asked to oversee by President Bush in May, 2001, whom did you consult and/or from whom did you request briefings? "

The same people who'd consulted with Clinton. Did you even read Richard Clark's book? "The Looming Tower"? The same cast of characters from the last administration would have briefed Cheney, even though as VP he had no power to do jack shit.

"Please explain your opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request that Senator Daschle quash an investigation. "

Because Daschle wanted a witch-hunt to deflect blame away from the Clinton Administration and the failures of the Democratic leadership while hanging it all on the Bush White House.

Then there's this hillarious question:

"On the morning of September 11th, when did you first become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you? "

What kind of idiotic question is this? How the fuck do you think he found out? Fairies? Talking squirrels? A seven year old can answer this question.

The US government needs to waste time and money answering this kind of dipshit nincompoopery?

"Please describe any discussions/negotiations between the Taliban and either public or private agents prior to September 11th regarding Osama bin Laden and/or rights to pass a pipeline through Afghanistan, or any other subject pertaining to Afghanistan."

To answer the first part - read a fucking newspaper to get the answer, oh I forgot, Bwian doesn't actually wead. There were no discussion with the Taliban about UBL - period. Bin Laden clearly wasn't on the Bush Admin's radar.

The pipeline question comes out of the tinfoil hat brigade. There was never going to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, therefore there were no discussions. Only stupid people believe otherwise.

Not that you care, Brian, you are mentally ill. It is not about the truth (or in this case even the basic facts), it's about you and your psychopathic needs.

Thanks for the laugh though...

 
At 28 April, 2011 18:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if NIST has samples that show the steel was heat-weakened, why didn't they cite them in their report?

You have not shown any connection between Dr. Astaneh's observation of 'melting of girders' and Dr. Sisson's samples. There were over a dozen reports of melted steel in the rubble.

That the vaporized steel was the "deepest mystery" does not connect it to Dr. Astaneh's observations. Your logical incompetence is showing.

Obviously if NIST can not find samples to prove that heat damaged the steel, then any heat-damaged steel must have been destroyed.

TR, what's bullshit about the Cipro question? How did the White House anticipate an anthrax attack from (allegedly) a crazy US Army scientist that hadn't happened yet?

If Richard Gage is a fraud, then structural engineers should speak up to defend the reputations of people like Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder that Gage's supporters accuse of lying.

MGF, you said the unanswered questions were "bullshit". I asked you what was bullshit about them and you invoke a new standard of resolving the events of 9/11. That's apples and oranges.

Your bullshit answers to the questions do not show the questions to be bullshit. That's apples and oranges again.

What's idiotic about asking how Cheney was informed of the attacks? It's essential. Was it from the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service, the DoD, CNN, NPR, Lynn Cheney? It matters.

Some of the Jersey widows are lawyers, and you clearly are not, so they understand some things you don't.

Your claim that there were no discussions about OBL with the Taliban is not true. There was a Talibamn offer early in 2001 to turn Osama over.

You don't know what you're talking about and you have not backed up your claim that the questions are bullshit.

 
At 28 April, 2011 20:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Speaking of bin Laden not being on Bush's radar--he was clearly on Richard Clarke's radar. The Predator drone had spotted bin Laden something like 5 times in the fall of 2000. But then in 2001 the drone was grounded, greatly frustrating Richard Clarke.

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:08, Blogger Ian said...

TR, what's bullshit about the Cipro question? How did the White House anticipate an anthrax attack from (allegedly) a crazy US Army scientist that hadn't happened yet?

Who said anything about anticipating an attack from a crazy scientist? You're not very bright, are you?

If Richard Gage is a fraud, then structural engineers should speak up to defend the reputations of people like Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder that Gage's supporters accuse of lying.

Um, no, that's not how it works, Brian. If Richard Gage isn't a fraud and liar and clown, he should show some evidence for his claims. Until he does, real engineers will ignore him.

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:10, Blogger Ian said...

Some of the Jersey widows are lawyers, and you clearly are not, so they understand some things you don't.

What makes you think the Jersey widows are lawyers? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

For that matter, what makes you think the Jersey widows are widows? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:10, Blogger Ian said...

You don't know what you're talking about and you have not backed up your claim that the questions are bullshit.

Poor Brian. Life's tough when you're a failed janitor who gets pwn3d and laughed at every day.

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:15, Blogger Ian said...

Speaking of getting pwn3d, I guess Brian has finally gotten tired of me pwning him every night and won't respond to me anymore. I'm so far inside his empty head!

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

You go beyond dumbspam to stupidspam.

 
At 28 April, 2011 22:25, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, what's bullshit about the

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 28 April, 2011 23:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...UtterFail, if NIST has samples that show the steel was heat-weakened, why didn't they cite them in their report?"

False. You're lying and misrepresenting the contents of the NIST Report.

Proof?

You can't cite the NIST Report, so you lie and give us nothing more than your opinion.

FAIL

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...You have not shown any connection between Dr. Astaneh's observation of 'melting of girders' and Dr. Sisson's samples. There were over a dozen reports of melted steel in the rubble."

False. There were not "over a dozen reports of melted steel in the rubble."

Proof?

You can't cite the NIST Report, so you lie and give us nothing more than your opinion.

FAIL

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...That the vaporized steel was the "deepest mystery" does not connect it to Dr. Astaneh's observations. Your logical incompetence is showing."

The "logical incompetence" is yours and yours alone, as I'll prove below.

In fact, the steel was not "vaporized"--you lying jackass. It eroded, as Dr Sisson pointed out.

FAIL

Thus, you stand thoroughly discredited once again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGoo, I did not misrepresent the NIST report. They have 236 samples of steel. Only 3, none of them core steel, show heating over 480 F.

There were over a dozen reports of molten steel in the rubble. One of them came from the President of Notre Dame University. One from UPenn, one from Johns Hopkins.

The NYT said the steel "vaporized" and "evaporated".

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Sisson's remarks on BBC are not corroborated by his colleagues Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biederman. Gee, why do you suppose that is?

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...ButtGoo, I did not misrepresent the NIST report. They have 236 samples of steel. Only 3, none of them core steel, show heating over 480 F."

False. Repeating the same lie over-and-over-and-over again doesn't prove anything. Quote the NIST Report directly, or go fuck yourself, liar.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...There were over a dozen reports of molten steel in the rubble. One of them came from the President of Notre Dame University. One from UPenn, one from Johns Hopkins."

False. Again, repeating the same lie over-and-over-and-over again doesn't prove anything. Quote the NIST Report directly, or go fuck yourself, liar.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...The NYT said the steel "vaporized" and "evaporated"."

False. The steel was not "vaporized"--you lying jackass. It eroded, as Dr Sisson pointed out.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...Dr. Sisson's remarks on BBC are not corroborated by his colleagues Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biederman. Gee, why do you suppose that is?"

False.

Where's Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biederman's refutation of Dr Sisson's conclusions?

You can't produce the refutation. Then you're lying and misrepresenting Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biederman's opinion.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

We've already been over the 236 samples, ButtGoo.

The NYT said the steel had evaporated, and attributed the statement to Dr. Barnett.

Your inability to distinguish "did not corroborate" from "refuted" once again shows you to be incompetent.

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We've already been over the 236 samples, ButtGoo."

And you continue to lie. So what's new, goat fucker?

"...The NYT said the steel had evaporated, and attributed the statement to Dr. Barnett."

The NYT doesn't trump Dr. Sisson's investigation or the conclusions found therein. Thus, we can see, once again, that you're resorting to specious logic.

FAIL

"...Your inability to distinguish "did not corroborate" from "refuted" once again shows you to be incompetent."

No, it proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

In fact you're lying, because the investigation took place at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute under the direction of Drs. Biederman and Sisson. Thus, there is no contradiction, and WE CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE LYING AGAIN.


FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...Dr. Sisson's remarks on BBC are not corroborated by his colleagues Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biederman. Gee, why do you suppose that is?"

What's this, goat fucker?

"Presented by: Prof. Ronald Biederman, George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering

"Abstract

"Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident. Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present along with a perspective on the implications that this damage may pose for high rise structural steel buildings."


http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're lying and misrepresenting the findings of Drs. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Fuck you--you lying fascist pig. Tell us more about the difference between "did not corroborate" from "refuted"--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, tell us, how does it feel to know that your "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units--you scurrilous liar?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

 
At 29 April, 2011 08:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not lying, ButtGoo. Everybody who knows anything about the NIST report knows that they had 236 steel samples and 232 of them showed no heating above 480 F. We already talked about this. That you don't learn goes a long way to explain why your job went to a Pakistani teenager.

The statements of the FEMA Appendix C report contradict Dr. Sisson's claims on the BBC. If you had bothered to read the report you would know that. Nowhere has either Biederman or Barnett endorsed Sisson's silly "Gypsum theory". Jonathan Cole has shown that gypsum baked with steel does not erode it.

What is Biederman's paper? It's a paper about the erosion of the steel. Where does it say anything about gypsum? It says they reproduced the erosion by use of iron sulfide. They didn't use gypsum. Gypsum (calcium sulfate) won't do that. It's inert.

You're silly. You obviously didn't even read the paper you cite, and it doesn't say what you claim. It's no surprise that your job went to a Pakistani teenager.

 
At 29 April, 2011 11:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...I'm not lying, ButtGoo."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ROTFLMAO!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see you've been studying at the Ian School of Rhetoric. That might make you popular among 8-year-old girls except that I suspect that you're too creepy for that to be possible.

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Pinocchio. When caught red handed lying on at least a DOZEN OCCASIONS, continue to lie and, above all, NEVER ADMIT WHAT EVERYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE--YOU'RE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NOW GET OUT OF HERE--YOU GOD DAMNED LIAR. AND DON'T EVER DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN, PINOCCHIO.

FAIL


Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Show one time when I lied, ButtGoo.

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pathetic.

 
At 29 April, 2011 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pathetic is right. At least you admit it.

You can't name one time, keyboard giggler.

 
At 29 April, 2011 15:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shut up, gay boi.

Unlike you, I'm busy doing a forensic security analysis of a database server, and I don't feel like wasting my time with a pathological liar.

Besides, anyone who reads the thread can see where I caught you lying.

Now go play in the freeway, Pinocchio.

 
At 29 April, 2011 17:56, Blogger Triterope said...

Show one time when I lied.

On any page on this blog, immediately below the text "snug.bug said..."

 
At 29 April, 2011 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you never caught me lying, but only made unsubstantiated assertions. You're so ignorant about 9/11 that you wouldn't know it if I were lying.

TR, show one time I lied. The "everything you say" argument is one that even 8-year-olds recognize as specious.

 
At 29 April, 2011 19:09, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, show one time I lied

On any page on this blog, immediately below the text "snug.bug said..."

 
At 29 April, 2011 20:00, Blogger Ian said...

I see you've been studying at the Ian School of Rhetoric. That might make you popular among 8-year-old girls except that I suspect that you're too creepy for that to be possible.

Poor Brian. He's babbling and calling people "girls" again because he simply can't deal with being pwn3d every night, this time courtesy of Guitar Bill.

 
At 29 April, 2011 20:01, Blogger Ian said...

Show one time when I lied, ButtGoo.

Brian, you claim the widows have questions. That's a ridiculous lie.

 
At 29 April, 2011 20:02, Blogger Ian said...

TR, show one time I lied. The "everything you say" argument is one that even 8-year-olds recognize as specious.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, you also lie about what Dr. Sunder said....or maybe it's not a life. Maybe you're so dumb and illiterate that you actually believe that what you say about Dr. Sunder is true.

 
At 30 April, 2011 09:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers. That means 273 questions are pending.

See justicefor911.org Appendix 4

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He has never corrected this statement.

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

Thanks for clarifying that your claims that I lie are based on the ignorance and misunderstandings on the part of my accusers.

 
At 01 May, 2011 10:57, Blogger Triterope said...

Thanks for clarifying that your claims that I lie are based on the ignorance and misunderstandings on the part of my accusers.

I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I? I know what you are but what am I?

Fuckhead.

 
At 01 May, 2011 16:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? These guys think that demonstrating an 8-year-old's forensic skills is clever.

 
At 01 May, 2011 19:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Well, I suppose I walked right into that one.

 
At 04 May, 2011 07:13, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

NIST can not provide samples showing heat damage.

Stop lying Brian. Investigators made note of such samples during the initial inspection. Even ones you cite and choose to quote mine. Namely Astenah-Asl.

why then are structural engineers who can simply crib their talking points from Mohr and Roberts unwilling to
confront him at his appearances?

For the same reason real scientists don't bother with creationists, flat earthers, etc. You don't call a brain surgeon when you have a headache that goes away from an Advil.They have better things to do than argue with an incompetent who is simply repeating BS he reads on the internet.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home