And Don't Forget the Genetically Modified Attack Baboons
Conspiracy theory polymath Michael Ruppert is arguing that the government is lying about bin Laden because they could not have completed DNA tests in the time frame that he lays out.
Let’s start with what I consider the most-obvious proof that the Obama administration is lying. It comes from a world-class microbiologist who allowed me to use this quote on condition of anonymity. The simple proof of his accuracy is to just ask any microbiologist experienced in DNA sequencing about his statement. There are tens of thousands of them around the world.
Now the most logical explanation is simply that the initial identification of the body was visual, it wasn't until actually later that the DNA testing was completed. Aside from that though, don't you find it ironic that the movement that brought us Directed Energy Weapons, remote controlled 757s, voice morphing and supermagicoinvisonanothermite can't comprehend that the government could have invented a one-hour DNA test? I am just asking questions here.
posted by James B. @ 9:10 AM
57 comments
57 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I love when they give us the "anonymous" source. They are so full of shit. He probably asked his friend who has an associates degree in bio from community college.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=how-do-you-id-a-dead-osama-anyway-2011-05-02
Rapier logic.
To be fair, Ruppert doesn't go for any of that DEW, voice-morphing, remote control crap. Having said that, this is clearly bullshit.
I can't find any sources that actually say "one-hour". Like many Truther claims, it seems to be a misunderstanding accepted into their canon and never researched.
Speaking of attack baboons, I met Dr. Deagle at the Con Con last year. I was there to confront the Pentagon scamster Craig Ranke if he showed up (he didn't). I had quite a long conversation with Dr. Deagle's son (much, much longer than I wanted, actually).
It appears that Dr. Deagle will not be appearing at the Con Con this year.
I was at the Con Con to confront the Pentagon scamster Craig Ranke if he showed up (he didn't).
Wow. That's just... sad.
No, it was actually a good thing he didn't show up. Like Willie Rodriguez, Craig had threatened to truth-squad me on video and make me look stupid. So I wrote him to let him know I'd be there and suggested that he didn't have the guts to show up. And he didn't.
No, it was actually a good thing he didn't show up. Like Willie Rodriguez, Craig had threatened to truth-squad me on video and make me look stupid. So I wrote him to let him know I'd be there and suggested that he didn't have the guts to show up. And he didn't.
And nobody cares. It's hilarious how you think any of us care about your petty squabbles with other truth lunatics. You're still a failed janitor who believes in nonsensical conspiracy theories, no-planer or not.
Well making you look stupid isn't that difficult. The only difference would be having a video camera there to capture it.
Okay, Brian, let me make sure I understand this correctly.
You think it's "a good thing" that you, a man in his 50s, traveled a long distance to a conspiracy convention, for the sole purpose of showing up a man, who lives on the opposite coast, who wanted to make a video of you, for the sole purpose of discrediting you in front of an irrelevant conspiracy movement, a movement in which you're already a laughingstock?
No, Ian, I didn't think you should care. I started out, actually, to tell a funny story about meeting Bill Deagle, but then I decided it wouldn't be nice.
TR, thanks for all the irrational assumptions.
Dr. Sunder by the way told NOVA that the towers "essentially came down in free fall."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
TR, thanks for
Shut the fuck up, Brian.
What purpose would that serve? It wouldn't stop you from demonstrating your irrationality.
Shut the fuck up, Brian.
Dr. Sunder by the way told NOVA that the towers "essentially came down in free fall."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
Brian, posting the same dumbspam over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any less false.
Ian, my post is not false and not dumb.
The link shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."
For you to without even checking just go on confidently denying reality is both dumb and false.
"Like Willie Rodriguez, Craig had threatened to truth-squad me on video and make me look stupid."
He doesn't have to.
"No, Ian, I didn't think you should care."
He doesn't.
His comment was just for shits and giggles.
"Dr. Sunder by the way told NOVA that the towers "essentially came down in free fall.""
Anjd guess what?
Nobody gives a flying fuck.
"Ian, my post is not false and not dumb."
It's false, it's dumb, and it's insane.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
The link shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."
If you would bother to check before commenting, you would avoid saying stupidity. You guys deny reality.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
The link shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."
Brian, what did I just say about posting the same lying dumbspam over and over again?
If you would bother to check before commenting, you would avoid saying stupidity. You guys deny reality.
Squeal squeal squeal!
"The link shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."
If you would bother to check before commenting, you would avoid saying stupidity. You guys deny reality."
Yes, Bwian, you have posted this link before, and it also says that the towers came down so fast because they were mostly air. The Doc says that the unique contruction meant that the towers were 70% air, and that many of the steel columns were hollow - not solid, and this meant that there was no resistance when the collapse occured.
You are the one who should bother to check before posting, dumbass.
MGF, For a geologist you sure don't have much common sense. All buildings are 70% air. If they were solid concrete they wouldn't be very useful.
You'd better review your thermodynamics and kinetics. There's nothing about the building's construction that rendered it immune to the laws of physics.
Brian, you still need to learn how to read before posting inaccurate quotes about Dr. Sunder. Please do so.
The quote from Sunder was perfectly accurate. He told NOVA the building "essentially came down in free fall."
The quote from Sunder was perfectly accurate. He told NOVA the building "essentially came down in free fall."
Brian, I said to stop lying, not to keep posting the same lying dumbspam over and over again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
The dumbspam is yours, Ian. Anyone who goes to the link can see that you're denying reality.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA the building "essentially came down in free fall."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
The dumbspam is yours, Ian. Anyone who goes to the link can see that you're denying reality.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA the building "essentially came down in free fall."
My, such squealing!
"The dumbspam is yours, Ian. Anyone who goes to the link can see that you're denying reality."
...and then you wrote this:
"Dr. Sunder told NOVA the building "essentially came down in free fall."'
...but then you leave out the part where Dr. Sunder explains why they fell so fast - "The buildings were 70% air".
You quote an actual expert in your assbackward debate who completely undremines your own position. You say that you don't cherry-pick, yet in this case you clearly have. Then you say that you don't lie, when you most certainly do.
The link to Dr. Sunder is one that proves that you are full of shit. He takes your positions and shoves them up your ass with a candle on top (maybe a thermite candle). So keep on posting it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, ALL buildings are 70% air. The fact that the WTC was 70% air does not give it an exemption from the laws of physics.
You'd really better brush up on your 1st thermo and Newton's 3rd before you take the GRE. Your ignorance is astounding. I guess college ain't what it used to be when I was young.
You are operating purely on the basis of an argument from authority. Sunder is a liar.
"Sunder is a liar."
The same Sunder that you've been quoting throughout this post?
Make up your mind, if he's a liar then why quote him about the speed of the towers collapsing?
If he is correct, then he is also correct about why they fell so fast.
You can't have it both ways.
...and it's "Dr. Sunder" to you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes, the same Sunder. First we establish the facts. One of the facts is that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down essentially in free fall.
One of the facts is that NIST said the buildings came down essentially in free fall.
I've been trying to establish the facts, and youse guys have been denying the facts.
Fuck Sunder. He's a liar. Fuck Rice, liar.
One of the facts is that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down essentially in free fall.
That's not a fact. It's a lie.
One of the facts is that NIST said the buildings came down essentially in free fall.
Also a lie.
I've been trying to establish the facts, and youse guys have been denying the facts.
A third lie. The only fact that has been established is that you are a liar, Brian.
Fuck Sunder. He's a liar. Fuck Rice, liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Sunder told NOVA that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
Squeal squeal squeal!
That's what she said.
"Sunder told NOVA that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html"
...and then he told NOVA the reason they fell so fast was because they were 70% air - the part that you leave out...why?
"I've been trying to establish the facts, and youse guys have been denying the facts.
Fuck Sunder. He's a liar. Fuck Rice, liar."
So...you establish the facts by quoting a Dr. Sunder...and then you call him a liar because he undermines your pathetic assertions.
This is a clear sign of mental illness. It masks itself as stupidity, but this is the same as Mason listening to the White Album and hearing a message to murder. This is John Hinckley shooting Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. Quoting a real scientist to make your point while claiming that this same scientist is a liar is an act of mental illness.
Your damaged mind won't allow you to deal in facts, or the truth. Get help.
I seek to establish the fact that Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall" because some people around here have been unwilling to recognize that fact.
It has nothing to do with Jodi Foster.
I seek to establish the fact that Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall" because some people around here have been unwilling to recognize that fact.
It's not a fact. It's a lie repeated constantly by a failed janitor and lunatic who was expelled from the truth movement for stalking members of the group.
It's a fact, as anyone can see who checks out the link, and you lie.
It's a fact, as anyone can see who checks out the link, and you lie.
Brian, I checked the link. There is nothing like what you claim there. I guess you're either illiterate (possible, since you apparently never read the instructions on how to mop the floors and got fired from your janitor gig) or a liar.
Ian, you lie. At the link, click on the "transcript" link. You can see that Sunder said the buildings "essentially came down in free fall".
You take a quote from the beginning of a lengthy response, immediately jump over most of the response to quote from the last sentence of that response. You completely ignore several sentences worth of explanation of why that speed is to be expected in a structure of this design.
That is lying by omission. It is cherry picking. And, judging by your past history, it is to be expected from you.
Free fall is contrary to the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics. All buildings are 70% air. If they weren't they'd be bowling balls.
He said the buildings "essentially came down in free fall". That's the issue, that's what I quoted, that's what he said.
And you left out the rest of his analysis that said:
"But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, and the weight of the occupants and the furniture of the building. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say, a 20-floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied. And it essentially came down in free fall."
Why is that? Why the carefully selective quoting? Why cherry pick the one sentence from that that seems to make your case and leave out all the rest of it?
And since you can't seem to grasp it, the word "essentially" is what's called a "weasel word" it means "close to but not actually." So there is no violation of thermodynamics because something "essentially came down in free fall." You would have a leg to stand on if he had said "came down in free fall"
He said the buildings "essentially came down in free fall". That's the issue, that's what I quoted, that's what he said.
False.
Ian, you lie. At the link, click on the "transcript" link. You can see that Sunder said the buildings "essentially came down in free fall".
That's what I clicked, Brian. As usual, you're lying by claiming there is anything of this sort in the transcript.
J Rebori, all Sunder's blather about a 20-floor section in dynamic impact is just blather, and no kind of analysis. NIST never demonstrated that this took place, and they provided no calculations quantifying the forces. And anybody who looks at the WTC1 video can see the top
"block" coming apart before the impact zone even begins to fail, so the notion of 20 floors hammering together is total hogwash.
I told you why the selective quoting. Because my point is that he said the buildings "essentially came down in free fall" and he said the measurements have indicated that they came down in about 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
Ian, you lie. Dr. Sunder says: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... And it essentially came down in free fall."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
I see Brian is still trying to spackle over the cracks in "the truth". First it was FFA can only be caused by a CD, now since they aren't really in free fall close is good enough. Either way we know regardless of Sunder's statement we know the entire collapse was not FFA, it wasn't straight down, and it wasn't symmetrical. Keep shifting the evidence to support the conclusion
So 9 seconds and 11 seconds are not free fall acceleration? Your quibbling is immaterial. By stopping the analysis at the moment of collapse initation, NIST dodged all the questions about apparent violation of the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd Law.
The rest was not analysis, it was blather. If you don't understand that buildings coming down essentially in free fall raise major questions concerning the first law of thermodynamics, questions that deserve a quantitative analysis, and not merely some handwaving bullshit, then perhaps you should recognize that you need to do some research before you can understand the problem.
I told you why the selective quoting. Because the blather doesn't matter. What matters is the bottom line.
Here's an example. If Kevin Barrett writes a long long essay that concludes: "Zionost Jews did 9/11 for the benefit of Zionist Jews and all the Zionists should be imprisoned in concentration camps", then I don't need recite all the blather that "supports" his conclusion. To quote his conclusion is sufficient. Capisce?
You left it out not because it is "blather" but because it points out that his statements don't support your claims about his conclusion. That is misrepresenting his claims, that is lying. Having caught you lying repeatedly already, I'm not surprised by that.
When "essentially in free fall" becomes equivalent to "fre fall" talk to me, until then you are ignoring a critical word in the statement, one that makes your claim that his conclusion supports your claims a lie. Again, not surprising.
Since his claim is in no way equivalent to the antisemitic bigotry too often found among truthers, your analogy is not only wrong but sensationalized. Since his conclusion is that due to the unusual design of the towers it is not a surprise that once failure occured it went very rapidly, your avoiding allowing a reader to see that as the basis for his final statement is lying by ommission. Again, not a surprise with your history.
JR, Sunder's statements that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall" and that they fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds are certainly supportive of my conclusion that he said that.
When did I ever say the buildings came down in free fall? I'm just trying to establish the fact of what Sunder said--after nearly everybody in this forum has lied about that fact.
The unusual design of the building has nothing to do with the fact that a building coming down essentially in free fall violates the laws of physics unless there are added energy inputs in terms of explosives or incendiaries and we need an investigation of this problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home