Thursday, May 19, 2011

Steven Jones' Latest Latest Research

Apparently his discussion of earthquake machines is off for now, being not quite half-baked. Instead, he's focusing his efforts on "free energy"; the crackpottery formerly known as perpetual motion. Get his breathless regurgitation of a fruitcake claiming to have stopped his studies of a new device after being visited by the men in black:
This last week was a nightmare for me, you have no idea under what pressure I have been and how many people contacted me, warnings that I should keep quiet... and in the end, yesterday, I had a personal visit after leaving my day to day job.

I had the impression that I live in a free country but it was demonstrated that anything is possible, we will never move forward.

Of course that is a very vague discussion that could mean anything. But another Truther has more on the miracle machine:
Romero had seemed very sincere and open about his device. It was also a hard slap in the face to everyone who had been preparing to replicate the setup. Forum members had invested their time getting ready to replicate, sacrificed materials in order to fabricate rotors/stators, and even spent their hard earned money purchasing components. As Romero stated in one of his posts, the device was not cheap to build. He expected the cost of a slightly larger scale version of the device to cost around one thousand dollars.

Yes, you heard that right, ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!

The same guy posts a link to this very entertaining film:


I love the guy who created the monster wheel. Like a ten-foot wheel wouldn't have been enough to demonstrate the concept. If you look carefully, you'll see it's just an extension of this:

The idea is based on a child's see-saw or teeter-totter. I'm sure most of us remember that if two children of the same weight got on one of those, but one moved closer to the middle while the other sat out at the end, that the former would be lifted in the air. So it makes sense that if you have extended weights on one side of a wheel, and the weights move in after they reach the bottom, that the wheel would turn. But the diagram above also shows the design problem; as you can see there are only four weights doing the work on the right side, while there are 8 weights being pulled upwards on the left.

Note as well that although the story ends with the wheel still spinning, there is no mention of it doing any practical work, like generating electricity.

In fairness to Jones, the one he's pushing seems more like the guy who charges batteries and then uses them to run the motor which charges more batteries....

But of course I don't want to spend the whole post on perpetual motion, as fruity as it is. No, we're still on 9-11 Truther idiocy around here, so check out the post on Jones at Troof Action. Our own Brian Good starts out well:
With four months to go before the anniversary, does he really think this is the best strategy for bringing good publicity to nanothermite?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are hairy hominids running around in British Columbia, but I don't think they're the best use of my time right now.

Note as usual the focus on PR, not the actual topic at hand. It's not whether perpetual motion or earthquake machines are nutty, it's whether they will make the Truthers look nutty.

But being Brian Good, it's only a few pages more before he indulges his inner lunatic:
Dr. Jones is certainly entitled to look at anything he wants to on his own time.

Frankly I wish he would look at the possibility that high-tech secret weapons were used on the twin towers, because I've never been able to see how gravity, conventional explosives, thermite, or nano-thermite could have pulverized the concrete floors of the twin towers in mid-air. I can't help wondering if Dr. Wood's incompetent assertions about exotic weapons was intended to make the whole field unpopular.

Yep, as we have noted in the past, Richard Gage is every bit as crazy as Judy when it comes to the "missing floors" and "pulverized concrete", and PetGoat Good isn't about to abandon Box Boy.

And Victronix isn't about to abandon Jones:
Even if Steve were investigating the idea that politicians might be reptiles from another planet, he is ultimately a scientist -- has been for his entire career -- and he would conduct an experiment and discover that the hypothesis had no basis, and move on. He doesn't just make fantastic assumptions and then publish them on a blog and say "it must be that way!" (ala David Griscom). Steve conducts research.

But isn't that the problem with reptilian theories--that there's really no way to test it?

Labels:

181 Comments:

At 19 May, 2011 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you think reptilian heritage wouldn't show up in DNA evidence?

 
At 19 May, 2011 12:37, Blogger Nonspiracy said...

Brian- Congratulations- FINALLY you've helped end this foolish "Troof" movement- My favorite post in that thread-

"i am now officially out of patience.

i am out of patience with ANYONE who attempts to defend him or his work.

I now OFFICIALLY place him into the same bucket as Dr. Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Jesse Ventura.

It is OVER - in MY mind - and it should be in everyone else's as well.

i know that many of us have an emotional investment in the idea that controlled demolition brought down the WTC towers. I get that. but - it is time for people to put their emotions aside and strap on their thinking caps!! This is not acceptable - not by ANY stretch of the imagination - and anyone who persists in defending this man and his work as a legitimate path towards TRUTH for the 9/11 victims and their families - you betray them and yourself.

there is no gray area on this.

and if you are afraid of peer pressure - and cannot handle the bullshit you will get from the peanut gallery of online shills out there working to make sure that men like Ventura and Griffin and Jones put a FACE on this movement - then you're not in the right place and you don'r belong in a truth movement.

voice morphing
DEWs
No-planes (at the Pentagon included)
no hijackers

and now fake earthquakes & perpetual motion gizmos from the thermite king.

epic fail"

 
At 19 May, 2011 12:55, Blogger CachorroQuente said...

Wow, that movie was cool. The Norwegian with the ball running around the course was pretty amazing. Best I can tell, it's a very efficient pendulum driven clock. If it continues to run for very long periods (three years, for example, instead of three days), there must be some portion of the mechanism which gets slowly closer to the center of the earth.

The big wheel is, as asserted, essentially the same as the drawing displayed. No matter how you do such a thing, the net torque is going to fluctuate around zero and eventually the wheel will stop -- unless there is some mechanism by which energy is derived from the sun or the wind. This can be no more of a free energy device than is the drinking duck.

 
At 19 May, 2011 13:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Jones' junk science dates to at least 1987, doesn't it? Wasn't he tinkering with cold fusion around that time?

 
At 19 May, 2011 16:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"But isn't that the problem with reptilian theories--that there's really no way to test it?"

Technically there'd be no way to test. There ia no reason to assume that a reptile from another planet would have the same characteristics as earth reptiles.

ET reptiles might look like swimsuit models, in which case I would like to be the first towelcome our new reptile overlords.

 
At 19 May, 2011 16:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Jones is certainly entitled to look at anything he wants to on his own time.

Frankly I wish he would look at the possibility that high-tech secret weapons were used on the twin towers, because I've never been able to see how gravity, conventional explosives, thermite, or nano-thermite could have pulverized the concrete floors of the twin towers in mid-air. I can't help wondering if Dr. Wood's incompetent assertions about exotic weapons was intended to make the whole field unpopular."

Wouldn't an exotoc weapon be the same thing as a high tec weapon?

Also, hahahahahahahahahha...oh, I pee'd a little...

 
At 19 May, 2011 17:15, Blogger Ian said...

I wouldn't be surprised if there are hairy hominids running around in British Columbia, but I don't think they're the best use of my time right now.

Unless he's talking about lumberjacks, it appears that Brian believes in Sasquatch, proving again that if you're dumb enough to fall for one conspiracy theory, you're dumb enough to fall for them all.

 
At 19 May, 2011 17:17, Blogger Ian said...

Frankly I wish he would look at the possibility that high-tech secret weapons were used on the twin towers, because I've never been able to see how gravity, conventional explosives, thermite, or nano-thermite could have pulverized the concrete floors of the twin towers in mid-air.

Modified attack baboons planting micro-nukes. I told you Brian believes in this stuff, no matter how much he tries to hide the fact behind piles of dumbspam.

 
At 19 May, 2011 17:29, Blogger Len said...

"Wouldn't an exotoc weapon be the same thing as a high tec weapon?"

Of course not, 'high-tech weapons' are produced at secret facilities in develped contries, 'exotic weapons' are made by members of tribal cultures in tropical countries.

A good example of the latter are the 10 foot plus long blowguns made by members of several tribes in the northwest Amazon.

:) :O :o :0

 
At 19 May, 2011 17:31, Blogger Len said...

Funny that Jones cracked on Fetzer for backing hairbrained theories and is no advocating one that are just as stupid.

 
At 19 May, 2011 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

OT

I demand a detailed article that explains why the "debate" between shit-for-brains and Willie the Rod was canceled--or more likely stonewalled--by the goat fucker.

 
At 19 May, 2011 19:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OPEN MESSAGE TO SNOWCRASH, WHOEVER YOU ARE: I just read your pitiful comments on the truthaction Jones thread. You're obviously confused and bitter. You feel betrayed. You even wonder if maybe you didn't pick the wrong team.

So why not hang out at SLC for a while? Being around intelligent people might do you good. You seem open minded enough to learn something real. Just think about it.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage's Testicles

 
At 19 May, 2011 20:58, Blogger paul w said...

Of course not, 'high-tech weapons' are produced at secret facilities in develped contries, 'exotic weapons' are made by members of tribal cultures in tropical countries.

Actually, the 'high-tech weapons' used on 9/11 were developed in one of the secret high-tech caverns located in various island volcanoes scattered around the pacific.

Why do you think the villains lairs in the various James Bond movies, and others, are always like this?

Hollywood, dude, part of the world-wide Jewish Brainwashing Program; bit by bit, get all the sheep used to The Way Things Really Are.

'Exotic Weapons' are from the extra-terrestrials, back-engineered in places like Area 51.

Sheep on not know this. But We Do.

 
At 19 May, 2011 21:34, Blogger paul w said...

OT

Apologies if this has been covered.
It's an interview about conspiracy theories:

David Aaronovitch released a book, 'Voodoo Histories', and this is an excellent interview:

http://www.skepticality.com/p_listentopast.php

Go to:

08/09/2010 #136 - Voodoo History - Guest: David Aaronovitch

 
At 20 May, 2011 02:09, Blogger Pat said...

RGT, I read the book on the cold fusion fiasco about five years ago, and my basic impression was that Jones was not culpable like Pons and Fleishmann, but that he did peer-review their work and initially agreed with their findings. They were supposed to submit their papers together, but P&F jumped the gun and published first, resulting in the explosion of media coverage. In a way this worked to Jones' benefit, since his reputation did not that the beating that Pons and Fleishmann did.

 
At 20 May, 2011 07:09, Blogger Arcterus said...

You almost get the feeling the Jones tries to outdo himself by getting crazier and crazier every year. Cold fusion, mormonism, nanothermite, earthquake-producing machines, now perpetual motion? I can't wait to see what's next. Will he figure out the square root of a negative number? Will he disprove one of Newton's Laws of Motion? We can only wait and see.

So you think reptilian heritage wouldn't show up in DNA evidence?

At the end of the day, you people only make yourselves look crazy.

 
At 20 May, 2011 09:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

My question was simply a logical response to Pat's assertion that there was no way to test reptilian theory.

MGF, similarity between alien reptilian DNA and terrestrial reptile DNA is not the issue--particularly since there is so much similarity between human and earth-lizard DNA. (I hope you will consider some studies in marine biology for your own personal enrichment before getting hung up in a career.)

The question is whether the DNA of alleged space-reptilians would show patterned differences from the DNA of the larger human population. The findings would not be conclusive of course, because the pattern of "space-reptilian" genes might not necessarily be of extraterrestrial origin, and since real space-reptiles might have the capability of manipulating their genetic baggage, but it would be a start toward a test of reptilian theories.

 
At 20 May, 2011 09:42, Blogger Arcterus said...

That's crap. The shapeshifting required to make a reptilian hominid look like a human would be so dramatic that it's beyond what even makes sense with DNA. It's not like a chameleon that can simply change it's pigmentation. It would have to alter it's entire body structure. You can't expect reasonable DNA results with something that would defy everything logical and known about DNA.

 
At 20 May, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Extra-terrestrial ancestry and shape-shifting are two different propositions.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shut up, goat fucker.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's not nice, GutterBall. Arcterus is a truth movement defector who could be a valuable source of gossip for you. You have no evidence that he's ever fucked a goat.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There's no evidence that you have an IQ above the temperature of warm spit, but that doesn't stop you from making an ass of yourself, goat fucker. After all, you're living proof that there's no vaccine against stupidity.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

First you write this (when you should have just STFU, but due to your mental illness you couldn't help yearself):


"My question was simply a logical response to Pat's assertion that there was no way to test reptilian theory. "

Then you follow up with this:

"MGF, similarity between alien reptilian DNA and terrestrial reptile DNA is not the issue--particularly since there is so much similarity between human and earth-lizard DNA. (I hope you will consider some studies in marine biology for your own personal enrichment before getting hung up in a career.)"

Pat was making a joke, I was adding to the joke. You missed this because you are insane.

However I did have Marine Biology and you are full of shit. The issue of reptilains is that they are aliens, that means that they are not from this plantet. To assume that something from another planet that might look like a reptile - is a reptile - would be a mistake. Then being from another planet raises the problem of collecting DNA for a data base. They (if you belief in this bullshit) can come here, but we can't go to their planet. So we have to catch one here, perhaps at one to the highway rest stop men's rooms you hang out in.

Then (since we are now way off into crazy town now) you have to hope that we can even understand their DNA, or even register it on our equipment as DNA.

There are three assumptions one can make about alien humanoid life forms: 1-Their DNA is nothing like ours, 2- their DNA is similar to ours with alterations, 3- Their DNA is exactly like ours, so they wouldn't stand out in a standard DNA screen.

Since there's no such thing as reptilians from Zatar running around this planet you have nothing to worry about. Well...maybe not you Brain, you're a nut-job sex-stalker so who knows what makes you cower at night under your Scooby Doo nightlight.


By all means keep posting, Brian, you're hillarious.

 
At 20 May, 2011 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, since your apparent belief was that something from another planet that might look like a reptile was a reptile, I corrected your mistake. How was I to know it was a joke?

Speaking of jokes, I wonder if GutterBall writes his own one-liners or cribs them somewhere. I can't decide whether it's dumber to actually write such stuff or to think it's clever enough to be worth copying.

 
At 20 May, 2011 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, shouldn't you be out in the bright, California sun picking up bottles and cans in order to scrape together your next meal?

Now, grow up and act your age--senile.

 
At 20 May, 2011 13:20, Blogger Arcterus said...

Extra-terrestrial ancestry and shape-shifting are two different propositions.

Oh, I see, so you're suggesting that they coudl simply have EVOLVED from reptilians? This creates more problems than solutions.

Most notably, the notion that a reptilian species from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLANET ended up evolving to look EXACTLY like humans is ridiculous. My understanding of phylogeny only goes so deep, but I'd even wonder if it's possible to make the transition from reptile to human. Maybe someone can help me out on that. But ultimately, while "Star Wars" and "V" have a tendency to make aliens very human-like but with green skin or pointy ears or whatever, the reality is very different. To think that evolution would result in the same species in ENTIRELY different atmoshpheres and ecosystems is absurd. So if we're talking about ancestry, as opposed to shapeshifting, that only makes things all the more problematic.

Arcterus is a truth movement defector

Hahaha, love it. "Defector". Technically accurate, I suppose, but I said form the beginning that I'd change sides if the evidence called for it. And so I have.

http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2011/05/silence.html

 
At 20 May, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

If alien reptilians had genetic technology why couldn't they have found a way to make themselves look like humans? Especially if they had hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years to do the job?

I was suggesting only that genomic examination might find a way to provide evidence for reptilian theories.

As to your defection, so it's OK with you that NORAD lied and the 9/11 Commission just made up the datapoints in the NORAD part of the report?

It's OK with you that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered?

It's OK with you that NIST terminates its analysis at the point of collapse initiation and so avoids all the mysteries?

It's OK that NIST won't release the data underlying its computer models?

It's OK that NIST's computer models for WTC7 bear no resemblance to what actually happened?

It's OK that we don't know what were Cheney's orders that still stood or what time that conversation took place?

It's OK that the hijackers' source of funds was considered to be "of little practical significance"?

It's OK that two alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant and the 9/11 Commission was not permitted to talk to him?

It's OK that the "deepest mystery" of the molten steel was not addressed?

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Secrets of 9/11" tonight on Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-reporting/transcript/fox-news-reporting-secrets-911

Should be a fun weekend.

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

But it's perfectly okay with SLC's resident psychopath that each one his alleged bullet points is either a red herring or a bald-faced lie.

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I was suggesting only that genomic examination might find a way to provide evidence for reptilian theories."

The wise move would be to point out that UFOs are bullsit, so are reptillian aliens, so why waste money and lab time on something that does not exist just to make some mentally ill people happy?

Especially when they will ignore the findings anyway claiming yet another cover-up.

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:42, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:47, Blogger paul w said...

It's OK...

Ban

 
At 20 May, 2011 15:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It's OK that two alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant and the 9/11 Commission was not permitted to talk to him?"

He wrote a book, nimrod:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/FBI_Warned_of_Sept_11_Hijacker.htm

I even posted a whack-job-friendly lin for you.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:13, Blogger Triterope said...

Ban

And the chorus gets louder.

How many more fucking times do we have to listen to Brian's shit? Throw his ass out of here.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

As to your defection, so it's OK with you that NORAD lied and the 9/11 Commission just made up the datapoints in the NORAD part of the report?

Yes. Inferences are sometimes required in an investigation.

It's OK with you that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered?

Yes. The widows' questions are unimportant.

It's OK with you that NIST terminates its analysis at the point of collapse initiation and so avoids all the mysteries?

Yes. And please elaborate on what's still a mystery to you.

It's OK that NIST won't release the data underlying its computer models?

Yes. It's not uncommon for NIST to retain rights to license data it produces.

It's OK that NIST's computer models for WTC7 bear no resemblance to what actually happened?

NIST's models are an accurate representation of what happened. Look at them again.

It's OK that we don't know what were Cheney's orders that still stood or what time that conversation took place?

Yes, that's OK. Cheney's orders cannot be relevant.

It's OK that the hijackers' source of funds was considered to be "of little practical significance"?

Yes. That's OK and accurate.

It's OK that two alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant and the 9/11 Commission was not permitted to talk to him?

That doesn't particularly bother me.

It's OK that the "deepest mystery" of the molten steel was not addressed?

It's not the "deepest mystery" anymore. Update your research. Professor Barnett is easy to contact.

See, this is why the Truth Movement is such an epic failure. It's reduced to stale talking points, of interest only to other Truthers.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I wasn't proposing any kind of tests, but only suggesting that Pat's facile claim was incorrect that the alien reptilian hypothesis was not testable.

Also, wasn't talking about Aukai Collins. I was talking about Abdussattar Shaikh.

GutterBall, kindly back up your claim and show that one of the bullet points is a lie.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, your facile dismissals are just silly. And I'm not aware that Dr. Barnett ever said the "deepest mystery" was solved. You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yawn.

Why should I feel compelled to repeat myself? I've already "backed up my claims" and proven that each one of your bullet items is untrue. You're so brazen that you're lying about "melted steel," which I proved was a pile of crap less than one week ago.

You're a typical troofer. When the lies you tell are debunked, you ignore the evidence against your idea's and return a couple of weeks later to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

And for that reason alone you should be unceremoniously BANNED.

Now go play in the middle of CA highway 101, goat fucker.

 
At 20 May, 2011 16:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...RGT, your facile dismissals are just silly. And I'm not aware that Dr. Barnett ever said the "deepest mystery" was solved. You don't know what you're talking about."

Bullsh*t! You lied about Drs. Sisson, Barnett and Beiderman and tried to claim there's some debate between the three as concerns their findings. Their paper proves the steel didn't "melt," but in fact eroded. I also proved that the three men worked together at WPI on the same research paper and came to the same conclusion.

Again, you're a typical troofer. When the lies you tell are debunked, you ignore the evidence against your idea's and return a couple of weeks later to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

 
At 20 May, 2011 17:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, your facile dismissals are just silly.

Absurdities are dismissed. That's life. I imagine this is why "responsible truthers" take a "dim view" of 9/11 Truth lawsuits -- because the legal process actually establishes facts and comes to conclusions. That takes away from the mystery, those tantalizing revelations that Truthers so love to masturb^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfantasize about.

And I'm not aware that Dr. Barnett ever said the "deepest mystery" was solved. You don't know what you're talking about.

See, there you go again. You claim to be pursuing answers, but you turn away from answers in favor of mysteries whenever possible.

 
At 20 May, 2011 17:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Jones was not culpable like Pons and Fleishmann, but that he did peer-review their work and initially agreed with their findings.

That seems to be the accepted version, that they inadvertently saved Jones from shooting himself in the foot. Interesting how bad science just keeps finding him.

 
At 20 May, 2011 17:51, Blogger Arcterus said...

If alien reptilians had genetic technology why couldn't they have found a way to make themselves look like humans?

So...we're back at shapeshifting?

As to your defection, so it's OK with you that...

It's okay with me that I know unanswered questions do not lead to conclusions, and that there are a hundred explanations and answers for any one of those things that don't necessarily require direct complicity and government involvement.

The fact that governments lie and some questions have gone unanswered proves nothing and is not a valid standing ground for asserting the necessity of a new investigation.

 
At 20 May, 2011 19:42, Blogger Pat said...

Arcterus, I'm very impressed with what you wrote on your blog. You are a very thoughtful and self-aware individual for 20 years old. I was involved in a movement for roughly the same time in my life as you were among the Truthers and I know I could not have written anything of that level at age 20; I suspect I couldn't have written it at age 30.

 
At 20 May, 2011 21:43, Blogger Arcterus said...

Thanks, Pat. I spent several days thinking about exactly how I wanted to write that, so I appreciate the compliment.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It's OK with you that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered?"

Nobody cares, boron.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" snug.bug said...
RGT, your facile dismissals are just silly."

Your facile assertions are insane, boron.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you haven't backed up your claims but only repeated your empty assertions. Every day you more and more resemble William Fraudriguez, always claiming that the evidence supporting your claims is somewhere hard to get.

Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biedeman have never expressed agreement with Dr. Sisson's silly claim that the sulfidation attack resulted from drywall. Drywall sulfur is a sulfate, completely oxidized, and hydrated as well. It's inert.

Their paper discusses intragranular melting. You can't read a 1000-word paper? What's the matter, did your lips get tired?

RGT, please show which one of my bullet points is absurd, and why it's absurd.

Also, please support your claim that Dr. Barnett endorsed the gypsum hypothesis for the sulfidation attack on the steel. Dr. Barnett is a fire-wise scientist, and as such he knows gypsum is inert.

Arcterus, altering morphology by genetic manipulation is hardly "shape-shifting". It's not a real-time process.

Your reliance on straw man arguments to concoct a rationalization to abandon the pursuit of truth, adopting a cynical attitude of Governments Lie, So What, Who Cares, That's OK is unfortunate. Don't mistake cynicism for maturity.

Obviously you worked very hard on your essay. You're a talented writer and a precocious thinker. You need to learn to cut unnecessary words from your musings to make their meanings more clear--not only to your readers but to yourself.

Had you gone the extra ten miles to shorten your piece you would have more easily recognized the flaws in its premises and its internal contradictions.

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, goat fucker?

Everyone who's remotely familiar with this website and the content found therein knows you're lying.

The paper uses the word "erosion" to describe the phenomenon.

And no--you filthy lying sex predator--I'm not going to dig up the citation from the paper that proves you're lying.

A few links are all that's necessary to prove you're a liar.

Proof the goat fucker is lying.

More proof the goat fucker is a liar.

And yet more proof the goat fucker is a liar

Still more proof the goat fucker is a liar.

More proof that you're a liar.

Now lie and pretend the links don't prove you're misleading the reader--you homosexual degenerate.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity...'The important questions,' says Biederman, 'are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain.'"" -- Dr. Beiderman

Don't you love how the goat fucker twists the quote by changing "intergranular channels" into "intergranular melting" and then completely ignores the word "erosion"?

If the aforementioned doesn't prove what a liar the goat fucker is, nothing will.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Their paper discusses intragranular melting. You can't read a 1000-word paper? What's the matter, did your lips get tired?" -- The goat fucker.

But that not what Dr. Biederman wrote, is it, goat fucker?

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity...'The important questions,' says Biederman, 'are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain.'"" -- Dr. Beiderman

Source: http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Thus, once again, you're a proven liar.

Now get your lying ass out of here, goat fucker, and never darken this website with your lies and propaganda again--you scurrilous liar.

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

The paper uses the term "intragranular melting", and your claims that it does not and that I am lying about it are false.

The paper says "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Quote mining again, asshole?

Why not give us the entire quote, not just the proption that supports your propaganda?

Here's what was really written--sans your utterly dishonest quote mining and outright lying:

"...Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

Hence, the steel didn't "melt", it eroded.

Once again, we can see that you're a liar.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

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

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

But what does Dr Biederman mean by "prior to collapse"? Read on...

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity...'The important questions,' says Biederman, 'are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain.'"" -- Dr. Beiderman

Once again, you're caught red-handed misrepresenting your source.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Just piling it higher and deeper, aren't you Gobbler? The paper says "intragranular melting". In context, the erosion might be better described as "vaporized" or "evaporated" rather than melted, which is what the New York Times does.

Dr. Barnett and Dr. Biedeman have never expressed agreement with Dr. Sisson's silly claim that the sulfidation attack resulted from drywall. Drywall sulfur is a sulfate, completely oxidized, and hydrated as well. It's inert.

Their paper discusses intragranular melting. You can't read a 1000-word paper? What's the matter, did your lips get tired?

RGT, please show which one of my bullet points is absurd, and why it's absurd.

Also, please support your claim that Dr. Barnett endorsed the gypsum hypothesis for the sulfidation attack on the steel. Dr. Barnett is a fire-wise scientist, and as such he knows gypsum is inert.

Arcterus, altering morphology by genetic manipulation is hardly "shape-shifting". It's not a real-time process.

Your reliance on straw man arguments to concoct a rationalization to abandon the pursuit of truth, adopting a cynical attitude of Governments Lie, So What, Who Cares, That's OK is unfortunate. Don't mistake cynicism for maturity.

Obviously you worked very hard on your essay. You're a talented writer and a precocious thinker. You need to learn to cut unnecessary words from your musings to make their meanings more clear--not only to your readers but to yourself.

Had you gone the extra ten miles to shorten your piece you would have more easily recognized the flaws in its premises and its internal contradictions.

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

Face it, goat fucker. You're BUSTED!

You quote mined your source and misrepresented the content found therein.

FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:45, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, altering morphology by genetic manipulation is hardly "shape-shifting". It's not a real-time process.

Uh...that's EXACTLY what it is. It's the same process. You are altering DNA to essentially become a different creature. Just because it's not real-time and would be a technological feat and not a biological one does not change the fact that it would be distorting the DNA and getting rid of any reason to test it.

Your reliance on straw man arguments to concoct a rationalization to abandon the pursuit of truth, adopting a cynical attitude of Governments Lie, So What, Who Cares, That's OK is unfortunate. Don't mistake cynicism for maturity.

Don't mistake stubbornness for accuracy. This is almost exactly what you posted on my blog.

Had you gone the extra ten miles to shorten your piece you would have more easily recognized the flaws in its premises and its internal contradictions.

You're suggesting...had I CUT INFORMATION from my essay...it would have supported 9/11 Truth? Well, that's one way of looking at it...

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, cut-and-paste your post from 14:28, and squeal, lie, squeal, lie and squeal.

Hurry, goat fucker, bury the latest exposure of the lies you spew like a fire hose in an avalanche of gay squeal SPAM.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Cretin.

 
At 21 May, 2011 15:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arcterus, be warned. The goat fucker will NEVER admit he's wrong. And when you catch him lying, quote mining, resorting to logical fallacies or misrepresenting his source, he merely digs his heals in and continues to lie.

Make no mistake, the goat fucker is a psychopath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, I was suggesting that DNA morphing could have taken place over generations, as much as thousands of years. Real-time DNA morphing is not biologically possible unless you can manipulate time as well.

Stubbornness is just an insulting word for consistency. I'll continue to stubbornly press for truth, accountability, justice, and democracy--because that's the only way we have a chance of getting it.

I wasn't suggesting cutting information from your blog. Unnecessary words obscure the information, obstruct the function. They're dead wood.

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor Gobble mistakes his own lousy reading comprehension skills for somebody else's quote mining.

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:08, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, I was suggesting that DNA morphing could have taken place over generations, as much as thousands of years.

...In which case, they would have essentially evolved into humans and would have human DNA. We're right back where we were before. We can go in circles all day.

Stubbornness is just an insulting word for consistency. I'll continue to stubbornly press for truth, accountability, justice, and democracy--because that's the only way we have a chance of getting it.

For someone who thinks he has the right to tell me what I think, I find your usage of the word "insulting" pretty insulting. I will absolutely call it "stubbornness" when you repeat the same thing to me over and over expecting it to yield different results.

I wasn't suggesting cutting information from your blog. Unnecessary words obscure the information, obstruct the function. They're dead wood.

If they are unnecessary, why would it make a difference? Regardless, please give some examples of useless words and explain how they reveal flaws.

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

Face it, goat fucker, you're BUSTED once again--you fraud.

Here's what you wrote--you quote mining fraud:

"...The paper says 'Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.'"

But that quote is taken entirely out of context. Here's the entire quote in context:

"..."...Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.""

Thus, you're caught red handed, once again, quote mining and misrepresenting your source.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You can run from your latest defeat, goat fucker, but you can't hide.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, you can't simply discard your alien genetic complement no longer how long you've got. Which is what I was suggesting DNA testing as a means of testing the alien reptilian hypothesis.

I don't know what you think. I know what you said. If you would do the work to cut unnecessary words then you could be a lot more confident that you say what you mean and mean what you say.

Unnecessary words obscure meanings, and sometimes make points unnecessarily ponderous. For instance three points might be presented in three sequential paragraphs with a lot of unnecessary verbiage, or they might be presented in one paragraph, in fewer words, in juxtaposition.

I haven't got time for specifics right now. Take a look at "Telling Writing" by Ken McCorie, the section on tightening.

UtterFool, the fact remains that intragranular melting is melting, the paper says there was intragranular melting, the context doesn't change that, and the fact that the melting resulted in erosion and vaporization doesn't change the fact that there was melting.

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFool, the fact remains that intragranular melting is melting"

Wrong. Intergranular melting is a surface fracture along grain boundaries which results from transgranular fracture energy.

And the fact remains that you're a quote miner, liar and pathetic psychopath.

You're merely proving that everything I said about you at 15:51 is true.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 16:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wikipedia wrote, "...Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Wikipedia just described you perfectly, goat fucker.

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel

 
At 21 May, 2011 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

So in GutterBalls's world melting is a fracture.

Thanks for that.

 
At 21 May, 2011 17:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, idiot?

Try a course in metallurgy--you pathetic psychopath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_materials

But that's neither here nor there--you quote mining prat.

You lied and misrepresented your source, which, as anyone who's familiar with this blog can attest, is standard operating procedure for you.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 21 May, 2011 17:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, please show which one of my bullet points is absurd, and why it's absurd.

Most are mysteries without significance. The act of asking the question is the absurdity. The "deepest mystery" question, in particular, is just silly -- you're fixating on a throwaway phrase in a 10-year-old article.

Again, Professor Barnett is cordial and easy to contact. If you have an important question just ask him. Please be polite though, it's my understanding that he's had it up to fucking here with idiot Truthers trying to call him out over nothing.

 
At 21 May, 2011 17:46, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, you can't simply discard your alien genetic complement no longer how long you've got. Which is what I was suggesting DNA testing as a means of testing the alien reptilian hypothesis.

Shows what you know. We humans also have reptilian remnants in our DNA. They are a part of our phylogeny. See: Hylonomus.

I don't know what you think. I know what you said. If you would do the work to cut unnecessary words then you could be a lot more confident that you say what you mean and mean what you say.

Remarkably, you deny claiming to know what I think (despite several quotes to the contrary) in the same paragraph where you do just that, albeit implicity. What makes you think I'm not confident in what I mean what I say? Get over yourself.

I haven't got time for specifics right now.

You've had a fuck of a lot of time to spend debating me about hypothetical reptilian hominids from another planet. But you can't look at my article and point out a single example of unnecessary words? Cool, so I ask you to back up what you say, and you give me pretentious bullshit. Nice.

There's no mystery here. It's as simple as this: I re-evaluated the evidence and deemed the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement incorrect. It's not some subconscious rationalization, it's not a byproduct of using too many words in my article, it's from excessive self-reflection and assessment. That's all there is to it.

 
At 21 May, 2011 19:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Arcterus, I was suggesting that DNA morphing could have taken place over generations, as much as thousands of years. Real-time DNA morphing is not biologically possible unless you can manipulate time as well."

This is where your mental problem becomes a liability. You are arguing about little green men. You are arguing hard about them too. It does not dawn on you that the subject is bullshit, so to waste time arguing about it is also bullshit. Someone dared challenge one of your assertions and you just can't let it go.

That is a sign on mental illness.

"I wasn't suggesting cutting information from your blog. Unnecessary words obscure the information, obstruct the function. They're dead wood"

Guess what, fuckface? Arcterus's blog features some gifted writing. That bugs you. That bugs you the same way that Willie Rodreguez bugs you - they're better than you. Arcterus can write,and he can write at a level beyond what I can ever hope to do.

Personally I think that's cool. Arcterus has popped up from out of the blue to share his blog here, and I'm blown away at how good of a writer he is. The fact that he has grown beyond the 9/11 Truth movement shows maturity, and the fact that he admits he was wrong about some things shows integrity. All things that Brian Goode lacked even before he went insane.

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:51, Blogger Ian said...

It's OK with you that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered?

The widows have no questions, Brian. Stop lying.

 
At 22 May, 2011 06:53, Blogger Ian said...

Also, it appears that Brian doesn't believe that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers. He believes that alien lizard did it.

Glad to have that cleared up.

 
At 22 May, 2011 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the fact is that the FEMA report said there was intragranular melting. The NYT described the steel as "evaporated" (11-29-01). The reporter, James Glanz, has a PhD in astrophysics. I'm no expert in physical sciences, but last time I checked anything that evaporates has to melt first--otherwise it would sublimate, right?

RGT, so first you said my bullet points were absurdities; now you backpedal to "without significance". Unable to show any logical absurdity in the points, you, you must instead declare without substantiation that they are irrelevant. Funny, lack of "significance" is what the 9/11 Commission said about the alleged hijackers' financiers. If the financiers are without significance, why were 2 dozen pages redacted from the Congressional/Senate report?

There's no time limit on truth, and the "deepest mystery" of the evaporated steel remains a mystery--because gypsum can not and does not explain it. The only person who has run an experiment found that the gypsum has no effect--which is to be expected because it's already fully oxidized and so it's inert.

Arcterus, I know humans have reptilian remnants in our DNA. I commented near the top of the thread that there is "much similarity between human and earth-lizard DNA." That's not the issue. The issue is that space-reptile DNA should be distinguishable both from earth-lizard DNA and human DNA.

I was analyzing what you said. I can't read your mind and know what you think. When what you say is muddled, internally contradictory, and based on faulty premises, then I can not be confident that you have thought your thesis through.

The discussion was not of hypothetical hominids--it was of means of testing the hypothesis. I wanted to complete the discussion. I'm not willing to open another can of worms about writing until you've read Macrorie.
The first paragraph in your article contains a lot of unnecessary words.

No, you didn't find the truth movement's claims incorrect. You found them inconclusive. You irrationally concluded that since Dr. Griffin can not prove his claims of "inside job", that therefore we should abandon more moderate calls for accountability and honest, complete, transparent
investigations.

MGF, you're not much of a scientist if you can't see that I was not arguing about little green men but discussing ways of falsifying an hypothesis.

Arcterus is a gifted writer, but an undisciplined one--which is to be expected from a 20-year-old. People with talent, like those with physical beauty, sometimes achieve too easily and thus fail to develop their full potential.

 
At 22 May, 2011 10:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, so first you said my bullet points were absurdities; now you backpedal to "without significance".

No, fumblenuts. I said that absurdities are dismissed. The questions are logically constructed, but it's absurd for you to find significance in those questions. They matter only in your imagination.

There's no time limit on truth, and the "deepest mystery" of the evaporated steel remains a mystery--because gypsum can not and does not explain it.

The answer to the mystery lies with Jonathan Barnett. Why haven't you contacted him yet? Don't you care about the widows? Aren't you ready for some of that hot widow ass?

 
At 22 May, 2011 11:43, Blogger Arcterus said...

That's not the issue. The issue is that space-reptile DNA should be distinguishable both from earth-lizard DNA and human DNA.

What, exactly, are you basing this off of? I think I'm done with this. I'm sick of going around in circles.

I was analyzing what you said. I can't read your mind and know what you think. When what you say is muddled, internally contradictory, and based on faulty premises, then I can not be confident that you have thought your thesis through.

And when you can't name a single example of any of those things when I ask you, I can not be confident that you are full of anything except for shit.

I've spent months thinking this through. I can assure you and everyone else that my current position has been thoroughly thought-out, and I have complete confidence in it.

The first paragraph in your article contains a lot of unnecessary words.

I open up by acknowledging my absence. That seems pretty important to me since I'm about to, you know, explain why I've been absent. I don't see how this makes a difference.

No, you didn't find the truth movement's claims incorrect. You found them inconclusive. You irrationally concluded that since Dr. Griffin can not prove his claims of "inside job", that therefore we should abandon more moderate calls for accountability and honest, complete, transparent
investigations.


Where the fuck did I bring up Griffin? I was opposed to his work even when I was a truther.

Anyway, you're wrong. I did not find them "inconclusive", I found them unsupported given the current body of evidence, and by proxy of that logic I concluded that they were incorrect.

You can not rationally demand an investigation without a single shred of evidence or reason. An unanswered question is neither or those things, and all "evidence" brought up by the 9/11 Truth Movement has been debunked time and time again. Investigations have already been done and have given us a story that is perfectly consistent with the available evidence. Unless your organization can provide a valid reason to suggest the prior investigations were wrong, there is no call for a new one.

 
At 22 May, 2011 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, for you to dismiss as insignificant the fact that the NIST report ignores all of the important mysteries of the destruction of the twin towers, including an official scenario that contradicts the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, is simply a case of willful blindness.

I'm not interested in answering the mystery in a personal email from Jonathan Barnett. I'm interested in a published and fully-resourced official investigation that addresses the mysteries that were dodged in the existing reports.

Arcterus, the notion that alien DNA should differ from human DNA is based on the principles of genetics and population biology. If you wish to claim that it should not differ, I'd like to hear the rationale.

I can name examples, but I'm not interested in doing a detailed critique of your blog. The point was a general one: excess verbiage obscures the structure and logic of your argument, and distracts from the question of the validity of its premises. Do not confuse the amount of time spent ruminating or meditating on a subject with rigor. Rigor demands that you question your assumptions.

You can acknowledge and contextualize your absence in far fewer words than you use--and move on to your point.

You didn't bring up Dr. Griffin overtly, but since he is the quintessential "inside job" guy, and since you seem to feel that if inside job is not proven, then the truth movement is dead, then your formulation seems to be based on the assumption that Griffin represents the precepts of the truth movement. If you wish to explain your truther position more precisely, then perhaps you should do so.

You found unsupported the bullet points I put forth above? Most of them are uncontested facts! RGT can dispute them only by claiming irrelevance.

I have a hard drive full of evidence that the official investigations are dishonest, shoddy, unscientific, incomplete, unbelievable, and unacceptable.
You should recognize in the logical incompetence and ignorance of the commenteers on this very blog the intellectual inadequacy of the debunker movement.

The official story is not consistent with the available evidence. The official story has not plausibly explained why there was no air defense, has not gone into the financial ties of al Qaeda, has not examined the many times that the government acted to grease wheels for the alleged plotters, and contradicts the laws of physics.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, if you're so stupid and incompetent that you can't understand that intergranular melting is specific to polycrystalline solids (not liquid phase, or transition to liquid phase), how can you ever hope to address "mysteries that were dodged in the existing reports"?

Never mind, cretin. You're hopeless.

On second thought, why don't you demonstrate an ounce of class and comply with the wishes of SLC's regular contributors and stop wasting the blog's bandwidth? If you had one ounce of class you'd go away and stop this nonsense.

Post your deceptive propaganda to truthaction or whatever, and get lost. We don't want you.

Now go play in the freeway.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it's intragranular melting, not intergranular. You don't know what you're talking about.

As to playing in the middle of highway 101, I've been there and done that, climbing up from a creek to the median strip between the two traffic streams. I had fun when I was young, but have no need to try to repeat my youthful escapades.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, goat fucker. The terms--and intergranular and intragranular melting--are equivalent.

The term has absolutely NOTHING to do with solid phase to liquid phase transition--period.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's your unsubstantiated opinion, Gobbler.

The paper says intergranular. It also says melting.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, it's not my opinion, cretin. And I gave you the link to prove it up-thread.


Learn to read, moron.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The term falls under the general category of interfacial segregation.

Now go prattle on about subjects you know nothing about at some troofer website where your incompetence is appreciated.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 17:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the FEMA report says "intragranular melting". It nowhere says "intergranular" is the same thing. Of course all of this is only your semantic battle to try to avoid admitting you were wrong when you claimed there was no melting.

The NYT described the steel as "evaporated" (11-29-01). The reporter, James Glanz, has a PhD in astrophysics. I'm no expert in physical sciences, but last time I checked anything that evaporates has to melt first--otherwise it would sublimate, right?

Your problem is that you try to pass yourself off as an expert in things you know nothing about. That may work with your wife (if she's dumb enough) and your kids, but it won't work elsewhere.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, for you to dismiss as insignificant the fact that the NIST report ignores all of the important mysteries of the destruction of the twin towers, including an official scenario that contradicts the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, is simply a case of willful blindness.

Nothing in the official explanation violates any physical principle. Explain what's still puzzling you.

I'm not interested in answering the mystery in a personal email from Jonathan Barnett.

Why not? Truth is truth. Sounds like you're more concerned with appearance than with facts. Here, in case you change your mind:

jonathan.barnett@gmail.com

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Read it again, until you get it through your thick skull, cretin:

"...The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

That means the erosion occurred at a temperature well below (1000 degrees F, to be precise) the melting point of structural steel (2800 degrees F).

Clearly, the steel didn't melt because it never reached a temperature sufficient to melt the structural steel.

Again, learn to read, cretin.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now watch, the cretin will try to twist my argument and claim that I screwed up because the temperature was 1000 degrees C, when I was talking about the difference between the eutectic temperature (1800 degrees F) and the melting point of structural steel (2800 degrees F).

Don't try it, goat fucker.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:22, Blogger Ian said...

Won't debate Willie Rodriguez and won't e-mail Jonathan Barnett.

It's more evidence that Brian doesn't want anything about 9/11 cleared up. He's much happier to be able to babble the same delusional nonsense over and over again. His life would be completely meaningless without it.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:29, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, the notion that alien DNA should differ from human DNA is based on the principles of genetics and population biology. If you wish to claim that it should not differ, I'd like to hear the rationale.

You can not say shit about what the DNA is going to look like without knowing what species we're talking about, what path of evolution they took to become homo sapiens, etc... it's a lot more complicated than just "it's alien". Even if you did see differences, to be realistic, you'd need a fossil record or some other proof of past species to prove the connection. Okay, that is seriously my last comment on this matter.

I can name examples, but I'm not interested in doing a detailed critique of your blog.

Imagine that.

The point was a general one: excess verbiage obscures the structure and logic of your argument, and distracts from the question of the validity of its premises. Do not confuse the amount of time spent ruminating or meditating on a subject with rigor. Rigor demands that you question your assumptions.

You can acknowledge and contextualize your absence in far fewer words than you use--and move on to your point.


I am FUCKING DONE with this unless you explain specifically how my article was tainted by using too many words. I'm getting sick of your bullshit. And I DID question my assumptions. That was the ENTIRE POINT! It seems to me that any lack of clarity comes not from how many words I used, but by your own inability to competently interpret them.

You didn't bring up Dr. Griffin overtly, but since he is the quintessential "inside job" guy, and since you seem to feel that if inside job is not proven, then the truth movement is dead, then your formulation seems to be based on the assumption that Griffin represents the precepts of the truth movement. If you wish to explain your truther position more precisely, then perhaps you should do so.

Case in point.

I could not make my position more clearly if I tried. I literally wrote it down for you in several different ways. The goal is to get a new investigation, correct? Well, there is no call for such an investigation. So I'm not fighting for something I don't believe in.

And get the fuck off of Griffin. NOTHING I said has anything to do with him, yet you're trying to associate him with my reasoning? And you have the gall to insist to me that you don't claim to know what I think? You're either incapable of reading or you're just incredibly deceptive.

You found unsupported the bullet points I put forth above? Most of them are uncontested facts! RGT can dispute them only by claiming irrelevance.

I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN. I've already explained why your bullet points are irrelevant to me.

I have a hard drive full of evidence that the official investigations are dishonest, shoddy, unscientific, incomplete, unbelievable, and unacceptable.

I'm sure you have a hard drive full of things you THINK are evidence of all those things. I can also guarantee you that I could beat you on every one. Former truther here. I know all the ins and outs of what you could possibly have to say.

You should recognize in the logical incompetence and ignorance of the commenteers on this very blog the intellectual inadequacy of the debunker movement.

Close. Only instead of "debunker"...

Your problem is that you try to pass yourself off as an expert in things you know nothing about.

I.RO.NY.

 
At 22 May, 2011 18:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're absolutely right, Ian.

Notice that I caught the goat fucker quote mining Dr. Barnett's paper at 21 May, 15:30.

He's not interested in the truth, he's trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people who have no experience reading scientific literature.

 
At 22 May, 2011 19:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I have many times outlined the discrepancies between the official reports and the law of physics. Collapse time violates the 1st law of thermodynamics; for asymmetrical damage to yield symmetrical collapse violates the 2d law, the official piledriver theory violates Newton'a 3rd law, and the arrest of the rotation of the south tower top block violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

I am not interested in performing my own investigation. I am interested in a full-scale, fully-funded blue-ribbon panel with subpoena power.

UtterFail, your inability to comprehend the significance of the eutectic shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Ian, I already debated Willie Fraudriguez right here. I pwned him, showing that he stole his hero story from a true hero, he lied about saving hundreds, and he hid behind a human shield. He ran away.

Arcterus, is it not axiomatic that extraterrestrial beings are going to bring DNA that is greatly divergent from terrestrial organisms? That's simple island biogeography.

You did not question your assumption that "inside job" and "extraordinary claims" was what the truth movement was about; your assumption that a lack of proof was sufficient cause to abandon the investigation; or that accountability, truth, justice, plausibility, credibility were not worthy goals for an investigation.
Clearly I interpreted your words far more astutely than you did--which is not surprising because up to now you have only been rewarded for your talent, and have never had to take responsibility for it.

You could make your former position as a truther far more clear by explaining the distinction between your inside job position and Dr. Griffin's inside job theory. There is a call for a new investigation by 1500 architects and engineers and 12,000 supporters, and the widows' call for answers to 273 questions is also a call for a new investigation.

My bullet points are irrelevant to YOU? So now you're retreating to solipsism?

How can you "beat me" when the official explanations clearly violate the laws of physics?

Hint: learn what the word "irony" means. Don't use it in the simple-minded sense that people like GutterBall and Ian do--it will only show you, like them, as a poseur if you do.

UtterFail, you didn't catch me quote-mining anything. Your inability to comprehend the significance of the eutectic shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:28, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, I have many times outlined the discrepancies between the official reports and the law of physics.

No, what you've actually done is outline how hopelessly ignorant of physics you are. It's OK for a janitor to not understand physics, Brian. Just stop pretending that you do.

Collapse time violates the 1st law of thermodynamics; for asymmetrical damage to yield symmetrical collapse violates the 2d law, the official piledriver theory violates Newton'a 3rd law, and the arrest of the rotation of the south tower top block violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

See what I mean?

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:29, Blogger Ian said...

I am not interested in performing my own investigation. I am interested in a full-scale, fully-funded blue-ribbon panel with subpoena power.

And nobody cares.

Hey Brian, did the widows get their questions answered yet? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I already debated Willie Fraudriguez right here. I pwned him, showing that he stole his hero story from a true hero, he lied about saving hundreds, and he hid behind a human shield. He ran away.

False. You just posted endless dumbspam in an attempt to hide the fact that you're too frightened of him to face him.

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

There is a call for a new investigation by 1500 architects and engineers and 12,000 supporters, and the widows' call for answers to 273 questions is also a call for a new investigation.

And nobody cares. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:33, Blogger Ian said...

And I will now go to bed with a huge smile on my face, satisfied that the widows will never have their questions answered, and that Brian will squeal and squeal about it.

Goodnight, Brian!

 
At 22 May, 2011 21:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, your inability to comprehend the significance of the eutectic shows that you don't know what you're talking about."

Squeal, squeal, squeal!

Really? No kidding?

Another 100% fact-free pile of crap, substantiated by nothing more than the opinion of an habitual liar (ie., psychopath).

Tell me, goat fucker, how did I fail to understand the alleged "significance of the eutectic"--you pathetic fraud?

How does anything you've written demonstrate that I fail to understand the concept of a eutectic point, eutectic composition, or the associated phase diagram?

And remember, goat fucker, I have a year of general chemistry, including qualitative and quantitative analysis and a year of organic chemistry under my belt.

You're just blowing smoke, as usual.

And when will you get it through your thick skull? The erosion of the beam in question occurred at a temperature well below the melting point of structural steel?

Again, get it through your thick skull:

"...The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

Translation: The steel only reached a temperature of 1,800 degrees F, which is 1,000 degrees F below the melting point of structural steel--you pathetic psychopath. Thus, no melting occurred--period.

And yes, you did in fact quote mine Dr Barnett's paper, as the following link proves beyond a doubt:

The goat fucker is BUSTED quote mining Dr. Barnett's paper.

Go for it, charlatan, bury your latest exposure as a fraud and a liar in an avalanche of gay squeal spam.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 21:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I have many times outlined the discrepancies between the official reports and the law of physics.

What you've documented is simply that the official story confounds your personal understanding of physics. The "violations" that you assert are false.

I am not interested in performing my own investigation. I am interested in a full-scale, fully-funded blue-ribbon panel with subpoena power.

Well, you're not getting that. You could have the answer to the Deepest Mystery, but it's almost like you don't want that riddle solved.

jonathan.barnett@gmail.com when you overcome your fear of answers.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You did not question your assumption that "inside job" and "extraordinary claims" was what the truth movement was about"

I'll ask that question to myself now...yep, you pretty much summed troofers up in a nut(case) shell.

"your assumption that a lack of proof was sufficient cause to abandon the investigation"

It's an assumption he based on logic, something that people were aren't mentally ill do every day. I can see how this would be beyond you.

"or that accountability, truth, justice, plausibility, credibility were not worthy goals for an investigation."

They're not. You investigate something to assemble the facts, once there are enough facts a conclusion is drawn based upon those facts. What you discribe is a witch-hunt where you present only the facts that support your theory while ignoring the larger picture.


"Clearly I interpreted your words far more astutely than you did--which is not surprising because up to now you have only been rewarded for your talent, and have never had to take responsibility for it."

Oh man, Arcterus, you need to frame this quote. This is what jealousy looks like in print form. It's eating Brian up that he's being intellectually corn-holed by someone half his age. He can't deal with it. Between his running away from the debate with Willie Rodriguez and your arrival here this has been the best week ever.

"You could make your former position as a truther far more clear by explaining the distinction between your inside job position and Dr. Griffin's inside job theory"

Your fly is down and your crazy is hanging out. Arcterus explained it fine, you are an ass.

"There is a call for a new investigation by 1500 architects and engineers and 12,000 supporters, and the widows' call for answers to 273 questions is also a call for a new investigation."

Translation:

A bunch of hacks, drunks, hasbeens, pouges, and losers along with a handful of widows who have been politically corrupted into delusion want an investigation that will tell them what they want to hear.

"Hint: learn what the word "irony" means. Don't use it in the simple-minded sense that people like GutterBall and Ian do--it will only show you, like them, as a poseur if you do."

Well he's got you there. Using "Irony" to refer to Brian's expounding upon a wealth of topics that he knows nothing about is incorrect. The word you were looking for was "Hipocrite".

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...The 'violations' that you assert are false."

That's correct.

For example, the goat fucker is so incompetent that he cited the second law of thermodynamics (ie., entropy) as a reason the collapse couldn't have occurred. This rational is so idiotic as to be laughable.

The goat fucker wrote, "...Don't you see the conflict with the second law in the collapse's symmetry?"

Source: The goat fucker cites the 2nd law of thermodynamics as relevant to the collapse of the WTC towers.

Since when does entropy (the tendency of a process or object to proceed in a direction of disorder or randomness) have anything to do with the fabled "symmetry" of the WTC tower's collapse?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a cretin!

Thus, we have more proof that the goat fucker couldn't pass an examination in elementary physics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a putz!

Go play in the freeway, goat fucker.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're demonstrating your failure to understand the eutectic right there. The melting point of steel is 2700 F. The melting point of the eutectic mixture of steel with sulfur is 1800. That's how thermate works to lower the melting point of steel.

If you have the chemical credentials you claim, you should be able to understand that the sulfur in gypsum (calcium sulfate) is completely oxidized (as well as hydrated). That's why it's inert. That's why it's used as fireproofing. It's deader'n a doornail.

RGT, you are simply asseeting that there are no violations of the physical laws. I can explain exactly how the collapse time violates the 1st law of thermodynamics; how it is that for asymmetrical damage to yield symmetrical collapse violates the 2d law, how the official piledriver theory violates Newton'a 3rd law, and how the arrest of the rotation of the south tower top block violates Newton's 1st law.

I want the deepest mystery solved by a qualified investigation with subpoena power. If Jonathan Barnett wants to write an open letter to Richard Gage telling him that the steel was vaporized by drywall, he's certainly free to do so. Why doesn't he?

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your inability to understand that for structural damage resulting from asymmetrical airplane impact and roving fires to result in a symmetrical collapse represents an orderly response to disorderly weakening and thus a violation of the second law of thermodynamics shows that you really weren't paying attention in college if you went to class at all.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your illiterate spelling of hypocrite tells us about all we need to know about your post.

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The melting point of steel is 2700 F."

Wrong. The melting point of structural steel is 2800°F, or 1538°C.

And why do you keep harping on gypsum? Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Biederman never said anything about gypsum.

Again, get it through your thick skull:

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity...'The important questions,' says Biederman, 'are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain.'" -- Dr. Beiderman

Since when is acid rain defined as gypsum?

Again, you're conflating "melting" with erosion--which is thoroughly dishonest.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 22:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, your inability to understand that for structural damage resulting from asymmetrical airplane impact and roving fires to result in a symmetrical collapse represents an orderly response to disorderly weakening and thus a violation of the second law of thermodynamics shows that you really weren't paying attention in college if you went to class at all."

Another assertion masquerading as fact.

The collapse wasn't "symmetrical"--you idiot. In fact, the core of the buildings stood erect for several seconds after the collapse--which is hardly "symmetrical."

Is this what you call a "symmetrical collapse"--you clown?

The core standing after the collapse.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, your inability to understand that for structural damage resulting from asymmetrical airplane impact and roving fires to result in a symmetrical collapse represents an orderly response to disorderly weakening and thus a violation of the second law of thermodynamics shows that you really weren't paying attention in college if you went to class at all."

Another assertion masquerading as fact.

The collapse wasn't "symmetrical"--you idiot. IN fact, the core of the buildings stood erect for several seconds after the collapse--which is hardly "symmetrical."

Is this what you call a "symmetrical collapse"--you clown?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's another set of examples of what the goat fucker would have you believe represents "symmetry."

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorneralt3.gif

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.low.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.tall.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2.core.tallfar.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc341coreblast.jpg

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorner2exc.gif

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/coreblast2.jpg

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And look at this goat fucker! Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Biederman use the term "intergranular channels", which proves my point that "intergranular" and "intragranular" are interchangeable.

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity." -- Dr. Beiderman

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 May, 2011 23:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Tell us goat fucker, since when are corrosion and erosion defined as "melting"?

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity." -- Dr. Beiderman

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh boy, GutterBall thinks acid rain brought down WTC7. He really really really never got the 2d law of thermo.

I'm conflating melting with vaporization, which is entirely appropriate. Look at yourself, you can't even spell the names of the experts you cite.

The collapse was symmetrical, as anyone who watches the videos can see. For you to cite algoxy is highly hypocritical, as surely you disagree with Christopher's claim that the WTC had a concrete core.

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm conflating melting with vaporization, which is entirely appropriate."

Impervious to logic, aren't you, goat fucker?

No one said anything about "vaporization"--you cretin.

Again, read it until you get it through your thick skull:

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity." -- Dr. Beiderman

Keep repeating the words corrosion and erosion until you get it through your thick skull, Pinocchio.

"...The collapse was symmetrical..."

No it wasn't--and the photos prove you're wrong.

"...For you to cite algoxy is highly hypocritical"

I didn't cite anyone--you idiot. A photo is a photo, and the photos at algoxy prove you're full of crap. And when did I say that I agree with algoxy's claim that the core was concrete?

Answer: I didn't.

Thus, once again, you're resorting to a logical fallacy: straw man argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. James Glanz said something about vaporization that seems to have gone over your fat head.

You cited algoxy

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Dr. James Glanz said something about vaporization that seems to have gone over your fat head."

Irrelevant.

A New York Times article--no matter who the author may be--isn't scientific evidence--you cretin--it's speculation.

On the other hand, the paper by Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Beiderman is scientific evidence.

And I quote:

"...This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity."

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your belief that a puff piece by WPI represents a scientific paper by Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Beiderman and "scientific evidence" is comedy gold.

 
At 23 May, 2011 00:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You'll say anything, won't you goat fucker?

The WPI paper is not a "puff piece"--you pathological liar. The findings, moreover, were included in WTC appendix C and was produced for FEMA.

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 01:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 01:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You cited algoxy."

No, I didn't "cite algoxy"--you pathological liar. You're changing the definition of the word citation to suit your propaganda--you scurrilous liar.

Proof?

A citation involves the reproduction of verbiage, and I cited not one word from Algoxy--you pathological lair. A link to a set of photographs does not in any way constitute a citation.

Citation n. a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation. b. A source so cited; a quotation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/citation

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 04:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Ban.

 
At 23 May, 2011 05:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I can explain exactly how the collapse time violates the 1st law of thermodynamics;...

You can repeat talking points? Good for you. You're exactly what the Truth Movement needs right now.

I want the deepest mystery solved by a qualified investigation with subpoena power.

So you've said. But wouldn't you also accept the answer in some other form?

If Jonathan Barnett wants to write an open letter to Richard Gage telling him that the steel was vaporized by drywall, he's certainly free to do so. Why doesn't he?

I guess he doesn't want to. Write him and ask him. jonathan.barnett@gmail.com

 
At 23 May, 2011 06:40, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I just love it when truthers claim they can explain scientific principles yet never do. Not to mention the collapses weren't symmetrical to being with. So from premise to conclusion they never represent anything in reality.

 
At 23 May, 2011 07:41, Blogger Arcterus said...

Oh man, Arcterus, you need to frame this quote.

I nearly blew a blood vessel when I saw that. He interpreted my words BETTER than ME!? What an egotistical dipshit.

Regardless, I think I'm done here. I can tell where this is going. Hours and hours spent going around in circles, covering the same points, watching certain positions get suddenly "replaced" with other positions. I'm not going to bother.

Brian, your post was full of crap and hypocrisy. You claim that these aliens have evolved to become the same species, but simultaneously argue that they'd obviously be different as they're so far away. You insist you know what I said better than I said, while simultaneously showing a remarkable inability to understand a single word I said. You try and throw this bullshit that I had an "assumption" about what the truth movement was all about and did not mention...obvious crap. You insist on drawing parallels to Griffin because you are either fucking stupid or fucking evil. You bring up the "laws of physics" talking point...something I objected to even when I was a truther. Best of all, you end trying to correct me on my usage of irony despite my using it correctly - pointing out that you talk about people pretending to be knowledgeable in a field they're not while simultaneously claiming this omniscience - and that makes your sentence, in and of itself, ironic. The blatant idiocy of such a remark is big enough, but I think it also represents that endless circle of debate I was referring to at the beginning. A circle I have no intention of being a part of. I'm done with you in this post. I've wasted enough time.

 
At 23 May, 2011 08:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fornicator--egomaniac, pathological liar, logic cesspool and third-rate "intellect."

That said, I can produce several "superlatives" that describe SLC's resident douche bag, but you get the picture.

 
At 23 May, 2011 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterPool, I already have pointed out that Dr. James Glanz characterized the steel as "vaporized" in the NYT. You rely on not reading my posts as a means of maintaining your ignorance. It is a factual article, not speculative in the least. Since Glanz reported that the steel vaporized, and since it looks like the steel vaporized, and since the FEMA paper seems to be using the word "eroded" as a synonym for "vaporized" it is up to you to show that Dr. Glanz was wrong.

Photos prove the collapse was symmetrical. Any lack of symmetry would have resulted in toppling forces.

I didn't say you agreed with algoxy, I said that for you to cite him was hypocritical. If you would google ... citation images ... you would see that images are cited just as text is. You're not a googler, you're a boobler.

RGT, I do not go around harassing celebrities. I am not interested in conducting my own investigation. I am interested in getting full scale, fully funded investigations with subpoena power.

GMS, I can explain scientific principles and have done so in this forum until I was blue in the face.

Arcterus, it is a principle of current literary theory (New Criticism, and deconstructionism) that authorial intent is a trivial concern, and that the meaning of a text comes from the readers, not the author.

I have made no claims about aliens. Referring to the findings of island biogeography I have suggested that the descendants of earth-dwelling space aliens who have interbred with humans should show remnants of their extraterrestrial genetic heritage, and that thus Pat's claim that that reptilian theories can not be tested should be received skeptically.

For you to deny that the logic of your essay is:

A) Truthers believe 9/11 was an inside job

B) Truthers have not proven it was an inside job

therefore

C) We don't need a new investigation

Shows that you have not read your own essay carefully, no matter how many weeks and drafts you have made.

I don't claim omniscience and I would love it if someone would make even a half-bright attempt to prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong so I can return to my private concerns.

I am not surprised that you react defensively to criticism of your writing. I did too when I was young. I suspect that writing can not be taught by outsiders--the writer himself must teach himself. Arcterus, only when you learn to question the utility and validity of every word can you begin to approach your potential as a writer and a thinker.

BoogerDrool, why do you like to talk about goats so much? Did a goat steal your girl? Seduce you and then trifle with your devotion? Poor baby.

 
At 23 May, 2011 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

I mean, poor booby.

 
At 23 May, 2011 11:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 11:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying and playing semantic games again, goat fornicator?

Corrosion is defined as a process that oxidizes metal. E.g., structural steel, in the presence of moisture, will revert to its natural state, which is iron oxide. A corrosion attack on grain boundaries involves an attack on highly ordered atoms, which are anodic in nature. Since the cathodic area is large with respect to the anodic area along grain boundaries, rapid intergranular attack is a consequence. An attack along grain boundaries results in a grainy surface covered in a powdery residue--which is precisely what we find when examining the beam in question.

Erosion, on the other hand, is a natural weathering process and a form of corrosion.

Vaporization (or, if you prefer, sublimation) is a transition of matter from solid (or, in some cases liquid) into a gaseous phase. The process takes place in three states or phases in the following order: Solid -> vapor -> gas.

Thus, the three words--corrosion, erosion and vaporization--are entirely different processes with entirely different meanings. No scientist would substitute the word vaporization for any process that involved erosion or corrosion. That's why Drs. Sisson, Barnett and Beiderman were careful to chose the words erosion and corrosion as opposed to vaporization. Hence, you're playing semantic games, which is typical for a lying con artist of your ilk.

Furthermore, I chose the photos from algoxy because they are high quality, unaltered photographs in a readily linkable, and easily accessed format. There is no "hypocrisy" whatsoever in sourcing these photographs. You're merely kicking sand on the evidence against your alleged "symmetrical" collapse because you can't provide real evidence to substantiate your idiotic assertions. All you have--as always--is your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion. Furthermore, the idea that the twin tower's collapse was "symmetrical" is unsupported by the photographic evidence, as the standing core proves beyond a doubt.

Finally, your assertion that says "images are cited just as text" is unsupported by logic (or Google, for that matter) and amounts to nothing more than idiotic, trivial quibbling on your part. Face it, you abused the word citation, and attempted to give it a meaning other than is intended. Hence, we have more evidence that you're a con artist with the morals of an alley cat.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 12:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fornicator lies, "...Since Glanz reported that the steel vaporized, and since it looks like the steel vaporized, and since the FEMA paper seems to be using the word "eroded" as a synonym for "vaporized" it is up to you to show that Dr. Glanz was wrong."

Quote mining again, goat fornicator? Of course you are.

Here's what James Glanz really wrote, sans your constant, pathetic dishonesty and never ending quote mining--and I quote:

"...Another crumpled steel member set aside at a Keasbey, N.J., scrapyard has markings clearly showing that it ran on the east face of the north tower from the 92nd to the 95th floor, in the center of one impact zone. Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations. And unexpectedly cracked washers in crucial connections in the towers are being closely scrutinized."

An excerpt from, A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards by James Glanz.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html%C2%A0%C2%A0?pagewanted=all

There's a big difference between apparently, which is the word Glanz used, and definitely--you shiny pated pervert.

James Glanz wording of the article in no way suggests that "melted and vaporized" structural steel is the only possibility. In fact, he's very careful to note that the process could in fact be the result of "corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations"--which is in precise agreement with Drs. Sisson, Barnett and Beiderman.

As anyone can readily see, you are caught red-handed misrepresenting your source once again.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 12:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fornicator lies, "...Since Glanz reported that the steel vaporized, and since it looks like the steel vaporized, and since the FEMA paper seems to be using the word "eroded" as a synonym for "vaporized" it is up to you to show that Dr. Glanz was wrong."

Quote mining again, goat fornicator? Of course you are.

Here's what James Glanz really wrote, sans your constant and pathetic dishonesty and never ending quote mining--and I quote:

"...Another crumpled steel member set aside at a Keasbey, N.J., scrapyard has markings clearly showing that it ran on the east face of the north tower from the 92nd to the 95th floor, in the center of one impact zone. Pieces of steel have also been found that were apparently melted and vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations. And unexpectedly cracked washers in crucial connections in the towers are being closely scrutinized."

An excerpt from, A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards by James Glanz.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html%C2%A0%C2%A0?pagewanted=all

Continued...

 
At 23 May, 2011 12:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

There's a big difference between apparently, which is the word Glanz used, and definitely--you shiny pated pervert.

James Glanz wording of the article in no way suggests that "melted and vaporized" structural steel is the only possibility. In fact, he's very careful to note that the process could in fact be the result of "corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in the conflagrations"--which is in precise agreement with Sisson, Barnett and Beiderman

As anyone can readily see, you are caught red-handed misrepresenting your source once again.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And here we find even more proof that you're misrepresenting James Glanz' article--and I quote:

"...Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright...A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html%C2%A0%C2%A0?pagewanted=all

Thus, we can see that you're quote mining again--you shiny pated pervert.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

My apologies, I almost forgot.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I do not go around harassing celebrities.

That's not what I heard. But you're over that, right? What's wrong with asking questions? One either wants the truth or one doesn't, and you apparently don't.

I am interested in getting full scale, fully funded investigations with subpoena power.

Why not shoot for something that can actually happen? You're setting yourself up to fail.

 
At 23 May, 2011 14:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it's really too bad that you put so much work into writing such horseshit.

Your distraction logic may work on two-year-olds, but it won't work here. You are very fond of the "I found a goose, so you don't have a duck!" argument.

The word "evaporated" is used by Dr. Glanz (11-29-01), in a paraphrase of a statement attributed to Dr. Barnett: "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-
trade.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm


Kenneth Chang uses the word "vaporized" in his 10-2-01 NYT article "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies".

"The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

You need to get a job, UtterFail. You're really not equipped for the truth-seeking business--mainly because you're not looking for truth.

 
At 23 May, 2011 14:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The word "evaporated" is used by Dr. Glanz (11-29-01), in a paraphrase of a statement attributed to Dr. Barnett:
...
Kenneth Chang uses the word "vaporized" in his 10-2-01 NYT article "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies".

Neither of those statements is a scientific finding. They're just casual impressions, made days after the attacks. They don't need to be formally retracted to become immaterial; that seems to be a key delusion of yours.

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

They are not casual impressions. They are representation of the facts by professional journalists who are trained scientists.

Dr. Glanz has a PhD in astrophysics. Chang studied physics for seven years.

You guys will bend over backwards to protect yourself from the truth even when it's published in the New York Times.

 
At 23 May, 2011 15:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

A PhD in astrophysics--you stupid prat--doesn't qualify him to make judgments in the field of metallurgy.

You're the most disgusting liar I've ever encountered. You were BUSTED red-handed quote mining and turned right around and did the same thing again. You're utterly shameless.

Once again, you FAIL--you quote mining fool.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's another example of you quote mining, goat fornicator. From the NYT articles you cite--and I quote:

"...Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, 'the smoking gun would be the fuel.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

"...Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue...The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward...'This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, 'It had burned first, then buckled.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

Thus, we can see that you're a quote miner, who shamelessly omits critical passages from the articles.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You need to get a job, UtterFail. You're really not equipped for the truth-seeking business--mainly because you're not looking for truth."

What's the matter goat fornicator, are you pissed off because I can spend about 20 minutes out of my long, busy day making you look like a fool?

Poor goat fornicator. He just can't stand it because I have a career in computer security, to say nothing of a wife and family. It just galls you, doesn't it--you shiny pated pervert.? I guess that's why you have to make up unsupported, slanderous accusations. After all, you're a loser of epic proportions.

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:28, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Arcterus, it is a principle of current literary theory (New Criticism, and deconstructionism) that authorial intent is a trivial concern, and that the meaning of a text comes from the readers, not the author."

Bullshit.

Arcterus is a good writer, and will only get better. Literary theory is theory. His blog violated nothing, and his positions were clear to those of us who are not mentally ill.

" have made no claims about aliens. Referring to the findings of island biogeography I have suggested that the descendants of earth-dwelling space aliens who have interbred with humans should show remnants of their extraterrestrial genetic heritage, and that thus Pat's claim that that reptilian theories can not be tested should be received skeptically."

Translation:

Pat made a joke, and due to my mental illness I didn't understand this. I assumed that Pat was actually arguing against the existence of reptilian aliens so I was compelled by my mental illness to take the counter position. Once it was made clear that Pat was making a joke my mental illness refused to allow me to laugh it off, and instead I continue to dig deeper into crazy land.


"I am not surprised that you react defensively to criticism of your writing"

He didn't know he was dealing with a lunatic.

"I suspect that writing can not be taught by outsiders--the writer himself must teach himself."

Bullshit. Every good writer benefits from instruction.


"Arcterus, only when you learn to question the utility and validity of every word can you begin to approach your potential as a writer and a thinker"

Arcterus, if you allow yourself to get hung up on every little word you will end up batshit crazy cleaning toilets at Arby's with Brian Goode...but I'm sure you already know this.

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More examples of quote mining by the goat fornicator. From the NYT articles he cites as "evidence":

"...Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, 'the smoking gun would be the fuel.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-
trade.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm

Another example:

"...Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue....The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward...'This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, 'It had burned first, then buckled.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

Thus, we can see that you're quote mining again, goat fornicator.

Once again, you FAIL--you quote mining fool.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More examples of quote mining by the goat fornicator. From the NYT articles he cites as "evidence":

"...Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, 'the smoking gun would be the fuel.'"

Another example:

"...Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue....The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward...'This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, 'It had burned first, then buckled.'"

Thus, we can see that you're quote mining again, goat fornicator.

Once again, you FAIL--you quote mining fool.

Grade: F-

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Sources:

Quote [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-
trade.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm

Quote [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

They are not casual impressions. They are representation of the facts by professional journalists who are trained scientists.

Sorry, are you playing devil's advocate again here? Or are you genuinely stupid enough to make that argument?

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:52, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, your inability to understand that for structural damage resulting from asymmetrical airplane impact and roving fires to result in a symmetrical collapse represents an orderly response to disorderly weakening and thus a violation of the second law of thermodynamics shows that you really weren't paying attention in college if you went to class at all.

Ah yes, I forgot about another of Brian's insane assertions: migratory fires. That's far more amusing than his total misunderstanding of Newton's laws.

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:54, Blogger Ian said...

Photos prove the collapse was symmetrical. Any lack of symmetry would have resulted in toppling forces.

Brian, you'd do well to stop posting, as every time you do, you prove yourself to be even dumber than previously thought. It's apparent that you have no idea what "symmetry" is.

 
At 23 May, 2011 16:55, Blogger Ian said...

They are not casual impressions. They are representation of the facts by professional journalists who are trained scientists.

False.

You guys will bend over backwards to protect yourself from the truth even when it's published in the New York Times.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:00, Blogger Arcterus said...

Literary theory is theory.

More importantly, it's not applicable because that stance only applies to things like symbolism and theme. It doesn't apply to an article like mine which is a direct statement of my stance. To say I actually meant something else because HE thought it meant something else and trying to pass it off as literary theory is just a blatant way of announcing that he refuses to admit he was wrong about the meaning of my blog and has no idea what he's talking about.

Somehow I get the feeling the veterans of SLC can relate.

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...To say I actually meant something else because HE thought it meant something else and trying to pass it off as literary theory is just a blatant way of announcing that he refuses to admit he was wrong about the meaning of my blog and has no idea what he's talking about."

Yep, you win the $64,000 question.

As I told you up thread, the goat fornicator will never admit that he's wrong. Bear in mind that you're dealing with a psychopath and his behavior becomes self-explanatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another time worn goat fornicator technique you'll love: He'll deliberately twist your argument beyond recognition, and then he'll claim you're "incompetent" or a "liar."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Arcterus is a talented writer, but not yet a good writer. He spends too many words on the obvious, spreading his points around in a sea of words instead of linking them together.

You don't seem to get the fact that the issue was not aliens. The issue was scientific epistemology. Pat's joke involved faulty epistemology.

RGT, they are not casual observations. If you would bother to look at the pictures of the samples you will see that "evaporated" and "vaporized" are perfectly apt characterizations. Also, they were weeks, not days, after 9/11.

Arcterus, the literary theories I was citing are about authorial intent, which applies just as well to non-fiction as to memoir and fiction.

Your blog means what it says, not what you meant it to say. Good writing is when you say what you mean, mean what you say, and you say it in an engaging, persuasive, and economical way.

UtterFail, I admit when I'm wrong. I rarely have to do it because I'm pretty careful in what I say.

 
At 23 May, 2011 17:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Another time worn goat fornicator technique you'll love:

Fornication requires a consenting goat. Unless he can demonstrate that the goat consented, we're really talking about goat rape here. Unless of course he's married to the goat. But I don't think California recognizes that (yet).

Maybe we should call him Brian Goatse.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, I admit when I'm wrong. I rarely have to do it because I'm pretty careful in what I say."

See what I mean?

This is equivalent to saying, "...I once thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was mistaken."

Right, goat molester, pretend that you weren't caught red-handed quote mining and misrepresenting your sources. You're incorrigible.

George W. Bushit loves you, goat molester. After all, you're just like him.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't misrepresent anything. Two articles by qualified scientists described the steel as "vaporized" and "evaporated".

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, pretend that the evidence against you, which can be found up thread by anyone who can read, doesn't exist.

I stand by my statement: You're incorrigible.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And let's not forget that in addition to misrepresenting your sources, you're holding up the opinion of men who have zero expertise in metallurgy as "evidence," while you ignore the findings of real experts in metallurgy like Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Beiderman. That's called cherry picking the evidence, Mr. Intellectual Dishonesty.

FAIL.

 
At 23 May, 2011 18:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your "quote-mining" routine reminds me of the child molester who complains that nobody notices all the good things he did during the 99.99% of the time when he wasn't molesting children.

They said "vaporized" and "evaporated". Get over it. Face facts.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Sisson and Biederman and Barnett don't deny that the steel evaporated. Your implication that they are in conflict with the statements by Chang and Glanz is untrue and dishonest.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:03, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

They said "vaporized" and "evaporated". Get over it. Face facts.

Is that what they now think? You could email them and find out, you know. It's interesting how passionate you are about not seeking information, about trying to freeze those statements in time.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal!

Facts? You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

That's right, goat molester, continue to lie, while you bury your latest failure in an avalanche gay squeal spam.

I stand by my statement: You're incorrigible.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:36, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, I admit when I'm wrong. I rarely have to do it because I'm pretty careful in what I say.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:38, Blogger Ian said...

It's interesting how passionate you are about not seeking information, about trying to freeze those statements in time.

Yup. I mean, he could ask Dr. Sunder if he believes the towers came down in free-fall, but he won't. He knows what the answer will be.

Brian is fortunate that Ray Downey is dead so he doesn't have to worry about whether Downey believes there were bombs in the towers.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go for it, goat molester, tell us more about how an astrophysicist qualifies as an "expert" in metallurgy.

Show us where Drs. Barnett, Sisson and Beiderman claimed the steel "evaporated," when you know damned well they said nothing of the sort (FACT: erosion and corrosion as the result of immersion in a eutectic mixture are decidedly NOT evaporation).

Go for it, conflate the terms melt and eutectic mixture, while you know damned well the terms have nothing to do with one another.

Go for it, and claim that the opinion of an astrophysicist trumps the expert opinion of three scientists who specialize in metallurgy.

You're a cretin.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, you seem determined to prove you don't know what you're talking out. Dr. Glanz used the word "evaporated" in paraphrasing Dr. Barnett, and Barnett has never said this was wrong. There is no contradiction between Barnett's "erosion" and Chang's "vaporized".

A eutectic mixture lowers the melting point--which you would know if you bothered to read the 1000 words in FEMA Appendix C.

 
At 23 May, 2011 20:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, Arcterus is a talented writer, but not yet a good writer. He spends too many words on the obvious, spreading his points around in a sea of words instead of linking them together"

Your point might be valid if Arcterus had written a coloring book, but his blog is pretty solid. Even the troofer stuff holds together given its context.

You're just jealous. Arcterus is just another in a long line of people passing you by on their way up. He has also committed the unforgivable sin of taking a fresh look at the Truth movement, and deciding that they had no evidence AFTER TEN YEARS then walked away. It takes a big person to admit when they're wrong, and his brave act of stating as much on his blog that had been dedicated to 9/11 Truth took balls. He could have just walked away silently, and noboy would have known. Instead he stood up and layed out his cards for all to see...like a man.

That eats away at you, Brian, because it reminds you of how small and alone you are, and how you can never measure up. You view someone who admits their mistakes as weak, when it is a act of personal bravery. You can't make that jump. You know you're wrong, you know that everything that you spew here on SLC is a lie. Either you don't care, or you are such a coward that you would rather keep digging than admit that you have nothing in the way of proof for any of your arguments.

"You don't seem to get the fact that the issue was not aliens. The issue was scientific epistemology. Pat's joke involved faulty epistemology."

Pat made a joke, you decided to be a dumbass about it (as usual).

"Arcterus, the literary theories I was citing are about authorial intent, which applies just as well to non-fiction as to memoir and fiction."

Your theory applies only because it's bullshit. His blog was a position statement, he gave background that established credibility, and then he stated why he was done with the Truth Movement. He wasn't mean about it, there was no nastiness, nor was there an air of superiority. Just a statement of belief.

You've blown a gasket over this, and so you reach for some obscure literary theory to try to bash Arcterus over the head with. Guess what, Brian, your grasp of "writing theory" is even weaker than your grasp of physics, Fire Fighting, Police investigations, military operations of any kind, history, and reptilian invaders from ZATAR.

Arcterus wrote the Truther blog that you could only dream of writing, and if I do the math right[*counts on fingers*] he started when he was 18 years old. Shit, he probably has his own place by now too. This is killing you, isn't it Brian? Arcterus was a better Truther than you ever could be, and then he took a fresh look at the LACK OF EVIDENCE on the Truther's side and walked away.

He probably didn't even stalked anybody either.

Arcterus is proof that there are some normal people who are Truthers, and that there is hope for them. Meanwhile you are giving him a glimpse of a possible future (like a ghost of whack-jobs-yet-to-come)had he not maintained a level logical head. From here on out whenever Arcterus ponders the mystery around an event one of the things he will consider is : "What would Brian Goode think?"

 
At 23 May, 2011 20:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

The blog holds together for you because you agree with its assumptions and its conclusions and you don't recognize that the conclusion doesn't follow.

The truth movement has a lot of evidence, and only a liar would say they don't. The world is full of talented and undisciplined writers, I have no need to be jealous of them, and your belief that deconstructionism is an obscure theory is very ignorant.

Arcterus tells us that as a truther he was a conspiracy theorist. That's not a good truther, that's just another kook.

 
At 23 May, 2011 21:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The blog holds together for you because you agree with its assumptions and its conclusions and you don't recognize that the conclusion doesn't follow.

The conclusions follow just fine. You've certainly been unable to cast doubt on them. You play a pretty good game of "what about this - what about that", but observing your pattern for a while exposes you as a fraud.

The truth movement has a lot of evidence, and only a liar would say they don't.

Truther evidence is illusory. It points everywhere and nowhere, and Truthers can't even decide what any single piece of it means. With a lot of evidence, somebody should be able to expose some unambiguous and material flaw in the official story. But it has never been done.

 
At 24 May, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus's conclusion that the truth movement's call for new investigations is illegitimate does not follow from the premise that "inside job" has not been proven.

What's illusory about "vaporized" steel that the NIST investigation pretends does not exist?

What's illusory about 273 unanswered questions, 114 omissions and distortions, NORAD's demonstrable lies, the laws of physics?

The evidence leads nowhere? At the least it undeniably points to dishonest, inadequate, flawed, and unbelievable reports and the need for new investigations.

 
At 24 May, 2011 12:29, Blogger Arcterus said...

It seems as though the only people who don't understand my article are 9/11 Truthers. In addition to Brian's ridiculous rantings, Snowcrash left a comment on my blog which suggested that he thought I had left the movement because of leaders discrediting themselves. Like, where did he even get that from?

 
At 24 May, 2011 14:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'll suppose he arrived at that by conflating a) a recent rash of leaders discrediting themselves with b) with your claim that the truthers' evidence wasn't extraordinary enough.

 
At 24 May, 2011 14:47, Blogger Arcterus said...

B has nothing to do with A, you dumbfuck.

 
At 24 May, 2011 15:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's the problem--wordy writing makes it hard to see what's connected to what.

 
At 24 May, 2011 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

The blog holds together for you because you agree with its assumptions and its conclusions and you don't recognize that the conclusion doesn't follow.

False, this blog holds together because reason and evidence are on its side. That's why the truth movement is a tiny crackpot fringe.

The truth movement has a lot of evidence, and only a liar would say they don't.

False. If there was any evidence, you might have that new investigation you want. Unfortunately for you, nobody ivestigated modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, or death ray beams from space.

 
At 24 May, 2011 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

What's illusory about "vaporized" steel that the NIST investigation pretends does not exist?

What's illusory about 273 unanswered questions, 114 omissions and distortions, NORAD's demonstrable lies, the laws of physics?


See what I mean?

 
At 24 May, 2011 16:29, Blogger Ian said...

What's illusory about 273 unanswered questions

There are no unanswered questions, Brian.

 
At 24 May, 2011 17:26, Blogger Arcterus said...

That's the problem--wordy writing makes it hard to see what's connected to what.

First of all, that has nothing to do with what you said. Second of all, if you'd pay attention, you'd see that I was noting that everyone EXCEPT truthers have understood my position perfectly well. It has nothing to do with "wordy writing" and has everything to do with your inability to accept that somebody could take a rational perspective and turn away from the truth movement.

 
At 24 May, 2011 21:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

What you don't get is that in political writing people praise it if they agree with its premises and conclusions, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. So be skeptical of the claims by debunkers that they "understand" your piece. They probably didn't even read it.

There are many rational reasons for turning away from the truth movement. One of them is that it attracts large numbers of wooly-headed conspiracists. Another might be that one determines, rationally, that one has no particular obligation to try to protect democracy in America. Another might be that one decides that any number of worthy causes are more likely to bring results and/or are more deserving of one's time.

But your reason is not rational because it's built on a false premise (that the truth movement is about "inside job") and an unjustified conclusion (if we can't prove "inside job" we've got no business calling for a new investigation).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home