Who Says Actors Are Like, Um, You Know, Airheads
Of course, he sounds positively erudite compared to the apparent star of the upcoming flick (from Wake Up Productions, no less): Charlie Sheen.
posted by Pat @ 10:04 AM
68 comments
68 Comments:
Is Pullman a twoofer? It isn't clear from the clip.
Wake Up Productions
And the Truth movement's slow slide into self-parody continues.
"Is Pullman a twoofer? It isn't clear from the clip."
I was wondering the same thing, so the guy who made the trailer must not be to swift.
Yup, the trailer's too subtle for the lowbrow set.
The prior trailer looks like nothing terribly new, though I'm surprised to see Dave Mustaine in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xceYZ0MIRk4
I'm not even sure Pullman is a troofer, in that clip he's just commenting on his 9/11 day.
I hope they interview some of the muppets, if you're going to waste time and money on stupid then go for the full-stupid.
Coming to YouTube
And the Truth movement's slow slide into self-parody continues.
See? Bill Pullman was behind 9/11. Obviously, Independence Day was a dry run.
Yup, the trailer's too subtle for the lowbrow set.
Translation: I keep getting laughed at for being an unemployed janitor by all these highly education professionals and it's JUST NOT FAIR!
Yeah those "highly education professionals" really make me feel inferior.
Yeah those "highly education professionals" really make me feel inferior.
Of course we do. If we didn't, you wouldn't spend so much time here trying to prove how sophisticated and intelligent you are, and in the process, proving just how much of an ignorant lunatic you are.
Poor Brian, he's just too stupid to realize how much of an unintentional comedy act he is.
I know you are but what am I?
I know you are but what am I?
Been watching Pee-Wee Herman movies while sniffing glue at 3 am again, huh?
No, I accused him of that two threads ago. And now he's repeating it, apparently without understand what it means or when to use it.
If you pay close attention to Brian, he actually parrots phrases other people use. Like "crippled epistemology." You just know he heard that somewhere.
Yeah, all you "highly education professionals" really make me feel like dirt.
Yeah, all you "highly education professionals" really make me feel like dirt.
Yup, we certainly do. If we didn't, you wouldn't have spent the last 2+ years babbling here, calling us girls, and telling us that you knew how to do integral calculus before you stopped wearing diapers.
Brian, you fancy yourself an extraordinary genius, but the rest of the world laughs at you and ignores you. That's why you're a truther: it's the last chance for a failed janitor to show the world that mocked him and consigned him to mopping floors how brilliant he really is.
"Just you wait, gentlemen!" Remember when you told the people at DU that after they mocked you for "meatball on a fork"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
He still doesn't see it! What a putz!
Also, he posts complete non sequitirs at times.
He still doesn't see it! What a putz!
Yup, more squealing from a failed janitor desperate to be taken seriously by people far more intelligent and accomplished than he. It's sad, really.
I can't believe you guys actually believe you've accomplished something.
The Palo Alto Pud Huffer whines, "...He still doesn't see it! What a putz!"
Projecting again, goat fucker?
"...I can't believe you guys actually believe you've accomplished something."
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
No one claims to have accomplished anything, goat fucker. Are logical fallacies all you have, goat fucker?
I'd love to know what Brian considers an accomplishment, given that he's an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents at age 60, spends all day calling people "girls" on the internet, and was expelled from the truth movement; a movement that considers people like Bill Deagle, Kevin Barrett, and Judy Wood members in good standing.
GutterBooze, you're blind.
Goat fucker, you're a pathological liar.
Tell us more about Dr. Sisson--you lying psychopath.
What about him? We already went over that and, just as with your bullshit claims that MIT professors had expressed confidence in the NIST report, your conflation of anachronistic unrelated material tripped you up.
Lying and misrepresenting my argument again, goat fucker?
Of course you are.
All you're trying to do is hijack another thread. Well, I'm not taking your bait, scumbag.
Don't you have a troofer to slander or sexually harass?
I'm not lying about anything. You were the one who pretended that the fact that Biederman and Barnett wrote a paper with Sisson in 2002 means they agreed with his dumbassness on BBC years later.
I'm not lying about anything.
You lie about Dr. Sunder constantly.
Ian, I didn't lie about anything. The transcript of the NOVA interview shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
See what I mean?
What you mean is wrong. And for you to lie about such easily-checked stuff is stupid.
The goat fucker lies through his terracotta teeth and scribbles, "...I'm not lying about anything. You were the one who pretended that the fact that Biederman and Barnett wrote a paper with Sisson in 2002 means they agreed with his dumbassness [SIC} on BBC years later."
Right, goat fucker. I didn't pretend at all. And the date their paper was written is absolutely irrelevant.
Never mind that Drs. Biederman and Barnett used the word "eroded" to describe the observed damage to the structural steel, which is in precise agreement with Dr. Sisson. And never mind that Dr. Biederman is the CO-AUTHOR of Dr. Sisson's paper. Thus, your claim that Drs. Biederman and Barnett disagree with Dr. Sisson is another in the long list of lies you've told over the last two years.
You're a joke, goat fucker.
Don't you have a troofer to sexually harass?
What you mean is wrong. And for you to lie about such easily-checked stuff is stupid.
Stop lying, Brian.
UtterFail, I said that Biederman and Barnett did not corroborate Sisson's claim that gypsum eroded the steel. They didn't.
They wrote a paper with Sisson in 2002 that expressed mystification about where the sulfur that caused the intragranular melting of the steel came from. Your notion that this somehow represents an endorsement of Sisson's loony claims in 2006 is just one more example of your irrationality.
Ian, I didn't lie about anything. The transcript of the NOVA interview shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
Lying again, scumbag.
"...Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.
Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.
However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:
"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
And what's this, liar?
"Presented by: Prof. Ronald Biederman, George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering
"Abstract
"Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident. Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present along with a perspective on the implications that this damage may pose for high rise structural steel buildings." -- Drs. Sisson and Biederman.
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf
Thus, we can see, once again, that you're lying and misrepresenting the findings of Drs. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson.
Don't you have a troofer to sexually harass, Pinocchio.
Continued...
In fact you're lying, because the investigation took place at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute under the direction of Drs. Biederman and Sisson. Thus, there is no contradiction, and WE CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE LYING AGAIN.
Don't you have a troofer to sexually harass, goat fucker?
As anyone can see, I always substantiate my argument with facts and direct quotes. And what does the goat fucker give us? He gives us lies, obfuscation, misrepresentation of the scientific evidence and bald-faced lies.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Ronald Biederman
http://www.me.wpi.edu/People/Biederman/
Richard D. Sisson, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/People/Sisson/
Professor Jonathon Barnett
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jonathan-barnett/5/b02/ba2?goback=.cps_1247149767187_1
Professor Barnett Helps Investigate WTC Collapse
http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Depts/Fire/News/wtc.html
UtterFail, I'm not lying or misrepresenting anything. We already discussed your misrepresentation of the vandervoort paper in the "how stupid" thread and the "land of truthers" thread.
When you are shown to be wrong, you only go repeating the same lies.
The statements of the FEMA Appendix C report contradict Dr. Sisson's claims on the BBC. If you had bothered to read the report you would know that. Nowhere has either Biederman or Barnett endorsed Sisson's silly "Gypsum theory". Jonathan Cole has shown that gypsum baked with steel does not erode it.
The vondervoort paper is about the erosion of the steel. It doesn't say anything about gypsum. It says they reproduced the erosion by use of iron sulfide. They didn't use gypsum. Gypsum (calcium sulfate) won't do that. It's inert.
You're silly. You obviously didn't even read the paper you cite, and it doesn't say what you claim. You simply engage in a whole lot of technobabble. None of the facts you present in any way show that Biederman or Barnett endorsed Sisson's silly claims about gypsum.
Is this what Mr. Spammy is trying to cover up?
The transcript of the NOVA interview shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
"...There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese...Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes...In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. 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.'"
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
Thus, we can see that there is no contradiction--they all agree on the cause of the erosion--and you're lying again, goat fucker.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
GutterBall, your endless spam about the erosion of the steel nowhere says that gypsum caused it. I'm not lying about anything.
The goat fucker continues to lie and misrepresent the scientif evidence and the professor's explanation, and scribbles, "...GutterBall, your endless spam about the erosion of the steel nowhere says that gypsum caused it. I'm not lying about anything."
The professor didn't say anything about "gypsum"--you lying cocksucker. THE BBC said "gypsum," which is an error on the part of the BBC, not the professor.
Here's what the professor said--sans your misrepresentation of his explanation:
"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be thect kind of result I would expe."" -- Dr. Sisson, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
Here's more proof that you're misrepresenting the scientific evidence and the professor's explanation.
"...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
Thus, we can see that there is no contradiction--they all agree on the cause of the erosion--and you're lying again, goat fucker. "Gypsum" was never mentioned by the professors.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
GutterBall, you certainly expend an awful lot of energy calling me a liar while presenting facts that support my position.
A week ago were arguing that Barnett and Biedermann were supporting the claims that gypsum eroded the steel.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-america-became-land-of-truthers.html
Now you're not only agreeing that they did not support that claim, you're even claiming that Sisson doesn't support it either. But by dumping a lot of spam all over everything you're trying to make it look like I'm a liar in this, when I've been right all along.
Can you see what the goat fucker is up to, folks?
Answer: He's resorting to another logical fallacy in a thoroughly underhanded attempt to win the "debate."
Notice that the psychopath deliberately pretends that professor Sisson made the claim that "gypsum" was responsible for the eutectic reaction that resulted in erosion, when, if fact, the professor never made such a claim.
So which logical fallacy did the goat fucker employ in order to misrepresent the scientific evidence?
Answer: Straw man argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
GutterBall, BBC says Sisson made the claim.
"Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
You haven't shown that he didn't, but only offered your evidence-free opinion to that effect.
That's the good old fashioned bare assertion fallacy.
The goat fucker continues to lie and claims, "...GutterBall, BBC says Sisson made the claim."
Get it through your thick skull, liar. The claim that gypsum was responsible for the erosion was made by the BBC, not Dr. Sisson.
Notice that the goat fucker is trying to pull a fast one and pretend that the BBC's remarks are Dr. Sisson's remarks. He's so arrogant that he thinks you can't see the flow of the quotation marks in the BBC article. Also notice that he can't show you an actual quote from Dr. Sisson where he allegedly claims "gypsum" was responsible for the erosion.
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
The goat fucker continues to lie and play games, "...You haven't shown that he didn't, but only offered your evidence-free opinion to that effect."
Logical fallacy: Prove a negative.
On the contrary, goat fucker, YOU SHOW ME WHERE DR. SISSON MADE THE CLAIM.
Stuffing the BBC's misstatement down the professor's throat is nothing more than a cheap, dirty straw man argument.
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, BBC says "Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard".
Journalists learn pretty fast not to attribute to people things they did not say. If you think BBC is wrong about this, you should provide some evidence to support your opinion.
Your incompetence is showing. I have not misrepresented or faked anything.
"...Journalists learn pretty fast not to attribute to people things they did not say. If you think BBC is wrong about this, you should provide some evidence to support your opinion."
I already have provided the evidence --you stupid cocksucker. And I provided the links, as well. The fact remains that you can't provide a direct quote the shows Dr. Sisson, or anyone else, ever made the claim that "gypsum" was responsible for the erosion.
On the contrary, goat fucker, YOU SHOW ME WHERE DR. SISSON MADE THE CLAIM. NOT SOME BBC MISQUOTE.
Put up, or shut up, goat fucker.
Give me a DIRECT QUOTE FROM DR. SISSON, or stop lying--you God damned psychopath.
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
I'm waiting pateintly, goat fucker.
Where are the direct quotes from Drs. Sisson, Beiderman or Barnett that support the lie that they argued "Gypsum" is responsible for the erosion? And a BBC misquote DOESN'T QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that shows that BBC misquoted anything.
You live in a fantasy world. And your claim that BBC is not evidence, and your evidence-free claim of a misquote only shows your incompetence.
"...UtterFail, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that shows that BBC misquoted anything."
Yes, I have.
I gave you direct quotes and links that prove they never mentioned "gypsum."
Put up, or shut up, goat fucker.
Give me a DIRECT QUOTE FROM DR. SISSON, or stop lying--you God damned psychopath.
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
I gave you the direct quotes as follows:
"...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
"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."" -- Dr. Sisson, 2005
Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker is a psychopath who will go to any length in order to lie, obfuscate, misrepresent the data and fake the evidence.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
Now, put up or shut up, goat fucker.
FAILURE TO PRODUCE DIRECT QUOTES FROM DRS. SISSON, BEIDERMAN AND BARNETT THAT PROVE THEY EVER MADE THE CLAIM THAT GYPSUM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EROSION WILL RESULT IN AUTOMATIC FORFEIT OF THE DEBATE. AND BBC MISQUOTES DON'T COUNT AS "EVIDENCE."
Now stop stonewalling and produce the evidence to support your lies, or fuck off.
Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, you are incompetent. A 2002 paper has nothing to do with whether someone said something stupid in 2008.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER CANNOT SUPPORT HIS FALACIOUS CLAIM THAT DRS. SISSON, BEIDERMAN AND BARNETT ARGUED "GYPSUM" WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EROSION.
THUS, YOU FORFIET THE DEBATE AGAIN.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
So tell us, goat fucker, how does it feel the know that your alleged "credibility," once again, can be measured in negative engineering units?
Now, get out of here--you insane liar.
I never made such a stupid claim, UtterFool.
Bullshit! You made the claim in the following post:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/steven-jones-latest-research.html#c4210813949307682573
Not only did you lie, you contradicted yourself again, which proves that you're an insane liar who will say anything.
There's a reason why you never finished school--they expelled you for intellectual dishonesty, and I'm willing to bet they caught you cheating as well. Your behavior proves beyond a doubt that you're not high school material, let a alone capable of finishing university. You're a pig--scum of the earth.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Grade: F-
So tell us, goat fucker, how does it feel the know that your alleged "credibility," once again, can be measured in negative engineering units?
Now, get out of here--you insane liar.
I never made the claim you attribute to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right here--you filthy liar:
"...UtterFail, BBC says "Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard"."
The goat fucker contradicts himself and lies again.
Now, let's talk about something you really understand, goat molester: Sex stalking.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
"...Bay Area 9/11 Truth Trivia Quiz:
Q: Who is Brian Good?
A: A sexually-frustrated wacko who, in his late 50s, still lives in his parents' basement in Palo Alto.
B. A bisexual stalker who targets famous 9/11 activists of both the female and male persuasions.
C. A coward who spends 18 hours a day hiding behind a keyboard and cyber-stalking the targets of his obsessions under a long list of pseudonyms, but is afraid to debate them live or on the radio.
D. All of the above."
Don't you have a troofer to sexually harass, goat fucker?
UtterFail, thanks for demonstrating yet again your incompetence.
By resorting to the desperate ad hominem fantasies of the bigot, liar, and lunatic Kevin Barrett, you show your inability to muster facts to support your claims.
Ian, I didn't lie about anything. The transcript of the NOVA interview shows that Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
See what I mean?
I guess what you mean is that Dr. Sunder said:
"The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."
That's what the link shows.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
No, Brian, what I mean is that you're either illiterate or a liar, as your constant dumbspam about Dr. Sunder shows.
Ian, you are both an idiot AND a liar, as your repeated denials of easily-checked facts show.
Post a Comment
<< Home