Wednesday, July 20, 2011

9-11 Was a Soap Opera Job



The girl's cute, the characters are wooden, the storyline is boring, the acting is strictly from Ed Wood, and I didn't get through more than 15 minutes. Double Indemnity, this is not.

110 Comments:

At 20 July, 2011 21:45, Blogger paul w said...

Well done, I only got to 3:52.

 
At 21 July, 2011 07:06, Blogger Triterope said...

Don't forget the terrible writing. The 30 seconds' worth of opening graphics is enough to betray this film's amateurishness. "Humanity is in denial, this film is therefore dramatized?" Ugh.

 
At 21 July, 2011 11:04, Blogger Arcterus said...

I think I got more pissed at how shitty the movie was than how shitty the information was.

 
At 21 July, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

I quit before 2:00.

 
At 21 July, 2011 12:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I skipped through it. Some Dutch kids figure out that evil Wall Street & Swiss Bankers, Jews, and the Military Industrial Complex did it.

 
At 21 July, 2011 15:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I did enjoy the shots of Amsterdam. Good times, good times.

 
At 21 July, 2011 16:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" Richard Gage's Testicles said...
I did enjoy the shots of Amsterdam. Good times, good times."

Any connection between a country where pot is legal and paranoid rantings?

Nah...too easy...

 
At 21 July, 2011 18:20, Blogger James B. said...

OK, the whole 9/11 as an insurance scam I could almost buy. But the part where the Truther was getting laid regularly, that was just too far fetched.

 
At 21 July, 2011 20:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic -- remember Anthony Hall, the insane Canadian who took Joshua Blakeney under his wing? Amusing edit war going on at Wikipedia over Professor Hall's entry. Apparently, Hall has been busted writing glowing reviews for himself under two different names.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I quit before 2:00.

Quitter!

 
At 22 July, 2011 15:46, Blogger Triterope said...

snug.bug said...
I quit before 2:00.


Do you ever really start?

 
At 22 July, 2011 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

You don't need to start if you never stop.

 
At 22 July, 2011 19:39, Blogger Triterope said...

I meant doing something other than humiliating yourself on a blog.

 
At 22 July, 2011 20:46, Blogger Ian said...

You don't need to start if you never stop.

Speaking of that, you haven't babbled about American hero Willie Rodriguez yet in this thread. What gives?

 
At 23 July, 2011 00:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

No need; he's toast.

 
At 23 July, 2011 06:24, Blogger Ian said...

No need; he's toast.

I can't wait for him to be honored for his heroism on the tenth anniversary while you squeal about it all day.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You don't need to start if you never stop

Well don't start up with your obsessions of 9/11 then you'll stop.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Some people are so obsessed with their faith in the official story that they are afraid of the truth.

And of course the reason they need to profess their faith so loudly is that in their hearts they don't really believe it--like the gay-basher who's really acting from his feer deep down that hes queer himself.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:26, Blogger Ian said...

Some people are so obsessed with their faith in the official story that they are afraid of the truth.

Um, no. Pretty much everyone sane has moved on and stopped discussing it. The only people still obsessing over it are loons like you who cling to 9/11 truth fantasies because you have nothing else to live for. It's sad, really.

And of course the reason they need to profess their faith so loudly is that in their hearts they don't really believe it--like the gay-basher who's really acting from his feer deep down that hes queer himself.

Funny how you bring this up, considering you're the one who resembles Marcus Bachmann with your cross-dressing and your sexual obsession with that "strutting, lying, bragging fabulous hunk of Latin manhood." You know who I'm talking about...

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, important questions about 9/11 have been covered up, as the current issue of Vanity Fair points out. Any patriot can see that.

Do you have an actual link for that quote? I'm sure I said something along the lines of "lying, strutting blob of latin manboob".

If I said "fabulous" it was clearly a code-word employed in jest.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

important questions about 9/11 have been covered up

Referrence to the Jersey Girls.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, important questions about 9/11 have been covered up, as the current issue of Vanity Fair points out. Any patriot can see that.

False.

Do you have an actual link for that quote? I'm sure I said something along the lines of "lying, strutting blob of latin manboob".

Yes I do have the link. I'll give you the link once you admit you ran away squealing and crying for an opportunity to debate Rodriguez.

If I said "fabulous" it was clearly a code-word employed in jest.

Clearly.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm happy to debate Willie Fraudriguez in a neutral forum such as visibility911, 911blogger, the sf911truthgooglegroup, or Carol Brouillet's radio show.

The SLC forum is not neutral as both Willie and Pat have close connections to JREF, and SLC has shown that it does not give proper regard to the privacy interests of innocent third parties.

There's really nothing to debate as I've proved 11 ways from Sunday that Willie is a liar and a fraud. He can not defend himself from that fact, and can only mount an ad hominem attack linked to grandiose plans for multimedia debate some time in the future.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm happy to debate Willie Fraudriguez in ......Carol Brouillet's radio show.

Carol Brouillet doesn't want you on her show because you've harassed her and threatened her marriage.

The SLC forum is not neutral....

No, you don't like SLC because we just neutered you.

There's really nothing to debate as I've proved 11 ways from Sunday that Willie is a liar and a fraud.

In other words, he's going to chicken out with a debate with Willie again.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm happy to debate Willie Fraudriguez in a neutral forum such as visibility911, 911blogger, the sf911truthgooglegroup, or Carol Brouillet's radio show.

His inability to find a truth movement forum to support the debate shows that he has no standing in the truth movement.

I've already had a prominent 9/11 truther offer to moderate a debate as a guest host on Carol's radio show. Tell Willie to follow up on that.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:56, Blogger Ian said...

I'm happy to debate Willie Fraudriguez in a neutral forum such as visibility911, 911blogger, the sf911truthgooglegroup, or Carol Brouillet's radio show.

No you're not, as you were challenged to do this, and you ran away squealing and crying.

I guess that's why he'll be honored for his heroism this September while you'll do nothing but post dumbspam about it.

There's really nothing to debate as I've proved 11 ways from Sunday that Willie is a liar and a fraud.

You've proved nothing other than that you're a liar with a deranged sexual obsession with the man. I mean, how else does one explain your description of him as a "strutting, lying, bragging fabulous hunk of Latin manhood"?

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Willie may be honored by his heroism by a couple of Urantians who claim to be truthers, but the fact that he can't get a truth movement forum for a debate for him to clear his name from the charges that he's a liar and a fraud pretty well shows that he's toast in the movement.

He stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz, he was alienating firefighters and journalists and lawyers for years, and he killed a good relationship with C-Span.

I am not one to use the term "fabulous" except as a joke with certain obvious connotations (GWB was notably fond of the word), so if I described Willie as a fabulous anything I was only lampooning his admirers.

Your inability to provide a link to what you claim I said suggests to me that I never said it. Obviously you misread it when I said he was a "strutting, lying, bragging blob of Latin manboob".
That will be his epitaph unless he admits that he lied and tells why he lied and vows to be true to truth from here on.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:36, Blogger Ian said...

Hey, remember this?

Speaking of that, you haven't babbled about American hero Willie Rodriguez yet in this thread. What gives?

Well, Brian has started babbling about Rodriguez again and is posting incessantly about it.

You're just too easy, Brian.

Anyway,

Your inability to provide a link to what you claim I said suggests to me that I never said it.

False. You said it. I do have the link and will provide it once you admit that you ran away squealing and crying from his debate challenge.

That will be his epitaph unless he admits that he lied and tells why he lied and vows to be true to truth from here on.

That's funny coming from a liar who believes in 9/11 truth conspiracies. Willie is a hero who will be remembered forever. You're a failed janitor with no friends or family and nobody will even notice once you croak.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the only conspiracies I believe are pretty demonstrable: there's been a 9/11 coverup as proven by the 28 page redaction in the Senate/House inquiry, the 9/11 Commission's omissions and distortions, and NIST's failure to fulfil the charge given them by the NCSTAR Act which called for them the explain the collapses.

As for nanothermite, controlled demolition, and inside job--I'm not going to stick my neck out for unproven theories. But I think they all deserve investigation by responsible authorities.

 
At 23 July, 2011 14:18, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the only conspiracies I believe are pretty demonstrable: there's been a 9/11 coverup as proven by the 28 page redaction in the Senate/House inquiry, the 9/11 Commission's omissions and distortions, and NIST's failure to fulfil the charge given them by the NCSTAR Act which called for them the explain the collapses.

You have a funny definition of the word "demonstrable", Brian.

As for nanothermite, controlled demolition, and inside job--I'm not going to stick my neck out for unproven theories.

No, you're just going to babble endlessly about them and dismiss every explanation for why all of the above is nonsense.

But I think they all deserve investigation by responsible authorities.

Nobody cares what you think because you're an unemployed lunatic.

 
At 23 July, 2011 15:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Are you going to deny that the redaction of 28 pages from a congressional report is demonstrable?

 
At 23 July, 2011 16:00, Blogger Ian said...

Are you going to deny that the redaction of 28 pages from a congressional report is demonstrable?

No, it's just that nobody cares.

I do notice that you didn't include your other delusions in a list of that which is "demonstrable". Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 23 July, 2011 16:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fact that I refuted your first claim is sufficient. You're a liar. Enough said.

 
At 24 July, 2011 09:51, Blogger Ian said...

The fact that I refuted your first claim is sufficient. You're a liar. Enough said.

You refuted nothing, Brian. I've pwn3d you again, as always.

 
At 24 July, 2011 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

The redaction of 28 pages from the congressional/senate inquiry is a cover-up.

 
At 24 July, 2011 10:29, Blogger Ian said...

The redaction of 28 pages from the congressional/senate inquiry is a cover-up.

Nobody cares.

 
At 24 July, 2011 11:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Saudis care, Ian, and the widows care. The plaintiffs in the suit against the Saudi Royals care. And the people who read the article in the current Vanity Fair will care, and the people who read Tony Summers's new book "The Eleventh Day" will care.

Only the willfully ignorant like you don't care--and your whistling in the dark is not very convincing.

 
At 24 July, 2011 11:40, Blogger Ian said...

The Saudis care, Ian, and the widows care. The plaintiffs in the suit against the Saudi Royals care. And the people who read the article in the current Vanity Fair will care, and the people who read Tony Summers's new book "The Eleventh Day" will care.

Like I said, nobody cares.

Only the willfully ignorant like you don't care--and your whistling in the dark is not very convincing.

So Brian, how's that new investigation coming along? Have we had one yet? Are we going to have one soon? It's been almost 10 years.

 
At 24 July, 2011 12:08, Blogger J Rebori said...

So Tony Summers, one of the biggest Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts going, has bought into another loony conspiracy theory?

Color me surprised.

 
At 24 July, 2011 13:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so you're one of those "lone gunman" nuts I've been hearing about? Have you actually done enough research to be sure? Why?

 
At 24 July, 2011 14:13, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, so you're one of those "lone gunman" nuts I've been hearing about? Have you actually done enough research to be sure? Why?

As Pat and James have often pointed out, if you're dumb enough to fall for one conspiracy theory, you're probably dumb enough to fall for them all....

 
At 24 July, 2011 14:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so you're another "lone gunman" nut? Have you done enough actual research to determine that? Why?

Are we looking at a bunch of knee-jerk anti-conspiracists here who can't even admit to reality like 9 seconds and 11 seconds and melting of girders because they're taboo? A bunch of fraidy cats who can't even admit that a 28- page redaction in a joint house/senate inquiry is a conspiracy to cover up?

 
At 24 July, 2011 15:18, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, so you're another "lone gunman" nut? Have you done enough actual research to determine that? Why?

Brian, this is a blog about 9/11, not the Kennedy assassination. You can find plenty of other places on the internet to post dumbspam about that.

Are we looking at a bunch of knee-jerk anti-conspiracists here who can't even admit to reality like 9 seconds and 11 seconds and melting of girders because they're taboo?

Brian, you probably need to consult a dictionary before using words you don't understand, like "reality". Otherwise, you'll look like a deranged, babbling liar and we don't want that.

A bunch of fraidy cats who can't even admit that a 28- page redaction in a joint house/senate inquiry is a conspiracy to cover up?

Nobody cares about the 28-page redaction.

 
At 24 July, 2011 16:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Saudis care, Ian, and the widows care. The plaintiffs in the suit against the Saudi Royals care. And the people who read the article in the current Vanity Fair will care, and the people who read Tony Summers's new book "The Eleventh Day" will care. And I suspect that George W. Bush cares very much.

 
At 24 July, 2011 16:27, Blogger Ian said...

The Saudis care, Ian, and the widows care. The plaintiffs in the suit against the Saudi Royals care. And the people who read the article in the current Vanity Fair will care, and the people who read Tony Summers's new book "The Eleventh Day" will care. And I suspect that George W. Bush cares very much.

Like I said, nobody cares. Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for confirming your contempt for the 9/11 victims, Ian.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for confirming your contempt for the 9/11 victims, Ian.

George W. Bush was a victim of 9/11? I guess "victim" is another big-boy word you'll have to look up in the dictionary.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:44, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Oh, so you're one of those "lone gunman" nuts I've been hearing about? Have you actually done enough research to be sure? Why?"

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to discover this asswipe believes in the JFK assassination conspiracies as well as the 9/11 ones.

Summers sold the JFK nimrods the same book twice, once as "Conspiracy" then again as "Not in Your Lifetime", effectively selling the same bill of goods to the moronic JFK faithful two separate times.

I bet he is Gages idol.

How many times do you think he will retitle and sell "Eleventh Day"

 
At 24 July, 2011 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

So why would you read books you think are stupid? Trust-fund baby with time on your hands?

 
At 24 July, 2011 18:51, Blogger J Rebori said...

"So why would you read books you think are stupid? Trust-fund baby with time on your hands?"

Comic relief.

I work hard, I support a fair sized family. I am the son of a blue collar worker who couldn't have given me a trust fund even if he had thought it a good idea. Books by morons allow me to relax and laugh when I'm not working.

So tell me, why do you read books so obviously idiotic? Are you unable to apply critical thinking skills?

 
At 24 July, 2011 19:41, Blogger Ian said...

So why would you read books you think are stupid? Trust-fund baby with time on your hands?

As he said, comic relief. It's the same reason we read your mindless babbling and egg you on. We want to laugh.

 
At 24 July, 2011 20:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys have time for comic relief while your country is going down the tubes.

 
At 24 July, 2011 21:15, Blogger J Rebori said...

"You guys have time for comic relief while your country is going down the tubes."

People who don't make time to laugh at things end up like you, paranoid, lonely, obsessed and sad to see.

My country isn't going down the tubes. Mine has problems, needs some work done, but it has a few good centuries ahead of it. Been part of it through nearly a dozen presidents, it has it's ups and downs but it goes along just fine as long as people care enough to keep an eye on things.

Which country are you in? If it's made you that paranoid maybe you should move someplace more open and friendly. I'd suggest the USA.

 
At 24 July, 2011 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your country is going down the tubes. People no longer care about truth, decency, democracy, accountability, a free press, or the future. All they care about is making the next installment on their credit card bill.

And that's OK with you, 'cause you've got yours and you can spend your life playing video games if you want.

 
At 24 July, 2011 22:18, Blogger paul w said...

Going down the tubes.
No longer care about truth, decency, democracy, accountability, a free press, or the future.
That's OK...'cause can spend life playing video games.


To understand Brian, read between the lines.

 
At 24 July, 2011 23:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

And if you lack the intellectual capacitance for that, shrink the lines to fit your intellect.

 
At 25 July, 2011 06:39, Blogger J Rebori said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 July, 2011 06:41, Blogger J Rebori said...

"And if you lack the intellectual capacitance for that, shrink the lines to fit your intellect."

Why shouldn't he, it's what you did in the post directly above his.

You ignored my comment about being a hard worker, guess that doesn't fit your fantasy world. I don't have time to play, I make time to play. It means I can work harder and do better when I'm not playing. It means I spend time with friends and family laughing and just connecting with them. It means I can go back and look at issues with a clearer head and not lose contact with priorities and reality. I'm a reasonably well-rounded human being, unlike you.

The only response you can drum up to me pointing out that your obvious inability to relax and enjoy some recreation isn't a healthy thing is to attack me for not caring enough about your obsession?

You are walking proof of the need to get some fun into your life or you become an obsessed, paranoid, pitiable wreck of a human.

You do truly need professional help.

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

the only conspiracies I believe are pretty demonstrable

LOL, given that EMRTC and a whole host of other researchers & experts have demonstraited their theories & have tested them to prove that the Official Report is the truth. Where the Truth Movement has yet to make a demonstraition of their theories.

I don't believe that the Truth Movement could possibly demonstrait their stupid theories & show the world how fucking stupid they are. Maybe that's why they won't demonstrait, because they know that they're full of shit & can't prove anything.

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

EMRTC couldn't burn a steel column with 180 pounds of thermite. Jonathan Cole did it with 2 pounds of thermite.

See the video "Incendiary Experiments"

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

EMRTC couldn't burn a steel column with 180 pounds of thermite. Jonathan Cole did it with 2 pounds of thermite.

ROTFLMFAO! That's just too rich. Are you sure you're not that retarded Stundie charactor?

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

They couldn't do it. It's in the National Geographic documentary. They piled up 180 pounds of thermite and set it off, and it didn't touch the steel. The mythbusters set off 1000 pounds of the stuff and they couldn't even cut all the way through the roof of a car.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

They piled up 180 pounds of thermite and set it off, and it didn't touch the steel. The mythbusters set off 1000 pounds of the stuff and they couldn't even cut all the way through the roof of a car.

Hmmm and I wonder why you ignore the experts when they tell you that no molten steel was found @ Ground Zero? After all you believe if EMRTC and the Mythbusters couldn't do it, why should you contradict yourself with thier expierments?

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, what experts tell me no molten steel was found at Ground Zero?

It's pretty obvious that the mythbusters guys and the EMRTC were just fooling around and they weren't seriously trying to cut the steel.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, what experts tell me no molten steel was found at Ground Zero?

Steelworkers, firefighters, police, rescue workers and everybody that was involved in the clean up.

It's pretty obvious that the mythbusters guys and the EMRTC were just fooling around and they weren't seriously trying to cut the steel.

Atleast they tested it. What have you done to prove that thermite can melt steel? Nothing, right??

 
At 25 July, 2011 15:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did the steelworkers, firefighters, police, rescue workers and everybody that was involved in the clean up say there was no molten steel?

Jonathan Cole has showed that he can make a vertical cut to break a steel girder using just 2 pounds of thermate. He's showed that he can make horizontal cuts on a column.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:32, Blogger Ian said...

You guys have time for comic relief while your country is going down the tubes.

My, such squealing!

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:36, Blogger Ian said...

Your country is going down the tubes. People no longer care about truth, decency, democracy, accountability, a free press, or the future. All they care about is making the next installment on their credit card bill.

Let me translate: everyone laughs at me even though I'm a genius. Ordinary people can afford a house and two cars and I have to live in my parents' basement. It's not fair!

And that's OK with you, 'cause you've got yours and you can spend your life playing video games if you want.

As opposed to spending every waking hour posting dumbspam on an obscure blog. That's the good life!

I have to say, Brian, that this is some of the finest squealing you've ever done here. Your paranoia, bitterness, and delusions are all set free to howl. It's marvelous.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:38, Blogger Ian said...

EMRTC couldn't burn a steel column with 180 pounds of thermite. Jonathan Cole did it with 2 pounds of thermite.

Nobody cares.

WAQo, what experts tell me no molten steel was found at Ground Zero?

Brian, what experts tell me you burnt baboon fur or radioactive dust was found at Ground Zero?

Jonathan Cole has showed that he can make a vertical cut to break a steel girder using just 2 pounds of thermate. He's showed that he can make horizontal cuts on a column.

Nobody cares.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, "nobody" would be you. You don't care. So you could more accurately put it "nobody doesn't care".

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, "nobody" would be you. You don't care. So you could more accurately put it "nobody doesn't care".

I don't care, it's true. It's also true that no other people in the world care save a few crackpots and failures like yourself, but you don't count, so again, nobody cares.

 
At 25 July, 2011 22:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"EMRTC couldn't burn a steel column with 180 pounds of thermite. Jonathan Cole did it with 2 pounds of thermite."

So you trust Cole over people who actually know what they are talking about.

Figures.

 
At 26 July, 2011 02:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

EMRTC knows more about burning steel with thermite than most people in the world. And yet when National Geographic asked them to test it, they couldn't make it work.

Go figure. I suppose $90 million a year in federal contracts was not a factor in their performance?

 
At 26 July, 2011 07:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Where did the steelworkers, firefighters, police, rescue workers and everybody that was involved in the clean up say there was no molten steel?

I bet a mentally challenged person could tell the difference between your lying and those who were there cleaning up lower Manhatten.

Also since the steelworkers, firefighters, police, rescue workers and everybody that was involved in the clean up aren't lying when they said they didn't see molten steel, I would think that you're also calling all of them liars. I mean you can't cope with the fact that you're a lying douche bag.

 
At 26 July, 2011 07:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

EMRTC knows more about burning steel with thermite than most people in the world. And yet when National Geographic asked them to test it, they couldn't make it work.

Cpt. Obvious missed the episode back in 2009 where Nat. Geo. had a program called: "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" where EMRTC did test thermite and proved that it couldn't melt a small steel column. They also tested jet fuel and found out that it caused a steel beam to warp due to the intense heat.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067

 
At 26 July, 2011 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did the steelworkers, firefighters, police, rescue workers and everybody that was involved in the clean up say there was no molten steel?

I didn't miss the Nat'l Geo episode. That's what I was talking about when I said EMRTC couldn't make thermite work. They didn't prove that it can't melt a steel column. They proved that 180 pounds of thermite didn't melt a steel column--because they didn't do it right and it just boiled out of the hopper.

Jonathan Cole cut a steel girder with two pounds of thermite.

 
At 26 July, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

They didn't prove that it can't melt a steel column. They proved that 180 pounds of thermite didn't melt a steel column--because they didn't do it right and it just boiled out of the hopper.

And you think you could've done the same thing and proven it? Well why the fuck are you online then?! Why haven't you gone out and tested it yourself? Oh, I forgot, you're Supplimental Income is on a tight budget.

EMRTC got it right, you're just too lazy to prove them wrong with your own expieriments.

Jonathan Cole cut a steel girder with two pounds of thermite.

Let me guess, the steel was about 1/4 an inch thick andthat's why it melted through? Typical lying fucker you are!

 
At 26 July, 2011 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I don't have any place I can weld or grind or set off incendiaries.

EMRTC got it right all right: they set up an experiment to fail in a blatantly dishonest effort to convince the simple-minded that thermite can't cut steel.

Jonathan Cole is just one guy with a limited budget. Give him $20 million and six years and a staff of a hundred PhDs like NIST had and he'll show you exactly how thermate cuts steel.

 
At 26 July, 2011 11:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I don't have any place I can weld or grind or set off incendiaries.

That's because you have no friends to ask. Pity!

EMRTC got it right all right: they set up an experiment to fail in a blatantly dishonest effort to convince the simple-minded that thermite can't cut steel.

They didn't fail and they filmed their experiment without editting it. Thermite can't cut steel, period! Stop whining, you're an embarassment to yourself.

Jonathan Cole is just one guy with a limited budget.

With a limited budget he can't do the right experiment under the right conditions.

Give him $20 million and six years and a staff of a hundred PhDs like NIST had and he'll show you exactly how thermate cuts steel.

Why didn't Gage help him? Oh that's right he's off to other places with Truther money. Spending it on hotels and food and going to museums, etc. Poor sucker!

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:25, Blogger Ian said...

Jonathan Cole is just one guy with a limited budget. Give him $20 million and six years and a staff of a hundred PhDs like NIST had and he'll show you exactly how thermate cuts steel.

I love Brian's blind assertions. They're just like those of any religious fanatic. Jesus will return to the earth within the next decade and Jonathan Cole with show how thermite could have destroyed the WTC towers.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Jonathan Cole already did show how thermite could have destroyed the towers. The debunkers claimed that it couldn't make cuts on vertical surfaces and he proved them wrong.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Jonathan Cole already did show how thermite could have destroyed the towers.

See what I mean?

Jesus rose from the dead too, Brian.

The debunkers claimed that it couldn't make cuts on vertical surfaces and he proved them wrong.

False.

 
At 26 July, 2011 18:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the videos show that Jonathan Cole was able to make thermite cuts on vertical surfaces.

 
At 26 July, 2011 18:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the videos show that Jonathan Cole was able to make thermite cuts on vertical surfaces.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 27 July, 2011 00:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

You didn't think it was nice when you claimed it was false.

 
At 27 July, 2011 10:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Jonathan Cole already did show how thermite could have destroyed the towers.

Problem is he didn't test it on a building similar in design to the WTCs'.

You fail!

 
At 27 July, 2011 13:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

He didn't test it in any building at all. He didn't need to. Most people understand that when you cut a building's beams and columns apart, it falls down.

 
At 27 July, 2011 14:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Most people understand that when you cut a building's beams and columns apart, it falls down."

So a 767 cutting a building's beams would also cause it to fall down and go boom.

 
At 27 July, 2011 15:37, Blogger Ian said...

You didn't think it was nice when you claimed it was false.

Brian, I didn't claim anything Cole did was false. You said that Cole demonstrated that the WTC could have been destroyed by thermite. That is clearly false.

He didn't test it in any building at all. He didn't need to.

False.

 
At 27 July, 2011 18:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the NIST's initial "realistic" estimates of column damage did not generate a collapse. IIRC the initial estimate for WTC1 was 3 core columns severed.

So they simply upped their damage estimates on the basis that Hey, the building fell down, so it must have been more damaged than that.

Even if airplane damage could have generated a collapse, asymmetrical damage inevitably creates assymetrical collapse. If you knock two legs off a table it does not fall straight down.

 
At 27 July, 2011 19:36, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the NIST's initial "realistic" estimates of column damage did not generate a collapse. IIRC the initial estimate for WTC1 was 3 core columns severed.

Brian, I hate to tell you this, but that's how science works. I know you're confused because you're an unemployed janitor who doesn't understand the first thing about what happened on 9/11, so it's best to leave this to the experts.

Even if airplane damage could have generated a collapse, asymmetrical damage inevitably creates assymetrical collapse. If you knock two legs off a table it does not fall straight down.

Airplane damage plus fires, Brian. You can never seem to put those two things together. It's OK, since you're a failed janitor who doesn't understand the first thing about what happened on 9/11.

And asymmetrical damage would lead to asymmetrical collapse. Very good, Brian. You win the broken clock award for today.

 
At 27 July, 2011 22:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, when the experts reverse-engineer their models to arrive at the desired conclusion, I call them on it. That's called "dry-labbing".

So why do you introduce fires, Ian? What has that to do with symmetry? Are you maintaining that the fires somehow compensated for asymmetrical damage to achieve symmetrical collapse?

 
At 28 July, 2011 04:40, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, when the experts reverse-engineer their models to arrive at the desired conclusion, I call them on it. That's called "dry-labbing".

Who is talking about reverse-engineering models? Oh right, you are because you're a paranoid lunatic and liar who doesn't understand anything about 9/11.

So why do you introduce fires, Ian? What has that to do with symmetry? Are you maintaining that the fires somehow compensated for asymmetrical damage to achieve symmetrical collapse?

Does this dumbspam have a point, Brian?

 
At 28 July, 2011 07:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's the thing Cpt. Obvious:

Your theories surrounding 9/11 are a pattern of inflammatory theories. You make use of murky methods to insinuate your claims, you bring up conspiracy theories of the past, you manipulate evidence to hide the holes in your theories. You rely on dubious academic sources that support no facts nor evidence. Therefore you're making it all up and essentually lying about everything.

I'm gonna repeat this in every thread until it's rattling inside Brian's empty skull.

 
At 28 July, 2011 09:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

The things you think are smart are a real hoot, Goober.

 
At 28 July, 2011 11:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The things you think are smart are a real hoot, Goober.

Saying that you manipulate evidence to hide the holes in your theories?

Just because you can't think intelligently doesn't mean people have to dumb down to your standards.

 
At 28 July, 2011 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

What do you mean, "manipulate evidence"? It sounds vaguely bad, but it's meaningless and dishonest.

 
At 28 July, 2011 11:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

What do you mean, "manipulate evidence"? It sounds vaguely bad, but it's meaningless and dishonest.

You just answered your own question. Wonderful!

 
At 28 July, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 July, 2011 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

You think vague insinuations are smart. They're only smart if your intention is to deceive.

How about an example of a manipulation of evidence on my part?

 
At 29 July, 2011 08:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You think vague insinuations are smart. They're only smart if your intention is to deceive.

Wel then noone can't help you then since you think everyone who's trying to help you is out to "decieve" you. Kind of a paranoid thought you have, wouldn't you agree?

How about an example of a manipulation of evidence on my part?

LOL! Dr. Sunder's "whole buildings fell in 9 and 11 seconds" theory, when in fact he listed the exterior panels and not the whole building. That's manipluation of evidence because Dr. Sunder was talking about the exterior panels.

 
At 29 July, 2011 09:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Also I don't care what Dr. Sunder said on NOVA. NOVA isn't a research lab, it's a Media outlet.

And so what if Dr. Sunder said about the "buildings" on NOVA? Who the fuck cares?! I don't because I know deep down that he was talking about he exterior panels and not the buildings in the NIST report.

 
At 29 July, 2011 09:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Also here's part of the transcript of the NOVA inteview with Dr. Sunder:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

LARRY KLEIN: One of the more popular conspiracy theories is based around the speed at which the buildings fell. A lot of people say they must have been imploded, that charges must have been set to make them come down so quickly. Why did the buildings fall so fast?

SHAYM SUNDER: The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. And the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which free fall would happen. But the building is 70 percent just air in volume, and all of the columns are not solid steel—they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from about a quarter inch at the top to about three-quarters of an inch or an inch and a half on the bottom. So they are not by any means solid structural components. But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, and the weight of the occupants and the furniture of the building. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say, a 20-floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied. And it essentially came down in free fall.

Basically the question was about explosives being used in the buildings. Besides Dr. Sunder errorous "9 and 11 seconds" comment, he was genreally answering the question of possible explosives and is in no way of proving that the buildings themselves came down at "9 and 11 seconds".

So Cpt. Obvious is just talking about nothing because he can't comprehend anything.

 
At 29 July, 2011 10:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2

The 9.81 m/s2 doesn't indicate speed, it indicates METERS.

So this is why Cpt. Obvious is so confused because he thinks that 9.81 m/s2 is "speed". Well Brian, it's not, sorry but you lose!

There's no way in hell that Cpt. Obvvious can prove that 9 and 11 seconds is free fall speed.

Case closed!

 
At 29 July, 2011 11:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, when Ian lies, and lies, and lies, and UtterFail bullshits and lies, and you bullshit and lie, and MGF bullshits and lies, the notion that people intend to deceive is hardly paranoid.

Dr. Sunder didn't say anything about panels. He said the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your continued lies about this are disgusting.

What you "know deep down" is probably just a hemorrhoid twitching. Pay no attention.

9.81 m/s^2 is acceleration.
9.81 m/s would be speed.

9 seconds and 11 seconds is about freefall. No need to prove it.

 
At 30 July, 2011 08:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, when Ian lies, and lies, and lies, and UtterFail bullshits and lies, and you bullshit and lie, and MGF bullshits and lies, the notion that people intend to deceive is hardly paranoid.

You're the one that brings up stuff and what does Ian, MFG, GuitarBill and I have to do? We research it of course. The only one that manages to continue to lie is you Cpt. Oblivious (new nick name for you because you are oblivious).


Dr. Sunder didn't say anything about panels.

You know, if you want to circle jerk people around, fine. But with me, you get down on your knees and pleade to correct your mistakes. And that right there is a lie!

9.81 m/s^2 is acceleration.
9.81 m/s would be speed.


LMAO you aren't bright are ya Cpt. Oblivious? If you insist that the buildings came down roughly 100-200 mph then you have to prove that .

9 seconds and 11 seconds is about freefall. No need to prove it.

Actually you do need to prove it, othewise noone isn't going to take you seriously. Which I doubt will happen any time soon since you are a paranoid asshole willing to rewrite history.

 
At 30 July, 2011 09:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's something Cpt. Oblivious forgot to look for about Dr. Sunder:

September 11, 2008

http://specials.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/11wtc.htm

"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone. We have only one single-minded goal in this effort," - Dr Sunder told a press conference dismissing theories that the tower was brought down by a controlled explosion using explosives.

He said they also looked into this aspect, but found no evidence for that.

Debris falling from the North and South towers caused the fire in WTC-7, about 400 feet away. The fire on six lower floors was very intense as the water supply for the sprinkler system had been cut off. After the water main to the tower was cut off, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr Sunder said.

(Reguarding the girders in the WTCs:)

A girder on the 13th floor got disconnected from a critical column and several floors gave way, which was not seen from outside. From the outside the collapse may have looked like a sudden implosion, Dr Sunder said. "The physics is consistent, it is sound, it has been analyzed," he said.

Investigators also considered the possibility of the use of explosives, Dr Sunder said. If there was an explosion, the sound of it could have been ten times louder than what was actually heard.

He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse. But Sunder said the team did not make a computer model to evaluate whether a thermite-fuelled fire might have brought down the tower -- which critics claim is a crucial flaw.

 
At 30 July, 2011 09:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But of course Cpt. Oblivious is going to say that it's "proof" of thermite being used because Dr. Sunder "said so".

Thermite is used in joining railroad rails together and pyrotechnics and not used in demolishion:

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

History of thermite-

The thermite (thermit) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt.[7] Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Dr. Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.

The first commercial application of thermite was the welding of tram tracks in Essen, Germany, in 1899. Evonik, formerly Degussa, a corporate descendant of Goldschmidt's firm, is still today one of the world's largest producers of welding thermite.

 
At 30 July, 2011 09:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Come on Cpt. Oblivious, say that I'm "lying" when in reality I'm actually researching what you don't want to research becasue you know it'll prove you wrong each and every time.

It's not our fault that you can't research anything on your own to debunk us debunkers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home