Wednesday, August 17, 2011

A (Clown) Foot In the Door Gets Mashed

As you will recall, last week at this time, Jon Gold was desperately exhorting the troops to forget their petty individual theories and get behind his personal theory and shove that foot through the door.

What he was hoping for was something like this:

How did it go? Not so hot. For starters, there was a great deal of predictable pushback at 9-11 Flogger from dolts like Aiden Monaghan:
If anything, Clarke's allegations seem to absolve the White House, FBI and DoD from liability or complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Because when your theory is a New Pearl Harbor with remote-controlled planes and nanothermite, you're not likely to rejoice over an admission that perhaps the attacks were allowed to happen because of an incompetent attempt to recruit the terrorists.

Victoria Ashley, whose husband Jim Hoffman has pushed controlled demolition forever, questioned the timing:
Last year it was the nationalist fervor of the Mosque at Ground Zero with images of screaming crowds, and the artificially media boosted event of the burning of the Koran by a preacher with no actual congregation, to keep everyone yelling about nothing on the 9th Anniversary.

This year it's Richard Clark appearing to suddenly decide -- almost exactly 1 month before the 10th Anniversary, despite having years to talk about this -- to throw a bunch of others under the bus about who knew what when about the attacks. Apparently it was decided that something less transparent, emotional, and more connected to reality needed to be dumped on the US public for the penultimate Anniversary.

Of course, Victronix clearly doesn't know the definition of the word "penultimate", which sounds very cool, but simply means "next to last".

There is only one 10th Anniversary.


Yes, and there was only one 5th anniversary, too!

Bofors:
Perhaps you are so naive as to fall for this obvious ruse of misdirection from ringmaster Clarke, but some of us are not.

The arguments for controlled demolition in WTC 7 and the twin towers, which murdered thousands, are trivial and irrefutable.


Well, he's half right anyway. The arguments for CD are trivial.

Without even looking, I am pretty sure that similar arguments are raging around the Troofersphere. Kevin Barrett is unlikely to take kindly to any suggestion that the hijackers weren't Mossad agents, David Ray Griffin's got his speculations about them being alive, and Craig Ranke still thinks they're north of the Citgo somewhere. As I've said all along, the idea that this is a "movement" is inane; it's a bunch of paranoid nutbars with their individual pet theories.

Jon Gold has been busily spamming an article he wrote on Troof News on Facebook; that got him far:
On Monday, August 15, 9/11 Truth News contributor Jon Gold received a message from facebook informing him that his ability to post content to any page other than his own had been disabled.


So overall, what's happened is more like this:

92 Comments:

At 17 August, 2011 09:37, Blogger Jon Gold said...

And yet, it got coverage in the Washington Post, CBSNews, TheDailyBeast, Truthout.org, ConsortiumNews.com, warisacrime.org, RussiaToday, and people that haven't touched the 9/11 issue, like David Swanson, wrote an article about it, and people that haven't touched the issue of 9/11 for a long time, Ray McGovern, wrote another article about it. And it's still gaining traction. :) Not too bad... thanks for caring ScrewLooseChange.

 
At 17 August, 2011 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

But why should anyone care about WaPo and the Beast when it's much more fun to giggle at kooky truthers?

Pat's belief that one must choose between real fanatical hijackers and nanothermite is amusing.

 
At 17 August, 2011 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Victoria Ashley doesn't know the definition of "penultimate" and Jon Gold doesn't know when to use "who" as opposed to "that."

The goat fucker, on the other hand, is a lying knob who knows nothing about everything in general.

Yeah, we should take them seriously.

So Pat, when do you plan to enforce your "partial ban" on the goat fucker? We lost Triterope last week. He was fed up with the goat fucker, who is a nothing more than a rank troll. How many more people will leave SLC before you wake up?

 
At 17 August, 2011 12:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

James Henry Fetzer has shown his face over at a Facebook page called “9/11 conspiracy theories are BS“

That page was quiet for a while and then a bunch of truthers stared spamming, I and some other have been knocking them down, Fetzer showed up today.

Your typical truther bull, lots of YouTube videos and the like.

 
At 17 August, 2011 13:14, Blogger Billman said...

So yet another attempt at publicity is all this is about. And such high profile media outlets, too. Outside of this blog, I haven't heard anything from the truth movement in ever. And I'm a total Fark.com user.

 
At 17 August, 2011 13:38, Blogger Arcterus said...

And yet, it got coverage in the Washington Post, CBSNews, TheDailyBeast, the blahblahblah, blahblahblahblahblah, blah-blah."

Coverage is not the equivalent of positive impact. As far as truthers are concerned, this is strengthening a long-standing divide between their various theories. As far as non-truthers are concerned, nobody cares.

I find it interesting that you care though, Jon. Weren't you always for pushing the factual, documented evidence, and staying away from speculation? Yet, Clarke has clearly stated that he's just speculating so this could be (and probably is) absolutely nothing. Well, I think the reason you care about this particular piece is that it's a good platform for pushing your own agenda and own pet theories, just like every other truther does with controlled demolition, north-of-citgo, no-planes, etc...Congratulations on jumping on the bandwagon.

The arguments for controlled demolition in WTC 7 and the twin towers, which murdered thousands, are trivial and irrefutable.

Man, I do still love that claim. Controlled demolition has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Right, sure, haha. Even as a truther I pointed out that was bullshit.

 
At 17 August, 2011 14:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

And yet, it got coverage in the Washington Post, CBSNews, TheDailyBeast, Truthout.org, ConsortiumNews.com, warisacrime.org, RussiaToday...

You failed.

 
At 17 August, 2011 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, the only things Clarke was speculating about were that the gag order came from the top, and what the reason for it was.

That the information about the two known al Qaeda operatives inside the US was withheld from him is not speculative in the least.

Y'all are focussing on the wrong part of the system to say that there's nothing there.

 
At 17 August, 2011 15:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shut up, goat fucker.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

Here's the solution to the troll problem:

Toolator--IP Address Blocker (designed for blogspot.com).

You're welcome.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:06, Blogger Arcterus said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:09, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, the only things Clarke was speculating about were that the gag order came from the top, and what the reason for it was.

That's actually an IMPORTANT FUCKING FACTOR, retard.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:09, Blogger Pat said...

Bill, he's on topic in this thread.

Yeah, Jon, CBS News talked about Clarke's baseless accusations. What a success! And Russia Today? Hilarious.

Brian, I am not surprised that you can construct a more elaborate conspiracy theory where there are fanatical hijackers and nanothermite. Just add another layer to the conspiracy.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

I don't a give damn if he's "on-topic" or not. He's a GOD DAMNED TROLL.

Take your pick, Pat.

Triterope left last week. And I'm about 1 nanometer from following him.

Take your pick.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:36, Blogger paul w said...

Pat/James.

SLC is a great blog.

Is there ANY way to get rid of Brian?

I'm tired of whizzing through his idiotic posts, trying to spot something of relevance.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's a free troll control solution:

From your dashboard click LAYOUT.

Click ADD A GADGET.

Choose HTML/JAVASCRIPT.

Install the following Javascript code above your stat-counter:

Troll Blocker

Add known trolls to the array sequentially starting with "0". For example,

knownTrolls = new Array();
knownTrolls[0] = "snug.bug";
knownTrolls[1] = "Pat Cowardly";
etc....

Done.

That should take about 5 minutes to install and initialize the array.

You're welcome.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, so you think Clarke's speculations on who gave the order and why are important? Well Pat says they're not, and pretty much poo poos the whole thing.

To me the important thing is that 48 people in the CIA knew that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi were in the country--and they haven't explained why they didn't tell the White House.

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"There is only one 10th Anniversary.


Yes, and there was only one 5th anniversary, too! "

Pointing out that this September will be 9-11 all month long!

Don't forget the tenth when it will be 9-10-11. Numbers are fun. Weeeeee!

 
At 17 August, 2011 16:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"To me the important thing is that 48 people in the CIA knew that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi were in the country--and they haven't explained why they didn't tell the White House."

Why would they tell the White House? The White House isn't a law enforcement agency. They needed to tell the FBI...oh wait, they did. Via PBS "Frontline":

"
Finally, on Aug. 23, 2001, the CIA sent an urgent memo to the New York FBI office seeking help in tracking down Almidhar and Alhazmi. At long last, the significance of the information in its files seems to have dawned on the agency. A quick check of hotels listed by the terrorists as places of residence on their travel entry cards came up empty. One New York FBI agent testified before Congress in September 2002 that he had requested use of "full criminal investigative resources" to find Almidhar. But headquarters denied his request. The reason given was that Almidhar was not under criminal investigation, and headquarters cited the wall between prosecution and intelligence as posing a problem. The agent's e-mail response to FBI headquarters, dated Aug. 29, 2001, was that "Someday someone will die and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems."



Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/#ixzz1VKjhASYd "

See Brain, you're wrong. Painfully wrong.

 
At 17 August, 2011 17:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

MGF wrote, "...See Brain, you're wrong. Painfully wrong."

The goat fucker is "wrong"?

Blasphemy!

After all, he's goat fucker--the super troll.

 
At 17 August, 2011 17:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Faster than a specious metaphor,
More powerful than a laxative,
Able to leap air-tight explanations in a single bound.
It's a turd!
It's a prevaricator!
It's Goat Fucker--SuperTroll!

 
At 17 August, 2011 17:52, Blogger Pat said...

Tried it Bill, but this blog is so old that our template is HTML format and if I want to go to the modern format I lose all our template changes.

 
At 17 August, 2011 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, do I really have to tell you why they should tell the White House?

Ummmm, because the WH can cut the red tape and sidestep the roadblocks and get stuff done? 'Cause the WH can connect the dots that scattered agencies have assembled?

Ummm, because the WH could demand that a full-powered FBI criminal task force be put on the job, instead of one rookie operating on the intel side?

What am I wrong about?

 
At 17 August, 2011 18:17, Blogger John said...

Ummmm, because the WH can cut the red tape and sidestep the roadblocks and get stuff done? 'Cause the WH can connect the dots that scattered agencies have assembled?

We had spaghetti at our house 3 times this week.

 
At 17 August, 2011 18:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

Go to SLC's home page and right click on the page. Select "View Page Source" and look at the code.

Notice that at the top of the source code that javascript is already embedded into the page. That means there's no reason why the free solution I suggest won't work.

 
At 17 August, 2011 19:08, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, so you think Clarke's speculations on who gave the order and why are important? Well Pat says they're not, and pretty much poo poos the whole thing.

Christ, you are such an illiterate motherfucker. The way you can take one thing and think it means something completely different is mind-boggling.

 
At 17 August, 2011 19:13, Blogger James B. said...

Jon, why are you proud that Russia Today mentioned your story? You going to get all excited if it is picked up by Pravda and the World Weekly News too?

 
At 17 August, 2011 19:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

ARcterus, I didn't take one thing, I took three things. I took what Pat said about Clarke's speculation, I took what you said about Clarke's speculation (which was the complete opposite of what Pat said about it), and I took the facts that Clarke wasn't speculating about, which it seems both of you are trying very strenuosly to ignore. 48 CIA guys knew al Qaeda was in the USA and none of them bothered to tell the WH.

 
At 17 August, 2011 20:25, Blogger Arcterus said...

Wrong, you fucking idiot. You completely misunderstood what I was explaining. Upon telling you this with my last post, you then misunderstood THAT, thinking I was suggesting you didn't use any facts or something? Your last two responses to me have had nothing to do with anything I said. Hence why I describe you as illiterate.

 
At 17 August, 2011 20:56, Blogger Ian said...

Pat's belief that one must choose between real fanatical hijackers and nanothermite is amusing.

So Osama bin Laden placed nanothermite in the towers, Brian?

 
At 17 August, 2011 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, you are making no comments of substance, but only empty claims and personal attacks. I used to regard you as a fairly intelligent young man, though rather undisciplined intellectually. I must suppose that your association with the denizens of this forum has brought you down to their level.

 
At 17 August, 2011 22:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, Ian. A compartmentalized op has more than one compartment.

 
At 18 August, 2011 06:53, Blogger John said...

48 CIA guys knew al Qaeda was in the USA and none of them bothered to tell the WH.

So has anyone heard the new PJ Harvey yet? What's it like?

 
At 18 August, 2011 07:24, Blogger Arcterus said...

I feel like I'm talking to a fucking wall. You WON'T RESPOND TO WHAT I'M FUCKING SAYING so it is a little difficult to have the discussion you want. However, that does not mean my comments lack substance. I have twice pointed out your illiteracy and inability to comprehend what I've said, but each time, you just ignore it or misunderstand that. Maybe if you'd learn how to, you know, fucking read, we could talk more, no?

Once again, you patronize those who have proven time and time again to be far more intelligent than you...not that that's much of a feat. You have no right to talk down to me, you insipid, impudent worm.

 
At 18 August, 2011 08:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, you haven't pointed out anything. You've only made empty and nonspecific claims about my alleged intellectual deficits. You are becoming like the people you hang out with.

You should go to a college where you're not the smartest guy in the room and then maybe you'll learn something.

 
At 18 August, 2011 08:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

BAN

 
At 18 August, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Can't do that, it would be admitting defeat.

 
At 18 August, 2011 11:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, troll.

Delusional, dumb as a fence post and dishonest. What a wonderful combination.

Tell us more about converting acceleration to a velocity, shit-for-brains.

BAN.

 
At 18 August, 2011 11:38, Blogger John said...

Bill, why can't you just ignore him?

 
At 18 August, 2011 11:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

John wrote, "...Bill, why can't you just ignore him?"

Good question, John.

I'll answer your question with an analogy.

For the sake of argument, suppose that a graffiti "artist" decided to use your neighborhood as a "canvas." The police, on the other hand, will turn a blind eye to the malicious and destructive activity that's ruining your neighborhood and reducing your property value to a fraction of its original worth. My guess is that you'd be the first person to howl to the authorities about the wanton destruction of your neighborhood.

And imagine that in response to your complaints the police replied, "John, why can't you just ignore him?"

Got it, John?

 
At 18 August, 2011 12:25, Blogger John said...

Uh, not really. That analogy's a little too extreme for this situation, IMHO. I understand that, as a scientist, it drives you crazy that he posts all this false information. But so what? Like anyone is going to take him seriously? Especially on an obscure blog that maybe 2 dozen people post to and maybe a few hundred or at most few thousand people visit on a regular basis? If they do take him seriously, they're dumber than he is. I don't think that's humanly possible.

I mean, It's obvious that the man doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He makes things up, he ignores evidence contrary to his opinion, he accuses everyone else of lying and thinks he's never wrong. Or at least will never admit it. No one supports his views, not even the other truthers that post here. He doesn't want a new investigation or the widow's questions answered. If he did, he'd get off his ass and do something besides post here. All he wants is ATTENTION. And everyone here is giving plenty of it to him. Notice that Pat Cowardly posts only once in a while? That's because Pat refuses to debate him.

I know it's tough. I've had some internet debates in which someone said something dumb or against my political beliefs, and I HAD to say something to prove them wrong. But they never did and no one else cared. Try to let it go.

 
At 18 August, 2011 12:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, do I really have to tell you why they should tell the White House? "

I knew your answers would be hillarious, you didn't let me down:

"Ummmm, because the WH can cut the red tape and sidestep the roadblocks and get stuff done? "

When has the White House done that - legally - since FDR? Sure, there's Watergate, Operation Mongoose, Iran-Contra, but those are also the reasons we put limits on Presidential power.


"'Cause the WH can connect the dots that scattered agencies have assembled? ""...

Which White House was that? The one that failed to chase bin Laden after the 1993 WTC bombing? The White House that didn't see the techbubble, the real estate bubble or the Mortage Crisis? When has any White House connected the dots?

"Ummm, because the WH could demand that a full-powered FBI criminal task force be put on the job, instead of one rookie operating on the intel side?

What am I wrong about?"

You are wrong because you've already said that Richard Clarke already had an plan ready to go (which he didn't). You are wrong because if the CIA couldn't get the FBI excited enough to do its job then the reality is that the White House would have also blown them off (just as they had since 1993).

"48 CIA guys knew al Qaeda was in the USA and none of them bothered to tell the WH."

It's called "Chain of Command". Joe Blow at the CIA just can't call the White House any time he thinks there's a problem that his superiors seem to be ignoring. Even if he get's through to someone, they will asks him who his supervisor/department head is, and then call them to complain about keeping their people in line. Then Agent Blow gets fired or reassigned to a bullshit assignment.

I'm not saying it's right, but it is one of the main causes for the intelligence failure(s) that lead to the attacks of 9/11.

 
At 18 August, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool is a scientist? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, John! UtterFool doesn't know beans about science or 9/11. He has a great need to appear to know what he's talking about, which is why he copies and pastes mountains of techno-spam that he understands so poorly that he doesn't even know he's making a fool of himself.

MGF, it is not necessary to break the law to cut red tape. Clarke cited Clinton's response to the Millenium Bomber threat as a textbook case: he formed an interagency task force that met every day in the WH and its members went out to their organizations and had them shake every tree.

Richard Clarke had a plan ready to go to go after al Qaeda by a combination of military force and interference with their banks.

Your facile belief in the incompetence of everyone but you must be a pillar of your illusions of superiority.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFool is a scientist? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, John! UtterFool doesn't know beans about science or 9/11."

Projecting your foibles again, goat fucker?

Of course you are. What else should we expect from a science illiterate and college dropout who wears women's underwear?

I guess that explains why I've proven over-and-over again that you're a science illiterate fool and a liar.

Tell us more about converting acceleration to velocity, shit-for-brains? Explain to us why you can't derive the equation for acceleration without making gross errors--you cretin?

I've forgotten more about the physical sciences than you'll ever know, goat fucker.

As J Rebori pointed out on 16 August 2011--and I quote: "...Anyone with a mind can read the posts and see for themselves that you have changed the question, repeated proven falsehoods, and ignored actual answers when they were given."

You're not fooling anyone but yourself, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL, jackass.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:14, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never converted acceleration to velocity. You and WAQo did.

I see your gambit. When you make a fool of yourself you start long drawn out fight about it to cover your tracks, and then claim you were right all along. You are a complete waste of time.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...I never converted acceleration to velocity. You and WAQo did."

False.

And we know you're lying because you can't substantiate your assertion.

We've already been over this, goat fucker, and your specious argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

So tell us more about converting acceleration to velocity, shit-for-brains? Explain to us why you can't derive the equation for acceleration without making gross errors--you God Damned liar?

You lie first, last and always.

FAIL.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:23, Blogger John said...

UtterFool is a scientist? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, John! UtterFool doesn't know beans about science or 9/11.

Has anyone seen Captain America? Worth my time?

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:25, Blogger paul w said...

I'll answer your question with an analogy.

I agree with John on this one.

If we ignore the graffiti dude, he continues. If we ignore Brian, he dissapears to harrass other blogs.

Also, I think the graffiti 'artist' (not to be confused with taggers) is just that; a young person trying to create some sort of aesthetic design.

Some of their stuff is brilliant.

Given some encouragement, and a place to work, the graffiti artist generally welcomes such support.

Rarely does Brian say anything that is close to rational, let along brilliant, and give him some encouragement, and he just continues to spew his attention-seeking garbage.

The man is sick. It’s best to gnore him.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

And I pointed out WAQ's error as concerns low density objects and air resistance. Which proves my impartiality in matters of the sciences. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I don't care if you're a troofer or a debunker.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker isn't looking for attention, he's deliberately defacing the blog. And he's being paid to do so.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I never converted acceleration to velocity. You and WAQo did. Or rather--you and WAQo converted velocity to acceleration when you claimed that m/2s was proper units for acceleration.

Yes, ignoring me would be best. That way when I correct your errors, we can avoid a long drawn out argument that obscures the facts. You guys say your piece, I'll wield the red pen, everybody will be happy and the readers will learn.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:36, Blogger John said...

Yes, ignoring me would be best. That way when I correct your errors, we can avoid a long drawn out argument that obscures the facts. You guys say your piece, I'll wield the red pen, everybody will be happy and the readers will learn.

Speaking of movies, in September, the Film Forum is doing a tribute to NYC cops. Serpico, Naked City, Taking of Pelham 123. And their popcorn i the best!

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:36, Blogger John said...

Sorry. is the best.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...UtterFail, I never converted acceleration to velocity. You and WAQo did. Or rather--you and WAQo converted velocity to acceleration when you claimed that m/2s was proper units for acceleration."

False.

It was you who claimed that "m/2s" is a velocity.

WAQ, recall, cut-and-pasted verbiage from Wikipedia. Since blogger's HTML set doesn't support exponents, the unit of acceleration was converted to "m/s2", which is perfectly acceptable because acceleration is ALWAYS expressed in meters per second squared (m/s^2 or m/s2). Velocity, on the other hand, is always expressed in meters per second (m/s).

Would you like me to produce the hyperlinks to your comment's that prove you're lying, goat fucker?

Try me, Pinocchio.

 
At 18 August, 2011 15:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, "m/2s" is a velocity.

 
At 18 August, 2011 16:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, 'm/2s' is a velocity."

False.

Wikipedia wrote, "...In physics, velocity is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object...a quantity that is measured in metres per second (m/s)."

As scientist I can tell you that we use the International System of Units. And the SI tells us that velocity is ALWAYS expressed in meters per second (m/s), as I pointed out above.

And you've utterly failed to answer my question, goat fucker:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

And you can't substantiate your assertion, because you're lying.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Now, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 18 August, 2011 16:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.

FAIL.

 
At 18 August, 2011 16:19, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

So, 99% of truther output over the last 10 years has been nonsense and the only issue is a possible US intelligence blunder? Have I got this right?

 
At 18 August, 2011 16:32, Blogger paul w said...

The goat fucker isn't looking for attention, he's deliberately defacing the blog. And he's being paid to do so.

GB, his whole reason for being here IS attention.

He only replies when he gets a response. No response; no reply.

What do you mean, he's being paid to post here?

 
At 18 August, 2011 17:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Paul W wrote, "...GB, his whole reason for being here IS attention...He only replies when he gets a response. No response; no reply."

Perhaps that's true; however, I have another theory: He only fails to reply when HE GETS THE LAST WORD. You see, Paul, he believes that he has "won" the argument if he gets the last word.

"...What do you mean, he's being paid to post here?"

I live in the Bay Area, Paul. And can tell you that an unemployed janitor can't afford to live in the apartments directly across the El Camino Real from Stanford University. It's simply isn't possible. Furthermore, the goat fucker, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't live with his parents. He's estranged from his parents. They can't stand him any more than we can.

Someone is paying him to deface blogs from one end of the internet to the other.

Years ago (2007), "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Arabesque," and "Col. Jenny Sparks" were exposed as contractors for the Ford Foundation. They were under the direct influence and control of Chip Berlet. They deliberately sabotaged the anti-war movement for the Bush administration. That's right, Paul, the 9/11 "truth" movement is a creation of the Bush administration. Likewise, "the birthers" are a creation of the Obama administration. "Whitewater" was a creation of the Clinton administration. In each case, "the conspiracy" was a fraud designed to send political activists "down the rabbit hole" chasing a red herring. All three examples--9/11 "truth," "the birthers," and "Whitewater"--were proven to "lead nowhere."

He doesn't fool me for one microsecond.

 
At 18 August, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, m/2s is a velocity. 2s is a constant. An acceleration requires a change. Constants don't change.

I didn't pull m/2s out of my ass. You and WAQo pulled it out of your asses.

It's too bad you don't understand these things and must resort to an argument from ignorance and authority. Maybe if you'd gone to a better nursery school you wouldn't be so ignorant.

 
At 18 August, 2011 17:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you mealy-mouthed faggot:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

You won't answer the question BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT. And the reason you can't answer the question is simple: You're lying through your terracotta teeth.

Once again, you UTTERLY FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 18 August, 2011 17:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now HURRY goat fucker, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 18 August, 2011 18:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2011 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

So contrary to all reason, you deny that m/2s is a velocity. And you call yourself a scientist.

Everybody's good at something, and you're good at making yourself look dumb.

 
At 18 August, 2011 18:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you mealy-mouthed faggot:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

You won't answer the question BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT. And the reason you can't answer the question is simple: You're lying through your terracotta teeth.

Once again, you UTTERLY FAIL, goat fucker.

Now HURRY goat fucker, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 18 August, 2011 18:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you are obviously incapable of independent thought.

2s is a constant. Therefore, m/2s is a velocity. There's no change in a constant. Acceleration demands change.

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you mealy-mouthed faggot:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

You won't answer the question BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT. And the reason you can't answer the question is simple: You're lying through your terracotta teeth.

Once again, you UTTERLY FAIL, goat fucker.

Now HURRY goat fucker, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:05, Blogger Ian said...

Your facile belief in the incompetence of everyone but you must be a pillar of your illusions of superiority.

Speaking of "illusions of superiority", does anyone else find it hilarious when Brian inserts these sentences full of big words at the end of his posts? After a bunch of babbling gibberish, it's his attempt to make himself look educated, instead of the ignorant lunatic that he is.

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...illusions of superiority."

Those three words prove that he's an idiot.

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:16, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, you didn't answer my question: do you think Osama bin Laden planted nanothermite in the towers?

What do you think Laurie Van Auken would think if she knew you wouldn't answer questions?

 
At 18 August, 2011 19:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, why would a scientist want to express velocity as m/2s? But the issue has nothing to do with the fact that m/2s is a velocity. You're trying to distract from the fact that you were so bone-headedly and persistently wrong.

Ian, that you think "illusions" and "superiority" are "big words" shows you have the mind of a child.

Ian, I don't have enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

 
At 18 August, 2011 20:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that you think "illusions" and "superiority" are "big words" shows you have the mind of a child.

They're big words to you. See, you're an unemployed janitor with severe mental illness who is desperate to be taken seriously by the people who read this blog, which is why you use those words, and why you make claims about learning integral calculus before you were toilet trained.

It's what makes you so entertaining, Brian. Your endless dumbspam cannot be matched.

 
At 18 August, 2011 20:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't have enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

So why did you bring this up? Is there a point to all the dumbspam you post, or are you just desperate for attention from the people here? We're just laughing at you, Brian. If you want serious attention, go seek psychiatric care.

 
At 18 August, 2011 21:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't bring it up, Ian. You did. You're just running a fog machine.

 
At 18 August, 2011 21:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterAsshole, that's not an answer it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you mealy-mouthed faggot:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

You won't answer the question BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT. And the reason you can't answer the question is simple: You're lying through your terracotta teeth.

Once again, you UTTERLY FAIL, goat fucker.

Now HURRY goat fucker, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 18 August, 2011 22:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, like most of your questions, it's completely meaningless.

Are you claiming that m/2s is not a velocity? What then is it?

It's constant units of distance per constant units of time. That is the very definition of velocity.

Give it up. You're not equipped for this.

 
At 18 August, 2011 23:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterAsshole, that's not an answer it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you mealy-mouthed faggot:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

You won't answer the question BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT. And the reason you can't answer the question is simple: You're lying through your terracotta teeth.

Obviously, you can't substantiate your assertion, so it's obvious that you're lying.

Once again, you UTTERLY FAIL, goat fucker.

Now HURRY goat fucker, bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam--you lying felcher.

 
At 19 August, 2011 02:51, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You see, Paul, he believes that he has "won" the argument if he gets the last word.

He believes all kinds of odd things. That's the least of them.

Not to be a complete jerk GB, but as of this moment I count 19 posts for snug.bug vs. 26 for you in this thread.

 
At 19 August, 2011 05:19, Blogger Che Borashka said...

"m/(2s)" would be a velocity, although quite an odd unit to choose. "m/2s" however, using commonly accepted rules for order of operations, is equal to "m*s/2" which obviously is neither acceleration nor velocity..

Discussing physics with truthers is unfortunately a big waste of time. I remember discussions in a swedish forum where one guy was convinced that electric currents induced in the concrete rebars by remote electromagnetic weapons fired from some NWO bunker, caused water trapped in the concrete to evaporate and bring the towers down. Another slightly less insane example is Richard Gage's abuse of Newton's third law.. Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave.

 
At 19 August, 2011 07:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

ms/2 is a velocity. That would be 1/2 meter-second or, 1/2 meter per second.

You guys really should find another hobby. You're only hurting your own cause. And the harder you try the worse it gets.

 
At 19 August, 2011 10:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

LOL seeing Cpt. Oblivious trying to peddle the m/s2 is quite entertaining. Too bad he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

 
At 19 August, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know what I'm talking about because unlike youse guys, I can do arithmetic and algebra.

 
At 19 August, 2011 11:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, that's why you're a college dropout who wears women's underwear.

And that's why you can't substantiate your assertions, ass.

So when do you plan to answer the question, fuck-face?


"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

(And goat fucker, a unit that you pull out of your ass, like "m/2s," isn't "proof." I want you to show me one example of a SCIENTIST using "m/2s" to express a velocity.)

Once again, you FAIL, scumbag.

 
At 19 August, 2011 16:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you seem incapable of recognizing that your question is meaningless.

Distance per unit time is velocity, period. Do you have to look it up in a cookbook to make a peanut butter sandwich?

 
At 19 August, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

(Hint--don't put peanut butter on both sides of the bread. Write that down backwards on your forehead so you can read it in the mirror if you ever forget.)

 
At 20 August, 2011 03:06, Blogger Che Borashka said...

"ms/2 is a velocity"

No. It's length multiplied with time. Say you go 100 km in 60 minutes, or 3600 seconds. Using your diy unit, your "velocity" is 100,000 meters x 3600 seconds which equals 360 million meter-seconds, or 720 million ms/2.

Outside the truther universe we would say 27.8 meters per second.

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

You are simply obfuscating your bad arithmetic with big numbers.

A m-s is meters X 1 sec.

At 100 km/3600 sec you don't multiply your 100,000 m by 3600 sec.
You divide it. That gives you 27.8 m-s.

Hey UtterFail, I'm doing laundry this morning. I can't remember: do I put the clothes in before the final rinse or after? Do you have scientific proof about the convention on that?

 
At 20 August, 2011 09:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I know what I'm talking about...

Brian, never in my life have I seen anyone as stupid as you trying to convert 9.81 m/s2 into "acceleration" and "velocity" when it clearly says meters per second squared

No, you don't know WTF you're talking about you stupid MFer. Complain all you like you retard, you're never going to prove that m/s2 is "speed".

 

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home