Wednesday, August 03, 2011

World's Greenest Truther Strikes Again

David Ray Griffin recycles the same old crap over and over again. I'd say he's still recycling his poop from 2003, but that isn't precisely true, because it wasn't even his poop back then; he was recycling the work of Nico and the Web Fairy and Eric Hufschmid and Jared Israel.

This year being the tenth anniversary and all, he's outdone himself. He has not one, but two dumps headed for the recycling bin. One is titled 9/11 Ten Years Later, and the other basically recycles the title: 9/11 Ten Years On. I mean, the guy can't even come up with new titles anymore!

Titles, hell, he doesn't even come up with new covers. Here's a non-conspiracy book by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, just released two weeks ago:

I'll be reviewing that book in the next week or so. And here's Grifter's latest dropping:

Well, I suppose it saved him the effort of finding someone to design the cover, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Labels: , , ,

166 Comments:

At 03 August, 2011 10:12, Blogger James B. said...

I am still waiting for Griffin to actually do some original research. He is like a fifth grader doing his book report by cutting and paying from wikipedia.

 
At 03 August, 2011 10:36, Blogger James B. said...

Err, pasting. Freaking droid spell check.

 
At 03 August, 2011 13:01, Blogger Jon Gold said...

I'm wondering after Pat "reviews" the Eleventh Day, will he go to those advocates for 9/11 Justice that have been pushing things like Saudi Arabia's connection to the attacks since forever, and apologize? AHAHAH...

 
At 03 August, 2011 13:07, Blogger James B. said...

What? Islamic fundamentalists on the Arabian Peninsula might be connected to the attack? Say it ain't so, Jon!

 
At 03 August, 2011 13:45, Blogger Pat said...

Not to mention the fact that Bin Laden's brother was involved in arranged marriages, right, Jon?

 
At 03 August, 2011 13:57, Blogger Jon Gold said...

No idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to Khalil Bin Laden, according to Unger, he "won the attention of Brazilian investigators for possible terrorist connections," and was allowed to leave on those planes for the Bin Ladens and Saudis (an addendum was released to say that "no terrorists escaped from the United States on any of the Saudi flights"). When did I say bin laden's brother was involved in arranged marriages? If you're referring to the Mary Schneider story, it was immigration officials that were involved with it. But I don't ever expect you to be honest... so... no surprise.

 
At 03 August, 2011 14:48, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Incidentally, I haven't pushed Mary Schneider's story for years because she got caught up with Tom Flocco when he took a turn for the worse. However, the story about Khalil is still interesting.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:04, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm wondering after Pat "reviews" the Eleventh Day, will he go to those advocates for 9/11 Justice that have been pushing things like Saudi Arabia's connection to the attacks since forever, and apologize?

Could you please articulate, in two or three sentences, the nature of Saudi Arabia's connection to the attacks?

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:04, Blogger Jon Gold said...

And pointing to an interview that took place 7 years ago, that was my very first interview ever, talking to people that were Howard Stern wannabees that talked over me, that constantly cut me off, that called me names, etc... and so on, in an effort to make me look stupid, is a little disingenuous. Besides, I befriended Jim Norton the next day.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:08, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Here is a link to a section in my article that talks about Saudi Arabia.

Here is another link to a section in my article that says, "Zelikow refused to approve half of the interview requests for “Saudi Connection” investigations. He blocked investigators from accessing the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, and then fired investigator Dana Leseman after she tried to get the pages through a back channel. In June 2004, Philip Zelikow and Dieter Snell take part in a “late-night editing session” to delete passages of the 9/11 Report having to do with Saudi support for the hijackers."

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:12, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Anyway, I'm sure you'll say "it doesn't point to 9/11 was an inside job (an Alex Jones phrase that I despise)," blah blah blah... take care.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Anyway, I'm sure you'll say "it doesn't point to 9/11 was an inside job (an Alex Jones phrase that I despise)," blah blah blah... take care.

No, I'll re-ask: could you please articulate, in two or three sentences, the nature of Saudi Arabia's connection to the attacks? Don't show me the dots, tell me what they mean.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:28, Blogger James B. said...

If I find out Arabs were behind this, I am going to be really upset.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:28, Blogger Triterope said...

What the fuck is this thread even about?

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:56, Blogger Pat said...

Hey, Jon, who said this?

"9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity."

This whole business of Saudi involvement is just a smokescreen for you so that you don't come off as insane as the rest of the Truthers. But you are.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:01, Blogger Jon Gold said...

They have, and I say that as often as possible. Saudi Arabia is only one part of the cover-up. Have you even acknowledged that part of the cover-up Pat? I remember back in the day when someone would mention the word "cover-up," and people like you would go ape shit and act as though there wasn't one. Now that Saudi Arabia's part in the cover-up is starting to be exposed, will you act like you knew it all along? Will you act like Bush covering up for Saudi Arabia is no big deal, and doesn't call for accountability? Will you apologize to those advocates for 9/11 Justice that have been pushing that part of the cover-up forever? HA!

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:07, Blogger Triterope said...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1293323/quotes?qt0490952

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Woah, wait, Arabs were behind 9/11? But what about the nanothermite, and the super-secret missile that hit the Pentagon?

They can't both be true.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:49, Blogger Arcterus said...

Of course not. It's not about making any coherent sense of anything, it's about trying to show what they believe to be holes in hopes that by asking enough questions (regardless of whether or not they're answered) they will be rewarded with a new investigation. It allows the truthers to spout whatever nonsense they like without explaining what it means or trying to fit anything together. As Pat said, it's a smokescreen to make them look less nuttier. It's the same tactic that allows them to say "we're not trying to prove inside job". Which is bullshit. Nobody would go so far for "accountability" and whatever other frequent term Jon Gold likes to use if they just thought they'd end up with the same people. Jon has been talking lately about how he's sacrificed his friends and his health for this movement...for what? To clarify some things that wouldn't have any impact on the overall explanation? Bullshit. You're not expecting this to end with "Well, I guess it was Bin Laden after all!" You have an idea about what happened but you know you can't prove it, so you pretend you're "just asking questions" when, really, you're just grasping at straws.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:52, Blogger Track said...

Three recent books detail a Saudi support network for the hijackers in the US:

The Eleventh Day (Summers and Swan)

Keys to the Kingdom (Sen. Graham)

The Next Wave (Herridge)

These authors fail to ask the obvious question-how did that network affect the conduct of US intelligence?

This is a question that hasn't been credibly answered since the attacks.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:53, Blogger paul w said...

I don't know what this thread is about, either, but I'm enjoying it.

Jon's a truther loon, but WAY easier to deal with than you-know-who.

As for Arabs and 9-11, pull the other one!

Next thing, you'll be telling me it was Islamic terrorists!

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:54, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Everyone here apparently doesn't believe in accountability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D2Voy0tQR4

I do. Many others do as well.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:56, Blogger Track said...

Why are some citizens satisfied with BS explanations like:

1)Alec Station was worried about an attack in Malaysia.

2)Improper watchlisting procedures.

3)Confusion about the wall.

4)Risk aversion.

5)Turf battle.

6)Outdated FBI computer systems.

7)The CIA had a plan to infiltrate al Qaeda which was not called off after the Cole attack or during the period of high threat.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:05, Blogger Pat said...

Now you're moving the goalposts, Jon. When you talked to Taibbi you did not say that elements in our government had covered up the crime of 9-11, you said that they were suspects for the crime of 9-11.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:09, Blogger Jon Gold said...

First of all... covering up the crime of 9/11 is a crime in and of itself, and people should be held accountable for it, and everything that has been covered up should be exposed for the world to see. Secondly, elements within our Government and other Governments have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11. Along with people like OBL, KSM, 19 hijackers, etc... and so on. In my opinion of course. Why can't we have both? I have never moved the goalposts. I get it... no one should be held accountable... moving on.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why are some citizens satisfied with BS explanations like:

1)Alec Station was worried about an attack in Malaysia.

2)Improper watchlisting procedures.

3)Confusion about the wall.

4)Risk aversion.

5)Turf battle.

6)Outdated FBI computer systems.

7)The CIA had a plan to infiltrate al Qaeda which was not called off after the Cole attack or during the period of high threat."


Because they are true.

In 2001 I was going through Computer School. Two of the guys with me worked for the Department of Defence, they were still using Windows 95, as was the FBI. They joked that the average 15 year old girl had more computing power than most government agencies.

It's cool to picture the FBI with the latest geewhiz computers but for the most part they're probably still using XP.

"These authors fail to ask the obvious question-how did that network affect the conduct of US intelligence?

This is a question that hasn't been credibly answered since the attacks."

It has.

Robert Baer wrote one dealing specifically about Saudi influence:

http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/dp/1400052688/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

and he wrote one that is the best insider's account of the CIA's lack of serious interest in terrorism:

http://www.amazon.com/See-No-Evil-Soldier-Terrorism/dp/140004684X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

So the answers are there, you just need to find them (or accept them).

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:24, Blogger Track said...

If we go by Baer's book on Saudi/US dealings the likely scenario was that high level US officials ordered US intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda. Is that what you are suggesting? If so that completely negates all the "true" explanations I listed.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:25, Blogger Jon Gold said...

http://911truthnews.com/dont-expect-an-honest-answer/

Accountability for what? Classic.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:53, Blogger paul w said...

Everyone here apparently doesn't believe in accountability

Another baseless personal observation, masquerading as truther fact.

Here is a comment from your site:

"I am not going to put pressure on the White House for a new investigation. I do not want Washington D.C. to investigate the attacks. It simply cannot be trusted to do so, as was proven with the Joint Congressional Inquiry, the PENTTBOM investigation, NIST's investigation, and especially the 9/11 Commission."

What proof, Jon? The rubbish you truthers have been bleating on about for years?

The NIST reports, for example, were thorough investigations carried out by professionals.

It’s out there for all to see, and so far, all we have in way of disagreement is box-boy Gage’s idiotic site.

The rest of the world (i.e. the professionals) has gone about adapting the report’s recommendations into building codes and such.

So, here are the two major obstacles in the NIST reports that truthers find unpalatable:

1. It was thorough.
2. It was carried out by professionals.

Truthers are neither, hence their objections.

 
At 03 August, 2011 18:01, Blogger Arcterus said...

I get it... no one should be held accountable... moving on.

Missing the point. People have ALREADY been held accountable. Just not the people that YOU think are responsible.

 
At 03 August, 2011 18:07, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Watch this ex-truther Arcterus? Who was held accountable? Oh, you mean those innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc... and so on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D2Voy0tQR4

Paul w... it is well documented that I am someone who thinks CD should not be front and center.

You debunkers take care now. Dealing with you just reaffirms my belief that I am doing the right thing.

 
At 03 August, 2011 18:14, Blogger Triterope said...

Of course not. It's not about making any coherent sense of anything, it's about trying to show what they believe to be holes in hopes that by asking enough questions (regardless of whether or not they're answered) they will be rewarded with a new investigation

And by now Jon Gold is so desperate to be right about something that he's trying to prove things we already know. What? Saudi involvement in 9/11? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

And he's still calling the US government "suspects" while making other accusations of them that require the "official story" to be true. That is a level of self-contradiction I cannot comprehend.

Jon Gold and his Truthaction buddies need to accept that their bullshit is never going anywhere, and go find something productive to do with their time.

 
At 03 August, 2011 18:17, Blogger Triterope said...

You debunkers take care now. Dealing with you just reaffirms my belief that I am doing the right thing.

No, it's your inability to accept that you've wasted ten years of your life on a stupid fairy story that reaffirms your belief that you're doing the right thing.

 
At 03 August, 2011 18:26, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

Mike Huckabee is Selling a 9/11 Educational Cartoon

'Critics claim former GOP hopeful is trying to cash in on the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks'

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/03/mike_huckabee_9_11_cartoon_former_gop_hopeful_sells_9_11_and_the.html

 
At 03 August, 2011 19:50, Blogger Arcterus said...

Jon, I'm continuously amused that you keep bringing up things I'm aware of, as if it would be new information to me. As an ex-truther, and one associated with the TruthAction crowd in particular, has it crossed your mind that I'm familiar with pretty much everything you have to say? Nothing surprises me and nothing compels me. I know everything you have to throw at me because I've been there and I can understand why it's either irrelevant or simply bullshit - something every truther argument boils down to.

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

First of all... covering up the crime of 9/11 is a crime in and of itself and people should be held accountable for it, and everything that has been covered up should be exposed for the world to see.

Can't disagree with that. So I'll ask again: what is being covered up?

Secondly, elements within our Government and other Governments have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11. Along with people like OBL, KSM, 19 hijackers, etc... and so on. In my opinion of course. Why can't we have both?

It would help if you could articulate what crime occurred. You seem to have chosen your guilty parties without deciding what they're guilty of.

I get it... no one should be held accountable... moving on.

Name the crime, name who did it, and you'll be onto something. Keep pissing in the wind with insinuations and half-assertions and you'll keep getting nowhere.

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:48, Blogger Triterope said...

covering up the crime of 9/11 is a crime in and of itself and people should be held accountable for it

So when are going to turn yourself in?

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:50, Blogger Ian said...

Dealing with you just reaffirms my belief that I am doing the right thing.

C'mon, Jon. Your know this 9/11 truth stuff is bullshit. Leave it to the hopeless lunatics like Brian Good and stop wasting your life on this crap.

If you're looking for something to feel noble about, why not work on relieving the famine in Somalia?

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Saudi involvement in 9/11 was was not only not acknowledged, it was covered up through the redaction of the 28 pages. So for you to act as if it's been investigated is disingenuous.

Arcterus, part of the reason that real truthseekers (as opposed to the conspiracy theorist you once were--you were never a truthseeker) keep at it after all this time is that we look in horror at the lazy and despairing cynicism that you regard as wisdom, and we despise it, and we want to show you and those like you something better.

Paul w, the NIST report on WTC7 is a joke. But at least they were honest enough to take out the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". So they give us one that is not.

The report on the towers is anything but thorough. It ignores the vital issues of symmetry, totality, and speed of collapse; of molten steel, of the pulverization of the concrete, and the destruction of the persistent core.

RGT, for crimes you could start with destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, perjury. Condi's lies under oath are blatant. 9/11 Commissioners Kean and Hamilton wrote that they considered referring NORAD's lies to the DoJ.

Ian, the famine is about Somalia. 9/11 and its effects on the integrity of this society are about America.

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

It ignores the vital issues of symmetry...and the destruction of the persistent core.

I just love when truthers contradict themselves in the same sentence.

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I love it when debunkers grasp at straws to deny the obvious.

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:25, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LA LA LA LA LAAAAA!!!!!

Thanks Brian

 
At 03 August, 2011 23:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, that works too--inside your own head. Outside of your head, not so good.

 
At 04 August, 2011 05:56, Blogger Arcterus said...

as opposed to the conspiracy theorist you once were--you were never a truthseeker

To the contrary. I think you have that exactly reversed. A conspiracy theorist is stubborn, has low standards of evidence, and sees conspiracies everywhere despite legitimate explanation. A truthseeker caught in the midst of all that can eventually wade through the bullshit and find himself back in reality, as I have. The rest of you who cling to your falling movement, supported by no real evidence and with no legitimate backing from credible experts, you are the true conspiracy theorists.

 
At 04 August, 2011 06:13, Blogger James B. said...

"it was covered up through the redaction of the 28 pages. So for you to act as if it's been investigated is disingenuous."

Wait, they didn't investigate it, but they still managed to write 28 pages on it? See the problem here?

 
At 04 August, 2011 06:53, Blogger Triterope said...

Saudi involvement in 9/11 was was not only not acknowledged

Yeah, it was so "not acknowledged" that it was a joke on Family Guy three years ago.

 
At 04 August, 2011 07:48, Blogger Arcterus said...

To be fair, Family Guy has been a major whistleblower on government affairs since it's inception.

 
At 04 August, 2011 08:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

First of all... covering up the crime of 9/11 is a crime in and of itself...

Yeah and hand cuffing yourself to Government property to make a "point" and showing it on YouTube is a classic example of what you're preaching. How did it feel to get arrested while you hand cuffed yourself to the White House fence? Kinda felt stupid, didn't ya?!

 
At 04 August, 2011 08:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You debunkers take care now. Dealing with you just reaffirms my belief that I am doing the right thing.

You did the right thing by getting arrested for your stupidity. What's next Jon, gonna handcuff yourself to the Lincoln Memorial and protest that the Civil War was a "cover-up"?

 
At 04 August, 2011 10:30, Blogger Arcterus said...

Jon wrote about "Ex-Truthers" over at the TruthAction forums. He has some interesting ideas, so I thought I'd clarify a few things for him, assuming he's still checking in on this thread.

Those people who used to be "activists" for this cause, but one day decided all of the information...

Not "one day", over time. I spent a good deal of time thinking about it, I didn't just get up out of bed an go "Hey...wait a minute..."

on the table about 9/11 is irrelevant...

Mhm. Or bullshit. Whichever.

and unworthy of their time.

Being relevant or legitimate are two very important requirements to being worthy of my time, I should think.

That nothing suggests a cover-up.

Mhm.

That people shouldn't be held accountable for wrong-doing.

No, that people have already been held accountable for their wrong-doing. We know who did it and have responded in kind. The accountability you seek is for people who are part of this cover-up that you can't even come close to proving.

That the official story has no problems with it whatsoever.

More or less.

That each investigation into 9/11 was good, etc...

Mhm.

They also became extreme assholes.

That's bullshit. I've been like this for years. I acted this way towards idiots back in my TruthAction days too.

Then SnowCrash had this to say:

It's as if they are begging for admission into the debunker country club by washing their hands clean of all traces of trutherism.

Not really. I just find this place entertaining. I enjoy debate, especially debates which make me laugh due to the complete ineptitude of one side. It's the same reason I debate with creationists.

There are some good exchanges about how the "debunker" community can never succeed (too extremist and too rigid) in their position on 9/11 on the911freeforum.

I haven't read the thread being referred to, but I figure the side which will succeed will be the side which has factual merit behind it. Let's see where the score lies so far:

Debunkers: 497
Truthers: 0

I don't think even Johnny Unitas can stage a comeback like that...

Anyway, hope that clarifies some things for you Jon, and some misconceptions you may have had about why people leave the truth movement.

 
At 04 August, 2011 10:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Those people who used to be "activists" for this cause, but one day decided all of the information on the table about 9/11 is irrelevant and unworthy of their time.

In case you're reading this Jon, could you please briefly describe the nature of Saudi Arabia's role in the attacks? Are you talking about funding, knowing inaction, or something else?

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:43, Blogger Ian said...

I love it when debunkers grasp at straws to deny the obvious.

If it's obvious, how come the widows questions haven't been answered?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Yeah, that works too--inside your own head. Outside of your head, not so good.

My, such squealing!

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7246

Jon Gold said:

"You have to actually debunk something in order to be called a debunker."

And yet he hasn't debunked anything from the Offical Report and he's not really a Truther, he's an imposter.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:29, Blogger Arcterus said...

Jon basically said "Nuh-uh!" and left it at that. Oh well. I tried.

I wouldn't really call myself a debunker though...I'm more a spectator right now. I mean, I agree with you guys on all of this, but I'm not taking any particularly active role in debunking anything. I just read and throw in my two cents every now and then. Besides, what is there left to really be debunked? At this point, I think it comes down more to commentary on the movement than anything else.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Hell, I think it comes down to their psychological problems more than their stupid theories.

About 2 years ago I wrote this blog about them:

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/

Some of them left some amusing comments on my blog, here's an example:

"Average Joe Body Builder said...

WhyAskQuestions, what can i say? you never touched the actual evidence, but want to deconstruct the brain patterns of the truthers, but not the actual thermite that was found there, you want to discuss their paranoia, but not the fact that BBC reported building 7 as destroyed before the actual event. you want to discuss their mistrust for the real world, but won't touch the fact that the bush administration told the 911 commission to not go too deeply into the evidence at hand. You seriously have a problem."


And I found another post on a forum about my blog:

http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6463&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

"As an example, I present to you "911 Chewey Defense" - the dumbest debunker on the Internet. "Exposing the lies of truthers!" - http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html CAUTION- reading this will kill brain cells. And old Chewey has claimed to be retired military, a fireman, an engineer, a college professor, a high school teacher, an airline pilot, ad nauseum. "

I used to be "9/11 Chewy Defense" on JREF until I got banned for protecting myself against the Truthers.

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:43, Blogger Arcterus said...

I love looking at their psychology. It's amazing what they'll do to continue convincing themselves that they're right. I definitely agree, it's much more interesting than any of their retarded claims.

 
At 04 August, 2011 16:41, Blogger paul w said...

Jon, Brian. - this is for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKdG7yGi0KA

 
At 04 August, 2011 16:47, Blogger kameelyun said...

I saw it from 1000 miles away that Arse-terus was destined to morph from "truther who's anti CIT" to full blown ex truther. His arguments trying to "debunk" CIT were no better than the arguments trying to "debunk" 911 truth as a whole.

 
At 04 August, 2011 16:55, Blogger Arcterus said...

Pffft, CIT got whooped by my articles. The fact that they were too stupid to realize that doesn't change anything.

Also, I was not a truther who was anti-CIT, I was a truther who was anti-stupidity. CIT just happen to be one of many who fit the bill.

 
At 04 August, 2011 18:41, Blogger Triterope said...

Besides, what is there left to really be debunked? At this point, I think it comes down more to commentary on the movement than anything else.

I agree. The substantive responses to 9-11 conspiracy claims have long since been written, and the Truthers have introduced nothing that deserves a response.

 
At 04 August, 2011 18:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Besides, what is there left to really be debunked? At this point, I think it comes down more to commentary on the movement than anything else.

Well said. I'm honestly not sure who is more pathetic -- the controlled demolition crowd, or the "we believe something but we don't know what it is yet" dolts at truthaction.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:08, Blogger Track said...

Why were al Qaeda investigations obstructed before 9/11? That is a question that should concern every citizen in the country. The lapse of time doesn't magically make the question go away. For reasons I don't understand it appears posters on this site think it is admirable to accept the given BS answers mentioned up thread.

One notes how some debunkers hold the government to an extremely low standard of conduct. Evidently all the secrecy is 100% justified.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:26, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:28, Blogger paul w said...

Why were al Qaeda investigations obstructed before 9/11?

Why don't you find out?

I've heard the reasons given on this site many times before, so the truth is out there, it just needs effort on your behalf to find out.

Also, please provide proof of 'obstructions'.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:36, Blogger Ian said...

Why were al Qaeda investigations obstructed before 9/11? That is a question that should concern every citizen in the country. The lapse of time doesn't magically make the question go away.

Government turf wars/obstruction/incompetence/whatever is not the same thing as the government deliberately planting explosives to destroy the WTC.

That's where truthers lose me. If the truth movement was about making government more accountable to the people, well, sign me up.

The problem is that any new investigation would be not find any evidence of death-ray beams from space, hologram planes, magic nanothermite, micro-nukes, or whatever, and then truthers would call foul and demand a new investigation.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:38, Blogger Track said...

Why don't you find out?

I have tried to find out. I note how you think it's somehow my job to get past layers of secrecy. What is that about? Your pals on the 9/11 Commission had a mandate to get answers and they failed. Your media pals have vast resources and access to power and they failed too. Do you give them a pass?

Alec Station and the FBI UBLU obstructed the Cole investigation and the search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in a period when "the system was blinking red." Yes, Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright even used the phrase "obstruction of justice" in reference to Alec Station's refusal to share information about the al Qaeda Malaysia meeting with the Cole investigators.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:45, Blogger Track said...


Government turf wars/obstruction/incompetence/whatever is not the same thing as the government deliberately planting explosives to destroy the WTC.


I've noticed through the years that debunkers tend to conflate all skeptics of 9/11 into a one size fits all category. So you should direct this comment to the debunking community.

That's where truthers lose me. If the truth movement was about making government more accountable to the people, well, sign me up.

I don't want to be part of a niche cottage industry movement. Every citizen in the country should want answers about 9/11. There is no need to sign up for a group to question 9/11.

 
At 04 August, 2011 20:54, Blogger paul w said...

I have tried to find out

Try harder.

 
At 04 August, 2011 21:05, Blogger Track said...

Try harder.

Right. Why didn't the media try harder? Or the 9/11 Commission?

Why did they waste their access to power?

 
At 05 August, 2011 01:14, Blogger paul w said...

As always, when faced with a demon (i.e. work) a truther simply dodges the issue by moving the goalposts.

Track, I wasn't talking about anyone but you.

So, to repeat:

try harder.

 
At 05 August, 2011 05:23, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

When someone mentions Saudi involvement in 9/11, what do they actually mean? The government of Saudi Arabia? Some faction therein? Bin Laden's nationality, for example, is a matter of public record, so I suppose that constitutes 'Saudi involvement' all by itself.

 
At 05 August, 2011 06:09, Blogger Arcterus said...

There is no need to sign up for a group to question 9/11.

Recognizing figure of speech fail.

 
At 05 August, 2011 06:46, Blogger Track said...

As always, when faced with a demon (i.e. work) a truther simply dodges the issue by moving the goalposts.

This doesn't even make sense. It is directly on point to note how the media and the government are held to a low standard of conduct.

 
At 05 August, 2011 07:10, Blogger Ian said...

I've noticed through the years that debunkers tend to conflate all skeptics of 9/11 into a one size fits all category.

So are you saying you don't believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least allowed to happen by the Bush administration?

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:09, Blogger Track said...

So are you saying you don't believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least allowed to happen by the Bush administration?

I believe the public has a right to know what the White House, CIA and FBI were doing in relation to pre-9/11 al Qaeda investigations. Where are the interviews with Richard Blee (chief of Alec Station at the time) and Rodney Middleton (chief of the FBI UBLU) at the time?

As mentioned up thread there appears to be a connection between obstructed investigations and Saudi involvement.

It's not a matter of my not liking the given answers or refusing to accept them out of some need to feed delusional conspiracy beliefs. I've read most of the mainstream books and they don't resolve the issue of obstructed investigations. At best we have informed speculation. What sort of standard is that?

John Farmer (9/11 Commission senior counsel):

So the question has always been quite simple: Why wasn’t the Mihdhar information shared with the F.B.I.? “That is one of the big mysteries. Why was the information not passed on?” Mr. Farmer told The Observer. Mr. Farmer is also the author of a recent book about the attacks, Ground Truth. “And the explanations aren’t good,” he added.

The Gay Terrorist by Aram Roston

This "mystery" should have been solved by the 9/11 Commission.

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, what's left to be debunked? Well apparently the laws of physics are left to be debunked. The Saudi connection to 9/11, and the coverup by the US government of the Saudi connection are to be debunked. Behrooz Sarshar is left to be debunked.

Track, the debunkers resort to the ultimate argument from authority, don't they: "The government has the answers, they're secret; that's how it should be, we don't need to know; I trust them, it's okay, shut up and get back to work."

Paul w, there's a whole book about the obstruction of the al Qaeda investigation by Kevin Fenton. Haven't read it yet, but examples off the top of my head are:

1. Maltbie and Frasca rewriting the FISA application to search Moussaoui's computer. These applications are almost never denied, but those two sabotaged the application.

2. Behrooz Sarshar's squelched warnings about upcoming attacks

3. FBI agents Miller and Rossini being forbidden to inform their FBI colleagues about the presence of al Qaeda operatives inside the USA

And asking for proof before there's even been a proper investigation is kind of disingenuous.

Paul w, the only way to try harder is with subpoena power.

SH, for what is meant by "Saudi" see the August Vanity Fair.

Ian, beliefs are not the point. The point is that we've been lied to, the media have been intimidated and deballed, and we need investigations we can trust. Your lazy cynicism will not preserve democracy.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:20, Blogger Arcterus said...

I do love when Brian brings up the laws of physics and states ever so matter-of-fact-ly that they're violated. But of course, when he actually specifies one of these supposed violations, he gets crushed by facts and ACTUAL physics. It's great stuff.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

And asking for proof before there's even been a proper investigation is kind of disingenuous.

You fucking moron! Are you seriously going to go to court without evidence and look the judge in the eye and say:

"I don't need evidence your honor."

ARE YOU THAT FUCKING RETARDED?

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I do love when Brian brings up the laws of physics and states ever so matter-of-fact-ly that they're violated. But of course, when he actually specifies one of these supposed violations, he gets crushed by facts and ACTUAL physics. It's great stuff.

Brian doesn't know what the Laws of Physics is, he never finished school.

In order to get into Brians mind, we have to step out of reality and enter the Twilight Zone (or should it be called Twit Zone?).

 
At 05 August, 2011 12:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

When someone mentions Saudi involvement in 9/11, what do they actually mean? The government of Saudi Arabia? Some faction therein?

They don't know what they mean. The nature of Saudi involvement has never been articulated. But boy, do they have a lot of links about it.

 
At 05 August, 2011 13:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, when I get "crushed" on physics it's on the basis of bald assertions from MGF, who thinks Newton wrote the first law of thermodynamics, and who claimed expertise in chemistry when he didn't know what the heat of fusion was.

WAQo, nobody's going to court. First you have a proper investigation. Then you go to court. We need an investigation.

Only a moron like you is ever finished with school and you're finished with it, all right. You prove it every day you post here.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:06, Blogger Arcterus said...

Actually, the only time you get "crushed" is done with actual physics, you just ignore the physics and continue spouting the same talking points, so I guess I'd understand why you might forget. Why remember something you never bothered to listen to?

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, neither you nor anybody here has any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws of motion--except me.

For the buildings to fall as the government claims that they did violates Newton's 1st and 3rd laws and the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics.

 
At 05 August, 2011 17:03, Blogger paul w said...

This doesn't even make sense. It is directly on point to note how the media and the government are held to a low standard of conduct

It made total sense.

I explained how truthers like you bolt at the first sign of having to get off their arse and find out for themselves, usually by moving the goalposts. As you continue to do.

To repeat: try harder.

You original comment was ‘why were al Qaeda investigations obstructed before 9/11?’

So, as I asked (and am still waiting for a reply), where is your proof the investigations were obstructed?

 
At 05 August, 2011 18:04, Blogger Triterope said...

Well apparently the laws of physics are left to be debunked. The Saudi connection to 9/11, and the coverup by the US government of the Saudi connection are to be debunked. Behrooz Sarshar is left to be debunked.

Exactly. Nothing.

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

The goat fucker squeals, "...Arcterus, neither you nor anybody here has any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws of motion--except me."

Does that explain why I just proved that you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocity? Believe it or not, folks, the goat fucker thinks acceleration (measured in m/s2) is a "velocity" (measured in m/s).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'll hold up my well-demonstrated knowledge of Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics to your alleged knowledge of pseudo-physics any day of the week--you pea-brained prevaricator.

You know NOTHING about physics.

Beyond parody.

 
At 05 August, 2011 20:43, Blogger Arcterus said...

The delusions of grandeur you feed yourself...it's pathetic, Brian.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, nobody's going to court. First you have a proper investigation. Then you go to court. We need an investigation.

No evidence = no investigation you retard.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Only a moron like you is ever finished with school and you're finished with it, all right. You prove it every day you post here.

LOL want some whine with that cheese?

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

For the buildings to fall as the government claims that they did violates Newton's 1st and 3rd laws and the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics.

I bet if we throw Brian off a building he'd float rather than fall because we know he's full of hot air. But according to the Laws of Gravity, his scrawny 130 lb. ass would fall the instant he touched mid-air.

Brian's world is like that of Wile E. Coyote, where the coyote chases the roadrunner off a cliff and the coyote is suspended in mid-air for a brief second then plummets to the ground. But in the real world, it's not a cartoon.

 
At 06 August, 2011 19:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Arcterus, neither you nor anybody here has any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws of motion--except me."

Really, then why do you keep missapplying them?

Newton? Each floor had two million kilograms of mass. The potential energy of those 110 stories is over 400 billion joules of energy. Thats why columns broke and a lot of concrete turned to powder.

If you had any knowledge of physics you'd know this, and means that you're either a liar or a fool (or both).

"For the buildings to fall as the government claims that they did violates Newton's 1st and 3rd laws and the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics."

Nope.

Zdenek Bazant, PhD, at Northwestern wrote a kick-ass paper on the cause of the collapse:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

I know you won't read it Brain, it's full of scientifiky thingies, big numbers, and there's nothing to color.

 
At 06 August, 2011 22:00, Blogger ZionCrimeFactory said...

LOL

You got debunker Jews and then you got truther Jews like John Gold. Don't be fooled, they're working on the same team, and are tasked with covering up the Jewish/Zionist attack on the WTC; Just on different levels.

 
At 07 August, 2011 07:18, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

First you have a proper investigation. Then you go to court. We need an investigation.

That's a lousy strategy. Any public investigation ten years after the fact based on conspiracy suspicions will produce hogwash (see HSCA). Plus there's no public interest in such an investigation, so you're not getting one anyway.

Much better to go to court first. File a suit that states an actionable complaint and alleges sufficient facts. You don't need to prove anything, just set out what you think happened and what you intend to prove. Getting it to discovery means you get Subpoena Power to compel production of materials and depose witnesses. It forces your opponent to do most of the digging for you.

 
At 07 August, 2011 07:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You got debunker Jews and then you got truther Jews like John Gold.

פיגור שכלי הוא לקות התפתחותית שבה התפקוד האינטלקטואלי נמוך. ביחס לאדם הממוצע, בעלי לקות זאת סובלים מאיחור משמעותי או קושי משמעותי ברכישת מיומנויות למידה, מיומנויות תקשורת ומיומנויות הדרושות לפעולות היומיום.

 
At 07 August, 2011 10:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, read Kevin Fenton's book "Disconnecting the Dots" about the obstruction to the investigation.

Examples off the top of my head are:

1. Maltbie and Frasca rewriting the FISA application to search Moussaoui's computer. These applications are almost never denied, but those two sabotaged the application.

2. Behrooz Sarshar's squelched warnings about upcoming attacks

3. FBI agents Miller and Rossini being forbidden to inform their FBI colleagues about the presence of al Qaeda operatives inside the USA

And asking for proof before there's even been a proper investigation is kind of disingenuous.

TR, 28 redacted pages in a congressional report are not nothing. Behrooz Sarshar's tale of ignored urgent warnings is not nothing. Saudi aid to the alleged hijackers is not nothing.

Utterfail, you're such an idiot you obviously don't know the difference between m/s2 and m/s^2. They are equal if, and only if, s = 2.

WAQo, there's plenty of evidence justifying a new investigation. What exactly are you afraid of? They've spent $35 million total on the investigations. That's the cost of 1 Chinook helicopter. Isn't truth worth another helicopter?

MGF, I read Dr. Bazant's paper years ago. His simplifying assumptions are a real hoot, as is his belief that a falling object is immune to Newton's 3rd Law. It only goes to show how smart people can fool themselves when they're trying to prove what they want to believe. In any case, his theoretical collapse mechanism has no resemblance to reality, as anyone can see who watches the first few seconds of the north tower collapse. His centroid theory is hilarious!

RGT, a new investigation need not be based on conspiracy hogwash but only on filling the holes and correcting obvious errors in the existing reports.

 
At 07 August, 2011 11:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Utterfail, you're such an idiot you obviously don't know the difference between m/s2 and m/s^2. They are equal if, and only if, s = 2."

That's right, goat fucker, pretend that you know what you're talking about after demonstrating that you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocity.

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving he's an idiot.

NOTICE THAT THE GOAT FUCKER JUST USED THE EXPRESSION m/s2 in his own response. CONTRADICTING YOURSELF AGAIN--YOU SCURRILOUS LIAR? If the use of m/s2 for m/s^2 is such an egregious fault, WHY DID YOU USE IT?

This is another example of the goat fucker using ANY DODGE TO KICK DIRT ON ANYONE WHO PROVES THAT HE'S AS IDIOT OR A LIAR.

Cretin.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't use m/s2 for m/s^2. You did.

Using m/s2 for a velocity is not an egregious fault. Using it for an acceleration, like you do, is.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...I didn't use m/s2 for m/s^2. You did."

False.

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving he's an idiot.

Source: Two previews in one day, 05 August, 2011 09:36.

Notice that YOU used the expression m/s2 BEFORE I EVER ENTERED THE DEBATE (my first post to the thread was at 05 August, 2011 11:31, which was almost 2 HOURS later). THUS, IT'S PROVEN THAT YOU USED THE EXPRESSION m/s2 FIRST!

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, GOAT FUCKER.

FAIL

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...Using m/s2 for a velocity is not an egregious fault. Using it for an acceleration, like you do, is."

False. As I explained two days ago, acceleration is expressed in m/s2. Velocity is expressed in m/s, not m/s2.

In terms of acceleration.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)."

In terms of velocity.

"...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)."

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, GOAT FUCKER!

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, a new investigation need not be based on conspiracy hogwash but only on filling the holes and correcting obvious errors in the existing reports.

Inconsistencies in the reports can be attributed to simple error. It's fine if you want to reject simple error as an explanation, but demanding a new investigation based on that is asking a bit much.

 
At 07 August, 2011 13:12, Blogger reframingTokyo said...

10 years later still more evidence, that both left- and right wing paradigm within the U.S. was systematicslly pupeteered and artificilly bancrupted by EurozonAsia [DRG = old school No.1 Handler], thanks to the moronic truthling truther posse and leftgatekeepers the winners will be always SIEMENS, westinghouse/toshiba/kazachstastom plus francochina and underground media science comedians shut their lips when they must ;-

http://nicohistory.webnode.com/a2010-/

 
At 07 August, 2011 13:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Using m/s2 for a velocity is not an egregious fault. Using it for an acceleration, like you do, is."

False.

PROOF:

If velocity remains constant, velocity is expressed as v = s /t, where s = linear displacement, which is measured in meters (m); t = time, which is measured in seconds (s) and v = velocity, which is expressed in meters per second (m/s).

On the other hand, if acceleration remains constant, acceleration is expressed as v = v0 + a t, where a = acceleration, which is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s2); t = time, which is measured in seconds (s) and v0 = initial velocity, which is expressed in meters per second (m/s).

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

You can't?

Then STFU, goat fucker.

 
At 07 August, 2011 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, velocity is a constant at any given time. It can be expressed as miles/hour, feet/sec, meters/sec,
micrometers/millisecond, meters/2 sec, m/200 sec or whatever you want.

The points is, m/s2 is not an exponential expression, only an idiot like you would think it is, and it can not possibly express acceleration.

RGT, I'm not looking for an explanation. I'm looking for the truth. If the report is wrong, it needs to be done over so it's true.

UtterFail, blow it in your harmonica, son.

 
At 07 August, 2011 15:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFail, velocity is a constant at any given time. It can be expressed as miles/hour, feet/sec, meters/sec,
micrometers/millisecond, meters/2 sec, m/200 sec or whatever you want."


False. Velocity can ONLY be expressed as meters per second (m/s).

"...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)." -- Wikipedia, velocity.

Thus, you're a liar, charlatan and a fraud who knows nothing about "physics."

Furthermore, your response is a not answer, it's an evasion. You simply did not answer my question, which reads, "...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2." And so far, you've proven nothing. Your lies and opinion are NOT evidence.

You can't show me ANY instance where velocity is expressed as anything other than meters per second (m/s) because you're lying.

FAIL.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...The points is, m/s2 is not an exponential expression, only an idiot like you would think it is, and it can not possibly express acceleration."

False.

Meters per second squared can be written m/s^2 or as shorthand as m/s2. I told you FROM THE FUCKING BEGINNING that m/s2 is meters per second squared.

FAIL

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, velocity can be expressed as cubits per year, or barleycorns per month. You seem determined to demonstrate your idiocy to the world.

m/s2 is not acceptable for meters per second squared, and only an idiot like you would think it is.

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

I want PROOF to substantiate your lying assertion--not your Goddamned lying opinion.

Answer the question:

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

So where's your evidence, goat fucker?

You can't substantiate your lying assertions--you felcher?

Then STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

In terms of acceleration.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)." -- Wikipedia

In terms of velocity.

"...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)." -- Wikipedia

Refute the aforementioned with FACTS, goat fucker, or you stand exposed as an incompetent who understands NOTHING about physics.

You couldn't pass a high school examination in elementary physics--let alone understand the physics of the Twin Tower's collapse.

Now answer the question, scumbag:

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

So where's your evidence, goat fucker?

You can't substantiate your lying assertions--you scurrilous liar?

Then STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, 60 m/s = 120 m/s2.

Sorry, I don't have time to teach you algebra.

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, 60 m/s = 120 m/s2."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Utterly FALSE!

You cannot convert meters per second squared (m/s2) to meters per second (m/s)--you cretin. AGAIN, ACCELERATION IS NOT VELOCITY! You can only use the following formula to determine a value for velocity:

v = v0 + at

Hence, if the initial velocity is 60 m/s and the acceleration is 10 m/s2, the velocity after 2 seconds is calculated as follows:

60 m/s + (10 m/s2 * 2 s) =
60 m/s + 20 m/s = 80 m/s


Thus, in this case

v = 80 m/s

And that's why I make the big bucks, and you're a lowly college dropout who wears women's underwear.

And now we have more proof that you're an idiot who knows nothing about physics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Give it up, goat fucker. You're not only a liar, you're an idiot.

FAIL

 
At 07 August, 2011 19:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, I read Dr. Bazant's paper years ago. His simplifying assumptions are a real hoot, as is his belief that a falling object is immune to Newton's 3rd Law."

Nope.

Netwon's 3rd law worked the way it should as each tower stopped when it his the ground. Neither tower nor WTC7 continued to fall deep into the earth's crust then out the other side into space (this is the only way the 3rd law would have been violated).

 
At 07 August, 2011 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prediction:

Next, the goat fucker will slither back and claim "when I wrote '60 m/s = 120 m/s2', I meant 120 meters per second times 2."

This evasion, however, is UTTERLY ridiculous. No scientist would ever express a velocity in units of "120 m/s2" when he or she can simply write "60 m/s."

Furthermore, this evasion UTTERLY fails to answer my simple question:

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

Thus, once again, the goat fucker steadfastly refuses to answer my question because he knows he's lying.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 August, 2011 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Newton's third law is violated by Dr. Bazan't piledriver theory. When the top "block" hit the lower portion of the building, the lower portion hits back. It hits harder, actually, because it's more robustly constructed. If the top block hit with 31 g's as Bazant claims, then it would have destroyed itself right there.

Imagine you're trying to break down a door--with your head. You hit the door, the door hits back. How far do you think you'd get? Bazant would have you believe that if you just get a nice running start and hit the wall hard enough, you can break right through it in one try. Dr. Bazant lives on a special planet.

UtterFail, your quibbling about diction does not change the fact that m/s2 is a velocity, not an acceleration.

m/s^2 is an acceleration.

 
At 08 August, 2011 19:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...your quibbling about diction does not change the fact that m/s2 is a velocity, not an acceleration...m/s^2 is an acceleration."

False.

You pull your "facts" out of your ass.

The blog's software doesn't support exponent fonts, thus it's perfectly acceptable to use m/s2 or m/s^2 for acceleration.

Furthermore, m/s2 is NOT a velocity. Velocity is expressed in meters per second (m/s) and m/s ONLY. No competent scientist would use "m/s2" when he can simply express the units as m/s (meter per second).

"...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)." -- Wikipedia, velocity.


Again, all you provide is your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion.

Face it, goat fucker, you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocity. In fact, you're so fucking ignorant of the laws of physics that you actually tried to convert acceleration to velocity--which is simply illogical. This is equivalent to trying to count the number of oranges in your possession by counting apples. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance and dishonesty, goat fucker.

Pathetic.

FAIL

 
At 09 August, 2011 00:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 August, 2011 10:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it's NEVER acceptable to use ms2 as ms^2, and only an idiot like you would think it was.

Velocity is expressed in m/s, miles/hour, feet/s, cubits/millisecond, barleycorns/month or whatever.

You seem determined to demonstrate your idiocy.

 
At 09 August, 2011 20:23, Blogger Ian said...

Velocity is expressed in m/s, miles/hour, feet/s, cubits/millisecond, barleycorns/month or whatever.

Or widows/question. Oh wait, that ratio is a fixed 27/300. Never mind.

 
At 09 August, 2011 22:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

No actually 27/300 is questions asked/questions answered. Get it right.

 
At 09 August, 2011 23:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...UtterFail, it's NEVER acceptable to use ms2 as ms^2, and only an idiot like you would think it was."

Then why did you use it up thread without objection, cretin?

And if I don't know what I'm talking about, why did I use m/s^2, for example, in this comment?

Once again, we can see that you're full-of-shit, goat fucker.

And you still haven't answered my question, scumbag:

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

Tell us more about converting acceleration to velocity, Mr. Physics Illiterate.

FAIL

 
At 10 August, 2011 00:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I used it upthread as an expression of a velocity, dumbass. You're a waste of time.

 
At 10 August, 2011 04:44, Blogger Ian said...

No actually 27/300 is questions asked/questions answered. Get it right.

False. It's widows/question. You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 10 August, 2011 08:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 August, 2011 08:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? It thinks dumbness is cute like an 8-year-old girl does.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, there's plenty of evidence justifying a new investigation.

But when asked to show this evidence you shy away from showing us. This is a sign of a conspiracy to hide evidence.

What exactly are you afraid of?

I'm not afraid of a lying failed janitor that's for sure.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian doesn't know m/s2 all that well. He just wants to talk about it because it makes him seem intelligent. Well he's not intelligent at all.

9.81 m/s2 doesn't mean free fall speed at all and that's what Brian thinks is it when its not.

Brian lost the war on m/s2.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've named the evidence many times. I've pointed at the links, and all you guys do is lie about it.

I know 9.81 m/s2 doesn't mean free fall speed. Also I know that "free fall speed" is a misnomer. You are the one who claimed wrongly that 9.81 m/s2 (as opposed to 9.81 m/s^2) represented the acceleration of gravity. You guys have expended enormous energies in trying to confuse that simple point. You're making this forum a waste of time--suicide bombing your own market square.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your strategy is transparent--sow a whole lot of confusion nobody will bother reading, and then make lying claims of victory.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:26, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean? It thinks dumbness is cute like an 8-year-old girl does.

Brian is behaving like Buffalo Bill from "The Silence of the Lambs" again: dressing in women's underwear and calling people "it".

You're endlessly entertaining, Brian. I hope the homeless shelter never cuts off your internet access.

 
At 10 August, 2011 20:27, Blogger Ian said...

I've named the evidence many times. I've pointed at the links, and all you guys do is lie about it.

Brian, the only evidence that you've pointed out is the strong evidence that you belong in a mental hospital.

Normal people don't care about your delusions and lies about 9/11. We're just here to be amused by your endless babbling.

 
At 11 August, 2011 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot scribbles, "...I used it upthread as an expression of a velocity, dumbass."

How many times must I explain this to you, fuckhead?

Scientists use the International System of Units.

Velocity is specified by SI, and there's only ONE way to express velocity, and that's meters per second (m/s), not "m/s2"--you fucking idiot.

Acceleration, on the other hand, is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s2 or m/s^2), as I pointed out up thread on numerous occasions.

And you still utterly FAILED to answer my question.

I DIDN'T ASK YOU FOR AN EXAMPLE YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR LYING ASS--YOU RETARDED FELCHER. I ASKED YOU FOR AN EXAMPLE FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE. FOR EXAMPLE, SHOW ME ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER WHERE "M/S2" IS USED TO EXPRESS A VELOCITY.

YOU CAN'T, ASSHOLE?

THEN STFU.

 
At 11 August, 2011 11:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...You are the one who claimed wrongly that 9.81 m/s2 (as opposed to 9.81 m/s^2) represented the acceleration of gravity."

Are you really that dishonest and stupid, goat fucker?

WAQ did a cut-and-paste of verbiage from Wikipedia's acceleration page. Since SLC's HTML font set doesn't support exponents, the font was LOST during the cut-and-paste process (Try is yourself, idiot).

As I explained up-thread. EVERYONE (except you, of course) understood that since WAQ was referring to acceleration that m/s2 reads "meters per second squared." Anyone who's familiar with physics understands that acceleration is ALWAYS expressed in meters per second squared. That's why there's no issue. Thus, m/s2 or m/s^2 is understood to read "meters per second squared" when you're referring to acceleration.

So what's your excuse for overlooking (deliberately or otherwise) the obvious--you tiny-brained wiper of other people's buttocks? Is simple HTML beyond your "skill set"?

Idiot.

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 13:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

The point is that WAQo is so ignorant he did not recognize that his post reported a velocity (m/s2) rather than an acceleration (m/s^2).

And you are expending enormous energies trying to pin WAQo's ignorance on me.

 
At 11 August, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, I corrected WAQ back in the "Two Previews In One Day" thread. So you're wrong again, goat fucker. I'm not trying to "pin WAQo's ignorance" on anyone.

FACT: You're both wrong--period.

WAQ was wrong about the relevance of air resistance for low density objects, and you're wrong about the units used to express velocity (m/s) and acceleration ("m/s^2" or, lacking the necessary HTML capability, "m/s2").

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2." (By a credible source, not units that you pulled out of your ass.)

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, barleycorns/week is a perfectly acceptable expression for velocity.

m/s2, however, is not, because it is inherently ambiguous and subject to confusion with m/s^2, the expression for acceleration.

You really should plug into Mission College and get yourself an education.

 
At 11 August, 2011 15:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFail, barleycorns/week is a perfectly acceptable expression for velocity."

You can also express velocity in cubits per second--you fucking retard. But that's not the international standard. Real scientists--you twit--use international units specified by the International System of Units (SI). And the SI specifies that velocity is expressed in meters per second (m/s), not "m/s2" as you falsely insist. SI specifies that acceleration, on the other hand, is expressed in meters per second squared. There are no NO exceptions to the rule--period.

Again:

"...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)." -- Wikipedia, velocity.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)." -- Wikipedia, acceleration

And you still have not answered my question:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2." (By a credible source, not units that you pulled out of your ass.)

I've asked you this question at least a dozens times in this thread alone; yet, you can't provide evidence from a CREDIBLE SOURCE to substantiate your assertion. (Not a unit you pulled out of your ass for the sake of your latest attempt at dishonest "debate"). And your continued refusal to substantiate your argument proves beyond a doubt that you're lying.

Thus, let the record show that the goat fucker can't provide ONE EXAMPLE of a scientist using "m/s2" to express or quantify velocity.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Furthermore, I'm a graduate of the University of Texas Austin and Santa Clara University. If anyone needs to attend Mission College it's you, goat fucker. Of course, Mission College would never accept a lying charlatan of your ilk to their AS degree program (Which you couldn't complete under any circumstance. After all, you're a junior college dropout.)

Stick to pseudo-science and wearing women's underwear, goat fucker, because you know nothing about the physical sciences.

 
At 11 August, 2011 17:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQ was wrong about the relevance of air resistance for low density objects.

Actually it was about free fall being achieved in a vacuum. Brian believes that Ground Zero was in a vacuum.

 
At 11 August, 2011 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, WAQo, I don't believe that there was a vacuum. NIST said "essentially in free fall". I haven't measured it myself.

David Chandler tracked the progress of the debris puffs out the window and found that the internal destruction was propagating FASTER than freefall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw&feature=player_embedded#at=43

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:31, Blogger Ian said...

NIST said "essentially in free fall". I haven't measured it myself.

Of course you haven't measured it. You don't understand the first thing about it.

Also, the claim that NIST said "essentially in free fall" is a total lies. Lying about 9/11 isn't going to get the widows their questions answered, Brian.

David Chandler tracked the progress of the debris puffs out the window and found that the internal destruction was propagating FASTER than freefall.

So there were rocket boosters on the debris?

 
At 11 August, 2011 20:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

David Chandler's propaganda was debunked by AlienEntity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ&feature=related

FAIL

 
At 11 August, 2011 21:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't debunk facts and physics.

 
At 11 August, 2011 23:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

We don't give a damn about your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional 100% fact-free opinion.

David Chandler, like all troofers, is an idiot and a mathematics illiterate dork. And AlienEntity proved beyond a doubt that Chandler is full of "troof."

 
At 12 August, 2011 04:35, Blogger Ian said...

You can't debunk facts and physics.

Since when have you ever posted anything related to facts or physics?

 
At 12 August, 2011 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Almost everything I've posted in the last six weeks has been related to facts or physics.

 
At 14 August, 2011 16:30, Blogger Ian said...

Almost everything I've posted in the last six weeks has been related to facts or physics.

False. Almost everything you've posted in the last 6 weeks (and since the day you began babbling here) has been about your deranged delusions.

 
At 14 August, 2011 22:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's your opinion. And since you have consistently demonstrated your ignorance, irrationality, and dishonesty on these threads, the opinions of the anonymous internet poster Ian aren't worth the bits they're not printed on.

 
At 15 August, 2011 15:38, Blogger Ian said...

That's your opinion.

No, it's pretty much a fact.

And since you have consistently demonstrated your ignorance, irrationality, and dishonesty on these threads, the opinions of the anonymous internet poster Ian aren't worth the bits they're not printed on.

Poor Brian, he's been pwn3d so many times by me that all he can do is babble about my "irrationality" and "ignorance" and "dishonesty". Of course, he can't actually cite any times I behaved in such ways. He's just upset that I'm successful, he's a failure, and that I make fun of him.

 
At 15 August, 2011 17:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No, WAQo, I don't believe that there was a vacuum. NIST said "essentially in free fall". I haven't measured it myself.

LOL he said he hasn't measured himself. OMFG!

 
At 15 August, 2011 17:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Almost everything I've posted in the last six weeks has been related to facts or physics.

ROTFLMFAO! What facts or physics?

 
At 15 August, 2011 21:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I could cite many instances of your "irrationality" and "ignorance" and "dishonesty", but since you and your cohort would only bury it under spam there is no reason for me to do so.

WAQo, the physics I have cited many times in these threads are the first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's first and third laws.

 
At 15 August, 2011 22:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the physics I have cited many times in these threads are the first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's first and third laws.

You don't know Newton or his laws Cpt. Oblivious.

 
At 15 August, 2011 22:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Try me on Newton's Laws. I had Newton's Third in nursery school before I could tie my shoes.

 
At 16 August, 2011 10:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, apparently nursery school is where they taught you that acceleration can be converted into a velocity.

Cretin.

 
At 16 August, 2011 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

No doubt nursery school is where you started attributing to people things they never said and it still comes second nature to you.

You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 16 August, 2011 15:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Try me on Newton's Laws. I had Newton's Third in nursery school before I could tie my shoes.

In your dreams girly man. You don't know shit about Newton's Laws.

 
At 16 August, 2011 15:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I had Newton's Third in nursery school...

They don't teach babies that.

 
At 16 August, 2011 15:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...No doubt nursery school is where you started attributing to people things they never said and it still comes second nature to you."

False.

And you still haven't answered my question, scumbag:

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

Tell us more about converting acceleration to velocity, Mr. Physics Illiterate.

FAIL

 
At 16 August, 2011 16:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, where I went to Nursery School we were taught Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions before we could tie our shoes. The demonstration was done by colliding chairs on a freshly waxed floor.

It's not my fault that I didn't grow up with the disadvantages you did.

Utterfail, your meaningless tests and challenges are becoming quite tiresome.

 
At 16 August, 2011 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Are you saying that velocity can't be expressed as m/2s which, as every 7th grader knows, is the same as m/s2?

 
At 16 August, 2011 16:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Give up the dumbspam, goat fucker, and answer the question:

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

Tell us more about converting acceleration to velocity, Mr. Physics Illiterate.

FAIL

 
At 16 August, 2011 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 August, 2011 18:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your question is irrelevant to the issue. m/s2 is a velocity, not an acceleration, despite your idiotic claims.

I get the impression that in your education you were bullied by know-it-alls who were able to lure you by pseudo-socratic questioning into making a fool of yourself.

Now you're trying to take your revenge on the people you regard as the dumbest idiots on earth, and you can't even hold your own against them. How do you feel about that?

 
At 16 August, 2011 19:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not and answer, goat fucker. It's dumbspam and an evasion.

END OF DEBATE.

YOU LOSE BY DEFAULT. STONEWALLING IS NOT "DEBATE", IT'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.


Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 August, 2011 21:07, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I could cite many instances of your "irrationality" and "ignorance" and "dishonesty", but since you and your cohort would only bury it under spam there is no reason for me to do so.

See what I mean?

I had Newton's Third in nursery school before I could tie my shoes.

So you can't tie your shoes, huh?

It's not my fault that I didn't grow up with the disadvantages you did.

Yes, Brian, you obviously came from a very privileged background, being from Palo Alto and all. It's what makes the abject failure that is your life so amusing. You had every advantage you could....and you still ended up an unemployed janitor who spends every waking hour posting dumbspam all over the internet.

 
At 17 August, 2011 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I'm not going to jump through your irrelevant flaming hoops.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home