Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Another Comics Creator Pans the Big Lie

Writer Mark Sable, who had an amusing run-in with the authorities when he was discovered to be carrying comic books with terrorist characters on a round-the-world jaunt, gives a big thumbs-down to Rick Veitch's Truther book:
SABLE: I bought it, and I'm mad at myself for buying it, because I knew it was going to get me mad. I applaud Image for publishing it, because who else has the balls to do that? And they're both creators I admire: Rick Veitch and Gary Erskine. That said, it was just horrifying to me.
Following his encounter with the authorities (described in the interview):
I tweeted about it. That got me some press. There was some interest from Truthers in terms of doing this radio interview. That scared me. Right before I went on the air I started to look up the host and there was some really racist stuff there -- Obama with bones through his nose, and Zionist-occupied government stuff. I felt trapped into doing this interview, and it was really nerve-wracking. The point of all this being is that I'm familiar with the arguments the Truthers make, but they don't hold up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. You can watch five minutes of Loose Change and you have enough to pick apart all their arguments. So it bothered me that this Big Lie book came out and they're propagating this argument that's pretty demonstrably false the same way the birther argument was false. I don't think you have to be liberal to feel that way. I think most thinking people agree about that. Beyond that, if you look in the back of the book it has the wall of 9/11 with all the names on it. There are names of people I know. That felt horribly exploitative. If you actually read the book, they keep hinting that Steven Spielberg is involved. I'm sure it's not what the creators intended, but somehow all these conspiracies come back to the Jews: that the Jews were warned not to be in the World Trade Center that day. I'm sure that's not what they mean, but just talking about a filmmaker named Steven, that's a signal they may not have intended but that's how I'm reading it. It gets me really mad.
That's a good point about the Spielberg mentions tying the book into all the Jewish conspiracy theories. Hat Tip: Four Color Media Monitor

188 Comments:

At 19 October, 2011 00:02, Blogger Mads said...

Jet Fuel: http://xkcd.com/966/

 
At 19 October, 2011 09:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

So where does "The Big Lie" imply that Spielberg was involved in 9/11?

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:44, Blogger Pat said...

Pages 4 and 5 outlines "Stephen's" requirements for his new film, including:

1. Filming in Iraq
2. Real skyscraper collapse

The employees of Risk Management International all express befuddlement as to why Stephen would have those requirements.

 
At 19 October, 2011 14:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian probably thinks that George Lucas had something to do with the Tuskegee Airmen during WWII:

watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw

I gotta see this movie in 2012.

 
At 19 October, 2011 15:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

And how does filming in Iraq and a real skyscraper collapse indicate Spielberg's complicity in the attacks?

 
At 19 October, 2011 15:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pages 4 and 5 outlines "Stephen's" requirements for his new film, including: ...-Pat Researcher

So when you refer to them as 'Spielberg mentions' in your post, you're actually lying? Does Spielberg get mentioned by name or not? Are you lying AGAIN, Pat?

 
At 19 October, 2011 15:30, Blogger Ian said...

And how does filming in Iraq and a real skyscraper collapse indicate Spielberg's complicity in the attacks?

C'mon, Brian, you're not this dumb.

All racists and anti-semites needs to leave open the possibility of denying what they're saying, that's why there's only innuendo that the evil blood-drinking Hollywood Jew had something to do with the attacks.

Even Kevin Barrett doesn't say "Jews" when ranting about how much he hates Jews. He says "Zionists", as do most Jew-baiters, so they can deny that they hate Jews.

You play this game too. You clearly believe in magic thermite elves, yet when we ask what you think happened on 9/11, you just say "I don't know what happened, but we need a new investigation>"

 
At 19 October, 2011 16:43, Blogger Pat said...

Oh for chrissakes, stop pretending it isn't 100% intended to be Spielberg. From Page 5: "He and his buddy Lucas wrote the book on computer generated special effects."

No doubt referring to Lucas Rudkowski, right?

I am amused though that a movement that assigns key significance to one three-word phrase (new Pearl Harbor) in a 70+ page document, suddenly can't see any intent to inculpate Spielberg in that comic.

 
At 19 October, 2011 17:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're changing the subject, Pat. You're talking about "Does the comic refer to Spielberg." The question was about where the comic implies that Spielberg was involved in 9/11.

 
At 19 October, 2011 17:18, Blogger Pat said...

Cui bono, Brian. Spielberg got the two tough things needed for his new movie.

 
At 19 October, 2011 21:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Having your screenplay scenario scooped by reality is hardly a benefit. It would kill the movie.

 
At 20 October, 2011 08:33, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"...intended to be Spielberg"
-Pat Accuracy

So you admit you ARE lying when you call them 'Spielberg mentions' (your words)?

Why should anyone take you seriously again?

 
At 20 October, 2011 09:05, Blogger Max said...

hey cowardly - what's it feel like to be lower than brian good on the food chain?

fucking moron...

 
At 20 October, 2011 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

JERFers' idea of clever is pathetic.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The question was about where the comic implies that Spielberg was involved in 9/11.

Snug -- what do you do?

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

I do a lot of stuff. Who wants to know and why?

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I do a lot of stuff. Who wants to know and why?

Was I referring to you?

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

All Spielberg does is movies. On 9/11 10 yrs. ago he probably was making a movie at the time.

What's next for Brian? Is he gonna try to pin Bruce Wayne in the involvement of 9/11??

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

'Spielberg mentions'

The comic doesn't mention Spielberg, rather Spielberg is mentioning something about the comic.

How fucking stupid do you have to be not to read: "Spielberg mentions"?

Here's a sentence with those words:

"Spielberg mentions that he's going to make another movie. Spielberg mentioned something about the comic book."

 
At 20 October, 2011 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

How dumb? Well about as dumb as you, I guess. "The Spielberg mentions" is a noun, dumbass. You're reading "mentions" as a verb.

Maybe with all this free time you've got you should study for your GED so you can go to junior college.

 
At 20 October, 2011 11:22, Blogger Ian said...

How dumb? Well about as dumb as you, I guess. "The Spielberg mentions" is a noun, dumbass. You're reading "mentions" as a verb.

Maybe with all this free time you've got you should study for your GED so you can go to junior college.


Poor Brian. He's had a rough week, what with the revelations that he ran squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Craig Ranke.

Brian, why don't you babble about PNAC and East Timor some more? That was one of your classic bits of lunacy.

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

How dumb? Well about as dumb as you, I guess. "The Spielberg mentions" is a noun, dumbass. You're reading "mentions" as a verb.

Did I MENTION how Craig Ranke kicked your ass over an email debate with him? Yes I did!

I used the word "mention" in a sentence dumbass. Too bad you can't read!

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Craig Ranke literally kicks Brian Good's ass in an email debate:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1092

Brian naturally withdraws from the debate.

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian claims to have "pwned" Craig Ranke, just take a look:

http://s3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t1094.htm

 
At 20 October, 2011 13:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Spielberg mentions tying the book into all the Jewish conspiracy theories."

Doesn't look like Spielberg was involved in 9/11 after all.

Brian and his sock puppet "Pat Cowardly" quote mined the fuck outta that statement and titty twisted it.

 
At 20 October, 2011 13:57, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Good thing we have Chewy to interpret Pat's stupidity for us. Where would we be without him?

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have pwned Skanky Ranke every time we've debated. I did not flee from debate. I wanted time to promote the event. Ranke wanted it to be furtive.

The issue remains--nobody can show where the comic says Spielberg was involved in 9/11.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's good thing that we have the goat fucker and The ArseHooligan to give us their twisted, lying version of Pat's OP.

Too bad that neither one of you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader. But I guess that's the way it goes when you're in the final stages of tertiary syphilis.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ah yes, when confronted with the truth that Brian backed down with a debate with Craig Ranke he bounces back and forth from one topic to another on SLC.

What a chickenshit!

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

nobody can show where the comic says Spielberg was involved in 9/11

No where does it implicate Spielberg with 9/11.

What a maroon!

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

But Pat said it did. Maybe if you guys would practice reading more you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.

 
At 20 October, 2011 15:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

But here's Veitch himself admitting to Spielberg connections as far back as 1979. Obviously we are being LIED to.

 
At 20 October, 2011 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Maybe if you guys would practice reading more you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11."

On the contrary, numb nuts. Perhaps if you'd practice telling the truth (to say nothing of learning how to read) you'd have a clue.

There's not a snowball's chance in Hell, however, of that ever happening.

 
At 20 October, 2011 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat said the comic implicated Spielberg in 9/11. It seems that nobody here is competent to address the issue.

 
At 20 October, 2011 18:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...that's a signal they may not have intended but that's how I'm reading it." -- Pat

He has a right to his opinion.

Like I said, goat fucker: You can't read. So don't lecture anyone about competence.

 
At 20 October, 2011 22:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

No one disputes that Pat has a right to his opinion. But some of us like to stay in the realm of the factual, in the realm of scientific and journalistic reality.

 
At 20 October, 2011 22:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...But some of us like to stay in the realm of the factual, in the realm of scientific and journalistic reality."

Really? You could have fooled me.

 
At 20 October, 2011 22:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fooling you is nothing to brag about.

 
At 20 October, 2011 22:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? Your idiotic conspiracy propaganda certainly doesn't fool me.

 
At 20 October, 2011 23:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

You fool yourself.

 
At 20 October, 2011 23:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You don't say? If that's the case, you've consistently failed to prove it.

 
At 20 October, 2011 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've proved it again and again and again with your ignorant claims, such as your bogosity about RJ Lee and the microspheres, your stupid claims about NIST annealing studies, and your nonsense about 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized.

 
At 21 October, 2011 00:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 October, 2011 00:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No kidding? The record, however, proves that you've done nothing of the sort. The truth, as always, is in diametric opposition to your specious assertions. For example, the only thing you've managed to prove is your willingness to lie with abandon, spew logical fallacies, refuse to answer legitimate questions, misrepresent the historical record, lie about your alleged understanding of the physical sciences, misrepresent your opponent's argument, insist that pseudo-science is "science," quote mine experts who are hostile to the 9/11 "truth" movement, lie about the RJ Lee Report, deny the veracity of the evidence presented against you when you're confronted with questions or remarks about your longstanding and well-documented history of anti-social behavior, hijack threads and, above all, accuse others of the crimes you commit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of Goat Fuckerian folly. Maybe that's why no one believes a word you've written and you're the subject of constant ridicule.

Nah, it must be your [cough] magnetic personality.

 
At 21 October, 2011 00:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pfft. How's that COBOL thing working out for you, genius?

 
At 21 October, 2011 00:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't program in COBOL, cretin. COBOL is for washed up old hippies like you, "Petgoat." I program in modern languages like C, C++, Perl, Python, expect, etc.

Face it, you're SLC's wind up toy and we kick you around for amusement.

 
At 21 October, 2011 06:56, Blogger Ian said...

No one disputes that Pat has a right to his opinion. But some of us like to stay in the realm of the factual, in the realm of scientific and journalistic reality.

So you're going to stop babbling about thermite, I assume?

I've proved it again and again and again with your ignorant claims, such as your bogosity about RJ Lee and the microspheres, your stupid claims about NIST annealing studies, and your nonsense about 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized.

Brian, the only thing you've proved is that everything Carol Brouillet and Craig Ranke and Kevin Barrett say about you is true.

So, since we're not talking about Steven Spielberg anymore, let's talk about something else.

Have the widows' questions been answered yet? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 21 October, 2011 08:52, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Actually, it's proven daily on this site that Pat's shoddy research skills, willful ignorance, and outright lies are cheer-led by sniggering asses who make fools of themselves. Any lurker can see this. The more you respond, the clearer it is.

Thanks for the forum, PATricide! Maybe you and James can re-join the discussion and answer some questions when you're done taking that dump on Hugh's good name.

 
At 21 October, 2011 11:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But Pat said it did.

Brian, stop taking what Pat said out of context. You're making yourself look like a total douche.

 
At 21 October, 2011 11:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Pat said the comic implicated Spielberg in 9/11.

Pat said no such thing, stop quote-mining Brian.

It seems that nobody here is competent to address the issue.

So, in other words you're calling yourself incompetent too?

 
At 21 October, 2011 11:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 October, 2011 11:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I rest my case.

Say something again, Chewy! Tell us why you got banned from JREF. Tell us why Sunder said any free-fall time would be impossible if a building has structural elements. Make Pat and James look like cowards again, avoiding the hard questions. Can you name a building that doesn't have structural elements,other than Pat's lowly tract home in Arizona? Impress GB with your mastery of the facts again.

 
At 21 October, 2011 12:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Tell us why Sunder said any free-fall time would be impossible if a building has structural elements.

Structural resistence = No free fall.

Can you name a building that doesn't have structural elements...

There isn't any building in the world that could be compared to WTC1, 2 & 7. Any attempt to do so would be futile, but you already knew that.

Impress GB with your mastery of the facts again.

Impress me by sucking up to Pat, James, GB & me again, it's hilarious watching you squeal & squirm.

 
At 21 October, 2011 12:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I rest my case."

When did you make a case? All I see are 100% fact-free assertions and the same tired, old long ago debunked non sequiturs that are SOP for the self-appointed 9/11 "truth" movement.

"...Tell us why Sunder said any free-fall time would be impossible if a building has structural elements."

See what I mean?

It's nice to know that some things never change, ArseHooligan. After all, you're still a liar and an idiot.

So have you patented your special brand of stupid?

And remember, I'm just asking questions...

 
At 21 October, 2011 13:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I know you don't program in COBOL The point is, you might as well be a COBOL programmer.

Ian, thermite is in the realm of reality. Jonathan Cole has showed that two pounds of the stuff can cut vertical surfaces and sever an I-beam in ten seconds.

Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke are liars.

WAQo, I did not take Pat out of context. He explains his belief that if Spielberg ordered filming in Iraq and wanted a skyscraper collapse that would somehow show that Spielberg was involved in 9/11. He then said that he considered that the attacks would thus be benefits to Spielberg.

UtterFail, you do know that Sunder said any free-fall time would be impossible if a building has structural elements, don't you? And you do know that NIST's final report admits the building fell for 2.25 seconds of freefall?

 
At 21 October, 2011 14:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I know you don't program in COBOL The point is, you might as well be a COBOL programmer."

How would you know, goat fucker? After all, you know as much about software engineering as you know about everything else: Nothing.

"...you do know that Sunder said any free-fall time would be impossible if a building has structural elements, don't you? And you do know that NIST's final report admits the building fell for 2.25 seconds of freefall?"

I know precisely what the NIST Report says, goat fucker. I also know that you're a shameless liar. Do you honestly believe that if you quote mine the experts who are hostile to the 9/11 "truth" movement that your specious argument is somehow validated?

FAIL.

 
At 21 October, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know you're not a COBOL programmer because you have said so more than once.


You live in a very simple world. You believe what you want to believe and you discard what you don't want to believe.

You believe Shyam Sunder always-- except when he says something you don't want to believe.

You never believe Kevin Barrett--except when he says something you want to believe.

The hypocrisy you are trying so desperately to project on me is your own.

 
At 21 October, 2011 15:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, thermite is in the realm of reality. Jonathan Cole has showed that two pounds of the stuff can cut vertical surfaces and sever an I-beam in ten seconds.

That's nice, Brian. Now all you need is some evidence that thermite is what brought the WTC down. You have lots of evidence of that, right?

Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke are liars.

You're a liar as well. I don't care to get involved in truther civil wars, I'll only say that pretty much everyone who knows you says the same thing about you, and it ain't a flattering portrait they paint.

 
At 21 October, 2011 15:27, Blogger Ian said...

You live in a very simple world. You believe what you want to believe and you discard what you don't want to believe.

This is a very apt description of yourself, Brian. Good job.

Oh wait, you were talking about someone else.

You believe Shyam Sunder always-- except when he says something you don't want to believe.

Yes, we believe him. What we don't believe is the lies a failed janitor like you says about him.

You never believe Kevin Barrett--except when he says something you want to believe.

What the hell are you talking about?

The hypocrisy you are trying so desperately to project on me is your own.

Trying to throw one's own faults onto another is such a bushbot tactic, Brian.

 
At 21 October, 2011 15:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is evidence that thermite contributed to bringing the towers down--and that is the otherwise scientifically inexplicable presence of molten steel in the rubble, as testified to by an FDNY Captain, 4 PhDs, an independent journalist, and one of the WTC design engineers.

Ian your implication that you have polled the truth movement for information about me is a lie. You have made clear your position: You believe my ideas are "dangerous and evil" and you think lying to try to obstruct them is the right thing to do.

 
At 21 October, 2011 15:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is evidence that thermite contributed to bringing the towers down--and that is the otherwise scientifically inexplicable presence of molten steel in the rubble, as testified to by an FDNY Captain, 4 PhDs, an independent journalist, and one of the WTC design engineers.

Thanks for proving my point. You have no evidence.

At least you didn't babble about the "baffling" aspects of the collapse, such as speed, totality, symmetry, and the pulverization of concrete this time.

Ian your implication that you have polled the truth movement for information about me is a lie. You have made clear your position: You believe my ideas are "dangerous and evil" and you think lying to try to obstruct them is the right thing to do.

I'm not obstructing anything. I'm laughing at you. And yes, the idea that you have are dangerous and evil. You wish to exonerate those guilty of an act of mass murder and instead place the blame on those who had nothing to do with it, and all because of a political grudge.

Fortunately, you're ignored by everyone who might take you seriously.

 
At 21 October, 2011 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian you lie very stupidly. Eyewitness evidence is evidence. Obviously you are on some kind of holy crusade, you have no interest in truth, and you think lying is justified. You're wasting everybody's time, including your own.

I'm not exonerating anybody. I want the government to give us official reports that can be believed. You're too cynical whether the reports can be believed or not--and that makes you an enemy of democracy.

 
At 21 October, 2011 16:09, Blogger Ian said...

Ian you lie very stupidly. Eyewitness evidence is evidence. Obviously you are on some kind of holy crusade, you have no interest in truth, and you think lying is justified. You're wasting everybody's time, including your own.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, all he can do is babble once he's been pwn3d. He has no evidence, he knows he has no evidence, and this frustrates him to no end.

I want the government to give us official reports that can be believed.

They already did. Nobody cares if you believe them or not because you're an ignorant lunatic.

You're too cynical whether the reports can be believed or not--and that makes you an enemy of democracy.

"Enemy of democracy". When someone says something you don't like, accuse them of hating America and freedom. You're such a good little Bushbot.

 
At 21 October, 2011 16:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the official reports can not be believed. The 9/11 Commission allowed NORAD to lie to them, and then just basically made stuff up to try to have some kind of narrative.
They failed to investigate the financial networks of the alleged hijackers, and did not go into the Saudi connections that were presumably the subject of the 28 page redaction of the Congressional report.

The NIST report cut off its analysis at the moment of collapse initiation and this failed to deal with all the baffling mysteries of the buildings' demise.

It's not a question of saying something I don't like. You want us to abandon all pretense of government accountability. That is inherently antidemocratic.

 
At 22 October, 2011 05:01, Blogger JSPoopcrap said...

I've read plenty of entries on this blog and they all either:
1. Say absolutely nothing
2. Make fun of people or accuse them of being crazy or antisemitic
or,
3. Are complete lies.

Great site guys!

 
At 22 October, 2011 07:51, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the official reports can not be believed.

Right, by you, because you're a lunatic failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

They failed to investigate the financial networks of the alleged hijackers, and did not go into the Saudi connections that were presumably the subject of the 28 page redaction of the Congressional report.

Wait, so now al Qaeda did it? What happened to the thermite planted by agents of the Bush administration?

The NIST report cut off its analysis at the moment of collapse initiation and this failed to deal with all the baffling mysteries of the buildings' demise.

There are no "baffling mysteries" of the collapse. You might think there are, but that's because you're an ignorant failed janitor and paranoid lunatic. Normal people don't find what happened on 9/11 strange.

It's not a question of saying something I don't like. You want us to abandon all pretense of government accountability. That is inherently antidemocratic.

False. I want government accountability. What I don't want is the government wasting time on something it already investigated in great depth because an unemployed janitor in women's underwear demands it.

Nobody cares what you think or what you want, Brian. You're just a crazy old man who will be ignored by anyone who doesn't want to use you as a source of amusement.

 
At 22 October, 2011 08:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, 1600 architects and engineers find many aspects of the collapses baffling--among them 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, and 42 PhD engineers.

Yhe issues of the Saudi connections, Behrooz Sarshar's warnings, the financing of the al Qaeda operatives, the non-actions of the NSA, and the baffling features of the collapses have not been "investigated in great depth". You lie.

 
At 22 October, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian, 1600 architects and engineers find many aspects of the collapses baffling--among them 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, and 42 PhD engineers.

Someone on JREF counted only 13 people from A&E for 9/11 Truth were architects & engineers.

You lie too much Brian, it's getting you into more trouble than you think.

 
At 22 October, 2011 09:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I did not take Pat out of context.

Yes you did liar.

He then said that he considered that the attacks would thus be benefits to Spielberg.

He said no such thing. He only MENTIONS Spielberg dumbass.

 
At 22 October, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thanks to NIST we have more firefighting preventions in place in high rise buildings.

But of course Brian doesn't think that fire exist.

 
At 22 October, 2011 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if someone at JREF counted 13 it must have been when AE911Truth just started. There are 50 structural engineers and 40 high-rise architects today.

Pat implied, when he said "cui bono", that in the context of the comic Spielberg was involved in 9/11. Here's a hint: when you don't understand what a word means, try looking it up. Then maybe your vocabulary will grow beyond the 4th grade level.

 
At 22 October, 2011 12:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

For your amusement:

Joshua Blakeney Speaks With the Media at the Arrest Bush Protest in Surrey, British Columbia

 
At 22 October, 2011 15:43, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

My quick browse of the AE911 list found only two Ph.D. structural engineers:

Dr. Robert T. Mote, PhD, Structural Engineer
Lic: APEGGA
B.Eng (Hons)
Calgary, AB – CAN

Jorge Eduardo Huyer, Engeneering Consultant
Lic: CREA PR 20329 D
Structural Doctor
Toledo, Paraná – Brasil

Are there any more than this?

Of the two, only Mote made a personal statement. His suspicions are apparently based on nothing more than a hunch:

"By observation, I could never understand the 'convenient' vertical collapse at the base due to an extreme event at height. I was most concerned by the third tower collapse, totally unrelated! Why didn't other buildings fall? I have watched the documentaries and agree many questions remain unanswered."

No wonder the truthers can't get anything into respectable structural engineering journals.

 
At 22 October, 2011 18:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mike, it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world. Even an academic dare not speak his or her mind for fear of resentment from colleagues about lost funding or lost contracts.

Last time I checked there were 46 PhD engineers in the group.

The issues are not complex. The stress diagram of an asymmetrically loaded structure is engineering 101. Asymmetrical stresses can not cause symmetrical collapse. The shortcuts, the dodges, dishonesty, and the dry-labbing and reverse-engineering are obvious to anyone who understands the scientific method. It ain't rocket science.

In fact, my experience with highly educated people is that they are highly skilled at inventing very ingenious rationalizations for what they want to believe.

 
At 22 October, 2011 19:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, 1600 architects and engineers find many aspects of the collapses baffling--among them 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, and 42 PhD engineers.

Nobody cares.

WAQo, if someone at JREF counted 13 it must have been when AE911Truth just started. There are 50 structural engineers and 40 high-rise architects today.

Nobody cares.

Mike, it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world.

Yes, because it shows that said person can't think logically and doesn't appear to understand many engineering concepts.

Last time I checked there were 46 PhD engineers in the group.

Nobody cares.

Asymmetrical stresses can not cause symmetrical collapse.

Who said there was a symmetrical collapse?

The shortcuts, the dodges, dishonesty, and the dry-labbing and reverse-engineering are obvious to anyone who understands the scientific method. It ain't rocket science.

Brian, you don't know the first thing about the scientific method. That's why you're a failed janitor and not a scientist.

 
At 22 October, 2011 19:37, Blogger Ian said...

In fact, my experience with highly educated people is that they are highly skilled at inventing very ingenious rationalizations for what they want to believe.

Don't you love it when Brian squeals over the fact that intelligent and educated people won't let him be part of their club?

Brian thinks himself a genius. The rest of the world thinks him a burnt-out paranoid lunatic ignoramus. Naturally, Brian thinks the rest of the world is wrong and he's right. That's why he told Democratic Underground that his "meatball on a fork" scribbles would one day appear in a journal of engineering.

Hey, remember when Carol Brouillet called you delusional?

 
At 22 October, 2011 20:04, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug writes: "Mike, it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world. Even an academic dare not speak his or her mind for fear of resentment from colleagues about lost funding or lost contracts."

All pseudoscientists use some form of that excuse.

In your case, it's to explain away the near non-existence of structural engineering PhDs in Gage's gaggle. It doesn't bother you a bit that so few (only 2?) in the group have the highest degree in the most relevant field.


"The issues are not complex. The stress diagram of an asymmetrically loaded structure is engineering 101."

Then you'll have no trouble doing the relevant calculations and arguments and submitting your work to, for example, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Helpful hint: Analogies involving rakes, meatballs, or forks will probably not make it past the reviewers.

"In fact, my experience with highly educated people is that they are highly skilled at inventing very ingenious rationalizations for what they want to believe."

I actually agree with you on that point. For example, some educated people convince themselves that the towers were taken down by mini-nukes or directed-energy beams or, most implausibly of all, by a crack squad of elevator-shaft-scaling, security-evading, inexplicably mass-homicidal thermite ninjas. And contrary to your above implication, it's not only educated people who are good at inventing rationalizations for their silly delusions. You do exactly the same thing.

 
At 22 October, 2011 21:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I think Brian is an example of Mercury poisoning.

 
At 23 October, 2011 08:49, Blogger Ian said...

OT, but a large earthquake hit eastern Turkey, near the Iranian border.

I dunno, someone at the top of the NWO needs to be held accountable for the incorrect calibration of the HAARP earthquake generators. We tried to hit North Korea, but missed and hit Japan. We tried to hit Cuba but missed and hit Haiti. Now we tried to hit Iran and struck Turkey. It's completely unacceptable!

 
At 23 October, 2011 09:39, Blogger John said...

We tried to hit North Korea, but missed and hit Japan. We tried to hit Cuba but missed and hit Haiti. Now we tried to hit Iran and struck Turkey. It's completely unacceptable!

These are just preludes. The real attack is coming.

You know, just like 9/11 was a prelude and the real attack by the NWO is coming. And that the PATRIOT act was a prelude and the real bill that will turn the US into a police state is coming.

No, really! It should be any day now...

 
At 23 October, 2011 09:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In fact, my experience with highly educated people is that they are highly skilled at inventing very ingenious rationalizations for what they want to believe.

True. Point #25 sums it up well. Troofers of all backgrounds suffer from similar cognitive defects; educated troofers are just write better rationalizations.

 
At 23 October, 2011 10:05, Blogger Ian said...

True. Point #25 sums it up well. Troofers of all backgrounds suffer from similar cognitive defects; educated troofers are just write better rationalizations.

Wow, looking at the points in that link, we can see "truthers" falling into the trap of just about every one of them.

 
At 23 October, 2011 10:06, Blogger John said...

Dr. Robert T. Mote, PhD, Structural Engineer

Here is Robert Mote's blog:

http://motagg.wordpress.com/

Strange - absolutely nothing on the site about 9/11.

 
At 23 October, 2011 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never told anybody that any scribbles would appear in an engineering journal. Your persistent invention of facts is contrary to the scientific method.

Carol Brouillet's claim was based on ascribing to me beliefs that I did not hold--a form of argument that only works on fools such as yourself.

Mike, yes it bothers me that so few PhD structural engineers have the courage to speak out about the obvious shortcomings of the official reports. It also bothers me that none of them has the courage to come forward and endorse the NIST report. Can you name one PhD structural engineer who has endorsed the collapse findings of the NIST report and has no connections to NIST?

Until the engineering community has the courage to address the issues, I will continue to call for them to investigate the issues.

An analogy involving a non-existent piledriver got past the engineering journal. And it was a self-defeating analogy! A piledriver can not sink a piling into the ground in one blow. It hits, it gives its energy up to the piling, it stops, and it must be raised to strike again. Much added energy must be put in the system for the piledriver to sink a piling.

Two rakes actually model far better than the piledriver the interaction between the
top block and the lower structure, because they show how the elements are out of registration and frictional forces absorb energy--and the piledriver model unrealistically assumes perfect registration between the elements.

Your exaggeration of the difficulties of planting charges in the towers' elevator shaft is typical debunker irrationality. Mockery is not an argument. Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could have brought the towers down. Standing on top of an elevator car one could easily place charges on or in the core columns at any level desired.

RGT, if you wish to claim that truthers suffer from cognitive defects, it would be more scientific of you if you would cite some examples.

It would also be more scientific if you recognize that Popular Mechanics's tactic of implying that debunking a couple of loony conspiracy theories somehow disposes of all the outstanding issues is dishonest and irrational.

 
At 23 October, 2011 12:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never told anybody that any scribbles would appear in an engineering journal. Your persistent invention of facts is contrary to the scientific method.

False. You told Democratic Underground that someday they would see drawings like yours in a scientific journal. They all laughed at you, and you started squealing. The only thing you didn't do was call them "girls".

Carol Brouillet's claim was based on ascribing to me beliefs that I did not hold--a form of argument that only works on fools such as yourself.

Poor Brian. This is the best he can do in his pathetic attempt to deny stalking Carol Brouillet.

Mike, yes it bothers me that so few PhD structural engineers have the courage to speak out about the obvious shortcomings of the official reports.

"Obvious" shortcomings. Hey, if a failed janitor and liar and lunatic like you says its "obvious", who are a bunch of engineering PhDs to disagree? You obviously know what you're talking about.

Can you name one PhD structural engineer who has endorsed the collapse findings of the NIST report and has no connections to NIST?

Brian, can you name one astronomer who has publicly denied the existence of Russell's Teapot?

 
At 23 October, 2011 12:16, Blogger Ian said...

Until the engineering community has the courage to address the issues, I will continue to call for them to investigate the issues.

And nobody will care. After all, you're a failed janitor who knows absolutely nothing about engineering.

An analogy involving a non-existent piledriver got past the engineering journal. And it was a self-defeating analogy! A piledriver can not sink a piling into the ground in one blow. It hits, it gives its energy up to the piling, it stops, and it must be raised to strike again. Much added energy must be put in the system for the piledriver to sink a piling.

See what I mean?

Two rakes actually model far better than the piledriver the interaction between the
top block and the lower structure, because they show how the elements are out of registration and frictional forces absorb energy--and the piledriver model unrealistically assumes perfect registration between the elements.


See what I mean?

 
At 23 October, 2011 12:19, Blogger Ian said...

Your exaggeration of the difficulties of planting charges in the towers' elevator shaft is typical debunker irrationality. Mockery is not an argument. Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could have brought the towers down. Standing on top of an elevator car one could easily place charges on or in the core columns at any level desired.

And you have lots of evidence that explosive charges were planted in the elevator shafts, right Brian?

It would also be more scientific if you recognize that Popular Mechanics's tactic of implying that debunking a couple of loony conspiracy theories somehow disposes of all the outstanding issues is dishonest and irrational.

Brian, there are no outstanding issues. You only think there are because you're a delusional failed janitor and liar who knows nothing about engineering or physics or science whatsoever.

 
At 23 October, 2011 12:53, Blogger J Rebori said...

By Brian's own statement, there are 90 structural engineers in AE911, counting the 50 non-PhDs.

Structural Engineering Institute is "a vibrant community of more than 20,000 structural engineers within the American Society of Civil Engineers."

http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/profile.html

Rounding down for convenience sake, let’s say an even 20,000 structural engineers.

That 90 in AE911 therefore is a meager .45% (point four five). Using the logical rule "qui tacet consentire videtur ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", we can assume the other 99.55% agree with the official ruling. Unless of course Brian wishes to argue the obvious inanity that over 99% of structural engineers have ties to the US government and/or are afraid to speak out about "obvious shortcomings".

Of course, the logic, rational mind decides that the obvious rule to apply is that in any large collection of humans there is a small insignificant number of individuals with irrational positions and beliefs. If they are engineers, apparently they join AE911.

 
At 23 October, 2011 14:26, Blogger Ian said...

Unless of course Brian wishes to argue the obvious inanity that over 99% of structural engineers have ties to the US government and/or are afraid to speak out about "obvious shortcomings".

That's exactly what he tries to argue, which is why he always asks for a list of "independent" engineers who have endorsed the NIST report.

Of course, I've asked him for a list of physicists who have endorsed the law of gravity or astronomers who have denied the existence of Russell's Teapot, and he's never come up with any.

I guess Brian doesn't believe in gravity and thinks a teapot is orbiting the sun out past Mars.

 
At 23 October, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the reason it's a good idea to provide evidence to support your claims is that then we can talk about the evidence instead of me pointing out that you're a liar and you responding that I'm a liar--which is a waste of everyone's time. If you provide your evidence I will show you exactly how you are mistaken and then you can apologize and I don't have to call you a liar.

For you to compare expressing support for the NIST report with denying Russell's teapot makes no sense at all and only shows the loopy logic under which you operate.

We have been over the evidence for explosives dozens of times. You don't refute it, you can't refute it, and all you can do is lie and deny that it exists.

We have been over the outstanding issues dozens of times. NIST doesn't explain them, you can't explain, and all you can do is lie and claim they don't exist.

JR, I never said there were 90 structural engineers in the AE911 group. Your statistical argument loses all force when I point out that you can not name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one.

Polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible. That would be 36 million adults. And yet only 18,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's 2000 non-signers per signer.

Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible. Our number of 50 thus represents quite a significant statistic, especially given the great reluctance of professional engineers to associate with anything controversial. Actually,
the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens, and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible.

Before the 2005 NIST report, you would have claimed that your 20,000 structural engineers all believed FEMA's silly zipper/pancake theory despite its obvious shortcomings. When NIST rejected the zipper/pancake, nobody could be found to defend it. This suggests not a robust scientific consensus, but a fearful reluctance to defy authority.

Ian, it's obvious that you get your talking point from some propaganda website and that you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 23 October, 2011 15:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, if someone at JREF counted 13 it must have been when AE911Truth just started.

Actually it was just recent, like last month.

I know it's hard for you to do your own research Brian but I know the truth & you don't.

 
At 23 October, 2011 15:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Pat implied, when he said "cui bono", that in the context of the comic Spielberg was involved in 9/11. Here's a hint: when you don't understand what a word means, try looking it up. Then maybe your vocabulary will grow beyond the 4th grade level.

Squeal all you like you paranoid jackass.

 
At 23 October, 2011 15:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I said this in another thread:

Yup, when challenged to a debate Brian (the no) Good (coward) backs down from it.

He backed down from debates with Kevin Barrett, Willie Rodriguez & Craig Ranke. That leaves him in the postiion of being a chickenshit.

I challenge Brian to a debate about 9/11


Is Brian up to this challenge or is he gonna chicken out like he did 3 other times before?

I'm waiting Brian!

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:33, Blogger Ian said...

If you provide your evidence I will show you exactly how you are mistaken and then you can apologize and I don't have to call you a liar.

What evidence are you talking about? You're the one making extraordinary claims about 9/11, I'm not, so you're the one who need to provide evidence for those claims.

For you to compare expressing support for the NIST report with denying Russell's teapot makes no sense at all and only shows the loopy logic under which you operate.

Well, it makes no sense to you because you're a failed janitor and lunatic. It makes perfect sense to normal people.

We have been over the outstanding issues dozens of times. NIST doesn't explain them, you can't explain, and all you can do is lie and claim they don't exist.

So it's explosives and not thermite now?

Well, regardless, there is no evidence for explosives or thermite. Sorry. Squealing about it doesn't change anything.

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:35, Blogger Ian said...

We have been over the outstanding issues dozens of times. NIST doesn't explain them, you can't explain, and all you can do is lie and claim they don't exist.

There are no outstanding issues. Sorry. Squealing about it doesn't change that.

The important thing is that you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and will continue to be an object of ridicule for people like me.

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

JR, I never said there were 90 structural engineers in the AE911 group. Your statistical argument loses all force when I point out that you can not name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one.

You can't name even ONE physicist who endorses gravity or one astronomer who says Russell's Teapot does not exist. Not one.

Polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible. That would be 36 million adults. And yet only 18,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's 2000 non-signers per signer.

Right Brian, but perhaps those "non-signers" aren't architects or engineers? I mean, I know one doesn't have to actually be an architect or engineer to join Gage's idiotic group, but still.

Polls show 50% of Americans believe in creationism. How many biologists do you think believe in creationism? I guess a lot fewer, since they actually understand the issue.

So since architects and engineers actually actually understand what happened on 9/11, they won't sign the petition. Only failed janitors and delusional liars who wear women's underwear like you will sign.

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:42, Blogger Ian said...

Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible. Our number of 50 thus represents quite a significant statistic, especially given the great reluctance of professional engineers to associate with anything controversial. Actually,
the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens, and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible.


Well, we can add statistics to the ever growing list of things Brian doesn't understand in the least. Of course, that doesn't stop him from babbling about it, which is great entertainment.

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, there are 1627 credentialed architectural and engineering professionals at AE911Truth, so whoever at JREF said there were only 13 is lying. And you, in uncritically repeating misinformation you have clearly not bothered to check, are also lying. I don't debate liars. It's a waste of time, and only gives them the opportunity to lie about the debate.

Ian, I am not making any extraordinary claims about 9/11. For instance, the claim that 118 first responders reported sounds of explosions or flashes of light is not an extraordinary claim--it's a fact.

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:45, Blogger Ian said...

Before the 2005 NIST report, you would have claimed that your 20,000 structural engineers all believed FEMA's silly zipper/pancake theory despite its obvious shortcomings. When NIST rejected the zipper/pancake, nobody could be found to defend it. This suggests not a robust scientific consensus, but a fearful reluctance to defy authority.

Brian, nobody cares what you think about NIST's findings. You're an unemployed failed janitor and lunatic who believes in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.

Ian, it's obvious that you get your talking point from some propaganda website and that you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh yeah, Brian also squeals and squeals and squeals when he's been pwn3d.

Brian, did you squeal like this when Willie Rodriguez rejected your romantic overtures? Did you squeal like this when Wikipedia banned you for vandalizing the pages of Chinese gymnasts? How about when Richard Gage threw you out of AE911Truth for stalking Carol Brouillet?

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:48, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, there are 1627 credentialed architectural and engineering professionals at AE911Truth, so whoever at JREF said there were only 13 is lying. And you, in uncritically repeating misinformation you have clearly not bothered to check, are also lying. I don't debate liars. It's a waste of time, and only gives them the opportunity to lie about the debate.

Well, we can add WAQ to the list of people Brian ran away from squealing and crying rather than agreeing to debate.

Ian, I am not making any extraordinary claims about 9/11. For instance, the claim that 118 first responders reported sounds of explosions or flashes of light is not an extraordinary claim--it's a fact.

That's nice, Brian. Who cares?

 
At 23 October, 2011 16:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

1627 people who are wrong about 9/11 is not a legitimate resource for anything but stupidity...

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:05, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, since you're done making a fool of yourself for our amusement, I have one question left:

Have the widows had their questions answered yet?

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

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, are you calling Dr. Robert Bowman and Dr. Lynn Margulis stupid? Are you calling the 46 PhD engineers at AE911truth stupid?

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:11, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, are you calling Dr. Robert Bowman and Dr. Lynn Margulis stupid? Are you calling the 46 PhD engineers at AE911truth stupid?

If they believe anything like what you believe, then yeah, they're pretty stupid.

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what you think I believe is mostly your own invention. You're so full of your own bullshit that your eyes are brown and it's seeping out your ears.

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what you think I believe is mostly your own invention. You're so full of your own bullshit that your eyes are brown and it's seeping out your ears.

My, such squealing!

Brian, if you didn't want us to think of you as a burnt-out paranoid lunatic ignoramus with severe psycho-sexual problems, you probably shouldn't spend every waking hour posting dumbspam all over the internet that give us precisely that impression.

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gentlemen, need I remind you that to "debate" with the goat fucker is to "debate" with a moron?

Think about that for a moment.

In order to debate with a moron you must lower yourself to his level at which point he defeats you with his superior level of experience.

If you'd really like to invest your time wisely, as opposed to pissing it away arguing with a moron, YOU SHOULD DEMAND THAT PAT AND JAMES LIVE UP TO THEIR BROKEN PROMISE TO REMOVE THE GOAT FUCKER'S COMMENTS WHEN HE HIJACKS A THREAD.

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:33, Blogger Ian said...

I don't want Brian's comments removed. They're hilarious. Go read what he says about extrapolating the 15% of the population that finds controlled demolition plausible to the engineering community at large and then laugh at the idiocy and illogic on display.

One just needs to have Brian let his guard down and say what he really thinks and then things get really hilarious.

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Then you should petition Pat and James to change the name of the site to "The Brian Good Thread Hijacking Blog" or my personal favorite "Morons 'R Us."

 
At 23 October, 2011 17:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, are you calling Dr. Robert Bowman and Dr. Lynn Margulis stupid? Are you calling the 46 PhD engineers at AE911truth stupid?"

No, I'm calling them stupid, butt-fucking pieces of shit.

I should have clarified that.

 
At 23 October, 2011 18:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Part People Believe Weird Things":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smart-people-believe-weir

(Brian should be able to read the entire article for free at his university's library).

Quote:"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons."

25 Reasons People Believe Weird Things: http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2008/04/28/25-reasons-people-believe-weird-things/

"5. Scientific Language Doesn’t Make It Scientific — Dressing up a belief in scientific language doesn’t make it science. This is easily seen with “creation science” and New Age pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True — L. Ron Hubbard called Dianetics “a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel and the arch.” But it wasn’t. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary well-tested the evidence must be."

"Polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible."

18% of Americans think Bigfoot is real.


Technically these two polls support eachother.

 
At 23 October, 2011 19:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

None of you can name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one.

 
At 23 October, 2011 19:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, take your straw man arguments and shove them up your ass.

 
At 23 October, 2011 19:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"None of you can name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one."

They already have names, silly.

 
At 23 October, 2011 19:57, Blogger Ian said...

None of you can name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one.

Brian, I've told you about my Uncle Steve, who teaches engineering at UCLA.

And you still haven't named one independent physicist who has endorsed the theory of gravity. Not one.

 
At 23 October, 2011 20:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am tired of trying to school you in the difference between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity. You refuse to learn.

I am also tired of trying to school you in the invalidity of unsupported anecdotes from known liars.

 
At 23 October, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I am tired of trying to school you in the difference between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity. You refuse to learn.

Brian, in what subject would I want to be taught by you? You're so stupid you couldn't mop floors correctly, which is why you're now an unemployed janitor.

I am also tired of trying to school you in the invalidity of unsupported anecdotes from known liars.

Brian, I consider everything you write to be invalid because you're a liar who wears women's underwear.

Anyway, I've pwn3d you yet again. You asked for an engineer who endorses the NIST report, I gave you one. Now all you can do is squeal about it and call us "girls".

 
At 23 October, 2011 21:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you can't even lie competently.

 
At 23 October, 2011 21:42, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you can't even lie competently.

Still no physicists who endorse the theory of gravity, huh?

Hey Brian, remember that time you accused me of posting "girly spam"? That was hilarious.

 
At 23 October, 2011 21:49, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug writes: "It also bothers me that none of them has the courage to come forward and endorse the NIST report."

Brian, can you find any PhD botanists who endorse the University of Virginia study on ozone and floral scent, or any PhD economists who endorsed the 1940s Harvard study on the economic effects of advertising? Oh, you can't? Then the studies must be bunk!

What exactly do you expect the engineers to do? Call a press conference?

Now, if some organization launched a fanatical, AE911-like nationwide drive to recruit NIST endorsers and no PhD structural engineer would sign, then you might be justified in calling attention to a lack of endorsers. But nothing like that ever happened, so you're full of sh** as usual.



Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could have brought the towers down.

Only a few? Didn't you say before that almost every structural member had to be blown up to enable "free fall"? Or was that some other truther idiot? (Sorry, it's awfully hard to remember one from another).

Nevertheless, Van Romero doesn't believe any charges were placed. And you know that. He abandoned his initial impression after more careful consideration, conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tapes. (See the Albuquerque Journal article by John Fleck.)

 
At 23 October, 2011 21:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Trying to convince Brian that US demolition workers didn't do 9/11 is as fruitless as arguing to a paranoid schizophrenic that the local high school swim team isn't really out to kill him. Although any sane person can see that the accused parties would have no reason to carry out the acts, the schizophrenic will go on believing in evil swimmers and Brian will go on believing in evil thermite ninjas controlled by demon lords Bush and Cheney. Argument has absolutely no effect, and if it does, it is only to make the nutcases cling even more tightly to their insane beliefs.

 
At 23 October, 2011 22:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mike, it's an apples-for-oranges argument compare obscure, uncontroversial, and/or well-established studies with the NIST report.

I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, appear on television specials, start blogs and websites, hold public meetings--and at least show up at Richard Gage's presentations to ask him devastating questions. They don't. Your belief that silence represents consensus is not reasonable, for the reasons I stated above before Ian started his spamalanche.

Dr. Romero was talking about the towers. Licensed structural engineers such as David Topete and Kamal Obeid say that all the columns (or at least all the core columns) have to be blown up simultaneously to make Building 7 come straight down as it did.

Dr. Romero believes a few charges could bring the towers down. That's what he said and he never recanted it. If the NIST zipper-pancake theory is correct, a very few very small charges breaking floor trusses could start a chain reaction that brought the entire tower down.

Where do you get the absurd notion that the Bush administration did not benefit from the destruction of the towers? 9/11 was the answer to Bush's prayers, and it was PNAC's dream.

 
At 23 October, 2011 22:37, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"Mike, it's an apples-for-oranges argument compare obscure, uncontroversial, and/or well-established studies with the NIST report."

You don't understand. It's unusual for scientists to "endorse" any kind of report.

"I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, "

Why?

"appear on television specials"

You can't be serious!

"David Topete and Kamal Obeid say that all the columns (or at least all the core columns) have to be blown up simultaneously to make Building 7 come straight down as it did."

Sane people can see that it's impossible to plant charges on all columns of an occupied building without detection. You're not sane, so you can't see that. Elevator shafts don't provide access to all columns.


"If the NIST zipper-pancake theory is correct, a very few very small charges breaking floor trusses could start a chain reaction that brought the entire tower down."

How would Bush/Cheney know that, prior to NIST's study?


"Where do you get the absurd notion that the Bush administration did not benefit from the destruction of the towers?"

I didn't say that. I said that the demolition workers would have no reason to blow up their fellow citizens. Sane people can understand that. Real life isn't a Die Hard movie where a bunch of nameless, conscienceless thugs mindlessly do the bidding of their masters.

 
At 23 October, 2011 22:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, there are 1627 credentialed architectural and engineering professionals at AE911Truth, so whoever at JREF said there were only 13 is lying.

I also counted 13 when I went through their whole petition. BTW Brian, 13 is a very unlucky number.

 
At 23 October, 2011 22:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't debate liars. It's a waste of time, and only gives them the opportunity to lie about the debate.

Oh really, what's your excuse why you won't debate me? Don't use the excuse "you lie" because that's not an excuse.

Are you really afraid that a person like me will expose your little scam about suing Willie Rodriguez for money because you're in debt with the IRS?

 
At 23 October, 2011 23:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I have been a designer throughout my career, mainly residential, commercial and light manufacturing facilities." - David Topete

"Consulting structural engineer specializing in building and other structures design and retrofit." - Kamal S. Obeid

Once again Brian's lying.

 
At 23 October, 2011 23:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mike, I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, and appear on television specials in order to adhere to the code of ethics of the NSPE, which requires them to "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public" and to conduct themselves "so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession."

When a substantial portion of the population suspects that an official government investigation is corrupt, that is injurious to the welfare of the public. It is incumbent upon the members of the profession to defend its reputation by clarifying the issues in dispute.

Floors 14,15,16, and 17 of WTC7 were vacant, so it wasn't at all impossible to plant charges on all the columns.

How would Bush/Cheney know how many charges would be needed? I don't know--ask an engineer, maybe?

How do you know what reasons demolition workers might have to do or not do what they do? Hit men murder their fellow citizens for a living. Sane people can understand that.

WAQo, there are 1627 credentialed architectural and engineering professionals at AE911Truth, and you don't know how to count. I don't debate liars.

 
At 23 October, 2011 23:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, David Topete and Kamal Obeid are both licensed structural engineers.

 
At 24 October, 2011 03:42, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"When a substantial portion of the population suspects that an official government investigation is corrupt"

Nobody who matters thinks the NIST team is "corrupt." It's one of your many insanely paranoid fantasies that the NIST scientists/engineers (and organizations that cooperated with them, like SG&H) would willingly cooperate in covering up a government murder of 3 thousand people.


"Floors 14,15,16, and 17 of WTC7 were vacant, so it wasn't at all impossible to plant charges on all the columns. "

NIST says floors 15-17 were occupied by Citigroup, but whether there were 1 or 4 vacant floors doesn't really matter. By truther rules, you would need to blow up all column sections over a distance of 8 floors to get 2.5s free fall. It's infeasible to plant charges on every column over 8 stories in an occupied building.

You still have security problems (no, they won't let you just waltz right in with your thermite if you're wearing an ACE Elevator uniform) and motive problems for the demolitioners (unwillingness to kill THOUSANDS of their fellow citizens) and motive problems for the government (executing a "classic controlled demolition" on an evacuated office building in broad daylight while the whole world is watching accomplishes what, exactly?).

 
At 24 October, 2011 03:43, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, and appear on television specials in order to adhere to the code of ethics of the NSPE"

Honestly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written.

 
At 24 October, 2011 06:03, Blogger John said...

I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, and appear on television specials in order to adhere to the code of ethics of the NSPE

None of you can name even ONE structural engineer independent of NIST who will say that NIST got it right. Not one.

Let's say an engineer who was independent of NIST did support their findings, and wrote an article stating so. Brian still wouldn't believe them, as he thinks they would've written that article to protect themselves and their business. For he thinks, and I'm quoting, "it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world. Even an academic dare not speak his or her mind for fear of resentment from colleagues about lost funding or lost contracts."

 
At 24 October, 2011 06:38, Blogger Ian said...

I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, appear on television specials, start blogs and websites, hold public meetings--and at least show up at Richard Gage's presentations to ask him devastating questions.

Yes, you expect this because you're an unemployed janitor and lunatic who doesn't understand how the scientific community works.

Richard Gage is an irrelevant con artist. Why would any scientist waste time with him?

 
At 24 October, 2011 06:43, Blogger Ian said...

Mike, I expect the engineers who believe in NIST's findings to write magazine articles, and appear on television specials in order to adhere to the code of ethics of the NSPE, which requires them to "Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public" and to conduct themselves "so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession."

Nobody cares what you expect, Brian. You're a liar and failed janitor who wears women's underwear and is sexually obsessed with Willie Rodriguez.

When a substantial portion of the population suspects that an official government investigation is corrupt, that is injurious to the welfare of the public. It is incumbent upon the members of the profession to defend its reputation by clarifying the issues in dispute.

Brian, you're not "a substantial portion of the population". You're a lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves.

Floors 14,15,16, and 17 of WTC7 were vacant, so it wasn't at all impossible to plant charges on all the columns.

The modified attack baboons could have been housed there as well.

WAQo, there are 1627 credentialed architectural and engineering professionals at AE911Truth, and you don't know how to count. I don't debate liars.

That's right, Brian! Run away squealing and crying from someone who would destroy you in a debate. Craig Ranke and Willie Rodriguez are laughing.

 
At 24 October, 2011 06:45, Blogger Ian said...

Honestly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written.

That's what's great about Brian. He really thinks himself a genius, instead of a lunatic ingoramus. Thus we've had so many classics of hilarious insanity from him: "meatball on a fork", "smoldering carpets", "spray-on thermite", "SAMs at the Pentagon", "the US invasion of Canada", etc. etc.

 
At 24 October, 2011 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Mike, on what basis have you concluded that Dr. Lynn Margulis, a member of the Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the National Science Medal does not matter?

Nobody who matters will defend NIST's obvious corruption. The reports are unbelievably dishonest--full of fudged syllogisms, willful blindness, political correctness, dry-labbing, circular reasoning, and secrecy.

It's not about your straw man accusation that a dishonest report amounts to them "willingly cooperat[ing] in covering up a government murder of 3 thousand people." It's about a highly compartmentalized investigation in which competent scientists did what they were told and only what they were told. It was the ones at the top who ordered them to ignore certain information, who set the tone, who lied, and who made assignments in terms of "show how fire did it" instead of "show what happened".

And when they couldn't invent a rationalization for show how fire did it (such as the character of the collapses, which according to fire engineering experts can not have resulted from fires) they just didn't show it at all. That's dishonest. A hypothesis has to explain all the phenomena.

NIST doesn't say 15--17 were occupied by anyone. It claims that Citigroup was a tenant. That's all. FEMA says the floors were vacant. NIST's dishonesty about floor 12 is blatant--they use the claim that density of combustibles was not well known as an excuse to load the floor with combistibles. They knew who the tenants were and they could have become very well informed about the combustible load had they wished to.

By NIST rules, you don't have to blow any columns at all to get freefall. According to NIST, after the perimeter columns survive the collapse of the interior of the building, then without any floor load on them at all they simply buckle under their own weight. You buy that?

Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors. 14 through 17 were vacant.
You blow five and six to get the building moving and then you blow 14-17 and you get your freefall.

Your belief that there was no motive for demolishing the buildings is just willful blindness. The motive was obvious. For terrorism to succeed one must terrorize.

Your cynicism about professional ethics is duly noted. Tell it to the NSPE.

John, your crystal ball is dirty. You don't know how I would react. One of the strongest indications of the need for new investigations IMHO is that the officials have not even tried to convince us that they are right. Most of those who advocate for the official story reveal their basic ignorance of the subject very quickly. I would love to be convinced that the official story was correct. Try it some time.

Ian, your ad hominem lies about Richard Gage are irrelevant. There are 1600 architects and engineers calling for new investigations, they gain nothing by making this call, and if the ratio of non-signatories to concerned citizens in the general population holds true to the population of architects and engineers, this 1600 coresponds to over 3 million non-signatory but concerned architects and engineers.

Ian, you're so dumb you think mockery is an argument.

 
At 24 October, 2011 09:59, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"So Mike, on what basis have you concluded that Dr. Lynn Margulis...does not matter?"

On the basis that her field of expertise has nothing to do with 9/11, and on the basis that she believes in mass-homicidal American thermite ninjas. And that her knowledge of 9/11 does not extend beyond what is found in a typical truther starter kit. Carl Sagan must be rolling in his grave.


"It's not about your straw man accusation that a dishonest report amounts to them 'willingly cooperat[ing] in covering up a government murder of 3 thousand people.'"

Not a straw man argument. You're saying it was an obvious inside job, and that NIST must have recognized this, but said nothing. IOW, you're implicitly accusing them covering up a government murder of 3 thousand people.


"NIST doesn't say 15--17 were occupied by anyone."

Prove that Citigroup had no presence there. NIST characterized only floor 14 as "vacant." report was 6 years later than FEMA report, and might have had better information. But as I said before, it really doesn't matter because truthers need 8 floors to be vacant for their fairy tale to work.


"By NIST rules, you don't have to blow any columns at all to get freefall."

NIST is absolutely correct on that point. There's no reason that 2.25 s of freefall would require explosives/thermite to be used on any columns.


"Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors. 14 through 17 were vacant."

Not good enough. Truther dogma requires that every single column on 8 floors (not 6) be rigged with explosives for freefall to occur.


"Your belief that there was no motive for demolishing the buildings is just willful blindness. The motive was obvious. For terrorism to succeed one must terrorize."

There is no motive for demolition workers to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, and there is no motive for the government to demolish an evacuated office building (WTC7) in broad daylight while the whole world was watching. It's an extremely high risk, high difficulty project with no apparent benefit. The fall of a relatively unknown office building after what had already occurred that day didn't terrorize anyone.


"Your cynicism about professional ethics is duly noted. Tell it to the NSPE."

Very funny. Here's an idea. Why don't you contact the NSPE and ask if their code of ethics requires engineers to write magazine articles and appear on TV specials to address the rantings of some kooks on the Internet. Go ahead, ask them.

 
At 24 October, 2011 10:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Mike, you think Dr. Margulis, as an expert in the scientific method, is not qualified to recognize a flawed scientific methodology when she sees it?

How does one acquire expertise in 9/11? One has to have a PhD in 9/11ology? Where do you acquire your expertise in 9/11? And who would you regard as qualified to opine upon it?

I never said it was an obvious inside job. I never said NIST recognized it. You make stuff up. Truthers don't need 8 floors vacant. Study the Verinage demolition technique. Truthers don't need to prove anything except that the official reports are dishonest and inadequate and we thus need new ones.

The reason freefall would require columns to be blown is because all structural resistance has to be removed. Since it is unreasonable to expect columns that are carrying no load whatsoever to buckle catastrophically, NIST's hypothesis is untenable.

"Every single column" is not truther dogma. Some structural engineers believe blowing the core columns alone would be sufficient.

You keep repeating your mantra that there was no motive. You haven't shown that. Your belief that the building was intended top be demolished in broad daylight is unreasonable. More reasoable is the hypothesis that the building was intended to be demolished while enveloped in dust and something went wrong (sabotage?)

The destruction of an adjacent building demonstrates a legal interest in the entire neighborhood of high-security buildings justifying the creation of security zones with special rules. Your lack of vision is not an argument.

Your continued dishonest framing of the issues may be sufficient to allow you to protect your illusions, but it won't be convincing to any objective person.

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

Your reasoning process seems to be like saying "We know the Gypsies killed him and we know that because George the Butler and his family members are all as honest as the day is long and they all love us and they would have mo possible reason to do such a thing."

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your ad hominem lies about Richard Gage are irrelevant.

Well, they're irrelevant because Gage is irrelevant. Nobody cares about him or his con game. Nothing he does will ever result in a new investigation.

There are 1600 architects and engineers calling for new investigations

False.

if the ratio of non-signatories to concerned citizens in the general population holds true to the population of architects and engineers, this 1600 coresponds to over 3 million non-signatory but concerned architects and engineers.

If, if, if. Brian, if you weren't a failed janitor who sniffs glue, you might understand why the above is so hilariously wrong.

Ian, you're so dumb you think mockery is an argument.

I don't think mockery is an argument. I think mockery is mockery. I mean, there's nothing to argue with you about, but there's plenty to mock. I mean, you're an unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and thinks the WTC collapse should have been like two law rakes copulating and you wear women's underwear and you ran away squealing and crying from a debate with Willie Rodriguez and you look like the homeless, insane brother of Christopher Lloyd.

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:33, Blogger Ian said...

Your reasoning process seems to be like saying "We know the Gypsies killed him and we know that because George the Butler and his family members are all as honest as the day is long and they all love us and they would have mo possible reason to do such a thing."

Brian, you REALLY need to stop sniffing glue before you post here. Your pointless, babbling analogies just makes it harder for the widows to have their questions answered.

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. I will repeat what my lawyer friend said: You are libeling me. I'm asking you nicely. Cease and desist.

 
At 24 October, 2011 11:42, Blogger Ian said...

You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. I will repeat what my lawyer friend said: You are libeling me. I'm asking you nicely. Cease and desist.

Brian, you have no friends. Stop lying.

 
At 24 October, 2011 12:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, David Topete and Kamal Obeid are both licensed structural engineers.

According to their info on the petition @ A&E for 9/11 Truth they're not.

 
At 24 October, 2011 12:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't debate liars.

How can you know if I'm "lying" when you wuss out of a debate?

Answer that you retard!

 
At 24 October, 2011 12:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I will repeat what my lawyer friend said: You are libeling me. I'm asking you nicely. Cease and desist.

Kind of sounds like that douche (Daryl Carstensen) over on YouTube who's planning to "sue" me for libel by calling him a woman abuser.

Hey, if you can't stand the truth, then STFU.

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I already know you're a liar. I don't need to debate to find out.

Ronald H. Brookman
Lic: Structural Engineer 3653 CA

Kamal S. Obeid, SE, PE
Lic: Structural Engineer 2826 CA,

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:12, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"So Mike, you think Dr. Margulis, as an expert in the scientific method, is not qualified to recognize a flawed scientific methodology when she sees it?"

Margulis is qualified enough, but not objective enough to distinguish good from crackpot science. Note that she subscribes to an extremely flawed pseudoscience (trutherism) and can't recognize it as such. The immeasurably greater Newton couldn't recognize alchemy as a pseudoscience. If Margulis thinks science can disprove that fires brought down the towers, she should publish her truthiness in a relevant scientific journal. But I doubt that's ever gonna happen.


"I never said it was an obvious inside job."

You pretty much did. You said that the collapses were impossible without incendiaries and/or explosives.

"Any amount of freefall is impossible in a natural collapse" [1]

"A free fall collapse is thus not only unusual--it is impossible according to the laws of physics, unless energy on the form of incendiaries and/or explosives is added to the system." [2]



"The reason freefall would require columns to be blown is because all structural resistance has to be removed."

Pure BS. Again, if the 2.25 seconds FF requires columns to be blown up, submit your proof to a journal that people take seriously. Don't waste your time in the comment section of an obscure blog. It's been over 10 years, and truthers have yet to demonstrate in a respectable outlet that their overly simplistic views of what can and can't cause "freefall" have any merit. What are you and your truthy friends waiting for?


"Since it is unreasonable to expect columns that are carrying no load whatsoever to buckle catastrophically,"

Do you have any point? If columns are carrying no load (i.e., are not holding the building up) then they don't need to buckle catastrophically for the building to collapse.


"Every single column" is not truther dogma.

If truthers admit that an 8-story free fall can occur without blowing up every single support column on 8 floors, then they also have to admit that the support elements that weren't blown up also provided no resistance. And there goes one of the main truthtard talking points (no resistance = explosives).

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:13, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"You keep repeating your mantra that there was no motive."

Because you have no good answer for it. You haven't come up with a plausible motive for American demolition workers to mass murder THOUSANDS of their fellow citizens. You have no good answer as to why the gov't would want to bring down a relatively unknown, evacuated building (WTC7). Oh wait, you're going to hilariously try:

"The destruction of an adjacent building demonstrates a legal interest in the entire neighborhood of high-security buildings justifying the creation of security zones with special rules. "

Pure glue-sniffing nonsense. Other adjacent buildings were also destroyed, so a WTC7 demolition would be superfluous, definitely not worth the great difficulty and risk of discovery. Good luck trying to sell your nonsense ideas outside trutherdom.


"More reasoable is the hypothesis that the building was intended to be demolished while enveloped in dust and something went wrong (sabotage?)"

As usual your fairy tale is devoid of reason. If WTC7 were "demolished" while shrouded in dust (i.e., right after one of the Twin Tower collapses) then the evil gov't would have no excuse for the collapse. They couldn't blame fire. I think you're just mindlessly repeating DRG's preposterous idea that the WTC7 demolition setup was initially a "dud", then miraculously worked again after roasting in fire for a few hours.

Go back to sniffing glue.

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:16, Blogger Ian said...

Nice work, Mike. Now Brian will call you a girl.

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mike, your logic is all twisted up.

I didn't say it was an inside job. I said it's my belief that freefall can not happen without explosives. I could be wrong about that, but nobody has bothered to show me wrong.

You work backwards from your unjustified conclusion that it couldn't have been an inside job to the premise that freefall does not require explosives. IN other words, you make your facts to fit your desired conclusions.

Freefall, as Dr. Sunder pointed out, requires that all structural resistance be removed. Structural resistance can not be removed instantaneously, as Dr. Sunder also pointed out (except trough the use of explosives).

If the columns are carrying no load, as NIST hypothesizes, then there's no reason for them to buckle.

The issue of whether all the columns have to be blown up or only all the core columns is a matter of opinion and the opinion that all the columns have to be blown up is hardly central to the concerns.

The plausible motive to murder citizens is to establish Bush as the War President with associated media intimidation and motivate wars and great expansions of the military and the security state.

If WTC7 fell while enshrouded in dust everybody would assume that the falling north tower crushed it.

What makes you think the charges "miraculously" worked again? If you want to find truth you should adopt a more objective attitude. Maybe the problem was in the programming of radio controls. Maybe a crew had to go in and rejigger the charges. Nothing miraculous about it.

 
At 24 October, 2011 14:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

BAN.

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

I said it's my belief that freefall can not happen without explosives. I could be wrong about that, but nobody has bothered to show me wrong.

You are wrong about that. It's understandable, given that you're an unemployed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons, but you should really leave the analysis of the WTC collapse to adults, Brian.

 
At 24 October, 2011 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you continue to libel me. Libel is a crime and a civil tort as well. The reason is that it's wrong and it's depraved.

Poor GutterBall, he can't defend his baseless and ignorant opinions about 9/11 and has to rely on the censorship strategy instead. Pfffft.

 
At 24 October, 2011 16:29, Blogger John said...

John, your crystal ball is dirty. You don't know how I would react.

Maybe so. But, as I pointed out before, if you think that "it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world. Even an academic dare not speak his or her mind for fear of resentment from colleagues about lost funding or lost contracts", then how can you tell which engineer/architect/whatever is telling the truth? How can you tell the difference between those who honestly believe the official story and those who are lying to protect themselves?

I would love to be convinced that the official story was correct.

I'm sure you would. But you never will. No truther will.

Case in point: as a trumpet player, I do a lot of fireman parades. Every year, I play a gig at a firehouse in Westchester, NY for an inspection ceremony. The other trumpet player on the gig is a truther. While discussing building 7 with him, a fireman, who had been at WTC on 9/11 came out and told him that building 7 was not a controlled demolition. And this truther started arguing with him that he was wrong. Wrap your head around that, folks. A truther, who only believed what he read online, was arguing with a fireman, who had been at the WTC on 9/11 and saw what was happening, and telling him he was wrong.

 
At 24 October, 2011 16:32, Blogger John said...

BAN.

Dude, I dunno. Mike & Ian are currently pwning Brian for all the world to see. And are being hilarious in the process. Brian's digging his own grave without realizing it.

 
At 24 October, 2011 16:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

John,

My name is Bill, not "dude."

I've "pwn3d" the goat fucker on hundreds of occasions but that makes no difference because he continues to hijack SLC's comment section with impunity.

In fact, I "pwn3d" the goat fucker with my comment at time stamp 20 October, 2011 18:20. I demonstrated conclusively that he's a liar who misrepresented Pat's OP. I also demonstrated that he can't read.

As a result of his latest humiliating defeat, he immediately began to hijack the thread with his comments at time stamp 20 October, 2011 22:06 and 20 October, 2011 23:36. As anyone who's familiar with the goat fucker knows, he always changes the subject and hijacks the thread when he loses the debate. That's SOP for the goat fucker.

Well, I have news for the goat fucker: Pat just removed his comments from James' newest OP. His comments were blatant attempts to hijack the thread. He was pissing his pants because I threatened to expose a member of A&E 9/11 "truth" as a fraud who creates bogus Internet personas, lies about his "career" as an alleged "engineer," and is a proven identity thief. In the future I will point out every attempt by the goat fucker to hijack SLC's comment section, and will complain until his comment's are removed as per Pat's promise.

Enough is enough.

Yes, he's digging his own grave, and I worship the ground that awaits him. And I intend to personally put a stop to this malarkey.

Consider yourself on notice, goat fucker. Your behavior will no longer be tolerated on any level.

Take a good, long look at this thread, goat fucker, because it's the last thread you'll hijack while my heart is still beating. And you can take my promise to the bank.

Adios, pendejo!

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

John wrote: "how can you tell which engineer/architect/whatever is telling the truth?"

John, thank you for asking what is probably the most intelligent question I've ever been asked on this board. Consider the dueling experts in a court case. Both credentialed, both persuasive, but one is wrong and one is right. How does the jury decide? One hopes they evaluate the quality of the arguments on the basis of their internal consistency, their agreement with the facts, and the degree to which they address all the issues. One hopes they evaluate the witnesses according to their freedom from error, their freedom from conflicts of interest, and the degree to which they are forthcoming and acknowledge reality.

Where do you get the idea that an eyewitness can't be wrong? Danny Jowenko said it was a controlled demolition, without a doubt. But he's wrong and the fireman is right because the fireman was there and Danny saw it on video? What kind of logic is that?

UtterFail, I couldn't care less if you expose another juvenile JREF infiltrator at AE911truth as a fraud.

For Pat and James B to ban me would be to admit that they can't defend their nonsense against someone who is informed and rational.

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:27, Blogger John said...

I've "pwn3d" the goat fucker on hundreds of occasions but that makes no difference because he continues to hijack SLC's comment section with impunity.

Acknowledged. For the record, despite our disagreements in the past, I always knew that you were telling the truth, and had a more reliable "scientific reputation". :-) And having to read about widows questions, Dr. Sunder, elevator operators, rakes on rakes, free fall, and the PhDs on AE911Truth over and over again was getting tiresome. But, still, watching Ian goad Brian into a "I know you are but what am I" flame war recently has been very entertaining.

And BTW, I was using dude as a term of familiarity. Meant no offense.

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

JREF infiltrator?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Another 100% fact-free assertion, ass (Heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the goat fucker)?

You're so full-of-shit that your eyes are brown.

FAIL

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Who but a JERFer would be juvenile enough to engage in such behavior?

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, if the alleged "JREF infiltrator" is a fraud as you claim, why did Richard Gage write "Verification Status: Checked" at the bottom of his A&E 9/11 "truth" profile?

And why has the alleged "JREF infiltrator"'s A&E 9/11 "truth" profile been allowed to stand for over 3 years?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pwn3d again, goat fucker.

 
At 24 October, 2011 17:55, Blogger John said...

One hopes they evaluate the witnesses according to their freedom from error, their freedom from conflicts of interest, and the degree to which they are forthcoming and acknowledge reality.

But if, as you believe, that "it is a given that 9/11 truth is bad for business in the engineering world" and that an architect or engineer won't "speak his or her mind for fear of resentment from colleagues about lost funding or lost contracts", then how can you get a witness who is free from conflicts of interest? The only way, in my mind, that that would happen would be if the witness would leave the architectural or engineering world entirely. Even the members of AE911truth haven't done that.

 
At 24 October, 2011 19:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, where did you get the idea that Richard Gage verifies ID's? You guys just make stuff up!

Freedom from conflict of interest is relative. Take Dave Thomas for instance, from New Mexico Tech. This school has 160 faculty members, an endowment of $16 million, and gets federal contracts of $90 million a year. Members of the faculty would probably bring a lot of social pressure to bear on anyone who spoke out about the unscientific nature of the NIST reports, because they want to keep wallowing in that DHS money. Anyone from DHS University, er, New Mexico Tech, who speaks out in favor of the NIST report can thus be supposed to have pretty major conflicts of interest.

Take your average member of AE911Truth. What does he gain by speaking out? Nothing but trouble! He might get fired, he might lose contracts, he might lose friends. No conflict of interest there.

 
At 24 October, 2011 19:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Glenn Maxey isn't even listed as an engineer. Do you have a point? He's a software guy, like you.

 
At 24 October, 2011 19:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...[GuitarBill], where did you get the idea that Richard Gage verifies ID's? You guys just make stuff up!"

Can you read, goat fucker?

Of course you can't.

Glenn's user profile says "Verification Status: Checked" at the bottom of his A&E 9/11 "truth" profile?

He's also signed Gage's petition, which makes him one of the 1600 charlatans and nutters for 9/11 troof.

Do you always lie, goat fucker?

Well, tomorrow I'm going to expose your troofer buddy as a liar, fraud, identity thief and an anti-Semite.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It sucks to be you, goat fucker.

And I'm not a "software guy"--you lying sack of shit.

I'm a scientist with masters degrees in [1] Mathematics and [2] Computer Science. After all, a computer scientist is a scientist, no matter how much you squeal and lie.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 24 October, 2011 21:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Honestly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written."

You need to hang out here more. He'll probably top it in this thread.

 
At 24 October, 2011 21:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So Mike, on what basis have you concluded that Dr. Lynn Margulis, a member of the Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the National Science Medal does not matter?"

Not in the discussion of 9/11. She's a biologist, and just as clueless to engineering as any non-engineer would be.

 
At 24 October, 2011 22:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian, you continue to libel me. Libel is a crime and a civil tort as well. The reason is that it's wrong and it's depraved."

Really?

To win a libel suit you need to show damage. You need to show that what Ian ( or any rational person for that matter) has cost you financially.

How has Ian's words cost you money? Quantify it.

Then you also must show how Ian's words have cost you credibility. You would have to introduce every thread on SLC into evidence in a court of law. Then you'd have to convince a judge and jury that you are: a - sane, b- right about 9/11 and nano-thermite.

Then Ian gets to call Carol and Kevin and everyone else you've burned in the Truth movement to testify to your actions in court.

So you're the one who needs to be careful.

 
At 24 October, 2011 22:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, the fact that Mr. Maxey signed the petition does not mean that Mr. Gage verified him.

You are displaying the kind of incompetence that is consistent with unemployability. Is that why you have tine for such trivial pursuits?

Mr. Maxey is not one of the 1600 architects and engineers. He is not an engineer. He is one of the 16,000 "other supporters". You a scientist? What a hoot!

MGF, as usual you miss the point. The issue is not the content (engineering). The issue is the scientific method--or rather, NIST's UNscientific method. But you wouldn't know anything about that. They didn't teach you about that in freshman geology, did they?

 
At 24 October, 2011 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your legal reasoning is as ignorant as your scientific logic.

I don't libel people. I don't say anything I can't prove. Ian just makes stuff up. By acting in concert with Kevin Barrett and Sander Hicks and others to publish disparaging lies about me Ian is participating in a conspiracy to defame me and cause people to doubt my professionalism.

 
At 25 October, 2011 05:15, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 October, 2011 05:22, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"I didn't say it was an inside job. I said it's my belief that freefall can not happen without explosives."

You did in effect say it was an inside job, as you stated it's physically impossible that explosives/incendiaries weren't used.


"You work backwards from your unjustified conclusion ... you make your facts to fit your desired conclusions. "

I'll just let that one sit there in all its hilarious hypocrisy.


"Structural resistance can not be removed instantaneously"

Structural resistance wasn't "removed instantaneously." The 2.25-second "free fall" period was preceded by a 1.75-second transition period in which the acceleration was less than g. There's your resistance. If you had any familiarity whatsoever with the NIST report, you would have known that.

Seriously, "removed instantaneously"? You'd get eaten alive on JREF, even worse than you are here.


"If the columns are carrying no load, as NIST hypothesizes, then there's no reason for them to buckle."

What the hell are you talking about? If you mean the exterior column buckling, that happened because the loads were redistributed to those columns as the core/floors moved downward.


"The plausible motive to murder citizens is to establish Bush as the War President"

Why would the demolition workers want Bush to be a "War President"? Why would they want it so badly that they would be willing to commit mass murder against so many of their innocent fellow Americans?


"If WTC7 fell while enshrouded in dust everybody would assume that the falling north tower crushed it."

No, people would wonder how an external debris shower from a relatively distant source caused the building to collapse instantaneously. The ear-splitting demolition explosions would be caught on tape for everyone to hear and charges would be found in the rubble. No use further speculating about a truther fairy tale.


"What makes you think the charges "miraculously" worked again?"

Uh, because the building was on fire for a long time, dumbass. And according to your truthy ramblings, the government was expecting to blow it up before it was on fire. I guess to a truther, "classic controlled demolitions" should still work perfectly after a fire, no problem.

 
At 25 October, 2011 08:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you continue to libel me. Libel is a crime and a civil tort as well. The reason is that it's wrong and it's depraved.

Have your lawyer send me a cease and desist letter, Brian.

Once he does, I stop telling everyone that you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, believes in magic thermite elves, and lusts after Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 25 October, 2011 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 October, 2011 09:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say it was an inside job, and didn't "in effect say it was an inside job." You are leaping to conclusions while I am simply trying to establish the facts.

If my car is missing from my driveway, I do not leap to the conclusion that someone stole it. You employ the bass-ackward logic of "Nobody would steal your piece of shit car, and therefore it is not missing from your driveway."

The hypocrisy is yours. You assume without evidence that I work backward from the conclusion that Bush did it. Absolutely untrue. When I started my 9/11 research I was a reluctant Bush supporter looking for the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11. When I couldn't find any, I started to dig deeper.

Structural resistance was removed instantaneously. The data supporting NIST's phony "transition period" is one pixel. Relying on what could easily be a glitch to support a theory is a clear case of confirmation bias.
There was no acceleration during the "transition period". The S-curve NISTY draws is totally phony. If you had read the NIST report you would know this.

The clowns here make up facts and lie and lie and lie. The only reason I have to support any notion that JREF is any different is that they banned WAQo for making them look too blatantly bad.

We're talking about WTC7. The loads are not redistributed to the perimeter columns because after the interior falls down, there is no load--only the weight of the column itself.

Don't ask me to speculate on human motivations. The common ones are ideology, money, blackmail, drugs, sex, self esteem. Why does anyone do anything? Why did Congress pass the USA Patriot Act? Why did they let Bush invade Iraq?

Maybe the demolition workers didn't know that they were planting explosives. Maybe they thought they were spraying fireproofing or rust inhibitor. Maybe they thought the buildings would be evacuated before the charges were set off. Maybe they were depraved sociopaths like Ian who have no compassion for others.

Why do you assume ear-splitting detonations? That's what NIST did, dishonestly, to dispose of the CD hypothesis. There are quieter explosives than RDX, and thermite makes little noise.

Why do you expect fire to interfere with explosive or thermitic demolition? Thermite is very difficult to ignite, and fire is not likely to do it. If a few charges are set off prematurely, it won't hurt a redundant structure. Explosives can be packaged in fireproof containers. And when you're dealing with hollow box columns, both thermite and explosives can be places inside.

You guys have a lot of facile theories to make excuses for why you don't need to think about this.
I did too, once.

Ian, you're in effect admitting that you can not defend your libels on grounds of truth.

 
At 25 October, 2011 09:49, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, Brian, it's amazing how much effort you expend on telling a bunch of "girls" about how right you are! It's almost as if you're desperate to have us take you seriously because this is the last blog left that hasn't banned you.

Ian, you're in effect admitting that you can not defend your libels on grounds of truth.

False.

 
At 25 October, 2011 10:15, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"didn't "in effect say it was an inside job."
Yes you did. I showed you your own statements above. Your squirming to get out of it is not convincing.

"When I started my 9/11 research I was a reluctant Bush supporter "
I'm sure that's a lie.
Also see: List Of Fallacious Arguments: Statement of Conversion
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#conversion

"Structural resistance was removed instantaneously."
Wrong. NIST's S-curve shows a gradual transition from t=0 to t=1.75. Your statement to the contrary is bullshit as always.

"Don't ask me to speculate on human motivations."
Yeah, we're just supposed to accept as plausible the existence of mass-homicidal thermite ninjas.

"Maybe the demolition workers didn't know that they were planting explosives."
That's extremely implausible for many reasons, but even if true, some would have figured it out afterwards.

"Why do you assume ear-splitting detonations? "
Because that's what happens in controlled demolitions.

"Why do you expect fire to interfere with explosive or thermitic demolition? Thermite is very difficult to ignite, and fire is not likely to do it."
Wrong. Harrit's chips ignited at 430 C.

 
At 25 October, 2011 10:16, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Notice how truthers never hesitate to add more complexity to an already absurdly complex theory. Fireproof/crashproof demolitions, unwitting participants, hush-a-boom explosives, spray-on thermite, faked phone calls, security plants, nefarious scientists, mass-homicidal thermite ninjas, access to elevator mechanic work schedules, etc. Truthers need these things to make their fantasies work. Rube Goldberg would tip his hat.

 
At 25 October, 2011 10:21, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

P.S. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, stalks Carol Brouillet and lusts after Willie Rodriguez. And a goat fucker as well.

 
At 25 October, 2011 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I couldn't care less about your opinions. My purpose here is to test my opinions by exposing them to counterargument, and y'all do a great job of making me confident in my beliefs. All you can do to mollify your frustration is repeat the same list of stoooopid lies. You can not defend your libels on grounds of truth.

Mike, YOU are the one that makes the assumption that explosives means inside job. Not me. For all I know a team of Russian Ninjas could have tunneled into WTC7 to break in after the building was evacuated so they could ransack the CIA offices and then they blew up the building to hide their tracks. You are making irrational assumptions.

List of fallacious arguments: discarding facts as lies. When did you become an expert on my political philosophies?

NIST's S-curve is artistic, not scientific, license. It is based on a single data point. Chandler shows that the onset of collapse was sudden and instantaneous. Look at the video.

Your rejection of thermite ninjas is just as irrational as some people's rejection of Muslim hijackers.

"Some would have figured it out afterwards." You think the fireproofing installers would have figured out the fireproofing was explosive? How would they figure that out?

Maybe ear-splitting detonations happen in conventional controlled demolitions. This was an unconventional one. You might as well argue that a bulldozer can not kill a steer, because steers are killed by slitting their throats.

Notice how debunkers always try to make everything seem impossible. Miles of det cord, solmebody would have talked, nobody had any reason to, blah blah blah.

P.S. You're a liar espressing your frustration with your own inability to mount a rational argument.

 
At 25 October, 2011 11:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still having trouble with that Occam's Razor thing, goat fucker?

After all, in your syphilis ravaged mind, the cause of the collapse of the towers includes everything but the most logical explanation: Fire.

 
At 25 October, 2011 11:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Mike, YOU are the one that makes the assumption that explosives means inside job. Not me"

The assumption of explosives is what then? Exactly what?

If Al Qaeda planted them then why would the NIST, and FEMA folks lie (in your view) when it would only add to the case? Keeping it secret implies an inside job by any logical standard...which is why you and the troofers are batshit crazy.




"For all I know"...

A very short list to be sure


"...a team of Russian Ninjas could have tunneled into WTC7 to break in after the building was evacuated so they could ransack the CIA offices and then they blew up the building to hide their tracks."

Why the Russians? Why wouldn't they just ask their seemingly endless list of spys inside CIA to get them the info they wanted? When did the Russians do this before? Have you ever read a book that doesn't come with crayons?

" You are making irrational assumptions."

Translation: You are speaking to me on an intellectual level I cannot understand as I stopped developing after the fourth grade.

 
At 25 October, 2011 12:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall's cudgel is not Occam's Razor.

Fire would cause partial, local, and asymmetrical collapses. It can not turn a basket of springs into a piledriver.

MGF there is no assumption of explosives. You should study more history and philosophy and literature and learn to think.

Why would NIST and FEMA lie if Al Qaeda planted explosives? Use your head! Because bombs were an "outrageous conspiracy theory" and not to be tolerated. And bombs were embarrassing to Securacom.

There might be any number of reasons for a coverup of a demolition. To reject facts because you wrongly believe they have unthinkable implications is irrational.

Why the Russians? Why anybody? The point is that there is much we don't know, and we never will know if we leap to premature conclusions from inadequate data.

 
At 25 October, 2011 14:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...[GuitarBill's] cudgel is not Occam's Razor."

Look! The goat fucker said "cudgel." Perhaps that explains why you're brain-dead?

"...Fire would cause partial, local, and asymmetrical collapses. It can not turn a basket of springs into a piledriver [SIC]."

That's an unsubstantiated assertion, ass, not a "fact."

And we know you're full-of-shit because legitimate fire scientists and structural engineers have proven you wrong on numerous occasions.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 25 October, 2011 14:38, Blogger Ian said...

My purpose here is to test my opinions by exposing them to counterargument, and y'all do a great job of making me confident in my beliefs.

That's good. The more confident you are in your insane, convoluted beliefs, the more entertainment value I'll derive from your babblings on this blog.

For all I know a team of Russian Ninjas could have tunneled into WTC7 to break in after the building was evacuated so they could ransack the CIA offices and then they blew up the building to hide their tracks.

See what I mean?

Maybe ear-splitting detonations happen in conventional controlled demolitions. This was an unconventional one. You might as well argue that a bulldozer can not kill a steer, because steers are killed by slitting their throats.

See what I mean?

Why would NIST and FEMA lie if Al Qaeda planted explosives? Use your head! Because bombs were an "outrageous conspiracy theory" and not to be tolerated. And bombs were embarrassing to Securacom.

See what I mean?

Thanks, Brian, for being more confident in your beliefs. I got to laugh at all of the above insanity.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home