Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Ryan Mackey on Why 9-11 Truth Became So Popular

Terrific and long article on the rise (and fall) of the Truthers (in PDF format) by JREF forum member Ryan Mackey. I will post my thoughts here when I've finished reading it; I'm about a third of the way through it right now.

Update: Excellent read. I have a few points that I wish he had covered, but overall his presentation is well-organized, and very well-written and argued. Quibbles:

1. Ryan discusses why certain conspiracy theories take off and endure, while others more or less wither and die. The key factor to me is the perceived consequence of the event which spawned the conspiracy theory. The reason JFK conspiracy theories endured and even flourished is the persistent belief that Kennedy would not have gotten bogged down in Vietnam. This also may account for the sudden surge in Kennedy conspiracy theories around 1968, as opposition to the war became more widespread. Indeed, the comparison (and time to critical mass) with 9-11 and the Iraq war seems nearly perfect.

2. While I agree that video sites like YouTube and Google Video were very important to pushing 9-11 conspiracy theories into the mainstream, I believe the timing is just a little off. Dylan Avery often mentioned in interviews that earlier file-sharing technologies like Bit Torrent were responsible for spreading Loose Change 1.

3. Another reason why 9-11 conspiracy theories did not take off earlier is simply that the people who were the initial researchers were, shall we say, not ready for prime-time. When you consider that some of those responsible for many of the initial bits of "evidence" that became key to the movement were socially awkward, like Rosalee Grable or Eric Hufschmid or Nico Haupt, it's hardly surprising that the movement remained stalled for years. It took someone less obviously deranged, like David Ray Griffin, to move the theories into more mainstream society.

On the other hand, there are brilliant parts that I wish to highlight. Brilliant ideas to me are those which I did not think of beforehand, but find myself agreeing with wholeheartedly after reading them:

1. I loved his discussion of the Gish Gallop, where Truthers will lob up one floater after another, never acknowledging the rapid debunking that follows, but instead moving onto the next piece of evidence. All of us who have debunked the Truthers have been frustrated by their unwillingness to accept and admit defeat on even one tiny issue. Ryan points out that this is a defense mechanism that enables them to avoid examining their entire worldview.

2. His point about personas on the internet beginning to become more important is worthy of a standing ovation. You know, one of the supposed features of the internet at first was its supposed anonymity. Now it is becoming more and more impossible to escape one's past.

Read the whole thing.

55 Comments:

At 10 November, 2011 09:44, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Wow. Don't everyone all care at once.

Maybe if Mackey offered something more than 'it in no way resembled a CD...' when talking about WTC7, people would take him (and Pat) more seriously.

Don't hold your breath!

 
At 10 November, 2011 12:33, Blogger ConsDemo said...

PC, when discussing the motivations of anti-American conspiratoids such as yourself, there is no reason to get bogged down rebutting each and every one of your baseless assertions for nth time to note the pecularities of your species.

 
At 10 November, 2011 12:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Maybe if Mackey offered something more than 'it in no way resembled a CD...' when talking about WTC7, people would take him (and Pat) more seriously."

Yeah, it kinda resembled acontrolled demolition...if you've never seen one before.

Troofers can't take reality seriously so who cares what they think?

 
At 10 November, 2011 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

Afghanistan Can't Toss 9/11 Liability Claim.

Adam Klasfeld wrote, "...A widower whose wife died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks can advance conspiracy and wrongful-death claims against Afghanistan, the 2nd Circuit ruled."

Notice the widow named Afghanistan in the wrongful-death case, not the "responsible" troofers' usual suspects, which includes Israel, modified attack baboons, homicidal elevator mechanics, magic thermite elves, Dick Cheney, FEMA, the Pentagon, Adamantium Beavers, etc.

 
At 10 November, 2011 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hmm, I wonder why they're allowed to sue Afghanistan when another court ruled recently that Saudi Arabia had sovereign immunity?

 
At 10 November, 2011 14:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Hmm, I wonder why they're allowed to sue Afghanistan when another court ruled recently that Saudi Arabia had sovereign immunity?

All foreign governments have the same sovereign immunity, with narrow exceptions for torts and contracts. The Afghanistan suit alleges wrongful death, which is a tort; the Saudi Arabia suit alleged indirect financing of terrorists, which isn't.

This particular decision says only that there's enough to keep the suit alive under that exception, not that the claims have any merit.

 
At 10 November, 2011 18:23, Blogger Billman said...

Pat Cowardly has gotten over his embarassment, it seems. Kudos

 
At 11 November, 2011 12:59, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Shillman, you should be embarrassed that you thought the picture was really me. You said "Thank you so much for this", as if A.) you believed it without question, and B.)it were really useful to your pathetic life.

This tells us an awful lot about you, your standards of evidence, and your gullibility in general. Good luck with that.

And why don't you stay on topic? I'm sure you've read Mackey's "terrific" essay, haven't you? What did you find most compelling, and why?

 
At 11 November, 2011 13:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Shillman, you should be embarrassed that you thought the picture was really me.

Are you sure that's not you? Click it again.

 
At 11 November, 2011 14:38, Blogger Billman said...

Shillman, you should be embarrassed that you thought the picture was really me.

Why? Prove it's not you. Even if it isn't, it's how we all here are currently picturing you until you pony up some contradictory evidence that proves it's not you. So really, how embarassing for YOU. Most of us here aren't embarassed to post our faces. Apparently you are, and defensive to boot.

You said "Thank you so much for this", as if A.) you believed it without question, and B.)it were really useful to your pathetic life.

It is. I have a face to pin to an angry douchebag, and it makes me laugh.

This tells us an awful lot about you, your standards of evidence, and your gullibility in general. Good luck with that.

Worked out for me so far.

And why don't you stay on topic?

Says the guy who has blood explode out of his sandy vagina with insults towards Pat and his father in ever single thread he posts in...

I'm sure you've read Mackey's "terrific" essay, haven't you? What did you find most compelling, and why?

I promise I'll answer this when I'm finished with it. I've devoted ten minutes to it last night, and I'm only a few pages into it.

Like all of us here (even you, I assume) we don't spend every waking moment dedicated to "Truthers Vs. Debunkers." So I'll get to finishing it soon.

 
At 11 November, 2011 21:14, Blogger Billman said...

Ok, I read a good portion of it. I was especially interested in whenever Dylan Avery was mentioned. Kid hasn't changed, really. But the major thing is the truth movement really is dead, and nothing but truly deluded people, or conmen out to make a buck at this point.

Sad how it seems the movement started with people truly seeking answers to confusing issues, that others just took off on a literally insane tangent that tainted what honorable intentions it began with, and turned it into nothing more than an excuse to post under an asshole/taunting-like name (example: Pat Cowardly) and spew rage-filled insults at people who just disagree with them.

 
At 11 November, 2011 21:19, Blogger Billman said...

What's especially ironic is how people like you just DO NOT GET that your insta-billigerence from your very first post is the kind of thing that destroyed your movement and all of your credibility as decent human beings to ever be taken seriously by anyone other than those as deluded and angry as yourselves.

And that really is the "truth" part of the whole truth movemnt.

 
At 12 November, 2011 10:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ryan Mackey did a bang up job on his paper.

Now the thing that's bothering the Truthers is: How do they nitpick his paper apart without making themselves look like a bunch of idiots?

Answer: They don't. All they can do is sit there & scream about how Mackey could be "wrong" & not admitting that the problem isn't with the Government, the problem is about the Truthers.

Like that statement in V for Vendetta: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

And the Truthers have feared the Government.

 
At 12 November, 2011 16:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've forgotten, is Ryan Mackey the one who writes 300-page papers that are so badly written that nobody is going to bother to wade through them, but people who agree with him will pretend they've read it?

 
At 12 November, 2011 18:05, Blogger John said...

No, that'd be David Ray Griffin.

 
At 12 November, 2011 19:26, Blogger Ian said...

I've forgotten, is Ryan Mackey the one who writes 300-page papers that are so badly written that nobody is going to bother to wade through them, but people who agree with him will pretend they've read it?

Well, you might not read them. That's understandable, given that you're a failed janitor and ignorant lunatic who just repeats what Richard Gage says without actually understanding anything.

But given that you're a failed janitor and ignorant lunatic and liar, nobody cares what you read.

 
At 13 November, 2011 02:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Speaking of Troof books, looking forward to this one. Occurrences of "I" and "me" in the text will be *way* above average.

 
At 13 November, 2011 07:29, Blogger Ian said...

Speaking of Troof books, looking forward to this one. Occurrences of "I" and "me" in the text will be *way* above average.

The autobiography of Jon Gold? Who the hell cares? What about his life would anyone care to read about?

The guy really has an overinflated sense of his own importance. "I'm chaining myself to the White House!" Nobody cares. "I'm writing an autobiography!" Nobody cares.

 
At 13 November, 2011 07:45, Blogger Billman said...

The autobiography of Jon Gold? Who the hell cares? What about his life would anyone care to read about?

The guy really has an overinflated sense of his own importance. "I'm chaining myself to the White House!" Nobody cares. "I'm writing an autobiography!" Nobody cares.


THIS.

Who's even heard of him outside of crazy guy on the street cirlces?

 
At 13 November, 2011 20:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Strange to see a bunch of guys sitting around gossiping about someone they say isn't worth gossiping about.

 
At 13 November, 2011 20:50, Blogger Ian said...

Strange to see a bunch of guys sitting around gossiping about someone they say isn't worth gossiping about.

He's not worth taking seriously, Brian. Nobody in the "truth" movement is. He is, however, worth laughing at. You're like that too.

 
At 13 November, 2011 23:17, Blogger gypsy said...

lol - heres an example of your pathetic "debunking".

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20111103044226974

nothing is "debunked", until after an independent transparent investigation with subpoena power, satisfies a judge and a jury , beyond all reasonable doubt, after looking at all the evidence, and cross examinination of experts under oath.

what you lot are doing is not debunking, its called circle-jerking

 
At 13 November, 2011 23:31, Blogger Billman said...

lol - heres an example of your pathetic "debunking".

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20111103044226974

nothing is "debunked", until after an independent transparent investigation with subpoena power, satisfies a judge and a jury , beyond all reasonable doubt, after looking at all the evidence, and cross examinination of experts under oath.

what you lot are doing is not debunking, its called circle-jerking


Hmmm... gypsy. Account created November 2011...

Seriously, Pat Cowardly? aka Arhoolie? You had to go an make ANOTHER sock puppet?

 
At 14 November, 2011 12:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I've forgotten....

There's alot of things you forgotten Brian.

1: Forgot how to read.

2: Forgot what it means to show evidence to prove your silly fairy stories.

3: Forgot to set your alarm clock.

4: Forgot to take a bath.

5: Forgot to change your depends.

6: Forgot to think before typing.

7: Forgot to eat healthy.

8: Forgot what it means to be someone.

9: Forgot how to use a toilet.

10: FORGOT THAT HE WAS EVICTED FROM THE TRUTH MOVMENT FOR MAKING HARASSING COMMENTS & STALKING OTHER TRUTH MEMBERS.

 
At 14 November, 2011 13:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I guess ir's your right to sit around fantasizing about my personal hygiene and my underwear if you want, but it makes you look pretty silly.

 
At 14 November, 2011 13:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I guess ir's your right to sit around fantasizing about my personal hygiene and my underwear if you want, but it makes you look pretty silly.

I'm not the one that has a hygiene problem, but you sure like getting suckered into admitting that you have one. Thanks!

As far as your underwear, you might want to get new ones for Christmas. Just ask your mommy for a bag of them @ Wal-Mart.

Actually sitting here & watching you act like a 4 yr. old is pretty damn funny from where I'm sitting at.

 
At 14 November, 2011 14:56, Blogger gypsy said...

"Hmmm... gypsy. Account created November 2011...

Seriously, Pat Cowardly? aka Arhoolie? You had to go an make ANOTHER sock puppet?"

no billy, just came here to say gday after reading that post. thought id see if anyone could actually answer the questions or not.. and all i get is some twit thinking im someone else..

lol - well to be honest, i didnt expect much more. gees you guys sure do struggle eh?

 
At 14 November, 2011 14:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Don't mind Gypsy, just another internet bridge troll trying to get under our skins. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg&ob=av3e

 
At 14 November, 2011 15:00, Blogger gypsy said...

if anyone replies to this..

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20111103044226974

will it be.

A. a thoughtful polite response detailing where the author is wrong, or

B. more hyperbole, insults, obfuscation off topic bullshit and bluster, etc etc etc..


my guess is a definite B!

which, will just add more weight to the points made in the article :D

 
At 14 November, 2011 15:01, Blogger gypsy said...

"Troofers can't take reality seriously so who cares what they think?"

ummmm....

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48/20647-why-you-can-not-believe-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html

lolz

 
At 14 November, 2011 15:14, Blogger Billman said...

Yeah, definately Pat Cowardly trying to pretend to be someone else again.

At least Brain Good occassionally owns up to actually being Brian Good.

 
At 14 November, 2011 15:20, Blogger Billman said...

if anyone replies to this..

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20111103044226974


I'll read it, and give you a cordial response critiquing it if that's what you want. But tell me, what about this biased exchange do you think is so important? You think it somehow damages James credibility or something?

Heh, my verification word is redlyz

 
At 14 November, 2011 15:26, Blogger Billman said...

Well, they both seem to be just trying to prove the other is retarded in that exchange. It's hardly a "scientific debate" that should be taken seriously by anyone. Seriously, I don't know of any serious discussions that have the level of ad-hominem displayed by both sides as is shown there.

You want to take any of that seriously?

How about you pick a point that Author said that you think makes the thing for you.

 
At 15 November, 2011 10:10, Blogger Ian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 November, 2011 11:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Al it boils down to it is that Truthers are actually adults acting like teenagers (or they are teenagers).

GROW THE FUCK UP! THE WORLD ISN'T WHAT IT SEEMS THROUGH YOUR EYES TRUTHERS! LAY OFF THE PARANOIA, LIVE A LIFE & BE HAPPY FOR A CHANGE.

 
At 15 November, 2011 16:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gypsy,

Your bullshit article reads in part, "...They found evidence of a eutectic reaction, i.e., the penetration of the beam's steel by sulfur, which resulted in such severe erosion of the beam that the steel had holes in it. The presence of sulfur is itself a mystery, but so is the fact that this reaction required a temperature of 1,000 deg C (1,832 deg F), far in excess of what even NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the government agency which carried out the official investigation of the WTC, stated was present. By the way, NIST stated air temperatures during the fires as if they were metal temperatures, when in fact it takes a long time for a fire of a certain temperature to heat steel to the same level, given the high thermal conductivity of steel. In addition, the steel was partially vaporized, a phenomenon which requires a temperature of 2,861 deg C (5,182 deg F)."

There's nothing mysterious about a eutectic reaction. In fact, the eutectic reaction described by FEMA lowers the melting point of the steel from 2750 degrees F to 1,832 degrees F.

Your claims are absurd. Why? A eutectic mixture is the combination of two liquids that behave as a substance. There can never be a reaction between the components. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) can easily cause the observed sulfidation. Sources of SO2 include burning office material, automobiles, and the reaction of aluminum with gypsum. Thus, the source of the sulfur is not mysterious at all.

Troofers love to tell us that gypsum is "inert," however, this assertion is false. Gypsum (CaSO4) can be made to release its SO2. The following reactions are good examples of the phenomenon:

[1] In the presence of carbon monoxide at a temperature of 1000 ° C:

CaSO4 + CO -> CaO + CO2 + SO2

[2] And when the molten aluminum reacts with the gypsum:

3CaSO4 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3CaO + 3SO2

Thus, we can see that the conditions necessary to cause the gypsum to release it SO2, thereby initiating the sulfidation attack, were present in the conflagration on 11 September 2001.

QED.

Furthermore, since your "trap" is based on pseudo-science and false information, the remainder of your alleged "argument" doesn't merit a response.

 
At 15 November, 2011 19:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh sure, no problem. 1000 C. So where are you getting your 1000 C? Burning vapors out of your butt!

Jonathan Cole burned a steel I-beam with powdered gypsum for days. Nothing happened to it. Gypsum is inert. That's why it's used for fireproofing.

You seem to consider your talent for cut-and-pasting bullshit from propaganda websites to reflect some kind of uinderstanding, but it doesn't.

 
At 15 November, 2011 21:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker whines, "...So where are you getting your 1000 C?"

Perhaps you should read the NIST Report, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."

"...Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 degrees C, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperature reached 1,000 degrees C." -- NIST, NCSTAR1, Chapter Two, Page 28.

Enjoy your heaping bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Jonathan Cole burned a steel I-beam with powdered gypsum for days. Nothing happened to it. Gypsum is inert. That's why it's used for fireproofing."

There's only one problem, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation": He left out the remainder of the reactants, e.g., the burning office material, automobiles and molten aluminum. Big problem, cretin.

Too bad that you're a drooling science illiterate who wears women's underwear--which explains why the obvious evades you.

The goat fucker whines, "...You seem to consider your talent for cut-and-pasting bullshit from propaganda websites to reflect some kind of uinderstanding [SIC], but it doesn't."

Good job, spelling bee champ.

I didn't "cut-and-paste" anything--you lying, petty sack-of-shit.

I gave you the simple chemistry, and I proved that all the conditions necessary to initiate the sulfidation attack were present in the conflagration on 11 September 2001.

 
At 15 November, 2011 22:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, once again you make up your facts. Mr. Cole did include aluminum in the mix.

You didn't prove shit. Upper air temperatures reaching 1000 C don't mean the drywall reached 1000 C. You haven't shown that there's any drywall in the upper area, and you haven't shown that the sulfidation attack took place in the upper area.

Your enormous talent for convincing yourself of stuff on very flimsy evidence probably has a great deal to do with your unemployability.

 
At 15 November, 2011 22:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You didn't prove shit. Upper air temperatures reaching 1000 C don't mean the drywall reached 1000 C."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Is this another example of your alleged "knowledge if physics," Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

Try something called fluid dynamics (or thermodynamics if you're really feeling ambitious, cretin), and get back to me, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."

Go for it, goat fucker, impress us again with the breadth and depth of your ignorance and dishonesty.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You haven't shown that there's any drywall in the upper area, and you haven't shown that the sulfidation attack took place in the upper area."

Moving the goal post again, goat fucker?

I don't have to prove anything. It's a well-known and indisputable fact that drywall was installed in the upper and lower section of EVERY floor of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, there's no need for me to prove that "the sulfidation attack took place in the upper area." All I need to show is that all the conditions necessary for the attack to proceed were present on 11 September 2001. My hypothesis, moreover, is far more likely (Occam's Razor--you idiot) than your idiotic and utterly unscientific, 100% fact-free twaddle.

Enjoy another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Say it, don't spray it, UtterFail.

Your techno-babble is meaningless. You have not shown that the drywall continues above the level of the false ceiling. My experience with false ceilings is that it does not. Your "indisputable fact" is contrary to reality.

It's really funny when ignorants like yourself try to advance arguments that not even NIST was dumb enough to advance.

I always enjoy those big heaping bowls of FAIL, dumb-ass. You serve them up so generously. I don't eat them, of course, but I get a kick out of your truth-in-labeling.

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...Your techno-babble is meaningless. You have not shown that the drywall continues above the level of the false ceiling. My experience with false ceilings is that it does not. Your "indisputable fact" is contrary to reality."

Who's guilty of "techno-bable," goat fucker?

Never mind that you've utterly failed to show why "drywall continues above the level of the false ceiling" is significant, let alone untrue.

Again, it's not incumbent upon ME to prove or disprove your 100% fact-free assertions, ass.

Are logical fallacies all you have, goat fucker?

FAIL

Maybe you can try addressing my argument, as opposed to misrepresenting my argument and beating straw men, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're guilty of technobabble. You bring up issues that have nothing to do with the point. You might as well be babbling about astrophysics and space-beams. I know bullshit when I see it, and you're bullshit.

Your inability to see the significance of the fact that there's no (or very limited) drywall above the false ceiling shows that you don't understand the argument you are making.

I'm not asking you to prove my assertions. I'm asking you to prove yours. You seem to have a lot of handy quotes ready from the manual of disinformation.

You certainly are generous with your FAIL, GutterBall. But you know what? It's not even very good fail!

 
At 15 November, 2011 23:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

YOU brought up "drywall continues above the level of the false ceiling" argument. And YOU utterly failed to demonstrate the significance of your assertion or show why I should care.

Again, it's not incumbent upon ME to prove or disprove your 100% fact-free assertions, ass.

Once again, all you've managed to prove is that you couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FACT: The temperature reached 1000 degrees C.

FACT: SO2 is released in the presence of carbon monoxide at a temperature of 1000 ° C:

CaSO4 + CO -> CaO + CO2 + SO2

FACT: Molten aluminum reacts with the gypsum to produce SO2:

3CaSO4 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3CaO + 3SO2

And my fact's trump your 100% fact-free assertions, anecdotal evidence, nay-saying and hand waving.

Have another steaming bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 November, 2011 00:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your inability to comprehend that "upper layer air temperature" means the tippy top underneath the ceiling shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Now how do you get this molten aluminum up to the ceiling to react with the gypsum that is not there up by the ceiling? Oh right, you just stick your magic wand up your butt and pull it out and shazzam! There it is! Another steaming bowl of FAIL served up from the GutterBall's magic hot-dog stand.

 
At 16 November, 2011 00:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...your inability to comprehend that "upper layer air temperature" means the tippy top underneath the ceiling shows that you don't know what you're talking about."

Another non-explanation "explanation," Pinocchio?

In other words, you can't substantiate your assertions and you're simply babbling nonsense.

Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Now how do you get this molten aluminum up to the ceiling to react with the gypsum that is not there up by the ceiling?"

Answer: Gravity.

The molten aluminum doesn't have to travel "up to the ceiling to react with the gypsum."

Oh, that's right! You don't understand the concept of gravity. My bad.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Oh right, you just stick your magic wand up your butt and pull it out and shazzam!"

Keep your homo-erotic thoughts about Willie to yourself, goat fucker. This is a family website. Pervert.

So when do you plan to address my argument, as opposed to bashing straw men, goat fucker?

Enjoy another steaming bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 November, 2011 00:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

In other words, you have failed to show how it's possible to combine aluminum, gypsum, and 1000 C gas temps at the upper layers at the ceiling.

And anyone with any common sense can see it's not happening. Gravity? Gets molten aluminum up?

Your belief that a magic wand up your butt is erotic tells me more about you than I want to know.

I'm not aware that you have an argument. As soon as you make an assertion you start denying that you ever made it.

 
At 16 November, 2011 00:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...In other words, you have failed to show how it's possible to combine aluminum, gypsum, and 1000 C gas temps at the upper layers at the ceiling."

No, you utterly failed to show why your argument has any significance. And I already answered your question: The molten aluminum doesn't have to travel "up." Gravity is all that's necessary for the gypsum to react with the molten aluminum.

Oh, that's right, you don't understand the concept of gravity, My bad.

The goat fucker demonstrates the breadth and depth of his stupidity and scribbles, "...Gravity? Gets molten aluminum up?"

No, the molten aluminum travels downward. And what's below the molten aluminum? The next floor's ceiling. Duh!

So when do you plan to address my argument, as opposed to bashing straw men, goat fucker?

Enjoy another steaming bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 November, 2011 01:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

You keep saying "gravity" but you don't show how gravity brings aluminum into contact with gypsum.

The next floor's ceiling is a concrete floor 5" thick with steel decking under. Are you do ignorant you think there's a drywall ceiling? Did you never work in a modern office with a drop ceiling? They always put you in basement?

 
At 16 November, 2011 01:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...You keep saying "gravity" but you don't show how gravity brings aluminum into contact with gypsum."

Yeah, and you're probably baffled by the raindrops that fall on your balding noggin, too.

But you're still full-of-shit.

The answer is, and always will be, gravity.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...The next floor's ceiling is a concrete floor 5" thick with steel decking under. Are you do ignorant you think there's a drywall ceiling? Did you never work in a modern office with a drop ceiling? They always put you in basement?"

See what I mean? You will not address my argument. All you're willing to do is misrepresent my argument and bash straw men.

I never said the ceiling had anything to do with anything. That's your argument, Mr. Logical Fallacy. And you've utterly failed to explain why your argument has any relevance to my proof. (The goat fucker's argument is irrelevant--in fact, his argument is a distraction--because he's trying to change the subject from real science [my argument] to idiotic and irrelevant straw men fallacies [his argument] in order to AVOID the substance of my proof).

So when do you plan to address my argument, as opposed to bashing straw men, goat fucker?

Enjoy another steaming bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 November, 2011 08:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

GB, you're raving. The answer of "gravity" is useless without an explanation of how you get that answer.

You show don't understand your own argument when you say the ceiling has nothing to do with it. What about "the upper layer air temperature" can you not comprehend?

You're just babbling buzz-words incoherently.

 
At 16 November, 2011 09:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker whines, "...GB, you're raving."

That's right, goat fucker. Always accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit. Good little troofer Nazi.

FAIL

The goat fucker squeals, "...The answer of "gravity" is useless without an explanation of how you get that answer."

Would you care to translate that irrelevant bullshit into something that resembles the English language, 'tard?

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You show don't understand your own argument when you say the ceiling has nothing to do with it."

Since when are your straw man arguments defined "as [my] own argument"?

The only thing you've managed to prove is that you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

Now, claim that YOU understand my argument better than I do--you insane logic cesspool.

FAIL

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...You're just babbling buzz-words incoherently."

No, I destroyed your buddy "Pat Cowardly's" argument and proved that his "trap" is a pile of pseudo-science and pure crap. And now you're trying to change the subject, sow confusion and misrepresent my argument so you can declare another one of your hollow and fraudulent "victories."

So when do you plan to address my argument, as opposed to bashing straw men, goat fucker?

Enjoy another steaming bowl of FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 16 November, 2011 11:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Pat Cowardly owns and operates the "Debunking the Debunkers" blog.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home