Sunday, January 22, 2012

Hollywood Fantasists for 9/11 Truth

We have covered this attempt to create a 9/11 Truth movie, to go along with their assortment of DVDs and books, previously, but now it is getting increasingly fantastical.

“A Violation of Trust” (formerly titled “Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator”) is a feature film project that is willing to do what the world’s governments and legal bodies are unwilling to do – open a real investigation of 9/11 for the entire world to see. It dramatizes the first day of “The President’s New Investigation of 9/11”, with actors performing from a tightly-written, factually-accurate script that pits the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Reports against the work of 9/11 researcher Dr. David Ray Griffin and the scientific research highlighted by leading 9/11 truth organizations, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


The filming of “A Violation of Trust” will be performed on a single set, depicting the investigation’s public hearing room. The single-set approach provides the most intense platform for the actors and the script to involve the audience. The film’s compelling drama, forceful images and real-time video clips will be woven into its often contentious question-and-answer dialogue to create opportunities for conflicting views that will be argued both passionately and in a scientific and logical manner.

They claim to have assembled a pretty decent cast, although mostly from the list of leftist Hollywood has beens that are normally attracted like moths to a flame to any such endeavor, such as Ed Asner, Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson.  Their shooting schedule is pretty ambitious though:

The production schedule for “A Violation of Trust” is as follows:
Pre-Production: NOW


Principal Photography: 10 days beginning March 22, 2012


Post-Production: 6 weeks


Cannes “Marche du Film” Premiere: May 16, 2012


Release Date: September 11, 2012


I am no expert in the film industry, but I think 10 days is pretty ambitious, even for a film which only has one set. This has all the potential of a really bad fact-impaired documentary. 

99 Comments:

At 22 January, 2012 14:38, Blogger Len said...

Suspiciously there is no mention of who the director or screen writter are. And there is no sign of it under the old or new title on IMDB. According the same site Judd Hirsch and Woody Harrelson are currently filming other movies.

They claim to be only two months from begining filming but are still hitting people up for donations

I smell a scam!

 
At 22 January, 2012 16:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

A collection of documents about the film (inadvertently left public, it would appear) here. There's a screenplay there dated 2/13/11. No doubt they've called in Joe Eszterhas for a frantic rewrite of the bin Laden material.

 
At 22 January, 2012 20:44, Blogger Darren Cubitt said...

How do you write a factually accurate script about a fictional event?

 
At 23 January, 2012 08:19, Blogger Ian said...

How do you write a factually accurate script about a fictional event?

That's just a Hollywood marketing tactic. You know, like how "The Amityville Horror" is based on "true events".

This film (if it ever gets made) will probably be less reality-based than "The Amityville Horror".

 
At 23 January, 2012 11:03, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

If they do make the movie, it's not gonna top Avatar, Titanic and Ben-Hur.

 
At 23 January, 2012 11:52, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Martin Sheen can't seem to make up his mind. He narrated a documentary of 9/11 last fall, but now he's fiddling with twoof crockumentaries.

 
At 23 January, 2012 12:28, Blogger plague311 said...

Maybe they meant Charlie Sheen?

 
At 23 January, 2012 16:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This film (if it ever gets made) will probably be less reality-based than "The Amityville Horror".

It'll be factually accurate in the same way The Human Centipede is medically accurate.

 
At 24 January, 2012 09:31, Blogger Jurgis Rudkus said...

I'm trying to understand how anyone could research 9/11 and not at least be suspicious. Are you looking objectively or merely trying to debunk theories critical of the government in some subconscious obedience?

Have you heard Richard Gage speak, or read David Ray Griffin? Gore Vidal? 50% of NY residents?

Watch the video of the first collapse and notice the top portion, above the impact, as it leans laterally as it falls. Explain, with even a shred of an understanding of physics, why it would not topple off to the side and leave the rest of the building intact.

Do the 'put options' and lack of SEC disclosure not trouble you in the least?

Do you realize Robert McNamara admitted in "The Fog of War" that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened?

Or that the USS Maine's explosion came from inside the ship (could be accidental, too)?

There's something to be said for being critical of a story, but not for the sake of being critical. It takes true gullibility and a lack of knowledge regarding historical precedence to "research" this topic and continue to marginalize those who ask questions.

Watch this clip about Cheney admitting a plane was shot down on 9/11. *Note: 4 were hijacked, 3 hit their targets...which one remained?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC1QAR5gQrc

Arabs/Muslims and those who question official stories are the new 5th column, the enemy within, against whom we are told to rally in support of an agenda that does not benefit us in the slightest. Please read Howard Zinn, or snippets of Gore Vidal, David Ray Griffin, etc. Search for the CNN article from 9/17/11 where bin Laden denied involvement, or that the Taliban eradicated heroin by spring '01 and now Afghanistan supplies 90% of the world's heroin.

But don't believe me, or the government. Think for yourself.

 
At 24 January, 2012 09:47, Blogger Ian said...

Sigh. Why is it that every truther automatically assumes none of us are familiar with the worn-out claims made by truthers?

I'm trying to understand how anyone could research 9/11 and not at least be suspicious.

Yes, and then when one looks at the evidence, one finds that such suspicions are unfounded.

I was suspicious that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 2002. It turns out he didn't. No spin from the former Bush administration can change that.

Have you heard Richard Gage speak, or read David Ray Griffin? Gore Vidal? 50% of NY residents?

Yes, we've heard them speak. Gage and Griffin are frauds. Vidal is senile. It's also strange that in a city of 4 million alleged truthers, they can barely get 50 people to their rallies.

And the rest is just truther boilerplate that has been debunked 1000 times. Put options. Gulf of Tonkin. Blah blah blah. You just forgot "collapsed into its own footprint".

And the grand finale:

But don't believe me, or the government. Think for yourself.

Thanks for that advice. I do think for myself, which is why I'm not gullible enough to fall for the stories of con artists like Gage and Griffin.

 
At 24 January, 2012 10:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Jurgis, is this a joke?

 
At 24 January, 2012 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, in a country in which you allege that 300,000 are satisfied with the official reports, how many are willing to say so?

NIST has not debunked the laws of physics. NIST never explained why the rotating top of WTC2 failed to conform to the law of the conservation of angular momentum and continue its rotation.

By terminating their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation they dodged that question as well as the six other essential mysteries of the towers' collapses: the symmetry, totality, and speed of collapse; the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses of the outer floors, and the molten steel found in the rubble pile.

 
At 24 January, 2012 11:07, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, in a country in which you allege that 300,000 are satisfied with the official reports, how many are willing to say so?

Actually, it's 300 million. I should expect a failed janitor to know advanced math, but this is basic arithmetic.

NIST has not debunked the laws of physics. NIST never explained why the rotating top of WTC2 failed to conform to the law of the conservation of angular momentum and continue its rotation.

Brian, you're the one who says the collapse violated the laws of physics, not us. You say this because you're a delusional failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

By terminating their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation they dodged that question as well as the six other essential mysteries of the towers' collapses: the symmetry, totality, and speed of collapse; the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses of the outer floors, and the molten steel found in the rubble pile.

Brian, there are no mysteries. The above are easily explained as the delusions of a failed janitor and liar who believes in magic thermite elves.

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:42, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

But don't believe me, or the government. Think for yourself.

No, I don't believe you, I hate the Government. I already do, thanks for asking!

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:45, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

NIST has not debunked the laws of physics.

NIST doesn't give a shit about the laws of physics. They rather assess the situation and make better protocols to fight fires in steel high rise buildings. Which they've done so far with the NEW WTC buildings (including the Freedom Tower).

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:46, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

NIST never explained why the rotating top of WTC2 failed to conform to the law of the conservation of angular momentum and continue its rotation.

Comparing the WTC's to toppling of trees is just plain retarded.

When was the last time you ever saw a tree built like the WTC's?

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Toothless, actually NIST does care about the laws of physics. That's why they stopped their analysis of the towers' collapses at the moment of collapse initiation--because they couldn't explain the collapses in a manner that was consistent with the laws of physics. So they punted and didn't say anything about it at all.

With respect to WTC7 they showed that they care about the laws of physics when they several times claimed in the draft report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" and then, in the final report, they removed every iteration of that phrase because they had found it was not true.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

TruthlessandAlwaysWrong, I did not compare the behavior of the WTC to a toppling tree. I compared it to law of the conservation of angular momentum. If you care about these things, this is an opportunity for you to educate yourself. But you're too lazy--you're satisfied with ignorance.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:29, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian,

Everyday you come online, peddle what you truely believe, accept them as "facts/evidence" and then try to persuade gullible people (much like yourself) into thinking that there must be something "more" to it. My, my, my, how the paranoid world works in not-so-mysterious ways.

I did not compare the behavior of the WTC to a toppling tree. I compared it to law of the conservation of angular momentum.

Well that angular momentum applies to trees being toppled jackass. You never saw a tree fall straight down into it's own footprint before, have you?

But you're too lazy--you're satisfied with ignorance.

You really shouldn't be talking about yourself like that.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:32, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

because they couldn't explain the collapses in a manner that was consistent with the laws of physics.

Really, but somehow they can't explain why your ass is solidly on the ground without you floating off into the wild blue yonder because gravity holds you to earth?

in the final report, they removed every iteration of that phrase because they had found it was not true.

Which page and which paragraph? Source please!

 
At 24 January, 2012 18:22, Blogger Jurgis Rudkus said...

Seems like this site again falls into the "present evidence, receive insult" mold.

Say you live in Salem in 1690 and your neighbor is a midwife. The town wheelwright loses his wife and daughter in childbirth and your neighbor is about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft...do you defend her against a town mob convinced of her guilt? If you were polled with anonymity, might it be easier to speak out?

I won't waste my time because this site seems populated by high schoolers, and I certainly had my fun with immaturity at your age. I'll leave the banter to you.

Please try, in your freshman history class or during lunch at work, to keep an open mind and not condemn the messenger. Can you critically analise the situation and critique the information presented? If not, what are you doing but parroting? Are you proud of that?

When presented with evidence, refute the evidence. When you call the source a fraud instead of explaining how the evidence is fraudulent, you do yourself a disservice. As you mature, you will learn of the role the "other" has in domestic and foreign policy, be it: witches, native "savages", "yellow Japs", "commies" or "truthers".

Howard Zinn was neither a fraud nor senile.

Start there.

 
At 24 January, 2012 19:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Say you live in Salem in 1690 and your neighbor is a midwife. The town wheelwright loses his wife and daughter in childbirth and your neighbor is about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft...do you defend her against a town mob convinced of her guilt? If you were polled with anonymity, might it be easier to speak out?"

...and yet you are the guys who believe in witches...


"I won't waste my time because this site seems populated by high schoolers, and I certainly had my fun with immaturity at your age."

Translation: Run away! Run away!

Dude, guys like you never have fun.

"Please try, in your freshman history class or during lunch at work, to keep an open mind and not condemn the messenger."

Freshman history class? Is this how it's done these days? It used to be "US History Chronological", "Medieval Europe Through The Rennaissance", "California and the Western Movement", and so on.

No wonder you're uninformed.


"Can you critically analise the situation and critique the information presented? "

Can you? On the issue of 9/11 clearly not.

"If not, what are you doing but parroting? Are you proud of that?"

You seem to be. You wrote not a single original idea nor concept in your first spew. So why the double standard, Ace?

"When presented with evidence, refute the evidence."

This has been done time and time again. You offer no evidence, only accusations:

"Watch the video of the first collapse and notice the top portion, above the impact, as it leans laterally as it falls. Explain, with even a shred of an understanding of physics, why it would not topple off to the side and leave the rest of the building intact. "

It's all about the building's inner core, and gravity did the rest. Unlike WTC1, WTC2 was hit at a lower floor which left a heavy load on the remaining core columns.

In conjunction with the impact of a speeding 767, and the fact the building's twin would collapse in an identical fashion there is nothing unusual.


Then you throw in this crap:

"Do the 'put options' and lack of SEC disclosure not trouble you in the least?"

Yes it bothers me. What does this have to do with 9/11?

"Do you realize Robert McNamara admitted in "The Fog of War" that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened?"

Do you realize the crew of the Maddox was interviewed when they returned to port after the incident? Do you realize the press was already hip to LBJ's problem with the truth? Do you realize LBJ had been looking for an excuse to go into Vietnam in a big way, and would have eventually found one?

Do you realize the Gulf of Tonkin has nothing to do with 9/11?

Do you realize the Gulf of Tonkin incident occured in the dark of night in bad weather (which lead to their confusion, and unfortunate reporting)? 9/11 happened in broad daylight in Manhattan in front of millions of people on the ground, and hundreds of millions on TV.

"Taliban eradicated heroin by spring '01"

...and how did they do that? Oh right, they murdered farmers. Where is the Taliban getting their money now? Heroin.

"As you mature, you will learn of the role the "other" has in domestic and foreign policy, be it: witches, native "savages", "yellow Japs", "commies" or "truthers". "

I notice you left out jews.

"Howard Zinn was neither a fraud nor senile."

He was a clown.

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, it's you guys who believe in witches: Muscle Hijackers, for instance, who stand 5'4" high. Pilots who can steer slow and unarmed aircraft for hundreds of miles to fly them into the HQ of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Pilots who can bring three buildings down with two planes. Pilots who can cause burning buildings to violate the laws of physics, and create molten steel where there should be none.

Pretty witchy, eh?

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:38, Blogger Ian said...

Say you live in Salem in 1690 and your neighbor is a midwife. The town wheelwright loses his wife and daughter in childbirth and your neighbor is about to be burned at the stake for witchcraft...do you defend her against a town mob convinced of her guilt? If you were polled with anonymity, might it be easier to speak out?

That's a good analogy. The Salem Witch Trials were hysteria launched largely by people with an axe to grind. The accusations were irrefutable. The hysteria spread because of ignorance of basic science and logic. So yes, the truthers are a lot like those who wanted to hang witches.

I won't waste my time because this site seems populated by high schoolers, and I certainly had my fun with immaturity at your age. I'll leave the banter to you.

I do agree that truthers are basically intellectually and emotionally high schoolers. I had my conspiracy theory phase when I was 16.

Please try, in your freshman history class or during lunch at work, to keep an open mind and not condemn the messenger. Can you critically analise the situation and critique the information presented? If not, what are you doing but parroting? Are you proud of that?

It is typical of conspiracy theories that the true believers just keep parroting the same things over and over again. "Pull it", "fell into its own footprint", "fire can't melt steel", "free-fall speed" etc. etc. I don't think it's that they're incapable of analyzing the situation (at least not all of them). They just don't want to. They have an axe to grind, as I said above.

When presented with evidence, refute the evidence. When you call the source a fraud instead of explaining how the evidence is fraudulent, you do yourself a disservice. As you mature, you will learn of the role the "other" has in domestic and foreign policy, be it: witches, native "savages", "yellow Japs", "commies" or "truthers".

Yup. You should see how much truthers demonize the "other", particularly Jews. And of course, evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory is ignored, and the same tired talking points I listed above are repeated ad nauseum.

You did a good job of critiquing the truth movement. Congratulations on returning to the real world.

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Howard Zinn was neither a fraud nor senile.

He also wasn't a truther.

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, it's you guys who believe in witches: Muscle Hijackers, for instance, who stand 5'4" high. Pilots who can steer slow and unarmed aircraft for hundreds of miles to fly them into the HQ of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Pilots who can bring three buildings down with two planes. Pilots who can cause burning buildings to violate the laws of physics, and create molten steel where there should be none.

Brian, this is the 21st century. Nobody believes your insane babbling is caused by witches, nor do we believe you're possessed by demons. This is why we keep suggesting that you seek psychiatric care. There are drugs and therapy that can make your brain function more or less normally so that you stop posting gibberish like the above.

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:50, Blogger James B. said...

"Do the 'put options' and lack of SEC disclosure not trouble you in the least?"

Oh gawd, do you have any idea how many posts I have done on the put options? As soon as you get done reading them all why don't you let me know if you have any questions.

Why is it always 2002 to Truthers?

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pilots who can steer slow and unarmed aircraft for hundreds of miles to fly them into the HQ of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. "

They flew them into the HQ of Napoleon's army?

 
At 24 January, 2012 22:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you make up your facts. Howard Zinn signed the 9/11 Truth statement.

 
At 24 January, 2012 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, don't try to play historian. You're not equipped for it.

 
At 25 January, 2012 05:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you make up your facts. Howard Zinn signed the 9/11 Truth statement.

Well, then he's a fraud too. Of course, he's worm food now, so it's irrelevant.

It was Chomsky I was thinking of who has dismissed truther conspiracies as the nonsense that they are.

MGF, don't try to play historian. You're not equipped for it.

Brian, he's far more equipped to play historian than you are to play engineer or physicist. After all, you're an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:13, Blogger John said...

But don't believe me, or the government. Think for yourself.

I always love this quote from truthers. They're not really saying "Think for yourself". They're saying "If you don't accept our view of 9/11, then you're not thinking for yourself". Or, to put it another way "Think critically about the official 9/11 explanation, but don't think critically about our explanation".

I've thought for myself, thank you very much. ALL of the so-called evidence that truthers provide can be explained by other, more reasonable explanations.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:48, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

MGF, it's you guys who believe in witches

Sure, and we think that the magical properties of thermite is somehow not linked to the witches of the TM.

And witches, according to lore and myth, cast spells of those LESS FORTUNANT who are weak. Very much like you Brian.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:49, Blogger John said...

Seems like this site again falls into the "present evidence, receive insult" mold.

Like most truthers, you just present assertions, claiming they were evidence.

For example:

Do the 'put options' and lack of SEC disclosure not trouble you in the least?

Assertion: you have no evidence that any specific government official or officials or their friends took out these options. Or links thereto. The put options were investigated by SEC, and they disclosed the information here:

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

Explain, with even a shred of an understanding of physics, why it would not topple off to the side and leave the rest of the building intact.

MGF covered this very nicely above.

Do you realize Robert McNamara admitted in "The Fog of War" that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened? Or that the USS Maine's explosion came from inside the ship (could be accidental, too)?

Implication. By suggesting that these 2 historical events were caused by the US government (without providing any evidence) you are implying that 9/11 was also. This is not evidence, only another assertion.

Watch this clip about Cheney admitting a plane was shot down on 9/11. *Note: 4 were hijacked, 3 hit their targets...which one remained?

Cheney is only admitting to giving the order to shoot down the plane. He didn't say that the plane was shot down. There is a huge difference. The plane crashed after the hijackers took it over, and before an attack plane got there.

Even if they had shot it down, that would have been a perfectly reasonable response after they saw the 3 planes that had hit WTC and the Pentagon. They knew that these planes would be used as weapons, and if plane number 4 had reached it's target, than not only would the passengers have dies, but all the people at the target would have. By sacrificing the 4th plane, lives on the ground would have been saved.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:01, Blogger John said...

Search for the CNN article from 9/17/11 where bin Laden denied involvement

And, yet, he also admitted it later.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

Maybe he was lying the first time.

Have you heard Richard Gage speak, or read David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin believes that the phone calls of passengers were faked. Richard Gage uses cardboard boxes to simulate collapsing buildings. The fact they do these things discredits them in my eyes.

Finally, if you don't believe that Muslim hijackers caused 9/11, go here:

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

And see what Muslims do every day in the name of their religion. Take special note of what they do to their own people.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, actually Chomsky has pointed out that the USA has never offered any evidence that al Qaeda was guilty of 9/11.

See the Youtube video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11".

Chomsky has also expressed the opinion that Osama was assassinated last year because the USA knew that they could never prove his guilt in a court of law.

Ian, I don't need to play engineer or physicist. Only freshman understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and of Newton is necessary to recognize the deficits of the NIST reports. And none of you here has even that.

John, certainly some truthers are dogmatic people as you describe. But some are genuinely inviting people to think for themselves and examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions. And those who refuse to examine the evidence, and who rely on facile, canned answers instead ("gravity makes things fall", "somebody would have talked") can not claim to be thinking for themselves.

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the molten steel in the rubble pile?

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the lack of air defense?

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the total and symmetrical evaporation of the structural resistance of WTC7 for 8 stories?

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the 9/11 Commission's refusal to address 2/3 of the widows' questions, and their failure to answer 90% of them?

What reasonable explanation can you offer for NIST's admitted inability to explain the total collapse of the towers?

If we had reasonable explanations for these things, we would not have 1650 architects and engineers putting their careers on the line, demanding answers. We would not have people like Howard Zinn, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, Daniuel Ellsberg, David Korten, Michael Lerner, Peter Phillips, Kevoin Danaher, and Peter Dale Scott demanding answers.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:08, Blogger John said...

AND to save you some trouble here are links to what SLC has to say about:

Put Options:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Put%20Options

David Ray Griffin:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/David%20Ray%20Griffin

Richard Gage

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Richard%20Gage

You're welcome.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:16, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, actually Chomsky has pointed out that the USA has never offered any evidence that al Qaeda was guilty of 9/11.

That's a nice straw you're grasping at. He also said that the idea that the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks was "insane".

I know, it must hurt that your hero thinks you're insane, Brian, but it is what it is.

Ian, I don't need to play engineer or physicist. Only freshman understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and of Newton is necessary to recognize the deficits of the NIST reports. And none of you here has even that.

See what I mean? You act like you understand what freshman-level physics is like.

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the molten steel in the rubble pile?

That those who claimed molten steel was in the rubble pile were mistaken. It's a lot more reasonable that magic thermite sprayed on by invisible elevator repairmen.

It's like what Hume said about miracles. What's more likely, that the laws of the universe have been suspended in your favor, or that you're under a misapprehension?

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the lack of air defense?

That the US, particularly since the end of the Cold War, was not anticipating an air attack from inside its borders.

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the total and symmetrical evaporation of the structural resistance of WTC7 for 8 stories?

Fire and gravity. Once again, it's a lot more reasonable that magic thermite sprayed on by invisible elevator repairmen.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:19, Blogger Ian said...

What reasonable explanation can you offer for the 9/11 Commission's refusal to address 2/3 of the widows' questions, and their failure to answer 90% of them?

Because nobody cares about a set of irrelevant questions from a tiny sliver of the families who lost loved ones that day.

What reasonable explanation can you offer for NIST's admitted inability to explain the total collapse of the towers?

NIST was not tasked with explaining the collapses after initiation.


If we had reasonable explanations for these things, we would not have 1650 architects and engineers putting their careers on the line, demanding answers. We would not have people like Howard Zinn, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, Daniuel Ellsberg, David Korten, Michael Lerner, Peter Phillips, Kevoin Danaher, and Peter Dale Scott demanding answers.

Actually, this is evidence that we have reasonable explanations for these things, since the only people who don't accept them are a whose who of cranks of both the extreme left and right, and a tiny sliver of the engineering community.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:21, Blogger Ian said...

Once again, we're back to where we started, with Brian, a delusional liar with no understanding of physics, engineering, architecture, chemistry, or the like, expressing his incredulity.

Nobody cares what you find believable or not, Brian.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:21, Blogger John said...

Brian, in case you haven't realized, I'm not debating 9/11 with you anymore. You keep posting the same points over and over again and they get debunked over and over again. Hell, I hardly even read your posts anymore. It's the same shit ad infinitum. "Widows' questions! Molten steel! Elevator Operators! 1650 Architects and Engineers!" These are problems in your mind, not in the real world.

I've got better things to do than debate with someone who thinks buildings, bridges, cars and electronics can be made out of cardboard.

Ian, MGF and TAW can handle you just fine.

And as I keep reminding Cowardly, there will never be another investigation.

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:34, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian has poor taste in ethics.

He doesn't want to read the important statements which prove that he's insane. He follows a group that doesn't want him. He allows himself to be painted a target of redicule. He constantly repeats the same lame boring bullshit in every new thread so he can either hijack or make the OP go OT. He thinks it's fun to harass us like he did with Carol Broulliet.

The guy is a total waste of time, period. We just keep him onboard because we need some comedy and someone to laugh at.

 
At 25 January, 2012 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's not a straw man. That's what Chomsky said.

I understand freshman physics just fine. Most of you here don't know the difference between Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics.

How can you claim the witnesses to molten steel were mistaken when their observations are corroborated by a 40-pound sample of the stuff?

If Dr. Asteneh did not see melting of girders as he claims, what did he see?

NIST's own goals for the investigation were to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.

John, Mr. Gage did not use boxes to simulate buildings. He used boxes to demonstrate a law of physics that both buildings and boxes obey.

John, I do not get debunked over and over again. When I make a claim that is shown to be untrue, I stop making the claim. What happens here is that people like Ian and ButtGale and MGF lie and invent facts to give the impression of debunking. That's why I post the same facts again and again and again--because people are trying to cover them with lies.

Molten steel is a problem because jet fuel can't melt steel. If you can't recognize that 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem, then you're just not much of a man.

 
At 25 January, 2012 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, if you don't know that buildings, bridges, cars and electronics can be made out of cardboard, you just don't understand reality.

There was just a talk at Stanford last night about how solar cells can be made with organic semiconductors and printed in roll-to-roll coating machines similar to those used to make newspapers.

If you're going to claim a bridge can not be built from cardboard, you're going to have to show why not.

 
At 25 January, 2012 11:17, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Most of you here don't know the difference between Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics.

Newton's law = Gravity

Laws of Thermodynamics = Temperature

And you call us stupid?

How can you claim the witnesses to molten steel were mistaken when their observations are corroborated by a 40-pound sample of the stuff?

None of the witnesses worked with molten steel which means you arguement is irrelevent.

If Dr. Asteneh did not see melting of girders as he claims, what did he see?

A bridge girder warping from fire.

NIST's own goals for the investigation were to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.

NIST goal is to make high rise buildings safer in fire situations. The only lies are your own fool.

Molten steel is a problem because jet fuel can't melt steel.

If jet fuel can't melt steel then it's obvious, ain't it?

If you can't recognize that 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem, then you're just not much of a man.

So in your fucked up world the widows have to answer their own questions?

 
At 25 January, 2012 12:01, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it's not a straw man. That's what Chomsky said.

I didn't say it was a staw man, you moron. Learn what words mean. I said you were grasping at straws by bringing up an irrelevant Chomsky quote that in no way changes the fact that he thinks truthers are insane.

If Dr. Asteneh did not see melting of girders as he claims, what did he see?

Why don't you ask him, Brian?

Of course you won't, because he'll tell you you're insane, and then you'll start squealing and call him a girl.

NIST's own goals for the investigation were to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.

They did explain the why and how. You're just a lunatic who can't accept it, because 9/11 truth is the only thing that gives your pitiful life meaning.

Now go squeal and cry about it, Brian.

 
At 25 January, 2012 12:03, Blogger Ian said...

There was just a talk at Stanford last night about how solar cells can be made with organic semiconductors and printed in roll-to-roll coating machines similar to those used to make newspapers.

What does this have to do with anything, Brian?

Solar cells are not an analogue for structural steel.

 
At 25 January, 2012 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Toothless, if you had been paying any attention to my argument at all you would know that the laws of thermodynamics go far beyond temperature, and Newton's law of gravitational attraction is only one of his laws.

So you're proving my point about your ignorance.

Your demand that the witnesses must have worked with molten steel is absurd. Dr. Astaneh said he saw a melted girder. I suppose if you were a defense attorney you would argue that if none of the jurors ever killed anybody before, then they were not qualified to judge your client's guilt.

Dr. Asteneh said the bridge girder did NOT melt. He said the WTC girders did melt. You are willfully confused, because I have explained this to you several times.

NIST's own goals for the investigation were to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed. This appears in the first few pages of their report. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.

For you to conclude from the fact that jet fuel can't melt steel that therefore there was no molten steel is irrational. You might as well claim that since you can't walk to France, therefore there is no France.

Ian, what's irrelevant about Chomsky's statement that the USA had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11?

Ian, Dr. Asteneh said he saw melting of girders. He has never withdrawn this assertion. There's no need to ask him anything.

NIST did not explain how the buildings fell. In fact they acknowledged that they were unable to explain the total collapse.

I'm sorry that you can not conceive of the connection between organic semiconductors and newspaper rolls and cardboard electronics. That probably has something to do with the reason your job went to some teenager in Indonesia.

 
At 25 January, 2012 15:47, Blogger Ian said...

Toothless, if you had been paying any attention to my argument at all you would know that the laws of thermodynamics go far beyond temperature, and Newton's law of gravitational attraction is only one of his laws.

What "argument"? All you do is babble incoherently about things you don't understand in the least.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw a melted girder.

Nobody cares.

Dr. Asteneh said the bridge girder did NOT melt. He said the WTC girders did melt. You are willfully confused, because I have explained this to you several times.

You can squeal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Dr. Asanteh-Asl didn't see any molten steel.

NIST's own goals for the investigation were to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed.

Which they did.

For you to conclude from the fact that jet fuel can't melt steel that therefore there was no molten steel is irrational. You might as well claim that since you can't walk to France, therefore there is no France.

#12,877 in the series of Brian's idiotic analogies. Collect them all!

Also, there was no molten steel.

 
At 25 January, 2012 15:53, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what's irrelevant about Chomsky's statement that the USA had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11?

He didn't say that, Brian. If you weren't a delusional liar who can't even mop floors correctly, you might understand what he did say.

Ian, Dr. Asteneh said he saw melting of girders. He has never withdrawn this assertion. There's no need to ask him anything.

So once again, Brian runs away squealing and crying when challenged. It's hilarious how much a pathetic coward you are, Brian. Of course, you're running away because you know he never saw melting girders.

NIST did not explain how the buildings fell. In fact they acknowledged that they were unable to explain the total collapse.

Nobody cares.

I'm sorry that you can not conceive of the connection between organic semiconductors and newspaper rolls and cardboard electronics.

And now our failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves will babble about skyscrapers made of newspaper and cardboard semiconductors.

Brian, you could probably make yourself a billionaire by showing us how to substitute cardboard for rare earth metals in modern electronics. What are you waiting for?

That probably has something to do with the reason your job went to some teenager in Indonesia.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your 2 posts contain 22 lies.

I never said cardboard electronic devices would not contain rare-earth metals. On the other hand, I see no reason to think that rare-earth metals are necessarily required in cardboard electronic devices.

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:12, Blogger Ian said...

I never said cardboard electronic devices would not contain rare-earth metals. On the other hand, I see no reason to think that rare-earth metals are necessarily required in cardboard electronic devices.

That's good. For a moment I thought you hadn't thought this through clearly.

 
At 25 January, 2012 18:30, Blogger John said...

John, if you don't know that buildings, bridges, cars and electronics can be made out of cardboard, you just don't understand reality.

That's Brian's quote of the year! And it's only January!

If you're going to claim a bridge can not be built from cardboard, you're going to have to show why not.

Try this experiment. Take the strongest cardboard you can find, and make a platform of it between 2 chairs in your backyard. Then stand on it. If it supports you, great!

Now leave that platform out in the rain for a few days. Then try standing on it.

 
At 25 January, 2012 19:01, Blogger Kasha said...

Super interesting stuff. I recently took a communications class where one student opened my eyes with a report about what truly might have happened on 9/11. Keep up the good work. This is a stretch probably since I see you obviously want to stick to links related to 9/11, but since your site is so cool. I wondered if you would consider helping out our small buisness by adding a link to our website to your blog. We our just a small (very small, in our garage small) company trying to make and sell longboards. Nobody knows about them and they never will if I don't make humble, desperate requests like this. I am sorry for this. If you considered adding our link of http://www.blacklongboards.com with the title being :skateboards longboard I would be eternally grateful. Thank you for your time and keep up the good work.

 
At 25 January, 2012 20:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, I never proposed that unwaterproofed cardboard could be used for bridges, or buildings, or cars. Waterproofed cardboard is still cardboard--and yes, you can build bridges, buildings, and cars out of it.

 
At 26 January, 2012 05:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

All you said Brina was cardboard. Just because you believe nonsense doesn't make your goal post movements any more believable.

 
At 26 January, 2012 05:07, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

ETA: You can also build bridges out of witches.

 
At 26 January, 2012 05:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

All I said was cardboard, and all I needed to say was cardboard. Cardboard with a waterproof coating is cardboard, and one can build bridges, buildings, and automobiles out of it. I didn't move any goalposts. John did, when he demanded that the cardboard be unwaterproofed.

Maybe you can build bridges out of witches. I disagree. The connections between structural elements are likely to be unreliable.

 
At 26 January, 2012 07:49, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, are you going to patent your cardboard electronics inventions soon? As I mentioned, you can become extremely wealthy if you've found a cheap substitute for Neodymium. Then you can bankroll the presidential campaign of the Truth candidate.

Speaking of which, who is the truther candidate this year? Given that 84% of Americans agree with the truth movement, there must be a presidential candidate with strong poll numbers who is calling for a new investigation.

 
At 26 January, 2012 08:19, Blogger John said...

You should have specified waterproofed cardboard instead of just saying cardboard. Cardboard normally comes without waterproofing.

Just so I understand you correctly, before you throw in more specifications. You believe that it's possible to make a bridge out of cardboard, (now with waterproofing). And this cardboard is the only material used, or at least the main structural material, much in the way that, though the Golden Gate bridge has concrete on it, the main structural material is metal. Is that right?

 
At 26 January, 2012 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, electronic circuits printed on paper and cloth have been known for a long time. I doubt there's anything left to patent in terms of cardboard circuits.

Yes, John, it's possible to build the structural components of bridges out of cellulose sheets glued together in a cunning manner.

 
At 26 January, 2012 10:19, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, electronic circuits printed on paper and cloth have been known for a long time. I doubt there's anything left to patent in terms of cardboard circuits.

I'm sure you could patent systems with cardboard in place of rare earth metals. I mean, if cardboard can replace structural steel in skyscrapers and bridges, it can surely replace neodymium in hybrid vehicles.

 
At 26 January, 2012 10:41, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

if you had been paying any attention to my argument at all you would know that the laws of thermodynamics go far beyond temperature, and Newton's law of gravitational attraction is only one of his laws.

Your arguement (like you) is utterly irrelevent.

Tell me, why does it have the word "THERMO" in the word you provided? It doesn't go beyond temperature, sorry but you lose.

Wow, give the goat a cookie for confirming that gravity brought down the buildings.

So you're proving my point about your ignorance.

You really need to stop talking about yourself.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw a melted girder.

But then again he can't see through concrete floor pans nor the outter columns. He's not SuperMan.

Dr. Asteneh said the bridge girder did NOT melt.

If the girder didn't "melt" then what do you suppose happened to that girder?

For you to conclude from the fact that jet fuel can't melt steel that therefore there was no molten steel is irrational.

It was you that said that jet fuel can't melt steel. So fuck off.

 
At 26 January, 2012 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. Cardboard design requires that the material be exploited on its own terms.

Have you ever noticed that you constantly reinterpret everything before reacting to your erroneous interpretation?

 
At 26 January, 2012 10:47, Blogger John said...

Well, son of a bitch! You CAN make a working bridge out of cardboard!

http://inhabitat.com/shigeru-bans-cardboard-bridge/

But I notice that to can only hold 20 people at a time, and he has to dismantle it for the rainy season. Plus, it's not 100% cardboard, as it has steel connectors and tension members.

It's not going to replace the bridges on the highways. But color me impressed. What won't the Japanese think of next?

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:18, Blogger Billman said...

Plus, it's not 100% cardboard, as it has steel connectors and tension members.

Then.. you CAN'T make a bridge out of cardboard.

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:19, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. Cardboard design requires that the material be exploited on its own terms.

Then admit that what Gage did was childish.

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:21, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I think Brian's best chances of succeeding using cardboard would be to use Pyecrete.

Of course Brian has not idea what I'm talking about so it shouldn't really matter at this point.

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:31, Blogger Ian said...

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel.

Thanks for proving my point. Gage's demonstration is nonsense.

 
At 26 January, 2012 13:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"What reasonable explanation can you offer for the molten steel in the rubble pile?"

There was none.

"What reasonable explanation can you offer for the lack of air defense?"

Okay, let's start with the fact there were only 18 aircraft on stand-by available to defend the entire US on 9/11.

"Stand-By" means fueled, armed, and a pilot to make them go zoom!

Then you have the fact that NEADS was relying on the FAA to track the aircraft, and the FAA lacked the ability to givie them actionable information so they could vector the fighters to the targets.

In the case of AA11, even had the F-15s been able to intercept the plane there all they could do was watch it fly into the North Tower as there was no shoot-down order (because it was just a hijacking, and up until 08:46, 9/11/2001 they didn't just shoot down hijacked planes).

The USAF didn't have the money to just have fighters on stand-by as they did during the Cold War. Nobody at DoD saw this kind of threat on a serious level (they were thinking truck-bombs. Don't believe me? Look at how the DoD spent it's money - pop-up barriers, and anti-blast coatings for its buildinds).

The FAA ignored over 51 warnings about hijacking threats from June, 2001, right up to 9/11/2001.

Why? Money!

Counter-terrorism is expensive on every level. The airlines bitched every time the government issued a terror warning in the 1990s (remember those?). Long lines, whining passengers, and flight delays made the airline's mad. They'd call their Congressman, he'd ream the FAA, the FAA would walk away butt-hurt.

Even today post-9/11 people bitch about the costs. I agree with them. The TSA is worhtless and should be done away with. Anti-terror laws reach too far, and are being abused on non-terror operations. On the buisness end the intel protocols, attitudes, and internal structural deficiancies which lead to the attacks of 9/11 are mostly intact.

Eventually new terrorists will figure this out, and we will see another large successful attack...and then the finger-pointing and the consiracy loons will have a new chew toy.

 
At 26 January, 2012 13:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If Dr. Asteneh did not see melting of girders as he claims, what did he see? "

He saw the wreckage of buildings brought down by the buckling of steel from massive fires which followed impact of two 767s.

Glad I can clear this up.

 
At 26 January, 2012 14:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"That's why I post the same facts again and again and again--because people are trying to cover them with lies."

Allegations are not facts.


"Molten steel is a problem because jet fuel can't melt steel."

There was no molten steel, so there is no problem.


"If you can't recognize that 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem..."

The problem is those unanswered questions are political footballs unrelated to 9/11 and designed so they cannot be answered. They do this so nimrods such as yourself run wild with bullshit.

," then you're just not much of a man."

Really? A man like you? A man who harassed a married woman? A man who runs away from debates with Willie Rodriguez, and the Pentagon-was-hit-by-a-missle guys (then denies he ran away)?. A man who has problems with women and African-Americans in postitions of power?

"If you're going to claim a bridge can not be built from cardboard, you're going to have to show why not."

I would pay to see this Myth-Buster's episode.

"John, Mr. Gage did not use boxes to simulate buildings. He used boxes to demonstrate a law of physics that both buildings and boxes obey."

The problem is if the WTC had been constructed using an extrapolated design based on cardboard boxes, meaning building Gage's model to full scale with no deviation,the planes would have bounces off the sides.

That's the fun part of science where fizzix 'n injuneering come together to fuck moroons in the butt.

 
At 26 January, 2012 14:05, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian's like a moth to a flame, a fly to a bug zapper.

 
At 26 January, 2012 14:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. Cardboard design requires that the material be exploited on its own terms."

Yes you did:

"John, if you don't know that buildings, bridges, cars and electronics can be made out of cardboard, you just don't understand reality."

You implied it. Buildings and bridges are (assuming you're talking about high-rise buildings, and modern bridges for vehicles)made with a steel foundation, and structure. By saying they can be built using cardboard implies cardboard is equal to steel.

Here again you contradict yourself as you argue your sorry ass into yet another corner.

 
At 26 January, 2012 23:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Truthless, I knew about Pykrete years ago.

Ian, you believe Gage's demonstration is nonsense because you insist on misinterpreting it before you react to it. It's a perfectly valid demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

MGF, you are constantly explaining NORAD's incompetence because it serves your need to think everyone is an idiot except you.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. So you're calling him a liar? How do you explain the 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten ferrous material?

No, there were far more than 18 aircraft available if you count aircraft other than fighter jets. A single C-130H managed to intercept TWO of the hijacked airliners. But none of the 1800 mph f-15s intercepted even one.

NEADS was relying on the FAA to track the aircraft? So you're claiming NORAD had no radar capability? We've already been over this and you refuse to learn. Captain Nasypany said NORAD's radar screens showed every aircraft in the sky above the US.

FAA told NORAD when flight 11 was 30 miles N of JFK. The F-15s could have done much more than watch--they could have ordered AA11 to land, they could have threatened its cockpit area with lowered landing gear, they could have threatened to shoot it down.

It wasn't "just a hijacking". Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plan to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and Sears Tower had been known since 1995.

NORAD had multiple drills on dealing with hijacked airliners, including an airliner-into-WTC scenario. We've been over this. You refuse to learn and you make up your facts.

This country is wide open to new terrorist attacks that could kill thousands. The reason it hasn't happened is because the terrorists don't want to attack.

Dr. Asteneh said he saw melting of girders. You can not remove evidence simply by lying about it.

That 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem, and that you think the fact that the questions are politically embarrassing to your favorite politicians trumps the need for transparency in a democracy is despicable.

I didn't harass anybody, and Carol doesn't say I did. I didn't run away from any debates. I haven't seen either one of those parties willing to set foot in the Bay Area.

I don't have problems with women and African-Americans in positions of power. I have problems with war criminals who hide behind their gender and skin color because fools like you can be counted on to defend them no matter how reprehensible their actions.

Mr. Gage's demonstration was not a simulation of the buildings. He used boxes to demonstrate a law of physics that both buildings and boxes obey. The planes were not part of the demonstration. Obviously you've never had freshman physics.

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. I said bridges could be built of cardboard. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Your readings of implications and contradictions are at about 3rd grade level.

 
At 27 January, 2012 07:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you believe Gage's demonstration is nonsense because you insist on misinterpreting it before you react to it. It's a perfectly valid demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

False.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. So you're calling him a liar?

Not a liar, just mistaken. He's said so himself. But you'll keep grasping at straws anyway.

A single C-130H managed to intercept TWO of the hijacked airliners.

That's nice, Brian.

The F-15s could have done much more than watch--they could have ordered AA11 to land, they could have threatened its cockpit area with lowered landing gear, they could have threatened to shoot it down.

They could have dropped a platoon of modified attack baboons on the plane, who then could have chewed their way into the cockpit and killed Mohammed Atta.

It wasn't "just a hijacking". Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plan to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and Sears Tower had been known since 1995.

Nobody cares.

 
At 27 January, 2012 07:31, Blogger Ian said...

This country is wide open to new terrorist attacks that could kill thousands. The reason it hasn't happened is because the terrorists don't want to attack.

Or maybe they're just waiting for the death ray beam in space they're building to become operational.

Dr. Asteneh said he saw melting of girders. You can not remove evidence simply by lying about it.

Poor Brian, he thinks his lies are "evidence" and he can't stop squealing when we dismiss it.

That 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem, and that you think the fact that the questions are politically embarrassing to your favorite politicians trumps the need for transparency in a democracy is despicable.

Nobody cares about your "widows" no matter how much you squeal about them and how much you babble about "democracy".

I didn't harass anybody, and Carol doesn't say I did. I didn't run away from any debates. I haven't seen either one of those parties willing to set foot in the Bay Area.

False. You were thrown out of the truth movement for being a disgusting pervert and sex stalker.

I don't have problems with women and African-Americans in positions of power.

False.

Mr. Gage's demonstration was not a simulation of the buildings.

Well, that's obvious. The thing is, he claims they are a simulation of the buildings, because he's a fraud and charlatan who preys on weak-minded simpletons like you.

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. I said bridges could be built of cardboard. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Your readings of implications and contradictions are at about 3rd grade level.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, it's not easy being a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and gets laughed at constantly.

 
At 27 January, 2012 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your frantic piling up of heaps of lies only discredits your own position. It's a cynical waste of time.

 
At 27 January, 2012 10:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I knew about Pykrete years ago.

Then what does it consist of?

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders.

Astaneh isn't Superman.

That 90% of the widows' questions unanswered is a problem

And you problem you have is how can they answer thier own questions?

I didn't harass anybody, and Carol doesn't say I did.

Asking her to boot her husband to the curb and when she said "No." you flipped out and harassed her through e-mail. Hell, even Kevin Barrett said you did the same to him. And yes I know what you're going to say: "Kevin's a liar." You're so fucking predictable.

I don't have problems with women and African-Americans in positions of power.

And you're words about Condi Rice speak volumes about your racism.

Mr. Gage's demonstration was not a simulation of the buildings. He used boxes to demonstrate a law of physics that both buildings and boxes obey.

Wow, another contradiction.

I never said cardboard could replace structural steel. I said bridges could be built of cardboard.

2 contradictions in a row. He's on fire! Or is he filled with thermite?

 
At 27 January, 2012 10:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Truthless, your comments are just wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko.

 
At 27 January, 2012 11:11, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your frantic piling up of heaps of lies only discredits your own position. It's a cynical waste of time.

I've pwn3d Brian so badly that he doesn't even try to refute my points anymore. He's just squealing and crying.

Truthless, your comments are just wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko.

More squealing. It's tough being a failed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement.

 
At 27 January, 2012 11:34, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

your comments are just wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko and wacko.

You really should stop talking about yourself, you're gonna hurt your ego. Oops, too late!

 
At 27 January, 2012 12:43, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian's name on JREF is "SuperLogicalThinker".

Since Brian's talking about thermodynamics here, and "SuperLogicalThinker" brought up the same thing.

 
At 27 January, 2012 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, there's only one guy in the world who points out that NIST's reports do not adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.

You guys are a waste of time.

 
At 27 January, 2012 16:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, you are constantly explaining NORAD's incompetence because it serves your need to think everyone is an idiot except you."

NORAD wasn't incompetent, just overwhelmed.


"Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. So you're calling him a liar"

No, I'm calling you a liar.

"Obviously you've never had freshman physics."

Obviuosly neither did Gage.

"No, there were far more than 18 aircraft available if you count aircraft other than fighter jets..."

Fighters are used to make intercepts, dumbass. This is true for every air force on earth.

" single C-130H managed to intercept TWO of the hijacked airliners."

I don't think you understand what "intercept means". The C-130 pilots made visual contact with the much faster 767s. That's it.

"But none of the 1800 mph f-15s intercepted even one."

1800 mph is their maximum speed. Few F-15 pilots ever fly this fast due to fuel consuption. Any idiot knows this.

"It wasn't "just a hijacking". Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plan to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC and Sears Tower had been known since 1995. "

It was "just a hijacking" until it flew into the North Tower. The F-15 pilot scrabled from Otis said they couldn't have shot the first plane down because it was not protocol on any level.

You keep throwing Bojinka out there like you know what you're talking about. The fact is Bojinka was a phased plan focusing largely on passenger jets flying out of the Philippines. They had a long list of targets.

The 9/11 plot was developed by KSM's cell, he brought it to bin Laden who got the financing. It was KSM who rushed the operation into action in September, 2001, because he felt the Americans were getting close to exposing the plot.

So you don't even have the right guys or the right time frame. Typical troofer logic.

 
At 28 January, 2012 09:39, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Right, there's only one guy in the world who points out that NIST's reports do not adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're admitting that you are "Superlogicalthinker" on JREF?

You guys are a waste of time.

And you're wasting your time on JREF.

 
At 28 January, 2012 10:13, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Someone on JREF should be told that "Superlogicalthinker" is Brian Good.

 
At 28 January, 2012 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, and how exactly were NORAD's 1800-mph F-15s overwhelmed by 600 mph airliners? ONE 350-mph C-130 managed to intercept two of the hijacked airliners.

Was it being overwhelmed that caused the planes to sit on the tarmac for many minutes, and caused some of them to fly out to sea when their alleged target was a plane somewhere around Baltimore?

Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melting of girders. I've linked the statement many times. I didn't lie about anything.

If you want to, you can intercept a hijacked airliner with anything that flies. Are you suggesting that NORAD didn't want to intercept the airliners?

Also, 18 was not the number of planes. It was the number of planes maintained on alert. Big difference. Your sources of information are dishonest.

It' wasn't "just a hijacking" until it flew into the North Tower. The moment flight 11 vectored toward the WTC, the suspicion that Project Bojinka might be underway was justified.

Interception and shoot-down are two different operations. For you to attempt to justify the lack of intercepts by saying shootdown was not an option is silly.

Bojinka was a phased plan, and Phase II involved flying hijacked airliners into Sears Tower, WTC, TransAmerica Pyramid, the Pentagon, and other targets. Your sources of information employ very weaseley language to create impressions that are not true.

The information that the 9/11 plot was developed by KSM's cell comes entirely from testimony extracted under torture. FBI director Mueller said the FBI had found not one piece of paper tying al Qaeda to 9/11. You are very gullible.

 
At 28 January, 2012 13:19, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, and how exactly were NORAD's 1800-mph F-15s overwhelmed by 600 mph airliners? ONE 350-mph C-130 managed to intercept two of the hijacked airliners.

Don't you just love it when Brian completely ignores facts that don't fit his delusional narrative?

Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melting of girders. I've linked the statement many times. I didn't lie about anything.

Stop lying, Brian.

It' wasn't "just a hijacking" until it flew into the North Tower. The moment flight 11 vectored toward the WTC, the suspicion that Project Bojinka might be underway was justified.

Of course, once it started moving away from its intended flight path, the immediate response was that it was obviously going to ram itself into the WTC, because once there was a plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific.

Brian, you really need to sniff less glue before you babble here.

It's too bad that you weren't the director of NORAD on 9/11. I'm shocked that the military wouldn't have use for a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in invisible widows.

 
At 28 January, 2012 13:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what possible motivation could you have for your continual lying? Is your life so pathetic?

Project Bojinka, as I pointed out above, involved flying hijacked airliners into Sears Tower, WTC, TransAmerica Pyramid, the Pentagon, and other targets.

You're only demonstrating your dishonesty and ignorance.

 
At 28 January, 2012 14:05, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what possible motivation could you have for your continual lying? Is your life so pathetic?

Poor Brian, he has no responses left. All he can do is squeal and squeal.

Project Bojinka, as I pointed out above, involved flying hijacked airliners into Sears Tower, WTC, TransAmerica Pyramid, the Pentagon, and other targets.

That's nice, Brian.

You're only demonstrating your dishonesty and ignorance.

Poor Brian, he's really upset that I make fun of his obsession with invisible widows with "questions".

 
At 28 January, 2012 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your stooopid lies don't have the power to upset me--only to annoy.

 
At 28 January, 2012 16:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your stooopid lies don't have the power to upset me--only to annoy.

Poor Brian, I humiliated him again. No wonder he can't stop squealing!

 
At 28 January, 2012 16:37, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, I know someone who works for the Obama Administration and she said that they're considering giving Willie Rodriguez the Medal of Freedom. What do you think of that?

Pretty soon, Rodriguez will be internationally famous for his heroics, while you'll continue to be a failed janitor who posts spam all over the internet and calls people "girls".

 
At 28 January, 2012 17:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, and how exactly were NORAD's 1800-mph F-15s overwhelmed by 600 mph airliners?"

You keep throwing 1800mph around as if it's magic. Speed mean's nothing without a target. No F-15 was overwhelmed because they never got close to any of the jetliners.

" ONE 350-mph C-130 managed to intercept two of the hijacked airliners."

Uh...no.

"Was it being overwhelmed that caused the planes to sit on the tarmac for many minutes, and caused some of them to fly out to sea when their alleged target was a plane somewhere around Baltimore?"

I'm just sharing this because it is so poorly worded. Your mental capacity is becoming increasingly impared. New meds?


"Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melting of girders. I've linked the statement many times. I didn't lie about anything."

Yes, and in the PBS story the good doctor explains that heat from a gasoline tanker truck-fire weakened steel causing collapse, then he says just like the World Trade Center. You always ignore this important part.

"Also, 18 was not the number of planes. It was the number of planes maintained on alert. Big difference. Your sources of information are dishonest."

Yes it is a big difference, you retard, because you just can't run out onto an Air Force runway, jump into any F-15/16/22, and fly off. Most don't have fuel, none are armed, and many are undergoing stages of repair.

As it was two F-16s from Andrews took to the air unarmed.

"It' wasn't "just a hijacking" until it flew into the North Tower. The moment flight 11 vectored toward the WTC, the suspicion that Project Bojinka might be underway was justified."

How many USAF pilots had heard of Bojinka? How many in NORAD? How many in the CIA?

It was just a hijacking because the pilot of one of the F-15s from Otis explained it that way.

"Interception and shoot-down are two different operations."

Nope. That's why only fighter do it.


"For you to attempt to justify the lack of intercepts by saying shootdown was not an option is silly."

I said shoot down of AA11 was not an option. The other three were fair game. Your reading skills really do suck.

You're a high school drop-out aren't you.

 
At 28 January, 2012 17:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The information that the 9/11 plot was developed by KSM's cell comes entirely from testimony extracted under torture."

So was the information on Bojinka. You really are a dipshit.

 
At 28 January, 2012 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 January, 2012 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I would be delighted if the Obama Administration gave Willie Rodriguez the Medal of Freedom. The exposure of Willie would be very good for the truth movement.

MGF, there's nothing magical about 1800 mph. It's just a speed. For instance, it means an f15 can fly from DC to NYC in 8 minutes, and from DC to Shanksville in 5 min.

Where do you get the idea that there wasn't a target? FAA controllers tracked 175 as it flew toward the WTC. Pittsburgh airport was evacuated before flight 93 flew over it. Do you really believe that flight 77 flew 400 miles back from Ohio to DC and no one knew where it was?

One 350-mph C-130 managed to intercept two of the hijacked airliners. Uh ... yes.

Thanks for your concern about my "imparement". Chuckles are always nice.

Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melting of girders. In the PBS story Dr. Astaneh explained that the freeway girders did not melt.

You'll have to back up your claim that he said the heat weakened the steel. As I recall it was thermal expansion of an unfireproofed girder that caused the freeway failure, not weakening.

How long does it take to fuel an F-16, and why do you think it needs to be armed?

Oh right, you endorse the concept that our soldiers should be wussies who are afraid to die? I think our soldiers are paid to be willing to die. Am I wrong about that?

The pilots don't need to know about Bojinka. The planners knew about Bojinka since 1995.

Interception and shoot-down are two different operations. That's simple logic. You don't have to shoot a plane to intercept it.
You're incompetent.

There's no comparison between the information that the 9/11 plot was developed by KSM's cell and the information about Bojinka.

As a warning, the information about Bojinka need not be of high quality. You cited the loiw-quality KSM info as it were proof.

You really need to finish college. What are you afraid of?

 
At 29 January, 2012 11:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I would be delighted if the Obama Administration gave Willie Rodriguez the Medal of Freedom. The exposure of Willie would be very good for the truth movement.

Rodriguez has nothing to do with the truth movement. He's a hero who has been a victim of slander at the hands of the liars and frauds that make up your tiny crackpot movement.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home