Saturday, January 21, 2012

Typical Truther Scholarship

A Truther named Dr Paul Rea has written a book, apparently his second Troofer tome.  Dr Rea is uniquely qualified to write such a book, possessing degrees in structural engineering, fire safety, history and aviation.

Okay, just kidding.  Actually he was a professor in the humanities, which means his major qualification for writing this book is that his computer has a word-processing program.  The book sells for $32.95 but is discounted on his site to only $21.00 (softcover).  He's made a few chapters available online.

As usual, it's not hard to find errors.  For example, discussing the Mexican cession of territory following the Mexican-American War, he says:

The war was short, but the gains were huge. As a price for halting its drive southward, the United States forced Mexico to sign over a vast area, which included all of what is now New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, and part of Colorado (E. Foner Give Me Liberty! Vol. 1 pp. 402-405).
Well, I'm not a history major, either, and yet I knew instantly that was not true.  For starters, over half of New Mexico was originally part of the Republic of Texas, and came into the Union when the Lone Star State did.  In addition, a large segment of  New Mexico and Arizona (including the locations of the current cities of Tucson and Yuma) were added with the Gadsden Purchase.  He also attributes the US entry into World War I to the sinking of the Lusitania, which appears to be something that all Truthers get wrong.

The sloppy scholarship continues into the chapter on WTC 7:

For the first two or three hours, the blazes were scattered and not immediately visible. NIST also acknowledged that the first photographs or videos of WTC-7 fires were taken at about 12:10 a.m., and that two other photos were taken at 12:28.
Fires at WTC 7 on 9-11 at 12:10 a.m. would indeed be quite suspicious, as that was more than 10 hours before the falling debris from the North Tower hit the building.

We get the usual nonsense about Barry Jennings' recollections:
Despite the evacuation order and the police presence that must have accompanied it, the mayor’s staffers did enter the WTC-7 just after 9:00. Michael Hess, corporation counsel for the city and a close friend of Giuliani; and Barry Jennings, the Director of Emergency Services for the City Housing Authority, made it up to the OEM (Independent [UK] 9/13/01). Expecting to find Giuliani at the command center, they were amazed to find “everybody was gone.” Since evacuations take time, these reports imply an evacuation order was given before 9:03.

Puzzled, Jennings called other staffers, one of whom told him “to leave and leave right away.” A superior also commanded him to “get out of there now.” But the elevators didn’t work because the power had gone out (BBC 9/6/08).
Rea ignores the evidence supplied in that final sentence, "the power had gone out."  We know that the power went out when the South Tower collapsed, right around 10:00.  Which of course shows that Jennings was wrong with his estimation that he entered the building around 9:00.  Jenning's times are all off by about 30-40 minutes; once you adjust for that by comparing other things he said, his testimony fits perfectly with other accounts.  Truthers don't make adjustments because their whole case rests on BS, like "Oooh, look this guy says it was 9:00 but X didn't happen until 9:40, so therefor the time of X must be wrong."  Think Norm Mineta here; there is abundant evidence that Mineta's times are off by as much as an hour, and yet do any of them make the obvious conclusion that Mineta was wrong?

WTC-7’s relative obscurity is itself puzzling. This high-rise building wasn’t hit by an airliner, and at 47 stories it would have stood as the tallest skyscraper in 30 states. When New York Times reporter James Glanz characterized the fall of WTC-7 as “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world” (NYT 11/29/01), he was factoring in media environment right after 9/11. But it wasn’t just a tsunami of shocking news that has caused WTC-7 to go underreported; it also posed big challenges to the Official Story.

The fall of WTC-7 should have been a bigger story because the circumstances of its demise were anything but “normal.” While the standard narrative says the skyscraper disintegrated because of fire damage, this seemingly simple hypothesis introduces more ambiguity than it dispels. Was fire really a sufficient cause, especially when one recalls that, before 9/11, no steel-framed high rise had ever come down because of fire?
The Troofers' continual amazement at the relative obscurity of WTC 7 is amusing.  Granted, on almost any other day it would have been headline news all across the country.  But on a day when two 110-story towers collapsed, killing over 2000 people, the collapse of a 47-story skyscraper that killed nobody is absolutely minor news that will be reported, if at all, in the 83rd paragraph of an 86-paragraph story.  I forget who it was, but some baseball player had the misfortune to pass away the same day Ty Cobb did; whose death do you think was headlined and whose got a brief mention at the end of the story?

95 Comments:

At 21 January, 2012 11:45, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Good Lord! This reminds me of some asshole (PoshJerkins) on YouTube saying that Barry Jenning's is admitting that there was "bombs" inside WTC7.

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

 
At 21 January, 2012 11:59, Blogger Ian said...

I looked closer at the Mexican-American War stuff, and found this part telling:

Extending the American tradition of protest, men of conscience dissented. Henry David Thoreau, who strenuously opposed war and oppression, sensed that an expansion of slavery lurked behind the quasi-religious justification for expansion. In a one-man protest, Thoreau went to jail rather than pay his War Tax (Thoreau “Civil Disobedience”). Just half a century after its founding, the young Republic was heading toward repeated provocations and pretexts for war.

Remember, kids: truthers like to think of themselves as some sort of tiny oppressed minority speaking truth to power. I guess we should be glad this clown is only comparing himself to Thoreau and not Sophie Scholl.

And of course, the opposition to the Mexican-American War was much more widespread than this paragraph would suggest. Most northern states were against it.

 
At 21 January, 2012 12:04, Blogger Ian said...

WTC-7’s relative obscurity is itself puzzling.

Um, no. Nobody had ever heard of it. I'm a pretty big NYC skyscraper aficionado and even I had never heard of it until 9/11, when the various news channels were telling me that, um, it was on fire and in danger of collapse.

This high-rise building wasn’t hit by an airliner, and at 47 stories it would have stood as the tallest skyscraper in 30 states.

That's nice. Maybe if the building were located in Bismarck, ND, it would be better-known. And maybe if Paul Rea were capable of clear thinking, he wouldn't be writing boilerplate truther manifestos.

 
At 21 January, 2012 12:11, Blogger Ian said...

The Troofers' continual amazement at the relative obscurity of WTC 7 is amusing.

It also amuses me that they continue to harp on it. It's like they know that their ideas about WTC 1 & 2 are nonsense, so they desperately need this one to keep their theories going. I mean, it looks like a controlled demolition, unlike towers 1 & 2.

Of course, the problem is that they can't come up with anything remotely plausible as to why it was necessary to destroy WTC 7 for the conspiracy to succeed. I guess blowing up an empty, obscure building with billions of people watching was worth the risk of getting caught by intrepid investigators like Paul Rea, because there was no way the American public would have gotten on board with invading Afghanistan without it.

 
At 21 January, 2012 12:29, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Has anyone ever heard about Michael Hess being with Barry Jenning and saying in an interview that he didn't hear any explosions inside WTC7 and that he thought that it was "bombs" going off since the light were flashing and the building was shaking?

 
At 21 January, 2012 12:31, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Micheal Hess Interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html

I'm pretty sure James can put this in the article.

 
At 21 January, 2012 14:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The Troofers' continual amazement at the relative obscurity of WTC 7 is amusing.

Yeah. WTC7 is suspicious because no plane hit it, but simultaneously, planes didn't really take down WTC1 and 2 either.

 
At 21 January, 2012 14:56, Blogger Ian said...

Yeah. WTC7 is suspicious because no plane hit it, but simultaneously, planes didn't really take down WTC1 and 2 either.

It also looks like CD, at least from the north which is where all the cameras watching it were. WTC 1 and 2 don't look like CD.

Of course, the problem with WTC 7 is that there is no motive. In a James Bond-esque alternate reality, I could see how killing thousands of people in two iconic skyscrapers could be used to launch wars of conquest. Destroying WTC 7 doesn't further those goals at all.

 
At 21 January, 2012 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if WTC7 was rigged to be demolished on 9/11 during the time the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and if those charges for some reasons (such as sabotage) failed to function, then blowing up WTC7 at 5:20 serves the goal of launching wars of conquest because if it were not blown up, then the risk of discovery of the malfunctioning charges would be very great.

 
At 21 January, 2012 15:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

if it were not blown up, then the risk of discovery of the malfunctioning charges would be very great.

Why would removing the stuff undetected be riskier than installing it was?

 
At 21 January, 2012 15:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

If thermite or explosive materials were sprayed inside hollow steel columns, it would not be possible to remove it.

 
At 21 January, 2012 16:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If thermite or explosive materials were sprayed inside hollow steel columns, it would not be possible to remove it.

Why not? Any coating can be removed. It might take a wire brush and acetone but it'll come off.

 
At 21 January, 2012 17:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, pray tell, how does one use a wire brush to remove a coating that was sprayed inside a hollow steel box column through a 3/16" hole?

 
At 21 January, 2012 17:31, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, pray tell, how does one use a wire brush to remove a coating that was sprayed inside a hollow steel box column through a 3/16" hole?

By making the hole wider. If you prefer, 3/16" is plenty of room for a sandblaster nozzle.

 
At 21 January, 2012 17:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

What a mess.

The road to Pearl Harbor stretches back to the 1890s. Pearl Harbor was warned by the White House and the War Department about the possibility of attack, it's why they moved the aircraft into neat little rows on the airstrip.

Then he calls Vietnam a "full scale war"...yet it wasn't. It was never prosecuted seriously which is why we had the trouble we did. There was no plan for victory. Any military histrian knows this.

Then he throws in the Reichstag Fire because he just can't help himself. The German people were pissed off, and this is why they elected - yes elected - Hitler in the first place. They were looking for a fight, and Hitler made one for them.

My college history professor is as liberal as they come. This guy's lack independant thought is breath taking.

 
At 21 January, 2012 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 January, 2012 17:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT--so you think going back in, finding and opening disguised holes, or even drilling new ones, and then sandblasting inside hollow columns is less risky than blowing the building and relying on the cynical apathy of the Ians of the world and trying to claim fire did it?

So where do you get these magic sandblast elves that are willing to do such a thing and not talk about it?

MGF, so 50,000 Americans die in Vietnam and you think it's not a full-scale war?

 
At 21 January, 2012 20:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, so 50,000 Americans die in Vietnam and you think it's not a full-scale war?"

Nope, and neither the Army nor the DoD think so either. A full-scale would have involved a declaration of war which never happened against Vietnam. Once war is declared the entire economic, industrial, and social energy of the US is directed to victory. That means nukes.

Vietnam is classified as a "Low Intensity Conflict" by the US Army.

50 thousand dead over 11 years pales to our losses in WWII, WWI, and the Civil War when we'd lose that many men in one day.

I'm not saying Vietnam was no big deal, but no historian can call it a full on war. Only nut-jobs like you.

 
At 21 January, 2012 22:40, Blogger Pat said...

Ian, if WTC7 was rigged to be demolished on 9/11 during the time the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and if those charges for some reasons (such as sabotage) failed to function, then blowing up WTC7 at 5:20 serves the goal of launching wars of conquest because if it were not blown up, then the risk of discovery of the malfunctioning charges would be very great.

Wait a minute, Brian. Who sabotaged the imaginary charges in WTC 7?

 
At 22 January, 2012 12:02, Blogger James B. said...

The fact that he cites Stinnet is all you need to know about his "scholarship".

 
At 22 January, 2012 13:05, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 January, 2012 13:08, Blogger John said...

Off-topic, but very apropos for truthers:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-online-petitions-that-prove-democracy-broken/

 
At 22 January, 2012 15:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you just make up your facts. In WWI we lost 53,000 in combat; in Vietnam 47,000. So I guess WWI was not a full-scale war either. When did we ever lose 50,000 in one day?

Pat, I think any reasonable person will agree that nobody sabotaged any imaginary charges in WTC7, because there were no imaginary charges. So I can't answer your question. If postulated charges were sabotaged by a postulated saboteur, I would suppose that person was a patriot inside the postulated op.

Don't succumb to one-bit binary thinking--e.g., what hasn't been proven is imaginary.

 
At 22 January, 2012 16:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, as usual you just make up your facts. In WWI we lost 53,000 in combat; in Vietnam 47,000. So I guess WWI was not a full-scale war either. When did we ever lose 50,000 in one day?"

Way to go, dumbfuck, the US had 116,516 killed, and another 204,002 wounded in WWI.

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

We only fought from late 1917 through 1918. Around a year. We were in Vietnam in a serious way from 1964 through 1972/73. We lost 58,272.

http://thewall-usa.com/

You can't even deal with simple facts can you.

 
At 22 January, 2012 16:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"When did we ever lose 50,000 in one day?"

My bad, I forget Gettysburg was 3 days.

Chickamauga was 34,624 in one day. Not too shabby. It's around 70% of the ten year death toll of Vietnam.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

 
At 22 January, 2012 17:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

You seem to be adopting ButtGale's tactic of trying to cover your lies with more lies.

At Gettysburg 3,155 union troops died.

At Chickamauga less than 1700 union troops died.

 
At 22 January, 2012 17:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You seem to be adopting ButtGale's tactic of trying to cover your lies with more lies."

They're all Americans.

 
At 22 January, 2012 19:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

And now once again you are citing a niggling distinction in a effort to cover up your lies.

At Gettysburg 8,000 died.

At Chickamauga 4,000 died.

Nothing like your fantasy claims of 35,000 and 50,000.

 
At 22 January, 2012 20:28, Blogger Pat said...

If postulated charges were sabotaged by a postulated saboteur, I would suppose that person was a patriot inside the postulated op.

So patriotic that he didn't try to prevent something like 2900 deaths, instead he tried to prevent the supposed demolition of a building with nobody inside it?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh, wait, I'm talking to a moron.

 
At 22 January, 2012 20:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"At Gettysburg 8,000 died.

At Chickamauga 4,000 died.

Nothing like your fantasy claims of 35,000 and 50,000."

Well then Vietnam was just a long weekend by your standards.

 
At 22 January, 2012 21:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, why do you assume he would know about 2900 deaths?

MGF, by your standards WWI was just a long weekend. You really are an ass.

 
At 23 January, 2012 08:07, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if WTC7 was rigged to be demolished on 9/11 during the time the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and if those charges for some reasons (such as sabotage) failed to function, then blowing up WTC7 at 5:20 serves the goal of launching wars of conquest because if it were not blown up, then the risk of discovery of the malfunctioning charges would be very great.

See what I mean? Only a deranged glue-sniffing liar and failed janitor who wears women's underwear and washes his hair with soap could believe that destroying WTC 7 furthered the goals of the conspirators.

 
At 23 January, 2012 08:15, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, I think any reasonable person will agree that nobody sabotaged any imaginary charges in WTC7, because there were no imaginary charges.

This is correct. WTC 7 had no charges in it. There is no evidence whatsoever that a controlled demolition took down WTC 7.

Also, I should have read further to find that our failed janitor who lives with his parents is babbling about war casualties. Nobody cares what you have to say about the Civil War or Vietnam any more than we care what you have to say about 9/11. You sometimes seem to forget that you're a liar and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves.

 
At 23 January, 2012 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, how can you be so confident that blowing up a CIA office, an SEC office, and an IRS office would not serve the goals of conspirators? How do you know this before the question of who the perpetrators might be has even been investigated?

Ian, there is much evidence of controlled demolition at WTC7. Your confident and fact-free pronouncements are ludicrous. There were reports of explosions, there are sounds of explosions on tape, there is the unnatural symmetry of WTC7's fall, there is the 2.2-second period of freefall, which requires that 8 stories of structure simply vanish in perfect symmetry. There is melted steel recovered from the rubble pile.

I'm not babbling about anything. MGF claimed that in past wars, 50,000 US soldiers died in one day. I showed that his claim was a lie.

 
At 23 January, 2012 10:03, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, how can you be so confident that blowing up a CIA office, an SEC office, and an IRS office would not serve the goals of conspirators? How do you know this before the question of who the perpetrators might be has even been investigated?

We know who the conspirators were, Brian. There is little evidence that they even knew WTC 7 existed.

Ian, there is much evidence of controlled demolition at WTC7.

False.

Your confident and fact-free pronouncements are ludicrous.

And the squealing begins....

There were reports of explosions, there are sounds of explosions on tape, there is the unnatural symmetry of WTC7's fall, there is the 2.2-second period of freefall, which requires that 8 stories of structure simply vanish in perfect symmetry. There is melted steel recovered from the rubble pile.

...as do the delusions of a failed janitor who lives with his parents, wears women's underwear, washes his hair with soap, believes in magic thermite elves, and was banned from the truth movement for being a sex stalker.

I'm not babbling about anything.

False.

MGF claimed that in past wars, 50,000 US soldiers died in one day.

Nobody cares.

I showed that his claim was a lie.

False. You showed that you're a failed janitor who ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 23 January, 2012 10:04, Blogger Ian said...

It's a new week, Brian. Do you think the widows' questions will be answered by Friday?

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

 
At 23 January, 2012 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your making no sense. How could someone blow up WTC7 without even knowing it exists?

 
At 23 January, 2012 10:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your making no sense. How could someone blow up WTC7 without even knowing it exists?

What makes you think that WTC 7 was blown up? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

Also, Brian, you didn't answer my question about the "widows". Are you going to run away squealing and crying from me too?

 
At 23 January, 2012 11:00, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

At Gettysburg 8,000 died

51,112 total casualites, not 8,000 you dickhead.

 
At 23 January, 2012 13:00, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Psssst. No one talk about Pat's "scholarship" when he failed to provide a single source for his assertion that the melted iron in the dust 'could easily' have come from torches...before he backed away from that assertion in humiliated, uninformed shame.

 
At 23 January, 2012 13:29, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Shhhh...Pat Cowardly doesn't know that salt water and steel makes rust, aka iron oxide.

My car has these iron rich spheres on them and it doesn't explode nor catch fire and melt.

 
At 23 January, 2012 13:31, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

How could someone blow up WTC7 without even knowing it exists?

LOL! If it didn't exist there would no reason to blow it up in the first place. Thus no grand conspiracy.

 
At 23 January, 2012 16:55, Blogger moochacha2b said...

There are many secrets that will surface as Truth in 2012, but that won't stop people from denying their validity.

There's a bit of wisdom that applies here, I think: "There are two ways to be fooled: One is to believe what isn't so; the other is to refuse to believe what is so. --Soren Kierkegaard.

Most people on the planet think they know exactly how this world works, what life is about, how we came to be here, who our creator is, etc. etc. Later this year they will look very foolish. Trust me. And it will be interesting to see it unfold and to here their screams of denial.

 
At 23 January, 2012 17:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Just to keep score on Brian, first he scrawls this:

"Ian, if WTC7 was rigged to be demolished on 9/11 during the time the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and if those charges for some reasons (such as sabotage) failed to function, then blowing up WTC7 at 5:20 serves the goal of launching wars of conquest because if it were not blown up, then the risk of discovery of the malfunctioning charges would be very great."

...followed by:

"If thermite or explosive materials were sprayed inside hollow steel columns, it would not be possible to remove it."

...then he says this:

"
Pat, I think any reasonable person will agree that nobody sabotaged any imaginary charges in WTC7, because there were no imaginary charges. So I can't answer your question."

...and finally he oinks:

"Ian, there is much evidence of controlled demolition at WTC7. Your confident and fact-free pronouncements are ludicrous."

He explains how the imaginary thermite could have been applied, then says there were no charges. and then claims there is plenty of evidence explosive were used.

This is a serious brain disorder.

 
At 23 January, 2012 18:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Most people on the planet think they know exactly how this world works"

Depends on what you mean by "world". Biologically and geologically we have agood understanding. Socialogically is a different story.

"...what life is about"

Life isn't "about" anything.

"...how we came to be here"

Our parents, via our grand parents, and so on. No big mystery.

"...who our creator is"

If we have a creator it's not a "who" in the way we understand indentity.


"Later this year they will look very foolish. Trust me."

Why wait until later this year, you're foolish now.

"And it will be interesting to see it unfold and to here their screams of denial."


...and when it doesn't?

 
At 23 January, 2012 18:07, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, a Mayan doomsday prophecy loon. I think that's the first one we've had here.

Well, at least if the world ends in 2012, I don't have to be a Mets fan any longer.

 
At 24 January, 2012 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, either you are unaware of your poor reading comprehension or you have declined to let it humble you as it should.

Imaginary thermite by definition does not exist, so I never explained how imaginary thermite could have been applied.

I never said there were no charges. I don't know if there were charges or not.

There is evidence of explosives, and any claim to the contrary is a lie.

 
At 24 January, 2012 09:40, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, either you are unaware of your poor reading comprehension or you have declined to let it humble you as it should.

My, such squealing!

Imaginary thermite by definition does not exist, so I never explained how imaginary thermite could have been applied.

Right. There was no thermite used in destroying WTC 1, 2 or 7. It's all in your deranged mind.

I never said there were no charges. I don't know if there were charges or not.

You don't know if there were charges or not because you're an ignorant lunatic who doesn't know how to Google. Those of us who aren't delusional know there were no charges.

There is evidence of explosives, and any claim to the contrary is a lie.

False. There is only evidence that you're a delusional liar.

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you don't know there were no charges because you can't know there were no charges. You have provided no evidence that charges inside the hollow box columns sufficient to distort, but not to shatter, those columns would make a lot of noise outide the columns.

You provide no explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free fall in wtc7. The only reasonable explanation for this that I've heard is that structural support was removed by explosives and/or incendiaries.

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:50, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

You provide no explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free fall in wtc7.


Funny how you totally leave outthe part where it stated in the NIST report that after the "2.25 second frre fall" that it decelerated close to 5-6 seconds after a split second and continued to decelerate til it hit the ground.

Brian, the 2.25 "free fall" is IRELEVENT. Kind of like all of your arguements.

 
At 24 January, 2012 13:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you don't know there were no charges because you can't know there were no charges.

I can and do know there were no charges.

You have provided no evidence that charges inside the hollow box columns sufficient to distort, but not to shatter, those columns would make a lot of noise outide the columns.

So what? You've provided no evidence that these charges existed.

I mean, if you want to go down that path, show me your evidence that the towers weren't brought down by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. Bill Deagle is a serious and respected researcher, so I'd take his word over a failed janitor and liar like you.

You provide no explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free fall in wtc7.

Gravity. Learn to Google.

The only reasonable explanation for this that I've heard is that structural support was removed by explosives and/or incendiaries.

You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves. Nobody cares what you consider "reasonable".

 
At 24 January, 2012 14:57, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Micheal Hess, who was with Barry Jennings, never saw nor heard any type of explosions or explosives going off.

So that proves that the 2.25 thing is irrelevent.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Toothless, I don't know where you went to school, but where I come a completely baseless declaration that something is "irrelevant" is not an explanation.

The 2.25 seconds of freefall has not been explained--except by the explosive hypothesis.

Please tell us what liar gave you your information about Michael Hess.

Here's Hess talking about explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64

Stop being such a gullible Wacko.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:41, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

where I come a completely baseless declaration that something is "irrelevant" is not an explanation.

Your explainations are irrlevent.

The 2.25 seconds of freefall has not been explained--except by the explosive hypothesis.

Who cares about the 2.25 thing. It's not relevent with explosives. Just because I say: "Pull my finger.", doesn't mean my finger's gonna come off by some planted explosive.

Please tell us what liar gave you your information about Michael Hess.

How about Michael Hess himself? You jackass:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion.


Calling him a liar now you asshole?

Stop being such a gullible Wacko.

You must really like talking about yourself.

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:51, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I brought up about Michael Hess confessing that there was no explosions in WTC7 before and all I get is squealing and name calling from loons like Brian.

I thought Brian wanted the truth? Looks like he's looking for the opposite!

 
At 24 January, 2012 15:53, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

But according to Brian's logic, it was an earthquake that brought down WTC7.

 
At 24 January, 2012 16:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The comedy continues:

Bwian says :

"Imaginary thermite by definition does not exist, so I never explained how imaginary thermite could have been applied."

But earlier he said:

"If thermite or explosive materials were sprayed inside hollow steel columns, it would not be possible to remove it."

LMAO! Dumbass...

Then he oinks out this gem:

"I never said there were no charges. I don't know if there were charges or not."

"I never said there were no charges" means (if you understand English) that he said there were charges. Then - correctly (presumably a cry of help from deep within his damaged brain) he admits the obvious truth:

"I don't know if there were charges or not"

No, Bwian, you don't. You don't because there was no evidence of their use found in the wreckage. Not one of the thousands of FDNY, NYPD, FEMA,FBI, ATF people (most with military experience, all having some experience with explosives) reported anything.

Just the troofers. Troofers who weren't there.

 
At 24 January, 2012 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you're definitely a few ants shy of a picnic. You see contradictions where there are none.

"I never said there were no charges" means (if you understand English) that he said there were charges.

No it doesn't. "I never said I fucked your sister" does not mean "I never fucked your sister."

How would you expect all these witnesses to see evidence of explosives when the steel was being picked up by giant crabclaws 24/7 and dumped in dumtrucks?



5 PhDs reported molten steel. How do you get the molten steel?

 
At 24 January, 2012 18:03, Blogger Ian said...

How would you expect all these witnesses to see evidence of explosives when the steel was being picked up by giant crabclaws 24/7 and dumped in dumtrucks?

*facepalm*

5 PhDs reported molten steel. How do you get the molten steel?

Since when do explosives melt steel?

It continues to be hilarious how desperate you are for CD to be true. You know that you have no evidence for CD, so you alternate between explosives and thermite whenever it's convenient for the deranged argument you're making.

I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you post here, or if you think we'll believe it. Either way, you're in serious need of professional help.

 
At 24 January, 2012 18:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"No it doesn't. "I never said I fucked your sister" does not mean "I never fucked your sister."

Except you would have written: I never said I didn't fuck your sister.

Let's dissect:

"I never said there were no charges. I don't know if there were charges or not."

The first sentence states, by declaring the negative of a negative, that you did say there were charges.

A functional person would have written:

I never said there were charges" or "I never said there were any charges".

Yet you said:

"I never said there were no charges. I don't know if there were charges or not."

The last part of the sentence is a declarative:

There were no charges.

The first part negates the second part:

I never said...

So with basic sentence construction by declaring you never said there were no charges you - in fact - state you did say there were charges.

This is 7th grade stuff, moron.

 
At 24 January, 2012 18:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How would you expect all these witnesses to see evidence of explosives when the steel was being picked up by giant crabclaws 24/7 and dumped in dumtrucks?"

So by insunuation there were stealth crabclaws at Ground Zero, and they were driven by blindfolded drivers.

I will add this to the list.

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, it's 7th grade stuff all right, and you need to do 6th grade over.

"I never paid you money I don't owe you" does not mean I owe you money.

What kind of evidence of explosives would you expect crabclaw operators to see at 3 a.m. after weeks of overtime work?

And what if, as I suggested, charges inside the hollow columns were sized not to blow them open, but simply to bulge them out so they then buckle under the weight of the building above? How would the operators know those buckled columns were not the result of a natural collapse?

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:45, Blogger Ian said...

And what if, as I suggested, charges inside the hollow columns were sized not to blow them open, but simply to bulge them out so they then buckle under the weight of the building above? How would the operators know those buckled columns were not the result of a natural collapse?

So we're back to invisible charges, huh? What happened to the thermite?

 
At 24 January, 2012 20:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So we're back to invisible charges, huh? What happened to the thermite?"

Goes with the invisible crabclaws.

 
At 24 January, 2012 21:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

""I never paid you money I don't owe you" does not mean I owe you money."

It means you paid me money.

You said:


"I never said there were no charges"

Which means you DID say there WERE charges.

What you probably meant to say was :

"I never said there were charges"

However this exercise underlines your fundimental problem to read, and understand English.

 
At 24 January, 2012 21:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"And what if, as I suggested, charges inside the hollow columns were sized not to blow them open, but simply to bulge them out so they then buckle under the weight of the building above? How would the operators know those buckled columns were not the result of a natural collapse?"

Explosives leave residue. You can smell this.

This hillarious thing is the heat from the fire caused the steel to buckle, yet you refuse to believe this.

 
At 24 January, 2012 22:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 January, 2012 22:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I am sorry, but you are logically incompetent. Get a LSAT study guide. Study it.

Explosive residue inside hollow columns that are not breached is unlikely to be detected.

You have no evidence that fire heated the steel to the point of seriously weakening it.

 
At 25 January, 2012 05:59, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, I am sorry, but you are logically incompetent. Get a LSAT study guide. Study it.

We should listen to him. He's the dean of Stanford Law School.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

Explosive residue inside hollow columns that are not breached is unlikely to be detected.

We should listen to him. He's a demolitions expert.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

You have no evidence that fire heated the steel to the point of seriously weakening it.

We should listen to him. He's a forensic investigator and an expert on fire damage.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I do not need to be Dean of anything to be able to advise that systematic practice in reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning is a worthwhile activity--particularly for those like yourselves who are deficient in those regards. At the least the practice may have some much-needed humbling effects which might inhibit over-active fact-invention behaviors.

I do not need to be an explosives expert to know that explosive residue sealed up inside a hollow steel box that was not breached is unlikely to be detected.

I do not need to be an expert on fire damage to know that MGF has no evidence that the steel was heated to the point of serious weakening--because none of you here have presented any.

Your argument starts from a false premise and then merges three logical fallacies: the ad hominem, argument from authority, and false attribution.

You invent a set of imaginary authorities --a law school dean, an explosives expert, and a fire damage expert--and you imagine that they say whatever you want them to say. Then you contrast a fictional version of me with your imaginary elven experts.

When you must indulge in wacko analysis to support your version of common sense, perhaps you should reconsider what is common sense.

 
At 25 January, 2012 09:54, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

5 PhDs reported molten steel. How do you get the molten steel?

Brian, what temperature does aluminum melt?

Explosive residue inside hollow columns that are not breached is unlikely to be detected.

How could they do that while putting up a building in BROAD DAYLIGHT with thousands of people and workers looking at them?

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I do not need to be Dean of anything to be able to advise that systematic practice in reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical reasoning is a worthwhile activity--particularly for those like yourselves who are deficient in those regards. At the least the practice may have some much-needed humbling effects which might inhibit over-active fact-invention behaviors.

Squeal squeal squeal!

You're right, you don't have to be dean of anything to understand logic, as I do. However, you're also a delusional liar and obsessed lunatic, so your command of reason and logic is nonexistent.

I do not need to be an explosives expert to know that explosive residue sealed up inside a hollow steel box that was not breached is unlikely to be detected.

Right. And you have plenty of evidence to support this assertion, right?

I do not need to be an expert on fire damage to know that MGF has no evidence that the steel was heated to the point of serious weakening--because none of you here have presented any.

False. The evidence has been presented. You just squeal and bury it in dumbspam every time we do, because you're a delusional liar.

Your argument starts from a false premise and then merges three logical fallacies: the ad hominem, argument from authority, and false attribution.

Actually, it's none of these three, but you'll keep babbling about this because you're a delusional liar with a hideous haircut.

You invent a set of imaginary authorities --a law school dean, an explosives expert, and a fire damage expert--and you imagine that they say whatever you want them to say. Then you contrast a fictional version of me with your imaginary elven experts.

Well, none of these people would say the things you say because they're not insane failed janitors who wear women's underwear and spend all their waking hours babbling about invisible widows all over the internet.

When you must indulge in wacko analysis to support your version of common sense, perhaps you should reconsider what is common sense.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 25 January, 2012 10:39, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Ian, Brian is like a stubborn donkey. You can't get him to walk, all he does is stand there and brays uncontrolably.

In short terms, he's a jackass. But we already know that he is. ;-)

 
At 25 January, 2012 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

ToothlessandAlwaysWrong, "broad daylight" when inside an elevator shaft is a pretty meaningless concept.

If you're interested in stealth construction, google .... secret retofit citibank tower 1978....

Ian, even if your assumption were true that I am a delusional liar and obsessed lunatic, that would not mean my logic was faulty. And you provide no evidence tro support your assumption.

It is axiomatic that explosive residue inside a sealed steel box will not be detected--unless somebody has reason to open the box.

Nobody has presented any evidence that the fires heated the steel to the point of serious weakening.

Your argument starts from a false premise and then merges three logical fallacies: the ad hominem, argument from authority, and false attribution.

So your imaginary law school dean would not advise people to study reading and logic to improve their minds?

So your imaginary explosives expert would not opine that explosive residue in a sealed steel box is unlikely to be detected?

And your imaginary fire damage expert would say the steel was heated to the point of weakening--even though no physical evidence to that effect has been provided?

You're only demonstrating that you live in a fantasy world.

Your belief that the widows are invisible is another demonstration.

 
At 25 January, 2012 15:58, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, even if your assumption were true that I am a delusional liar and obsessed lunatic, that would not mean my logic was faulty. And you provide no evidence tro support your assumption.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Brian's a delusional liar and obsessed lunatic!

Your argument starts from a false premise and then merges three logical fallacies: the ad hominem, argument from authority, and false attribution.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

He has to repeat the same dumbspam because I've humiliated him!

You're only demonstrating that you live in a fantasy world.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Now Brian is just squealing because he's humiliated that I mocked his haircut!

Your belief that the widows are invisible is another demonstration.

Brian, you're the lunatic who believes in invisible widows (and magic thermite elves and modified attack baboons), not me.

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your lies are transparent to anyone.

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your lies are transparent to anyone.

So if my lies are obvious, this must mean the widows questions have been answered, right?

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

So having demonstrated your dishonesty, now you're demonstrating your irrationality.

8 year old girls think such behavior is funny, but they usually outgrow it by 9-1/2.

 
At 25 January, 2012 16:47, Blogger Ian said...

So having demonstrated your dishonesty, now you're demonstrating your irrationality.

So in other words, you can squeal and squeal all you want, but because everyone knows you're a failed janitor who wears women' underwear, the widows will never have their questions answered.

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

8 year old girls think such behavior is funny, but they usually outgrow it by 9-1/2.

Aaand there it is. Brian called us "girls". Yup, that's how it always ends when Brian has been pwn3d.

Game. Set. Match.

 
At 25 January, 2012 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

5 sentences, 7 lies.

Ian wanders off into the tall weeds, his golf club whirling, chanting "game, set, match; game, set, match; game, set, match; game, set, match."

 
At 25 January, 2012 18:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian wanders off into the tall weeds, his golf club whirling, chanting "game, set, match; game, set, match; game, set, match; game, set, match."

So Brian, does this mean the widows questions have been answered?

I find it strange that you refuse to answer that question. It's almost as if you don't want to face the reality that you've failed yet again to accomplish any truther goals. And I'll still be here laughing at you and your terrible haircut.

 
At 25 January, 2012 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would you expect anyone to waste their time answering questions from a liar?

 
At 26 January, 2012 07:45, Blogger Ian said...

Why would you expect anyone to waste their time answering questions from a liar?

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

Brian has FAILED yet again to get the widows questions answered!

I bet you go to your congressman's office with a list of the questions, and the receptionist just points and laughs and says "look at your haircut!" and they you start squealing and call her a girl.

 
At 26 January, 2012 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you bet on the stock market like you bet on the internet, you'd be broke in 2 years. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 26 January, 2012 09:56, Blogger Ian said...

If you bet on the stock market like you bet on the internet, you'd be broke in 2 years. You live in a fantasy world.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Which, of course, is why I'm not broke. I actually have an education and understand how the world (including financial markets) works.

Brian, meanwhile, passes his meager disability checks on to frauds like Richard Gage. At very least, Brian, you should be spending your money on a better barber who will give you a less hideous haircut.

 
At 26 January, 2012 10:46, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

"broad daylight" when inside an elevator shaft is a pretty meaningless concept.

That's funny how you think that they could've planted explosives inside the elevator shafts without the buildings employees not seeing them do it nor carting in boxes that says "Explosives" written on them through the lobby and security.

If you're interested in stealth construction, google .... secret retofit citibank tower 1978....

Comparing buildings to stealth aircraft now? Jesus!

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:29, Blogger Ian said...

Comparing buildings to stealth aircraft now? Jesus!

What he's saying is that there was a design flaw in the Citigroup Tower in midtown Manhattan that required a retrofit to prevent a possible collapse in high winds. It was done in the cover of night as to not panic the building's tenants.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, but Brian is desperately grasping at straws here.

 
At 26 January, 2012 11:49, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Just because they did it at night doesn't prove anything either.

Yup, Brian is grasping at the Scarecrows balls right about now.

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

"You have no evidence that fire heated the steel to the point of seriously weakening it."

Oh but I have three examples:

WTC1
WTC2
WTC7

All three fall down go boom.

 
At 26 January, 2012 13:40, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Fire does more damageto steel structures due to the fact that steel is a great heat conductor.

Of course Brian will say that steel is a "poor" heat conductor.

Well, let's see if Brian is willing to put his hand on an electric stoves heating coils (which are steel BTW) and see his reaction as he burns his hand off.

 
At 26 January, 2012 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, so you have examples without evidence? Then how do you know they're examples? Ever hear of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy?

Truthless, I've never argued that steel is a poor heat conductor. In fact its heat conductivity is another factor that renders the official claims absurd. The core was a giant heat sink. The perimeter columns made a giant radiator. Heat was wicked away from any hot spots.

 
At 27 January, 2012 10:11, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

In fact its heat conductivity is another factor that renders the official claims absurd. The core was a giant heat sink.

Before he even typed out what he wanted to say it was already a contradiction to begin with. You are very predictable Brian.

 
At 27 January, 2012 10:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no contradiction. That specious argument is as empty as the "quote-mining" or "America-hating" arguments.

Without thermal conductivity, heat sinks would not work.

Thermitic coatings would allow extremely rapid local heating such that heat could not be conducted away in time to prevent local damage. Ordinary fires would not heat so rapidly.

 
At 27 January, 2012 11:37, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Without thermal conductivity, heat sinks would not work.

You just said that the core was a heat sink and not you're contradicting what you're saying? LOL!

Ordinary fires would not heat so rapidly.

Ordinary fires don't care what you think. They're only goal is to consume large amounts of fuel and oxygen and cause destruction on a massive scale.

You can't explain those wild fires out in California can you?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home