Sunday, February 12, 2012

Something Vaguely Menacing Happened...

One of the fundamentals of conspiracy theory logic, if you can call it that, is that you make vaguely menacing statements, without ever explaining what it actually means.  A perfect example of this is exciting the Truthers over on 911 Blogger with an article arguing that many of the pilots and passengers on the doomed 9/11 flights were last minute replacements.


New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute 
 Thomas McGuinness, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 before it became the first plane to be hijacked in the 9/11 attacks, only assigned himself to be on the flight the afternoon before September 11, 2001, and pushed from it the original co-pilot, who had put his name down for the flight less than half an hour earlier. This new information means that, curiously, half of the pilots and co-pilots originally at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks are now known to have been assigned to the doomed flights at the last minute, very shortly before September 11. Additionally, more than half of the flight attendants and many of the passengers are known to have, similarly, not originally been booked onto those flights.

The details of McGuinness's late assignment to Flight 11 were revealed recently by Steve Scheibner, who was originally going to be the plane's co-pilot. In a short film released on the Internet just before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Scheibner described how McGuinness came to replace him on Flight 11 and thereby saved his life.

Of course, despite the fact that the truthers are going crazy over this "evidence", it is the only recent post with more than a handful of comments, there is no explanation as to what this actually means, just that it is "bizarre".


What, though, is the reason for the bizarre and inexplicable finding that so many crew members and passengers on Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 on September 11 were not originally supposed to be on those flights? An unrestrained new investigation of 9/11 needs to examine this matter thoroughly. The official account of 9/11 cannot explain this oddity. The answers investigators find could therefore fundamentally change our understanding of what exactly happened during the terrorist attacks.

Of course just because it may be slightly unusual, means nothing.  If, as the Truthers like David Ray Griffin have been arguing for years, the phone calls were faked, wouldn't a bunch of last minute changes make things even more difficult for the alleged conspirators, not easier?  There is no logical connection to any sort of conspiracy, but that certainly won't stop them from vaguely asserting them.

102 Comments:

At 13 February, 2012 10:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Yeah, it's best to take James Bennett's and Pat Curley's approach: if something is suspicious or unusual, call it an 'anomaly' and publicly discourage any investigation of it at all, even if you have no idea how to explain it, and especially if your proposed "explanation" is physically impossible.

Tell us what a homonymn is next, James.

 
At 13 February, 2012 11:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

call it an 'anomaly' and publicly discourage any investigation of it at all,

Don't be discouraged. 9/11 Truth is on the rise. Your numbers are growing. When the truth finally comes out, the tyrants will be crushed. The debunkers will be humiliated and broken.

It's going to happen. Don't give up hope.

 
At 13 February, 2012 12:01, Blogger Billman said...

iiOr you can take Pat Cowardly's approach and stalk anyone who disagrees with your claims that something sinister can be the ONLY explanation for them, even going so far into your delusion that you name yourself after your very opposition and repeatedly bring up their dead relatives whenever they ignore you.

 
At 13 February, 2012 12:11, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

If I were James, I'd sure be glad that I have winners like Testes and Li'lman to speak for me all the time.

They have a non-answer for EVERYTHING!

 
At 13 February, 2012 12:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

They have a non-answer for EVERYTHING!

That's why you're here, isn't it? To get slapped around and abused? Go somewhere else if you're not having a good time. I don't do requests.

Again, I recommend you hange out with the Debunking the Debunkers frat-boys. They've got a combined 6 years of adulthood between them, and they're really really intelligent.

 
At 13 February, 2012 17:47, Blogger Len said...

Pat Cowardly -Earl Warren who was appointed by Eisenhower was succeeded Warren Earl Burger who was appointed by Nixon who was Ike's VP. Nixon was from California and so was Warren. LBJ and Ike were both born in small towns in central Texas.Ike and Warren were born a few months apart, both grew up in the Midwest . Warren died in 1974, Nixon resigned exactly a month later. Nixon became president in 1969, ike died 2 month later, Warren regined a few months after that. Warren led the commision that investigated the assassinationof JFK who succeaded Ike and defeated Nixon. Ford who was also on the commission succeaded Nixon. Ford was 1st elected to congress in 1948, Warren was the GOP VP candidate in 1948, Nixon was party's VP in the next election. Warren was elected Governor of California, Nixon was defeated. Thus Warren was elected to position Nixon was defeated for and Nixon was elected to a position Warren was elected to. Nixon, Ford, JFK and LBJ were all Navy officers in Pacific theater in WWII.

 
At 13 February, 2012 22:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's his story, and he's sticking to it!

 
At 14 February, 2012 04:20, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Yeah, it's best to take James Bennett's and Pat Curley's approach: if something is suspicious or unusual, call it an 'anomaly' and publicly discourage any investigation of it at all

Now please tell us all what this particular anomaly, if indeed it is one, could possibly mean in relation to twoofy inside job scenarios?

 
At 14 February, 2012 04:58, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

It about as relevant as Charles Burlingame being the pilot of 77. Apparently muslim extremists would never hijack and crash a plane; crazy, I know. But, its a foregone conclusion by airline pilots apparently

 
At 14 February, 2012 08:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, normal investigations look for anything unusual, and then they look into it. Who was switched in, who was switched out, are there any patterns to these events?

You guys seem to have convinced yourselves that curiosity about anomalies is somehow pathological by demanding that any curious thing be shown to be proof of something before it's even investigated.

If you were Arthur Conan Doyle, every Sherlock Holmes story would be the same. Holmes would go out on a case, sniff around a bit, and say to himself "Well I can't prove who did it yet, so I'm not going to look any deeper. I'm going home to my fire and my cocaine!"

Your demand that Holmes prove who-dunnit on the first page reveals an anti-intellectual impatience with the very enterprise of investigation.

 
At 14 February, 2012 08:21, Blogger Ian said...

DU, normal investigations look for anything unusual, and then they look into it. Who was switched in, who was switched out, are there any patterns to these events?

Right, and when they find that nothing abnormal is going on, and there are no patterns, they end the investigation. That's the part that you seem incapable of understanding.

You guys seem to have convinced yourselves that curiosity about anomalies is somehow pathological by demanding that any curious thing be shown to be proof of something before it's even investigated.

Um, no. We want to see proof after it's been investigated.

Meanwhile, you dismiss any investigations that don't confirm your belief as "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable" and then you start babbling about symmetrical dust clouds, molten steel, and widows questions.

If you were Arthur Conan Doyle, every Sherlock Holmes story would be the same. Holmes would go out on a case, sniff around a bit, and say to himself "Well I can't prove who did it yet, so I'm not going to look any deeper. I'm going home to my fire and my cocaine!"

Number 627,381 in the series "Brian Good's insane, idiotic analogies". Collect them all!

Also, stop pretending you've ever read anything more sophisticated than "Superfudge".

 
At 14 February, 2012 09:44, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

After all these idiotic responses, not a single person tries to portray James Bennett as someone who DOESN'T engage in this kind of unscholarly, unscientific, deceptive, and clearly ineffective dissuasion of honest research.

Too funny.

How does that feel, James? Even your cockpuppets can see through your schtick.

 
At 14 February, 2012 10:05, Blogger Ian said...

Keep fighting the good fight, Pat Cowardly. Someday, the truth about 9/11 will come out. Just like someday, you'll get your high school diploma, that job at Burger King back, and lose your virginity.

 
At 14 February, 2012 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, upon what report do you base your belief that an investigation found that there was nothing abnormal in the alleged anomalous number of personnel-switches involving 9/11 flights?

Skidmark, some day the world will wake up to the obvious--that the official investigations of 9/11 do not comport with the laws of physics. If you believe that they do, please show that they do. Show where NIST calculated the gravitational energy available and determined the energy bleeds necessary to dismember the structure, pulverize the concrete, deform and crush the steel, and hurl multi-ton steel subunits 200 yards at 60 mph.

That's just the 1st Law. Show where NIST explained how molten steel could be found in the rubble pile when neither jet fuel nor anything that can be reasonably expected at the WTC can melt steel. That's the 2d Law.

Explain how it was that the angular momentum of the tilting top block of WTC2 was suddenly arrested, in violation of Newton's 1st Law and the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Explain how it was that the lightweight top block was not nibbled into a disorganized mass of rubble (the birdsnest) as it nibbled away at the heavier lower structure (the post). Also explain how an acceleration of 2/3 that of gravitational acceleration was achieved. That's Newton's 3rd Law.

NIST has not explained any of this. It will be explained. And when it is, NIST, and you, and SLC, are all going to look very very foolish.

 
At 14 February, 2012 10:39, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

DU, normal investigations look for anything unusual, and then they look into it. Who was switched in, who was switched out, are there any patterns to these events?

That's great, Brian. Now work the personnel switch into an inside job scenario for me.

 
At 14 February, 2012 10:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

DU, normal investigations look for anything unusual, and then they look into it.

Normal investigations don't do that. Only on television do investigations do that, because raising new questions keeps the viewer engaged. Normal investigations look for answers.

I believe you've hit it accidentally on the head here -- Truthers tend to fixate on meaningless anomalies, because they watch too much CSI.

 
At 14 February, 2012 11:00, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, upon what report do you base your belief that an investigation found that there was nothing abnormal in the alleged anomalous number of personnel-switches involving 9/11 flights?

Um, you're the one making the claim that something abnormal happened, not me. Show me the report that says that the personnel switches were suspicious.

Skidmark, some day the world will wake up to the obvious--that the official investigations of 9/11 do not comport with the laws of physics.

I'm sure the world's leading experts in engineering, physics, architecture, and materials science will one day agree with the ravings of an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents. It just takes a long time.

If you believe that they do, please show that they do. Show where NIST calculated the gravitational energy available and determined the energy bleeds necessary to dismember the structure, pulverize the concrete, deform and crush the steel, and hurl multi-ton steel subunits 200 yards at 60 mph.

I will, but you have to acknowledge that you are petgoat first.

 
At 14 February, 2012 11:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

How does that feel, James?

Wrong chatroom.

 
At 14 February, 2012 11:04, Blogger Ian said...

That's just the 1st Law. Show where NIST explained how molten steel could be found in the rubble pile when neither jet fuel nor anything that can be reasonably expected at the WTC can melt steel. That's the 2d Law.

There was no molten steel, so this issue is taken care of.

Explain how it was that the angular momentum of the tilting top block of WTC2 was suddenly arrested, in violation of Newton's 1st Law and the law of conservation of angular momentum.

That's easy. You're mentally ill, so you're delusional about what actually happened on 9/11. That's why you babble about molten steel and free-fall acceleration and symmetrical collapses and angular momentum.

Explain how it was that the lightweight top block was not nibbled into a disorganized mass of rubble (the birdsnest) as it nibbled away at the heavier lower structure (the post).

Easy. You believe these kind of things should have happened because you're a delusional lunatic.

Also explain how an acceleration of 2/3 that of gravitational acceleration was achieved. That's Newton's 3rd Law.

Gravity makes things fall down. Learn to Google.

NIST has not explained any of this. It will be explained. And when it is, NIST, and you, and SLC, are all going to look very very foolish.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 14 February, 2012 11:05, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the widows questions been answered yet?

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

 
At 14 February, 2012 11:33, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian,

How can the widows answer their own questions?

Stupid!

 
At 14 February, 2012 12:11, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Behold the wisdom of those who agree with you, James and Pat.

With friends like these, who needs intelligence?

 
At 14 February, 2012 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, your demand that I twist the facts to twist your theory before I've investigated the facts only shows your aversion to facts.

RGT, normal investigations look for anything unusual because that's what suggests that the obvious answers may be mistaken.

Skidmark, you claimed that investigations end when it has been determined that nothing unusual was going on. Thus implicitly you claimed that there had been an investigation. You have not shown that there was an investigation. You are inventing imaginary findings from an imaginary investigation.

It takes a long time for the leading experts in engineering, physics, architecture, and materials science to recognize violations of the laws of physics when they feel that their current prestige depends on maintaining that failure to recognize violations of the laws of physics. Nobody has even tried to square the collapses with the laws of physics--except Dr. Bazant, and his ridiculous notions he can only manage it by rewriting Newton's 3rd Law. If he's right he should get the Nobel prize for proving Newton wrong.

You can not explain violations of the laws of physics by resorting to the ad hominem. Explain it using physics. You can't. Nobody can.

You continue to lie about the molten steel, which was testified to by 5 PhDs and of which a 40-pound sample was taken.

And you continue to jest about the distress of the widows.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:03, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, normal investigations look for anything unusual because that's what suggests that the obvious answers may be mistaken.

And they found nothing unusual, which of course won't stop you from babbling about magic spray-on thermite.

Skidmark, you claimed that investigations end when it has been determined that nothing unusual was going on. Thus implicitly you claimed that there had been an investigation. You have not shown that there was an investigation. You are inventing imaginary findings from an imaginary investigation.

Yes, Brian, there has been an investigation. Perhaps you've heard of the 9/11 Commission Report. Learn to Google.

It takes a long time for the leading experts in engineering, physics, architecture, and materials science to recognize violations of the laws of physics when they feel that their current prestige depends on maintaining that failure to recognize violations of the laws of physics. Nobody has even tried to square the collapses with the laws of physics--except Dr. Bazant, and his ridiculous notions he can only manage it by rewriting Newton's 3rd Law. If he's right he should get the Nobel prize for proving Newton wrong.

And of course, when the leading figures in physics, engineering, architecture, and materials science don't agree with the ravings of an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and wears women's underwear, it's because they're hiding something.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:06, Blogger Ian said...

You can not explain violations of the laws of physics by resorting to the ad hominem. Explain it using physics. You can't. Nobody can.

Brian, your belief that the collapse violated the laws of physics is amusing. You live in a fantasy world.

You continue to lie about the molten steel, which was testified to by 5 PhDs and of which a 40-pound sample was taken.

See what I mean? You're a delusional liar who makes up his facts. You're babbling about invisible molten steel, like you babble about invisible engineers, invisible elevator repairmen, and of course, invisible widows.

And you continue to jest about the distress of the widows.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:21, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

DU, your demand that I twist the facts to twist your theory before I've investigated the facts only shows your aversion to facts.

Nope. Let's assume this is an anomaly. I'm inviting you to demonstrate that this anomaly might have something to do with the guys who rigged buildings for demolition and stood down NORAD. Tell me how it would fit in.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:24, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Squeal squeal squeal!"

Didn't someone once say that "debunking" happens on this site?

Oh yeah, it was the liars who run it, and they've never debunked anything. Never mind!

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:36, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I just can't get my head around how Brian thinks that the widows questions should be answered by the widows themselves, since they're the ones who commissioned the 9/11 Commission.

Is that even logical?

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, normal investigations look for anything unusual because that's what suggests that the obvious answers may be mistaken.

That statement of the objective -- "Find a way to reject the obvious answers" -- reveals a fairly deep bias.

(Oh awesome -- my captcha is "pabst".)

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:39, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Oh yeah, it was the liars who run it, and they've never debunked anything. Never mind!

Really? After we all point and laugh at you for being the dipshits you truely are, you think that you're so smart that we don't see past your transparency.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:40, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

What do you get when you mix Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer with Smirnoff Vodka?

Pabst Smir.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, since you haven't shown that there was any investigation of the personnel substitution, your claim that they found nothing unusual is irrational.

You have not shown that the official findings are consistent with the laws of physics. The fact that the claim that NIST's analysis of WTC7 was "consistent with physical principles" was removed from the final report suggests that they are not.

The molten steel is only invisible to the willfully blind. I have many times demonstrated that it was testified to by 5 PhDs, and a 40-pound sample was taken.

DU, I see no evidence to connect the personnel switches to any conspiracy theory, and no reason to speculate about how they might fit one before there's even been an investigation.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Didn't someone once say that "debunking" happens on this site?

The iron microspheres came from cutting torches. It is proven and irrefutable. Now go get some sleep, shitprince.

 
At 14 February, 2012 14:55, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

DU, I see no evidence to connect the personnel switches to any conspiracy theory,

Thank you, Brian. We got there in the end. It's a crock.

 
At 14 February, 2012 15:05, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

The molten steel is only invisible to the willfully blind.

Wow, so the blind can see? It's a miracle!

I have many times demonstrated that it was testified to by 5 PhDs, and a 40-pound sample was taken.

Quote-mined and taken out of context you meant.

 
At 14 February, 2012 16:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I find it odd every passenger and crew member had eaten carrots within 10 days of their flights.

Weirder still was everyone who worked in the entire WTC complex, including Willie Rodriguez, had eaten something containing carrots within 24 days of the attacks.

The troofers are on to something here. We need to be looking into the carrot connection.

 
At 14 February, 2012 20:10, Blogger James B. said...

A friend of mine who is a Navy SEAL informed me that the in-flight meal for flight 77 was supposed to be chicken Parmesan, but at the last moment a beef burrito entree was substituted. I find this highly suspicious, but we need a real investigation to find out why!

 
At 14 February, 2012 20:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, since you haven't shown that there was any investigation of the personnel substitution, your claim that they found nothing unusual is irrational.

Poor Brian, babbling about logic again even though he doesn't understand what it means.

You have not shown that the official findings are consistent with the laws of physics. The fact that the claim that NIST's analysis of WTC7 was "consistent with physical principles" was removed from the final report suggests that they are not.

And yet no physicists, engineers, architects, materials scientists, etc. are up in arms against the official findings. Only a tiny crackpot fringe group of unemployed janitors and charlatans is.

The molten steel is only invisible to the willfully blind. I have many times demonstrated that it was testified to by 5 PhDs, and a 40-pound sample was taken.

False. You've many times demonstrated that you're a delusional liar who couldn't mop floors correctly.

DU, I see no evidence to connect the personnel switches to any conspiracy theory, and no reason to speculate about how they might fit one before there's even been an investigation.

Nobody cares.

Now go back to squealing about your invisible widows and their "questions".

 
At 15 February, 2012 04:55, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Thats right Brian the official story is a farce. Thats why its been validated by the National Research Council, the International Code Council, the NFPA, in multiple reputable journals, and written by the "who's who" of structural engineering & fire science. Meanwhile your delusions are supported by the "who's that?" publishedin fake journals.

 
At 15 February, 2012 08:18, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

JamesB: what exactly compels you to make jokes about Flight 77? Did you think that was funny? Did you just want to portray more Navy SEALs as liars?

Tell us why you tried (and failed) at cleverness instead of research this time, James.

 
At 15 February, 2012 10:15, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I guess no one rushes to your defense when you say something THAT stupid, huh James? Looks like even the dolts around here know when to abandon you.

Be proud of your joking and giggling about 9/11: you clearly have nothing else.

 
At 15 February, 2012 11:15, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 February, 2012 11:16, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Has anyone validated that this is suspicious to begin with?

 
At 15 February, 2012 12:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, for you to make the logical leap from "there's no evidence" to "it's a crock" shows where you're coming from. Why would you expect evidence before there's been an investigation?

Toothless and Wacko, your claims that I quote-mined the 5 PhDs who talked about molten steel are lies.

Look at the guys who claim to be debunkers, but all they can do is make dumb jokes about a tragedy.

Skidmark, over 1650 architects and engineers reject the findings of the NIST reports. They are not unemployed janitors.

GMF, when was the official story validated by the National Research Council, the International Code Council, the NFPA, in multiple reputable journals?

PC, good point about the SEAL and Chris Kyle and all. The fact that SLC published the story and then failed to publish Kyle's inability to corroborate it is pretty shoddy journalism, isn't it? The good thing about admitting when you're wrong is that it makes you more careful next time.

 
At 15 February, 2012 12:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

DU, for you to make the logical leap from "there's no evidence" to "it's a crock" shows where you're coming from.

When there's no evidence of X, where X should leave evidence, the rational conclusion is that X didn't happen. What's illogical about that? It's much weirder to go from "there's no evidence" to "maybe it happened and all the evidence was concealed."

 
At 15 February, 2012 12:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Hilarious comment that summarizes the inherent cognitive weakness of 9/11 Truthers: The question I have is, what is the likelihood that an ex-Governor could be “knocked down” in public over 5 years ago and it remain a secret?

In other words, a bar brawl couldn't remain a secret but we're expected to believe the 9/11 Controlled Demolition Project could.

 
At 15 February, 2012 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, where do you get "X should leave evidence"? And how do you know X didn't leave evidence if you don't bother to investigate?

 
At 15 February, 2012 14:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, where do you get "X should leave evidence"?

Not every crime leaves evidence. Verbally agreeing to enter into a criminal conspiracy, for example.

And how do you know X didn't leave evidence if you don't bother to investigate?

That's just a restatement of "How do you know it didn't really happen and all the evidence concealed?" In the case of 9/11, the lack of reported explosions consistent with controlled demolition alone is enough to dismiss the theory.

 
At 15 February, 2012 14:42, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"That's just a restatement of "How do you know it didn't really happen and all the evidence concealed?""

What a preposterously stupid thing to say. Try again, pretender. This time read for comprehension.

Are you trying to outdo JamesB in stupidity on this thread or something?

 
At 15 February, 2012 15:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What a preposterously stupid thing to say. Try again, pretender.

What happened to the real Pat Cowardly? The fat jokes are gone, the taunting over deceased relatives is gone, the iron microspheres haven't been mentioned in a week, and the insults are downright clumsy. This imposter is a pale imitation of the real deal.

In other news, I'm becoming a huge fan of Debunking the Debunkers. Each post is funnier than the last. Have a look at this very intelligent post about "authoritive" facts.

 
At 15 February, 2012 15:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, your claim that there was a lack of reported explosions on 9/11 is not consistent with the truth. Any number of witnesses, including news reporters and Chief Albert Turi, reported explosions.

You're not making any sense. First you say "X should leave evidence" and then you say "not every crime leaves evidence."

 
At 15 February, 2012 16:19, Blogger Ian said...

Look at the guys who claim to be debunkers, but all they can do is make dumb jokes about a tragedy.

Um, every truther claim has been debunked already, and yet you and Pat Cowardly just repeat them again and again. What are we supposed to do but mock you two clowns?

Skidmark, over 1650 architects and engineers reject the findings of the NIST reports. They are not unemployed janitors.

Thanks for proving my point. A tiny crackpot group of failed janitors and charlatans reject the NIST report.

RGT, your claim that there was a lack of reported explosions on 9/11 is not consistent with the truth. Any number of witnesses, including news reporters and Chief Albert Turi, reported explosions.

So explosives brought the towers down and not thermite? OK, show us the evidence of explosives. I'm not sure why you waste time babbling about microspheres, since they're not evidence of explosives.

 
At 15 February, 2012 16:22, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, how do you know that modified attack baboons didn't plant micro-nukes in the towers if that was never investigated?

 
At 15 February, 2012 17:41, Blogger James B. said...

I am not making fun of 9/11, I am making fun of Truthers. They are the ones who make a mockery of 9/11.

 
At 15 February, 2012 20:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, I DON'T know what modified attack baboons didn't do, but ny understanding is that micro-nukes would create detectable radiation, and there's no evidence that such radiation was detected, so the entire line of investigation seems excessively speculative.

 
At 16 February, 2012 04:50, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMF, when was the official story validated by the National Research Council, the International Code Council, the NFPA, in multiple reputable journals?

Why is it that truthers cant be bothered to google: "NIST peer review"? As always nothing but the most stupendous research by Brian.

You will notice that the NRC performs biannual peer reviews of NIST's studies, the ICC changed the codes based on NIST's findings, that NIST's own researchers published in external journals, & the NFPA has supported NIST's conclusions. All of which has been pointed out to you before. Denial is a sad thing Brian.

http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/impact_assessment.cfm#review
http://www.nist.gov/director/nrc/upload/bfrfinalreport2008.pdf
http://www.gazette.net/article/20110907/NEWS/709079796&template=gazette
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/7NFPA1.pdf
The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Let the mental gymnastics begin!

 
At 16 February, 2012 07:21, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, I DON'T know what modified attack baboons didn't do, but ny understanding is that micro-nukes would create detectable radiation, and there's no evidence that such radiation was detected, so the entire line of investigation seems excessively speculative.

What makes you think there was no radiation detected at the WTC? Many survivors and rescue workers are suffering debilitating illnesses that could be linked to radiation poisoning. Also, Bill Deagle, a well-known physician, has treated numerous survivors for radiation sickness.

 
At 16 February, 2012 09:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you provide no evidence that the first responders' illnesses are of the nature of radiation poisoning, and none of the victims advocacy groups have claimed that they are.

You seem to think it's funny to joke about the suffering of the first responders. What makes you such a shitstain? Were you abused as a child? Was Troy your Daddy before DCFS took you away?

GMS, we've already gone over this ground. You guys clutch as straws for "validation", claiming that if some agency adopts NIST's recommendations for making fire exit stairs wider, then they have validated the findings of the NIST report.

Your NFPA powerpoint nowhere says that the NFPA supports NIST's conclusions.

The fact that Frank Gayle got a paper about some limited subject area published in an established journal in no way implies that NIST's findings in general were validated by that journal.

What does your 2008 report from the National Research Council have to do with the NCSTAR reports? Doesn't the fact that the NRC is paid for these reviews give you some pause? So you think the 11-page report for 2004-2005 on all the works of NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory somehow constitutes peer review of a 10,000-page report?

You seem to be cutting- and-pasting bullshit from a lying propaganda website.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:16, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you provide no evidence that the first responders' illnesses are of the nature of radiation poisoning,
and none of the victims advocacy groups have claimed that they are.


How do you know the illnesses are not related to radiation poisoning if there's never been an investigation? You live in a fantasy world.

You seem to think it's funny to joke about the suffering of the first responders. What makes you such a shitstain? Were you abused as a child? Was Troy your Daddy before DCFS took you away?

I'm not joking about the first responders and their illnesses. I'm joking about you: an unemployed janitor who squeals about invisible widows and wears women's underwear and was expelled from the truth movement.

I mean, just look at you. You're squealing and crying over the fact that the NIST report has been validated by serious organizations, while only failed janitors and charlatans challenge it.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't know if the first-responders' illnesses were caused by radiation poisoning or not. Since they are examined by doctors who should be competent, your belief that their illnesses have not been investigated is unreasonable.

Ian, why wouldn't NIST be validated by serious organizations? It's a prestigious organization that does a lot of good science--and in certain cases has been shown to publish politically-contrained reports that must be considered propaganda rather than science.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, please explain you theory for how microspheres from cutting torches got to Brooklyn Bridge by 10:40 a.m. on 9/11.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:47, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

your claims that I quote-mined the 5 PhDs who talked about molten steel are lies.

I raise you a scientific peer-reviewed journal from Civil & Structural Engineers.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, wow! And I raise you three battleships and six Ohio-class submarines!

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:03, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't know if the first-responders' illnesses were caused by radiation poisoning or not. Since they are examined by doctors who should be competent, your belief that their illnesses have not been investigated is unreasonable.

Right, and one of those doctors, Bill Deagle, says there was radiation in the dust clouds. You make up your facts.

Ian, why wouldn't NIST be validated by serious organizations? It's a prestigious organization that does a lot of good science--and in certain cases has been shown to publish politically-contrained reports that must be considered propaganda rather than science.

What makes you think the NIST publishes "politically-contrained [sic] reports that must be considered propaganda rather than science."? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

Oh, wow! And I raise you three battleships and six Ohio-class submarines!

Brian, there are no battleships left in the US Navy. The fact that you think there are goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:04, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

And Brian dances again. The NRC performs an external peer review. Your well poisoning has no bearing. Fact is NIST is peer reviewed, your quackery is a sham peddled by liars.

As pointed out those are studies conducted by NIST researcher published in external journals based on their NIST work.

If you actually read what I posted you will note that the ICC made changes based on fires, not superduper hush boom explosives, but fire, the cause of the collapses.

If you bothered to read the NFPA link you would see they changed their standards in regard to fire again; specifically fire resistance, not super explosives.

Stop lying.

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:06, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:12, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The best part of this is Brian asks when the NRC validated NIST, which after he recieves he hand waves it away. All this proves is Brian ignorance to academics & even more so credibility. You lie in science you lose credibility which equals academic suicide. ONly in t he land of twoof does it mean you must be right and there is a cover up on a global scale. I guess we can add the NFPA, the ICC, & the NRC to the list of those covering up the truth.

Whats the number now? A couple thousand people?

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:21, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Oh, wow! And I raise you three battleships and six Ohio-class submarines!

The immaturity never ends with you, does it Brian?

 
At 16 February, 2012 15:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, you claimed that the official story has "been validated by the National Research Council, the International Code Council, the NFPA." Your links do not support that claim.

You then claimed that "the NRC performs biannual peer reviews of NIST's studies." Do you think 11 pages on all the works of NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory for the period 2004-2005 somehow constitutes peer review of a 10,000-page report? Do you consider it proper for the subject of the peer review process to pay the peer reviewers, whose review (and whose identities) are then made public? What kind of phony peer review is that?

Ian, when did Dr. Deagle treat the first responders?

NIST's politically-constrained reports that must be considered propaganda rather than science because they are unscientific, dishonest, and incomplete.

GMS, the mere fact that some components of some work done by NIST meets journal standards does not mean that all their reports do.

What about the ICC widening of stairwells and improving fireproofing based on NIST data about fires makes you think the ICC validated NIST's collapse theories?

I asked you to back up your claim that the NRC validated the official story. You have failed to do so. John Gross and Shyam Sunder have lied egregiously, and somehow none of your authorities seem to notice.

You have provided no evidence that the NRC, the ICC, or the NFPA ever took on the task of evaluating NIST's collapse theories.

RGT, please explain your irrefutable theory for how microspheres from cutting torches got to Brooklyn Bridge by 10:40 a.m. on 9/11.

 
At 16 February, 2012 15:48, Blogger Ian said...

You then claimed that "the NRC performs biannual peer reviews of NIST's studies." Do you think 11 pages on all the works of NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory for the period 2004-2005 somehow constitutes peer review of a 10,000-page report? Do you consider it proper for the subject of the peer review process to pay the peer reviewers, whose review (and whose identities) are then made public? What kind of phony peer review is that?

Poor Brian. He's squealing and crying because the NIST reports have been validated by many outside agents, and nobody cares what the various liars and lunatics in his tiny crackpot cult say about the NIST report.

Ian, when did Dr. Deagle treat the first responders?

Dr. Deagle says that he treated victims of the attack. Are you calling him a liar?

NIST's politically-constrained reports that must be considered propaganda rather than science because they are unscientific, dishonest, and incomplete.

Nobody cares what you think is "unscientific, dishonest, and incomplete". You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in magic thermite elves.

I asked you to back up your claim that the NRC validated the official story. You have failed to do so. John Gross and Shyam Sunder have lied egregiously, and somehow none of your authorities seem to notice.

Can you show us where Gross and Sunder lied?

Also, aren't you the one constantly babbling about how Dr. Sunder said the towers came down in 9 and 11 seconds? Why would you quote a liar?

You have provided no evidence that the NRC, the ICC, or the NFPA ever took on the task of evaluating NIST's collapse theories.

False.

 
At 16 February, 2012 15:49, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, please explain your irrefutable theory for how microspheres from cutting torches got to Brooklyn Bridge by 10:40 a.m. on 9/11.

They were carried there by invisible elevator repairmen.

Now please explain your irrefutable theory that the widows have questions.

 
At 16 February, 2012 21:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's a waste of time to argue with a liar like you, Ian.

 
At 16 February, 2012 21:42, Blogger Ian said...

It's a waste of time to argue with a liar like you, Ian.

Yup, Brian knows the widows have no questions, so he runs away squealing and crying.

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Shitstain, the widows had 300 questions and only got 27 answers, as anyone who checks out justicefor911.org Appendix 4 can see.

Your persistent lying about this is disgusting.

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:19, Blogger Ian said...

Shitstain, the widows had 300 questions and only got 27 answers, as anyone who checks out justicefor911.org Appendix 4 can see.

I've checked appendix 4 and there are no questions there. Sorry, Brian.

Your persistent lying about this is disgusting.

Poor Brian, he really thinks people give a crap about his "widows".

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a despicable liar, Skidmark, as anyone who checks the document can see.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:19, Blogger Ian said...

You're a despicable liar, Skidmark, as anyone who checks the document can see.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Brian, we've all checked the documents. What makes you think there are questions there? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there are 300 questions there. You're lying. You seem to think that lying about the widows' frustration is funny.

You never answered my questions.
What's wrong with you? Were you abused as a child? Did DCFS take you away from your family? Are you the monkey who grew up with a wire mother? Was Troy Sexton your daddy?

 
At 17 February, 2012 06:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there are 300 questions there. You're lying. You seem to think that lying about the widows' frustration is funny.

My, such squealing!

You never answered my questions.
What's wrong with you? Were you abused as a child? Did DCFS take you away from your family? Are you the monkey who grew up with a wire mother? Was Troy Sexton your daddy?


Brian, everyone knows you're an obsessed lunatic, but all this dumbspam won't change the fact that the widows have no questions.

 
At 17 February, 2012 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a despicable liar, Skidmark, as anyone who checks the document can see.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

You're just trying to spam over the fact that I showed that GMS's links do not say what he claims they say.

If you have to lie to support your claims, maybe you should consider getting some different claims.

 
At 17 February, 2012 10:04, Blogger Ian said...

You're a despicable liar, Skidmark, as anyone who checks the document can see.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Brian, why do you keep repeating this dumbspam when anyone who isn't a glue-sniffing liar can see that the widows have no questions?

You're just trying to spam over the fact that I showed that GMS's links do not say what he claims they say.

False.

If you have to lie to support your claims, maybe you should consider getting some different claims.

I don't lie. If I were claiming the widows had questions, then I'd be lying.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie. I showed that the widows still have 273 questions pending, and I showed that GMS's links wherein he claimed institutional endorsement of the Official Story was showed did not say what he claimed.

Business as usual in debunker-ville.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:27, Blogger Ian said...

You lie and lie and lie. I showed that the widows still have 273 questions pending, and I showed that GMS's links wherein he claimed institutional endorsement of the Official Story was showed did not say what he claimed.

False. You just babbled like the delusional liar that you are. No wonder you were kicked out of the truth movement!

Business as usual in debunker-ville.

It must really sting to be constantly pwn3d by us, huh?

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

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Still lying, I see. It's a He-Said/It-Said situation here.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I looked at your link and I don't see any questions. So who's lying, Duchess?

And even if the "widows" did have questions, who cares? After all, as I've told you a thousand times--you lying sucker of Satan's cock--questions are not evidence.

Get it through your thick skull, Pinocchio.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

ButtGale, on a web page there's the capability to do what's called "scrolling". It might facilitate your research skills if you'd ask a first grader to show you how to do it.

If you scroll you'll see what's called a "column", which is often used to present information in what are known as "tables". If you scroll down the page you'll see a label on the main column that says "questions". There are 300 of them.

Is that what you told your girlfriend when she asked you why you were so bitchy? That questions are not evidence? How did that work out for you?

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stuff your lecture, charlatan.

You're such an idiot that you gave us the wrong link.

This is the correct link, you internet illiterate, 'tard.

Questions.

But that's neither here nor there, because questions--you lying sucker of Satan's cock--are not evidence.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Questions are not evidence? How would that work out in court if you refused to answer questions because they were not evidence.

Answers are evidence. You use questions to get evidence. You use questions to have an investigation. Why do you want an investigation without questions? Is it because you're afraid of the answers? Why are you afraid of the answers?

Why are you such a coward that you're so afraid of the widows' questions that you deny they exist?

The 300 questions and the 27 answers are right here.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Duchess squeals, "...Questions are not evidence? How would that work out in court if you refused to answer questions because they were not evidence."

False.

Question n. an expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply; an interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture; a subject or point open to controversy; an issue; a difficult matter; a problem; a point or subject under discussion or consideration; uncertainty; doubt.

Thus, questions are not evidence.

The Duchess squeals, "...Answers are evidence."

False.

Answer n. Law A defendant's defense against charges

You make up your facts.

So why did you give us the wrong link, jackass?

You couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

FAIL.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you only continue to demonstrate your irrationality. Surely your essential incompetence is not news to you. Why do you even try?

Answers are evidence. The testimony of witnesses is evidence in a court of law. The results of experiments are answers, and they too are evidence.

I never said that questions were evidence. You seem to think the issue is important. Why do you think that?


Why do you want an investigation without questions? Is it because you're afraid of the answers? Why are you afraid of the answers?

Why are you such a coward that you're so afraid of the widows' questions that you deny they exist?

I didn't give you the wrong link. I gave you the link that shows that the widows have 273 unanswered questions.
The 300 questions and the 27 answers are right here.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

Are you so deficient in logic that you don't understand that if there are no socks in one drawer, and there are socks in the other drawer, that the result is "socks in the drawer"? Why do you claim that no socks in one drawer, and socks in the other makes "no socks in the drawers"?

Why are you so afraid of the widows' questions?

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:41, Blogger Ian said...

It's good to see Brian is still spamming this blog about his invisible widows and their imaginary questions.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Duchess continues to lie, "...Answers are evidence. The testimony of witnesses is evidence in a court of law."

No, answers are not evidence. Why? Because as anyone with an IQ in excess of the temperature of warm spit will acknowledge, an answer may or may not be true. Does the word perjury mean anything to you, 'tard.

Answers, in legal terms, are a defense, as the definition I provided above demonstrates.

You make up your "facts."

Now squeal, obfuscate and lie again, troll.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

NOTE:

Evidence n. 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Thus, by definition, answers are not evidence.

You're an idiot.

Now squeal, obfuscate and lie again, troll.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as usual you lie. The widows are quite visible and their questions are quite real--except to those who pretend to be blind.

ButtGale, answers need not be true to be evidence. If Leslie Robertson gets on the witness stand and swears that nobody ever saw any molten steel, that's evidence even though it's not true. If John Gross gets on the witness stand and swears nobody ever saw any molten steel, that's evidence even though it's not true. If Shyam Sunder gets on the witness stand and swears that the WTC steel was scattered before they could examine it because of the need for rescue operations, that's evidence even though it's not true.


Witnesses' testimony is evidence.
Your own definition says "oral statements" are evidence. Your written statements are evidence of your incompetence.

You guys are a waste of time, trying to become kings of the sandbox by throwing sand.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, as usual you lie. The widows are quite visible and their questions are quite real--except to those who pretend to be blind.

False.

You guys are a waste of time, trying to become kings of the sandbox by throwing sand.

And yet you've spent 3 years here posting your deranged fantasies while everyone points and laughs at you. I guess you have no other choice since you've been banned from every other blog/forum for being such an obsessed liar.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Duchess prevaricates, "...answers need not be true to be evidence. If Leslie Robertson gets on the witness stand and swears that nobody ever saw any molten steel, that's evidence even though it's not true."

Lying in a court of law is evidence that may be used to gain a conviction for perjury. You have NEVER proven that Leslie Robertson lied, nor have you proven that "molten steel" was present at Ground Zero. Speculation is not proof. And until you can produce an assay of the alleged "molten steel," your whining will always remain nothing more than speculation.

Once again, you're comparing apples-to-oranges.

Furthermore, loaded questions like "[a]t exactly what time was the shadow government put in place?" and "[w]as the White House a target on 9/11?" are not legitimate questions, they're logical fallacies.

Of course, since you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic all of this is lost on you.

 
At 17 February, 2012 16:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"This new information means that, curiously, half of the pilots and co-pilots originally at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks are now known to have been assigned to the doomed flights at the last minute, very shortly before September 11. Additionally, more than half of the flight attendants and many of the passengers are known to have, similarly, not originally been booked onto those flights."

I have questions:

If only half of the pilots were on the planes, what happened to the other half?

Which half of the pilots and crew were onboard? Their upper halfs, or were they only present from the waist down?

Did they require special seatbelts?

 
At 18 February, 2012 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian-Skidmark, I have not "spent three years" brushing my teeth, gassing up my car, reading the newspaper, or posting at SLC. I have not been banned at every other forum, and when I have been banned it was because I had the courage to question popular liars, and in that regard I have been vindicated.

ButtGale, we can argue about the semantics of "lying" but certainly Leslie Robertson was deceptive in his debate with Dr. Jones when he claimed that no one ever saw molten steel at the WTC. See the youtube "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers".

5 PhDs have testified to molten steel at Ground Zero and it certainly merits investigation. Your kneejerk claims that no investigation is needed because the proposition has not been proven is dishonest, irrational, and very, very dumb. Dr. Jones has assayed the 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten ferrous material that was taken from Ground Zero. I have told you about this at least four times and I'm getting tired of repeating myself to a serial liar.

There is no question about any "shadow government" within the 300 questions cited by Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken, and your suggestion that there was shows your typical ButtGale ignorance and dishonesty.

 
At 19 February, 2012 07:51, Blogger Ian said...

Ian-Skidmark, I have not "spent three years" brushing my teeth, gassing up my car, reading the newspaper, or posting at SLC. I have not been banned at every other forum, and when I have been banned it was because I had the courage to question popular liars, and in that regard I have been vindicated.

Thanks for proving my point. You're a liar and lunatic who has been spamming this blog for 3 years because you've been banned at every truther site.

HA HA HA HA HA HA! Brian's been expelled from the truth movement!

5 PhDs have testified to molten steel at Ground Zero and it certainly merits investigation. Your kneejerk claims that no investigation is needed because the proposition has not been proven is dishonest, irrational, and very, very dumb. Dr. Jones has assayed the 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten ferrous material that was taken from Ground Zero. I have told you about this at least four times and I'm getting tired of repeating myself to a serial liar.

See what I mean? You keep spamming this blog about your nonexistent molten steel, and yet you expect us to take you seriously?

There is no question about any "shadow government" within the 300 questions cited by Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken, and your suggestion that there was shows your typical ButtGale ignorance and dishonesty.

Mindy Kleinberg and Laurie van Auken are liars who used their husbands deaths to gullible idiots like you to sympathize with them. They have no questions.

 
At 19 February, 2012 08:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, one of the WTC design engineers, Leslie Robertson, said he saw "like a little river of molten steel" in the rubble pile. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders". Dr. James Glanz saw a "stalagmite" of hardened, previously-molten steel "like a drip candle". Dr. Steven Jones analyzed a sample of formerly-molten ferrous material taken from Ground Zero. Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, said there was molten steek flowing "like lava".

Why do you lie about 9/11? What's wrong with you?

When did Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken lie?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home