Two JREFers Join Truth Action Forums...
And chaos starts erupting. It appears that somebody invited Orphia Nay and Oystein to join the debate over there. Oystein is strong on the technical aspects regarding the Millette study which debunked nanothermite, while Orphia Nay has excellent overall knowledge of the general Truther claims.
What I find amusing about the thread is how quickly the CT nonsense comes out. It is easy to forget that while the Truth Action folks recognize the transparent nuttery of Kevin Barrett and Kevin Ryan, they completely miss their own areas of confirmation bias.
For instance, Snowcrash is just a tad hyperbolic:
Sorry Orphia Nay, applicable as my quote may have been to the sorry state of a "truth" movement full of liars, kooks, frauds, con men, idiots and nitwits, I have no love for JREF either. Humankind is on the brink of collapse, on the cusp of irreversible environmental decline, we have lost all our civil rights, our privacy, our freedoms, and our children's children will live in a totalitarian dystopia, thanks to 9/11.All our civil rights?
Jon Gold is going to hate that I compare him to David Ray Griffin, but that's deserved when he writes nonsense like this:
One thing I've noticed that "debunkers" do is look at everything as if it exists in a vacuum. I look at everything in an accumulative light. SO MANY problems with the official account, SO MANY warnings that were coming in, SO MANY efforts to obfuscate, cover-up, hinder investigations, etc...Remember, Griffin loves to talk about his "cumulative" argument being like strands on a rope and not links in a chain, so that if one breaks, the whole thing doesn't fail. One wonders why anybody would bother making a rope out of weak strands, but the answer is quite simply that's all they have. Gold takes Grifter's argument a step further. Even if you debunk all his points, he still believes he has a case just because there are so many strands.
It's not hard to see that things will end pretty badly over there; if asked to guess I would say the over/under on the JREFers being banned is Thursday. There's already quite a bit of grumbling about them being allowed to post. Gold:
I love how ignored and censored whistleblowers don't concern you at all, or the fact that the 9/11 Commission was a farce. You would rather spend your time arguing with those fighting for justice and accountability. I do not understand that mentality at all.The "ignored and censored whistleblowers" include Patty Cassazza's mysterious roadside informant who claimed that the US government knew everything about the attacks including the date and method. Gold bitterly notes that I "debunked" that claim by saying that Patty was duped by a conman. But note the oddball response from the Truthers to that particular claim. Sibel Edmonds comes up with the LIHOP faction's dream witness and what happens? Complete and utter lack of curiosity about him or her. If I were a Truther, I'd be asking Patty about this person--was it a man or a woman? How old? Did he say what branch or agency of the government he was in? Can we get him on tape?
Why are these people here?
Note that when the credibility of the whistleblowers is brought up, Jon endorses the credibility of Patty:
Patty Casazza is both valid and relevant, and so is her claim.But nobody questions her claim. It's the whistleblower's claim that has to be assessed, and that's why the Truthers should be asking more questions, to establish his credibility as a witness.
posted by Pat @ 10:05 AM
157 comments
157 Comments:
Wow, what an epic thread. Two people reach across the aisle for civilized discourse and what happens? Jon Gold snarls bitterly that he's right no matter what. Snowcrash alternates between lucidity and hysteria (en nu wil je opa's fiets zeker terug, he klojo?). jimd3100 and truthmover display naked, deranged hostility. truebeleaguer remains oddly silent, apparently sensing he's outclassed. Watching these goofballs interact is so much more interesting than iron microspheres.
I do have to mention that Patty Casazza's claim would unquestionably be rejected as hearsay in an American court -- if it's being offered to prove that, yes, the government did indeed know the day and the targets. If it's being offered for some other purpose, like to prove that she met somebody on the side of the road, it's permissible. The Truthaction fellows have a poor understanding of the law involved.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry, but nothing was "debunked."
If you think we haven't queried as to the identity of the whistleblower, then you must be smoking crack. But, as Patty also pointed out, most whistleblowers "did not come forward on the basis of what happened to Sibel Edmonds." Remember the retaliation and States Secrets Privilege, etc..? So yea... let's expose this important whistleblower for the world, and to hell with what happens to them. This environment in the United States is SO helpful towards whistleblowers. Right. You also forget that Patty said that "he (Thomas Kean) promised me... to my face that "every whistle-blower would be... indeed heard." And, most were not heard." But yea... making something out of the fact that WE aren't inquisitive enough. Riiiiiight. Idiot.
"It appears that somebody invited Orphia Nay and Oystein to join the debate over there."
This is FALSE. Nobody invited me. I went by my own self.
So yea... let's expose this important whistleblower for the world, and to hell with what happens to them.
What if Casazza's whistleblower knew so much because he was himself involved? Would you support outing him under those circumstances? If not, your talk about justice and accountability amounts to so much bullshit.
Keep defending Treason with spin and lies.
Keep defending Treason with spin and lies.
Keep demanding unspecified justice for unspecified crimes by unspecified people. It's enriching your life immensely.
You got to love snowcrash's unwitting self admission to absolute dogma.
I still maintain...that in order for the nanothermite paper to support anything other than thermitic materials there must have been fraud, not oversight.
Translation: Anything other than what I believe is a lie.
And here is another gem as noted in the article:
Humankind is on the brink of collapse, on the cusp of irreversible environmental decline, we have lost all our civil rights, our privacy, our freedoms, and our children's children will live in a totalitarian dystopia, thanks to 9/11.
Everyone wants to believe they live in crucial times. Its not as exciting, nor beneficial to one's ego, to accept that most of human kind has lived a rather mundane existence. If you think you live in a time that has drastic implications then you can convince yourself that your deeds and actions are likewise crucial.
The fact is that truthers, like their religious brethren, want to believe that they are enlightening others, and fighting the good fight all the while waiting for this cataclysmic event (Jesus coming back, 9/11 being blown wide open, 2012, FEMA Camps, etc) in which their beliefs will be justified. Its far more fulfilling, and less work, than to accept that life is rather boring on the whole, and that true achievement takes real work as opposed to regurgitating what some ancient tome or the man on the internet told you.
Yeah, the "totalitarian dystopia" shrieking is pretty funny. The fact is, we're living in one of the most peaceful ages in human history. War is endangered in many places and extinct in others (anyone think Germany and France will ever duke it out again?).
On the civil liberties front, there have been some alarming declines in civil and political rights in some places recently, but the world is a lot freer now than it was in 1980. Think of communist Eastern Europe and the Operation Condor dictatorships in Latin America that are gone. And while it's way to early to say what the legacy of the Arab Spring will be, but it's hard to suggest that things will be worse there as a result of the uprisings.
Also, man-made climate change does worry me a lot, but I think the effects of it can be mitigated a bit. After all, it doesn't take much more than a powerful volcanic eruption to cause significant cooling. We could rather easily replicate the atmospheric effects of volcanism if we so chose.
As for fossil fuel use, solar power is becoming more and more economical each day, while oil becomes more expensive. Simple economics will dictate clean energy use soon enough.
I wasn't invited there either.
"Oystein is strong on the technical aspects regarding the Millette study which debunked nanothermite."
Didn't take you long to reach your first bald-ass lie, did it Patty?
Hey, the zit-faced virgin (who is also a climate-change denier) is back! It's good to hear again how he has defeated us all, just as he defeated Burger King when they fired him.
Keep defending Treason with spin and lies.
Yeah, because defending Treason is wrong, unless of course you might lose your job otherwise, like Sibel Edmonds' fantasy whistleblower, in which case it's quite alright.
Didn't take you long to reach your first bald-ass lie, did it Patty?
How's the whole lying about Millette thing going?
I'd guess its going about as as well as your wife-beating therapy. How's that going, by the way?
LMAO!!! Brian must be upset his twoof is more broken than ever.
I'd guess its going about as as well as your wife-beating therapy. How's that going, by the way?
Poor Brian. He can't get "meatball on a fork" published, he can't get the imaginary questions from his "widows" answered, Richard Gage has said he believes in an inside job, and esteemed truthers like Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, and Bill Deagle continue to laugh at him.
Also, Brian is an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and was thrown out of AE911Truth for stalking Carol Brouillet.
Taken all together, and you have nothing left but bitter, hysterical squealing.
That's what it is, all right, but you don't seem to recognize that it's you squealing bitter and hysterical lies.
That's what it is, all right, but you don't seem to recognize that it's you squealing bitter and hysterical lies.
Sorry Brian, no backsies!
I win, you lose. The widows have no questions and you are a failed janitor who lives with his parents and ran away and crying when challenged to a debate by Willie Rodriguez.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Lies and lies and lies. Willie deliberately chose an unacceptable venue, and then refused to lift a finger to find an alternative. There's nothing to debate. Willie's toast, and the German article describing him as someone who lives with a dog named Elvis and goes around trying to pass a $1 bill off as a $20 bill proves it.
Lies and lies and lies.
My, such squealing!
Willie deliberately chose an unacceptable venue, and then refused to lift a finger to find an alternative.
You said you would debate him anywhere, he accepted, you ran away squealing and crying.
There's nothing to debate.
True. Willie is a hero, and you're a pathetic liar and sex stalker who was thrown out of the truth movement and is constantly ridiculed by serious truthers like Jim Fetzer and Bill Deagle.
Willie's toast, and the German article describing him as someone who lives with a dog named Elvis and goes around trying to pass a $1 bill off as a $20 bill proves it.
And yet you're still obsessed with him, and so you babble about German articles and Elvis.
You really should go back to babbling about modified attack baboons and invisible widows.
More Ianane lies from Skidmark.
Didn't Brian say anywhere?
Didn't Brian say anywhere?
Yup. And then Rodriguez accepted the challenge and Brian ran away squealing and crying.
Brian is a big tough guy on the internet, but challenge him face-to-face and he becomes the pathetic coward we all know. He'll stalk and harass women, but is terrified of confrontation with men.
That's why he spends every waking hour posting spam on the internet. That, and the fact that he's an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and thus has nothing else to do with his life.
Ian, the challenge was made years ago and I frankly don't remember the qualifications attached. Obviously I was not offering to fly to Indonesia to debate Willie. All those years Willie did not respond.
Then he decided to try to make a liar out of me by proposing a gaudy media-heavy circus for which I did not have the time to prepare. And then the proposed moderators went out of their way to demonstrate that they had no ethical sense. Because of Willie's tendency to hide behind human shields and the potential for damage to innocent third parties, it would have been unethical for me to go forward with Willie's plan. I tried to arrange alternative venues with responsible moderators, and Willie refused to lift a finger to work something out.
I've confronted men plenty of times. You lie and lie and lie.
Here's what I don't get. Jon Gold is a fat lonley guy who thinks his life is shitty so he gets involved in the conspiracy nuthouse and makes an ass out of himself while cuffing himself to Federal Property, then he writes a book about how his life was fucked up and how the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories enriched his life as to not make it seem like he's fucking his life more and more.
I just don't get Jon. WTF is he doing turning his life upside down?
Ian, the challenge was made years ago and I frankly don't remember the qualifications attached. Obviously I was not offering to fly to Indonesia to debate Willie. All those years Willie did not respond.
I remember the qualifications. You offered to debate him "any time, any place", he then accepted, and you ran away squealing and crying because you're a pathetic coward and liar.
Then he decided to try to make a liar out of me by proposing a gaudy media-heavy circus for which I did not have the time to prepare. And then the proposed moderators went out of their way to demonstrate that they had no ethical sense. Because of Willie's tendency to hide behind human shields and the potential for damage to innocent third parties, it would have been unethical for me to go forward with Willie's plan. I tried to arrange alternative venues with responsible moderators, and Willie refused to lift a finger to work something out.
See what I mean? You challenged him, he accepted, you ran away squealing and crying because you're a pathetic coward and liar.
I've confronted men plenty of times.
I don't care about your experiences in the nightclubs in the Castro District.
You lie and lie and lie.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him and all he can do is squeal and cry.
Toothless and Always Wacko, the reason you don't understand Jon Gold is because you don't understand the concept of service and the concept of principle and the concept of justice. Too bad for you.
Skidmark, when exactly did I offer to debate Willie "any time, any place"? Prove your claim.
Your persistent lies only humiliate yourself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me--not here, not in person, not anywhere on the internet...
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/steven-jones-latest-research.html
I guess you are going to have memory problems when realty doesn't go your way. It would appear Brian you are the one without the guts to debate. We call that cowardice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That was a statement of fact that at the time had been true for years. It's interesting that you can't distinguish a statement of fact from an offer to debate.
Willie decided to work with his JREF buddies at SLC to make a liar out of me, and they contrived to craft a proposal that was totally unacceptable. Willie would not lift a finger to find a venue with responsible and ethical moderation.
Toothless and Always Wacko, the reason you don't understand Jon Gold is because you don't understand the concept of service and the concept of principle and the concept of justice. Too bad for you.
He understands Jon Gold just fine. You don't understand Gold because he is a delusional liar.
Skidmark, when exactly did I offer to debate Willie "any time, any place"? Prove your claim.
Grandmastershek already did, but since when do you require proof of anything? You claim that Laurie Van Auken is a widow without any proof. You also claim to not be petgoat despite all the evidence that you are petgoat.
Your persistent lies only humiliate yourself.
Oh, I'm humiliated? Well, I would be if I lived with my parents and couldn't hold down a job, like you. I would be if I thought invisible widows had questions, like you do. I would be if I thought magic spray-on thermite and silent explosives planted by invisible elevator repairmen destroyed the WTC, like you do.
And nothing would humiliate me more than joining a lunatic cult only to have said lunatic cult expel me, as you were expelled from the "truth" movement.
Skidmark, you lie and lie and lie and lie.
"Toothless and Always Wacko, the reason you don't understand Jon Gold is because you don't understand the concept of service and the concept of principle and the concept of justice. Too bad for you."
I understand that Jon Gold eats fast food all the time and his health is deminishing because of his high intake of fatty foods. No wonder why he's such a slob. But you'd like to fuck his big ruddery ass, wouldn't ya Brian?
So, Brian has nothing to say about Dr. Milliette's data about not finding thermite in the WTC dust?
Ok.....then why the fuck is that no good piece of shit still doing here?
And yet Brian it appears when push comes to shove you don't have the guts. Your mental gymnastics doesn't impress anyone.
TAW, I have no need to have an opinion on Dr. Millette's work. It has not been replicated, and it has not been formally published.
Skidmark, you lie and lie and lie and lie.
Poor Brian. He's been defeated in humiliation and frustration, so he's given up completely on trying to make an argument and just posts dumspam.
TAW, I have no need to have an opinion on Dr. Millette's work. It has not been replicated, and it has not been formally published.
Right, it's just another embarrassing defeat for you, just like your entire life has been full of embarrassing defeats, which is why you're a failed janitor who spends every waking hour posting dumbspam on a blog where everyone laughs at you.
I mean, you're such a failure that you can't even get the widows questions answered!
TAW, I have no need to have an opinion on Dr. Millette's work. It has not been replicated, and it has not been formally published.
Actually it's been published for over a month and yet you continure to use your ignorance to ignore the conclussion that your "research" is nothing but a waste of your own time. You should've seen that coming a mile away and yet you're a dumb old fool for not thinking ahead of time.
So, Brian has nothing to say about Dr. Millettes data. So there's no need for him to be any where at this time. All he's doing is proving to us that he's a old, senile, ignorant goat fucker who can't stand to be corrected when he's wrong.
Brian, please stop with this non-sense. You're only embarassing yourself and your whole family.
It has not been replicated, and it has not been formally published.
So its on par with the Jones & his clown car study. Actually its not. Its a study being submitted to a real journal, by a reputable scientist in the relevant field, and being presented to the relevant society.
Meanwhile fools like yourself think the Jones debacle is somehow worth entertaining.
TAW, where were Dr. Millete's findings published?
Brian, you've lost again, give it up. Let's talk about something else.
What's your favorite Rolling Stones record?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skidmark, I never lose. It's easy. I just don't make claims I can't prove.
You on the other hand babble on and on about things you know nothing about, and you continue to lie and lie and lie after you've been corrected again and again and again.
Skidmark, I never lose. It's easy. I just don't make claims I can't prove.
So you're admitting that there is no evidence of thermite or explosives being used in the destruction of the WTC?
You on the other hand babble on and on about things you know nothing about, and you continue to lie and lie and lie after you've been corrected again and again and again.
My, such squealing!
Poor Brian. He's so upset that I've humiliated him by asking for evidence (which he doesn't have) that the widows have questions.
Skidmark, even if you understood the nature of evidence (and clearly you don't) I would not discuss it with you because you're a liar and a waste of time.
Yes, there is evidence for both of those things. And now you're just going to lie about it.
Skidmark, even if you understood the nature of evidence (and clearly you don't) I would not discuss it with you because you're a liar and a waste of time.
Thanks for proving my point. You're a coward who runs squealing and crying from anyone who confronts you. Also, you have no evidence for thermite or explosives.
Yes, there is evidence for both of those things.
But you won't present it because you're a coward who runs away squealing and crying from anyone who challenges you.
And now you're just going to lie about it.
See what I mean?
Hey, if you don't want to present your evidence, that's fine. I mean, your "widows" will never have their questions answered and you'll never get a new investigation if you don't present evidence, but that's exactly what I want.
Ian, you don't challenge me. You don't know the difference between a challenge and a lie, but I do.
You work backwards from your conclusions to your claim. You start with the conclusion that there were no explosives in the towers, and therefore, you believe, that means there could not have been any evidence of explosives in the towers. That is irrational. Anybody who bothers to watch a silly crime show can see that there is often a lot of evidence implicating somebody who, ultimately, is found not to have been the perp.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "....You work backwards from your conclusions to your claim. You start with the conclusion that there were no explosives in the towers, and therefore, you believe, that means there could not have been any evidence of explosives in the towers."
That's right, goat fucker, always accuse your detractors of the crimes YOU commit.
He's not working backward from a predetermined conclusion, he based his conclusion on expert testimony. E.g.,
"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.
That's expert testimony, scat muncher.
In fact, you're the one who works backward from a predetermined conclusion while cherry picking the evidence.
Now go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger.
Ian, you don't challenge me. You don't know the difference between a challenge and a lie, but I do.
Squeal squeal squeal!
You work backwards from your conclusions to your claim. You start with the conclusion that there were no explosives in the towers, and therefore, you believe, that means there could not have been any evidence of explosives in the towers.
Actually, this is what you do. You concluded long ago that the Bush administration destroyed the towers in order to forward its evil goal of conquering the middle east to steal its oil, and you work backwards from that conclusions. Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this conclusion, so you end up babbling about magic spray-on thermite and silent explosives and invisible elevator repairmen, much to the amusement of the sane people on this blog.
That is irrational.
Right, which is why I'm not surprised that a delusional unemployed liar like you is guilty of it.
Anybody who bothers to watch a silly crime show can see that there is often a lot of evidence implicating somebody who, ultimately, is found not to have been the perp.
I'm also not surprised that you think this way, given that you're a delusional liar with no job, and you likely spend most of your day sniffing glue and watching "Dragnet" re-runs.
Anyway, Brian, if you're done burying my questions in squealspam, can you please provide evidence of thermite and explosives at the WTC?
UtterFail, if you knew how to think your way out of a paper bag, you would know that working backward from a predetermined conclusion and relying on expert testimony are not mutually exclusive.
Brent Blanchard testifying about the lack of det cord is like a hacker claiming that the absence of a floppy drive makes a computer unhackable.
Ian your claims about what I have concluded are completely without foundation. You have no idea what I have concluded.
I have many times provided evidence of explosives and thermite at Ground Zero, and for you to pretend that I haven't is just more of your compulsive lies.
Ian your claims about what I have concluded are completely without foundation. You have no idea what I have concluded.
False. You've told us what you've concluded many times, Brian. That's how we know you're a delusional liar who should be seeking psychiatric care.
I have many times provided evidence of explosives and thermite at Ground Zero, and for you to pretend that I haven't is just more of your compulsive lies.
So you should be able to provide it again, right? It looks like you're just trying to bury my questions in dumbspam rather than admit that you have no evidence.
It's a waste of time to argue with a liar and you are a liar.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...if you knew how to think your way out of a paper bag, you would know that working backward from a predetermined conclusion and relying on expert testimony are not mutually exclusive."
I know how to think, goat fucker. After all, I earned a real education. You, on the other hand, are a compulsive liar, science illiterate (tell us more about ΔT, dipshit) and a lowly college dropout who's in no position to criticize anyone.
I also know an unsubstantiated assertion when I see one, and your specious "working backward from a predetermined conclusion and relying on expert testimony are not mutually exclusive" hogwash is just so much twaddle from the keyboard of a lying psychopath.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...Brent Blanchard testifying about the lack of det cord is like a hacker claiming that the absence of a floppy drive makes a computer unhackable."
Care to diagram that sentence, idiot? Can you say gobbledegook?
The experts have testified that explosives were not a factor in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. If you wish to move the goal post and claim that the investigation was not conclusive, then the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders.
You're a typical conspiracist. You make wild, unsubstantiated claims while violating every formal rule of logic. Naturally, you resort to the aforementioned tactics because you have not a scintilla of evidence to support your theory; as a result, you attempt to turn the tables, and, in the process, place the burden of proof on your detractors.
And that--you filthy, lying scumbag--is brazen intellectual dishonesty.
So where's YOUR evidence for the presence of thermite or explosives at the WTC?
Put up or shut up, liar.
Otherwise, go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger.
It's a waste of time to argue with a liar and you are a liar.
Thanks for proving my point. You're a coward and a liar who runs away squealing and crying when challenged.
You have no evidence of thermite or explosives. Also, you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Alright, to get this thread in a different direction than EVERY OTHER THREAD:
The fact is, we're living in one of the most peaceful ages in human history.
I dunno about that. There was a relatively extended period of peace between Napoleon and WWI. You really think this era is more peaceful than that? I'm thinking not only of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the Arab uprisings, the conflicts in the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, etc.
Simple economics will dictate clean energy use soon enough.
Interesting thought. I hope that cleaner, renewable options will increase over time, but the free market Republicans and Libertarians are really fighting this. They prefer drilling to renewable energy sources.
That being said, my local bar uses wind power from Con Ed, so there is hope that the major energy companies are getting on board with this.
"Care to diagram that sentence, idiot? Can you say gobbledegook?"
-GB
You need it explained to you? Was it really that difficult for you to understand? Actually, that sounds about right for Goiterballs... Care to point out where RJ Lee said the iron came from the concrete, sport? How about that it was "expected" in building fires? *cough* paging Oystein *cough*
I dunno about that. There was a relatively extended period of peace between Napoleon and WWI. You really think this era is more peaceful than that? I'm thinking not only of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the Arab uprisings, the conflicts in the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opinion/sunday/war-really-is-going-out-of-style.html?pagewanted=all
I dunno if we have reliable data from the 18th century, but certainly the planet has gotten a lot more peaceful relative to most of the 20th century.
Interesting thought. I hope that cleaner, renewable options will increase over time, but the free market Republicans and Libertarians are really fighting this. They prefer drilling to renewable energy sources.
I wouldn't say they're free-market so much as in the pocket of extractive energy industries. The problem is that there's no way for politicians to lower the price of oil. It's not going to ever come down because of simple supply-and-demand issues.
Now say someone introduced a solar-power car for $15,000. That would be the end of the oil-based transportation industry. Is this going to happen tomorrow? No, but it's closer than you might think. The price of solar panels is plummeting, Moore's Law-style. The Chinese are well ahead of us on this, unfortunately.
That being said, my local bar uses wind power from Con Ed, so there is hope that the major energy companies are getting on board with this.
Wind is good, but solar is the real future. I read a while back (I forget where) that within a decade, solar technology will be such that Seattle, not exactly known for its eternal sunshine, would be able to generate all its energy needs from solar power. San Diego is already there. The limitation, at this point, is simply infrastructure.
"I dunno about that. There was a relatively extended period of peace between Napoleon and WWI. You really think this era is more peaceful than that? I'm thinking not only of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the Arab uprisings, the conflicts in the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, etc."
John, most of us are not really well educated about wars even within our own national histories. It is normal therefore that you make that mistake.
A short list of wars between the Napoleonic and WW1 would include, the American Civil War, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Boer Wars, The Sepoy Mutiny, The Franco-Prussian war, The Texas revolution, The Spanish-American War, The Mexican-American War, and The Moros Rebellion.
And that is just off the top of my head.
Fact is that it really is an unusually peaceful time in global history right now. The usual combative reality of history sets a very low bar for the standard of unusually peaceful. I wouldn't take any bets on how long this will last,however. Human nature remains human nature.
Brent Blanchard testifying about the lack of det cord is like a hacker claiming that the absence of a floppy drive makes a computer unhackable.
It's not just about det cord. Blanchard also testified about the lack of explosively-cut structural members in the debris. He saw no telltale burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns.
A demolition would have left sliced columns all over Ground Zero. These would have been observed in large quantity prior to arrival of the torch crews. Were there reports of any such thing? I think not.
"I dunno about that. There was a relatively extended period of peace between Napoleon and WWI. You really think this era is more peaceful than that? I'm thinking not only of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the Arab uprisings, the conflicts in the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, etc."
Others have already made the big list, I would add the Plains Indian Wars to that list.
"You start with the conclusion that there were no explosives in the towers, and therefore, you believe, that means there could not have been any evidence of explosives in the towers. That is irrational. Anybody who bothers to watch a silly crime show can see that there is often a lot of evidence implicating somebody who, ultimately, is found not to have been the perp."
Another Brian Goode classic. I should start Twitter page except he's long winded.
You can see his mental illness in its full glory here:
"You start with the conclusion that there were no explosives in the towers"
Ian didn't start there, and neither did the majority of the rest of the world. Forget Ian was in NYC for a second, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapse of any of the three buildings. No explosions on tape. No evidence of explosions on video. So Ian bases his statement/point of view on the obvious.
"... therefore, you believe, that means there could not have been any evidence of explosives in the towers."
Well yeah, Captain Obvious, because there was no evidence found in the wreckage.
Then we get another useless analogy:
"That is irrational. Anybody who bothers to watch a silly crime show can see that there is often a lot of evidence implicating somebody who, ultimately, is found not to have been the perp."
This underlines his mental state. He uses fiction to make his case suggesting he cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy. He could have cited actual cases of wrongful convictions, and this also underlines his intellectual laziness.
Keep oinking away, hotshot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Idiot squeals, "...Care to point out where RJ Lee said the iron came from the concrete, sport? How about that it was "expected" in building fires? *cough* paging Oystein *cough*"
Why should I feel compelled to answer a question that's based on a false premise?
For instance, I've asked you repeatedly to show me where the RJ Lee Report claims to have found "iron microspheres" (your term, dipshit) and you steadfastly refuse.
Why is that, Ali?
Your continued attempts to confuse the terms "iron microspheres" (your term, dipshit) with iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres are hardly impressive, camel fucker.
Nor do your continued attempts to deliberately misinterpret my argument merit a response. I've proven that fly ash was a component of the Twin Tower's 3,000 psi concrete. I've also argued that the iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres originated from many sources, including the clean up crew, the fire, the concrete and normal background dust.
Perhaps you can explain all the New Yorkers--including clean up workers, police officers and firemen--who are suffering from lung disease as a result of inhaling fly ash? Did the tooth fairy sprinkle fly ash over lower Manhattan, dipshit?
So when do you plan to substantiate your "iron microspheres" malarkey, Ali?
Here's a link to the RJ Lee Report. Go for it, Pinocchio.
This comment has been removed by the author.
NOTE:
RJ Lee Report.
Brian Good says:Willie decided to work with his JREF buddies at SLC to make a liar out of me, and they contrived to craft a proposal that was totally unacceptable. Willie would not lift a finger to find a venue with responsible and ethical moderation.
Really Mr.Liar? The only buddy I have at JREF is James Randi, the founder who I totally respect. It is part of my Bio. Why don't you post your evidence of my "other buddies I contrived with"? I came to face you here, were you were posting your lies and idiocy. I came to challenge you here since it is where you spent all of your time when you are not trying to harrass people like Carol Brouillett, Kevin Barrett, DRG and others. I came here not once, but several times and even offered to you, family access and survivor's meetings at Ground Zero on last 9/11 Anniversary. You refused , saying you had more important places to be on those dates than on Ground Zero.
I lifted many fingers ( specially my middle finger!) to find you another venue but as I told you before , nobody in those other forums wanted anything to do with you. Stop your lies and go back to rewrite your script on Richard Gage's video. Maybe those friends of you, who left RG's organization (after the Nation Of Islam Scandal) may want to hold a debate for you. Get a life!
Another potential source of microspheres is welding spatter under the paint layer.
Source:
Quach, A. (1974). Applications of energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in interfacial coating failures. Applied Polymer Symposium 23, 49-59.
Contamination by Welding Spatter
"Figure 2 is a SEM micrograph of the underside of a paint chip that peeled from a steel building chord. Note the presence of spherical particles. An ED x-ray spectrum of this area is shown in Figure 3. The abscissa is the x-ray energy characteristic of the elements present. The intensity of a peak is related to the amount of each element present. It can be seen that Fe is the dominant element. An Fe-distribution photograph is shown in Figure 4, where the bright spots represent Fe-rich areas. These areas correspond to the spherical particles seen in Figure 2. Spot analysis of individual particles indeed confirms that they are iron particles. Such spherical iron particles are abundant on the underside of the paint chips. The spherical shape suggests that they were formed at high temperature; most probably they are the welding spatter that was not removed prior to the application of the coating. Spherical iron particles can also come from pulverized-fuel boiler fly ash in industrial areas (see below). However, the source of the contamination under discussion is not fly ash, since the paint film fails only near the welding regions."
Oops, forgot the link.
Sorry William but I lost all interest in what you have to say when you started hanging out with Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer. Fetzer's latest has you claiming bombs in the basement and couples that with a debunked seismic study to "prove" there was a deliberate action to weaken the the lower level of the towers and cut off the water supply to the sprinkler system. Distance yourself from the "fetzering", it doesn't help your position.
A short list of wars between the Napoleonic and WW1 would include, the American Civil War, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Boer Wars, The Sepoy Mutiny, The Franco-Prussian war, The Texas revolution, The Spanish-American War, The Mexican-American War, and The Moros Rebellion.
The worst of them all in that period was actually the Taiping Rebellion. It was one of the deadliest wars in history, claiming almost as many lives as World War I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
Fact is that it really is an unusually peaceful time in global history right now. The usual combative reality of history sets a very low bar for the standard of unusually peaceful. I wouldn't take any bets on how long this will last,however. Human nature remains human nature.
I dunno about that. I really do believe that we've gotten better morally and ethically as a species as time has gone on. As Pinker and Goldstein point out in the op-ed I linked, there are certain practices that were pretty much universal, like slavery, divine right of kings, torture and cruel capital punishment, that have disappeared either entirely or are confined to a few pariah states like North Korea. I don't think slavery is coming back, and I don't think war will necessarily make a general comeback, even if there will still be individual wars that pop up.
Point taken, guys. I guess I was thinking too Eurocentrically, as the period I mentioned was one of the more peaceful periods in Europe.
My worry for the future is that the Arab uprisings will lead not to more democracies, but more theocracies, like what happened in Iran in the late 70s. Also that these minor wars are just the prelude to WWIII, as there were minor wars just before the other 2. I think Toynbee said that was a pattern of history? Any history majors out there?
Also, Ian, isn't China also one of the largest consumers of oil? Admittedly, they have more people. What's their solar power policy?
UtterFail, your "education" was glorified vocational training. Now it's obsolete, and the only way you can try to prop up your self respect is to lie about other people.
How can the experts testify that explosives were not a factor when they never tested for explosive residues and they cite nonsense like a lack of det cord as evidence?
Ted, there are pictures of box columns with splayed ends. Mr. Blanchard can not claim that he saw everything there was to see on a 6-acre site when the steel was being removed 24/7.
Why do you think a demolition would have left sliced columns all over Ground Zero? Dr. Romero said that a few charges in key places could have brought the buildings down. Dr. Eagar thought that a few failing truss anchors could have done the job. So let's see, if 20 truss anchors out of 50,000 were cut by incendiaries or by explosives, do you think those would be found in a "scoop and dump" cleanup?
MGF, your claims that there is no evidence of explosions on video or on audio tape is simply contrary to fact. Don't mistake your ignorance for knowledge.
Your belief that using an analogy from fiction is irrational simply shows the extreme limitations of your education. You really really really need to get out of Castroville, boon-head.
UtterFail, your belief that the presence of fly ash in tieback grout proves that fly ash was present in the lightweight floors only shows your incompetence.
Brian, we're trying to have a normal discussion pertinent to the topic in this thread. We're not interested in the delusional babbling of a failed janitor who lives with his parents, sniffs glue, wears women's underwear, and believes in invisible widows, magic thermite elves, and modified attack baboons.
On that note,
Also, Ian, isn't China also one of the largest consumers of oil? Admittedly, they have more people. What's their solar power policy?
Yes, their much larger population dictates their oil consumption. I'm not sure if they have a specific policy on solar power, but you can see that they're well ahead of us in the manufacture of solar panels:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/business/energy-environment/us-to-place-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html?pagewanted=all
Frankly, I think it's great that Chinese manufacturing has driven the price down so much.
@bpete1969
I do not hang out with Fetzer and I disagree with what he says. On that note, I have spoken to him and made him aware of many "issues". I think that the last time I saw him was around 4 or 5 years ago. I remember my first disagreememnt was his support to Judy Woods and her stupid theories and also the platform he gave the no planers and other idiots out there. Now, you do not need to listen what I have to say because, respectfully, I am engaging the idiot Brian Good who clearly is ignoring me now. No offense towards you.
...Also, there was no damage to the sprinkler system in the basement since there was water all over. I mention that in my speech and other witnesses have spoken about it as well. I believe with mechanical rooms in several floors, the sprinklers will had worked either way.
"I dunno about that. I really do believe that we've gotten better morally and ethically as a species as time has gone on. As Pinker and Goldstein point out in the op-ed I linked, there are certain practices that were pretty much universal, like slavery, divine right of kings, torture and cruel capital punishment, that have disappeared either entirely or are confined to a few pariah states like North Korea. I don't think slavery is coming back, and I don't think war will necessarily make a general comeback, even if there will still be individual wars that pop up."
I just don't think human nature has changed that much. I agree the social structures have moved in good directions, but war doesn't come from them. It is in the human psyche.
In the 20's and 30's people thought massive war was over in Europe. After all, everyone knew sdmocracies didn't attack other democracies. Then Germany invaded Poland.
I hope and pray you are right and we have turned that corner. I'm just not ready to bet liberty, lives or treasure on it.
Well, Germany in 1939 was a "democracy" the way that Iran is a "democracy" today. People may vote, but really one man is in charge.
In 1939, yes. But prior to that the Weimar republic was a solid democracy with nine parlimentary style elections between 1919 and 1933 under it's belt. Nazi Germany's corruption of that is an example of the "eternal vigilance" price tag we talk about.
Iran has never been a solid democracy with a string of real elections behind it. Maybe it will one day.
My point was that people were convinced war in Europe was passe because the democracies would never make war on each other. As we saw, even democracies can turn away from the "righteous path", revert to less idealistic forms and start the cycle of war all over again.
My fervent hope is that we are moving forward, at least 2 steps for each one back. I'm just not sure we are there yet.
Just an aside, this is a cool discussion, makes a wonderful counter example to the venomous bile that passes for argument with our "truther" members.
There were other circumstances that helped the Nazis gain power, specifically economic. I wonder if there hadn't been the Great Depression, and the insistence of the allies to exact full reparations from WWI on Germany, would Hitler have come to power?
One of the benefits of the aftermath of WWII was the Marshall plan and our restructuring of Japan. No wars were started by either of them.
Which brings us back to today. With the Arab uprisings and China becoming one of the world's leading economies, what will happen in the next decade or 2? I fear that fundamentalist Islam might take control of a large part of the Arab world, as it did in Iran. That, more than anything, could lead to a large scale conflict, especially if Israel bombs Iran's reactors.
China is a bit of a wild card, as it seems to hover between communism and capitalism. It definitely has economic ties to us (use check the packaging on your kid's toys), but isn't exactly friendly. But I haven't been following their story recently.
But it's obvious that it doesn't matter what these countries do. Iron microspheres are the most important issue of today. :)
I fear that fundamentalist Islam might take control of a large part of the Arab world, as it did in Iran. That, more than anything, could lead to a large scale conflict, especially if Israel bombs Iran's reactors.
While an Iran-Israel war is definitely a possibility and a real problem, I just don't see fundamentalist Islam gaining any ground in the Arab world. Its high water mark was 9/11, and it's been slipping ever since in credibility in the Arab world. Sure, there could be religious parties like the Muslim Brotherhood that could gain power, but it's still a long way from the Muslim Brotherhood to al Qaeda.
China is a bit of a wild card, as it seems to hover between communism and capitalism. It definitely has economic ties to us (use check the packaging on your kid's toys), but isn't exactly friendly. But I haven't been following their story recently.
China has too much invested in the world economy to become a belligerent expansionist empire. They want their population happy, and the way to get that is through growing standards of living, not war. They'd rather be an economic superpower than military superpower.
At least that's my $.02
JR wrote: , this is a cool discussion, makes a wonderful counter example to the venomous bile that passes for argument with our "truther" members.
Right, when you guys stick to subjects you actually know something about, then you have no need to be defensive about your lies, and no need to substitute bile for logic and venom for fact.
While an Iran-Israel war is definitely a possibility and a real problem, I just don't see fundamentalist Islam gaining any ground in the Arab world. Its high water mark was 9/11, and it's been slipping ever since in credibility in the Arab world.
I disagree. Between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabaab in Somalia, Jemaah Islamiah in Inodnesia, not to mention the occasional bombings in Europe, fundamentalist Islam has been on the rise over the past 2 or 3 decades. 9/11 brought more attention to it, and MAYBE Bin Laden's death has dampened it a bit, but it remains a real problem. Even without the terrorism, fundamentalists are trying to impose sharia in a number of the countries I mentioned above.
and no need to substitute bile for logic and venom for fact.
Tell that to Snowcrash.
Aw, did somebody's feelings get hurt? I'm so feeling your pain.
"Right, when you guys stick to subjects you actually know something about, then you have no need to be defensive about your lies, and no need to substitute bile for logic and venom for fact."
I started posting here to point out a minor error to you, one I even said was a minor and widespread error. You were utterly unable to admit that error. You still are. When I posted the actual proof of your error, you eventually imploded into insults and attempts to obfuscate simple facts. Hell, you even BRAGGED that you hadn't bothered to read the source document.
All that is here on the website for anyone who doesn't remember and wants to do a seach and see what happened.
So as always, simple observation and review of actual facts refutes your claim.
John, I agree all those things drove the olapse of the WEimar Republic. I just think they can drive a democray to war just as well as they can a tyranny.
I think we agree for the most part. If I'm reading you right, we both fear that we "live in interesting times" as the old saying goes. Ian, I believe, thinks war is dying, some day to be extinct. I just don't see real evidence of it in the modern world. I hope it is true. I fear it may be wishful thinking
Aw, did somebody's feelings get hurt? I'm so feeling your pain.
I very much doubt anyone's feelings have been hurt, Brian. Just pointing out that your pal indulges in that type of behavior too, and you never say a word against him. A touch, hypocritical, don't you think?
I think we agree for the most part. If I'm reading you right, we both fear that we "live in interesting times" as the old saying goes. Ian, I believe, thinks war is dying, some day to be extinct. I just don't see real evidence of it in the modern world. I hope it is true. I fear it may be wishful thinking
Exactly. In addition to the foreign situation we talked about above, the US seems to be fracturing a bit. With both the extreme right (aka tea party) and the extreme left (aka OWS) trying to push their respective agendas, it is indeed "interesting times". (Personally, I think both are FOS in certain ways.)
Being a child of the eighties, I am amazed, looking back, how easy I had it, compared to the kids of today.
Don't know why I thought of this, but if you want an interesting read about these "interesting times", at least from a technological perspective, I recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Massive-Change-Bruce-Mau/dp/0714844012
A very thought provoking read, and more optimistic than I tend to be.
Maybe I'm just an optimist. I was born in 1980 and thus have few memories of the Soviet Union. Everyone who lived in the 1950s thought nuclear war was inevitable, and yet I can't even imagine that mindset.
I took a vacation to central Europe a few years back and took a train across the German-Czech border. The train didn't even stop and I didn't have to show anyone my passport. 30 years ago, that border was minefields, barbed wire, and machine guns.
We live in interesting times, but they are better times in a lot of ways.
JR, I used "impeachment" in the same way that it's used by the NYT and WaPo. If you think they were wrong, take it up with them. I'm not interested in your imaginary and pedantic gotchas.
DU, where in the world did you get the idea that SnowCrash is my pal? I'm not responsible for his behavior. But y'all here are responsible for Ian's lies, because your refusal to call him out on them represents an endorsement of them.
Ian wrote: [these times] are better times in a lot of ways.
Better for schmucks like you maybe--liars who care about nothing but their own personal fortunes. Worse for democracy, worse for liberty, worse for journalism and science. The only ones doing better are the 1% and the gays--and that's no mistake.
Yes, I have to say, the world is a much better place today than it was in 1968. I'm very glad I get to live in this age, instead of that dreadful time.
Yes, a dreadful time when we had real heroes like Martin Luther King, Fred Hampton, and Bobbie Kennedy instead of a bunch of knaves like John Kerry and Barack Obama. But you wouldn't know anything about heroes, skidmark. You're pathetic.
Plus, my generation is sweeping the dust off ourselves after we were hit by the great recession, and we're picking up and looking to the future. We don't waste time looking back at ancient history. I mean, 1968 is as relevant today as 1868.
You don't even know your own history, let alone "ancient" history. Passing it off as irrelevant is just typical willful know-nothingism--expected from an idiot who's not smart enough to recognize that he's been enslaved.
"Better for schmucks like you maybe--liars who care about nothing but their own personal fortunes. Worse for democracy, worse for liberty, worse for journalism and science."
In Ian's defense, managing a fortune as large as his takes a team of several people. Then there's the day-to-day problems like how many 1966 Batmobiles to buy as gifts, and lobbying his Senator to change tax-laws so he can list his luxury liner as a yacht.
Democracy has never been in better shape, the fact those in power haven't figured this out is their problem.
Liberty's hanging in there too. I'm still waiting to be roughed up by the NWO SWAT team.
Journalism was never all that great.
Science? What the fuck is wrong with science? Researchers are doing more with better equipment, and moving the ball forward every day.
" The only ones doing better are the 1% and the gays--and that's no mistake."
...and the gays...you just can't help yourself can you? Fucking low-life bigot.
Anyway, back on topic:
I disagree. Between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabaab in Somalia, Jemaah Islamiah in Inodnesia, not to mention the occasional bombings in Europe, fundamentalist Islam has been on the rise over the past 2 or 3 decades. 9/11 brought more attention to it, and MAYBE Bin Laden's death has dampened it a bit, but it remains a real problem. Even without the terrorism, fundamentalists are trying to impose sharia in a number of the countries I mentioned above.
Well, it is true that Islamic fundamentalism is stronger now than it was in, say, 1960, when Pan-Arab socialism was all the rage, I disagree that it's strengthening. I think it's in decline since 9/11. Most of the casualties of Islamic violence since then have been other Muslims, and opinion polls show that al Qaeda's popularity has plummeted in recent years.
If radical Islam could have taken control of the Arab Spring, they would have. They didn't. Obviously, there will be right-wing Islamist parties that try to be involved in politics, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Taliban is getting elected in Egypt anytime soon. Tunisia's elections went well, and Turkey's ruling party is Islamist, but works within the democratic framework of that country.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but that's how I see things.
"Yes, a dreadful time when we had real heroes...Bobbie Kennedy ..."
Bobbie Kennedy? Who's she?
If you meant BOBBY Kennedy then you have a problem. RFK ran the CIA operation to assassinate Fidel Castro. RFK allowed/encouraged the CIA to work with the Chicago Mafia to kill Castro. RFK then blocked investigations by the Warren Commission which would have exposed his dirty work. This included the destruction of evidence.
Some hero.
MGF, are you really dumb enough to think that the fact that worthless rich fuckups like you are of no interest to the NWO is significant?
And Brian is now babbling about the NWO, which is fitting for a burnt-out paranoid lunatic who failed out of SJSU and still thinks it's 1968.
The world has moved on and left pathetic failures like you behind, Brian. No wonder you're so bitter and resentful of normal, successful people like me.
Skidmark, MGF is babbling about the NWO, not me. I'm sorry you lack the cognitive facility to distinguish the point from the subject, but that's not my fault.
If you were successful you would not find it necessary to spend your time obsessively posting the same stupid lies year after year at an obscure blog.
Hey, I was born in 1968! :)
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...your 'education' was glorified vocational training. Now it's obsolete, and the only way you can try to prop up your self respect is to lie about other people."
Yeah, if a college dropout, proven compulsive liar and science illiterate says the bachelors and master degrees I earned at UTA and Santa Clara University are "vocational training" and "obsolete" it must be true.
FAIL.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...How can the experts testify that explosives were not a factor when they never tested for explosive residues and they cite nonsense like a lack of det cord as evidence?"
Here we go again. Yeah, it was "nanothermite" or super-magical silent explosives that don't leave a trace. Right nut-bag?
Proving, once again, that if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit. Right, cretin?
FAIL.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...your belief that the presence of fly ash in tieback grout proves that fly ash was present in the lightweight floors only shows your incompetence."
I've already proven that tie back grout is made of 3,000 psi lightweight concrete. The same lightweight concrete specified in the WTC concrete schedule, and the same lightweight concrete that was used to build floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106 for a grand total of 89 floors.
FAIL.
And you didn't answer my question, scumbag.
Perhaps you can explain all the New Yorkers--including clean up workers, police officers and firemen--who are suffering from lung disease as a result of inhaling fly ash? Did the tooth fairy sprinkle fly ash over lower Manhattan, dipshit?
Are you calling Dr. John R. Balmes, MD and Dr Frederick Miller, MD liars?
So how did the concretes alumino-silicate and fly ash get in the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emercency responders against dust
That's expert testimony, scumbag.
Now lie and squeal for us, shit-stain.
No problem, Brian. I have no interest in wasting time debating anything with you till your version of reality shifts closer to the actual one.
Your story went through several versions until you finally settled on the one where you insist that the misuse of a word by a newspaper somehow changes it's legal meaning. The proof can be found by any interested.
If you were successful you would not find it necessary to spend your time obsessively posting the same stupid lies year after year at an obscure blog.
For the record, Brian has been posting the same gibberish about "widows" for over 3 years now. I'm sure most of us have accomplished something since then.
I find you amusing, Brian. You're like watching "Jersey Shore" in that there's a train-wreck attraction to the spectacle that I just can't let be. I enjoy watching you babble about magic thermite elves and the NWO.
Thanks for proving my point, ButtGoo. If you had any intellectual facility at all=, you would not find it necessary to invent lies in order to try to create the impression of having a point. Your degrees were vocational training, and now they're obsolete. They tried to warn you at the time, but you were after the quick buck and you wouldn't listen.
For some reason you believe that is the tieback grout concrete is 3,000 psi and the floor concrete is 3,000 psi they must be the same concrete. All you're proving is your own idiocy.
JR, I never said the newspaper usage was the legal meaning. I said the newspaper usage was a legitimate usage. You were so anxious for a gotcha that you had to invent one. No problem. That's just SOP for idiots like you.
No problem, Brian, believe what you will. As I said, I'm not debating anything with you till you get some kind of grasp on reality.
I'm content for others to search and read any exhange between us and judge for themselves.
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
Furthermore, the 100% fact-free opinion of a proven compulsive liar, college dropout and science illiterate (tell us more about ΔT, dipshit) isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
"...For our Wooden Seawalls, our pilings are placed 5’ on center, with a minimum of 6-foot to 8-foot penetration through the river or canal bottom. We install ¾” galvanized or stainless steel tie back rods through each piling, and each of our tie back rods are poured into 1/3 of a yard of 3,000 PSI “redi-mix” concrete, which is pumped into each tie back hole." -- WOODEN SEAWALLS, Brevard County License No: M1 1206
I've already proven that tie back grout is made of 3,000 psi lightweight concrete. The same lightweight concrete specified in the WTC concrete schedule, and the same lightweight concrete that was used to build floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106 for a grand total of 89 floors.
FAIL.
And you didn't answer my question, gasbag:
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get in the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
That's expert testimony, gasbag.
Now squeal and lie again--you dirty Republican fucker who masquerades as a "liberal."
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
"...Yes, a dreadful time when we had real heroes like Martin Luther King, Fred Hampton, and Bobbie Kennedy instead of a bunch of knaves like John Kerry and Barack Obama. But you wouldn't know anything about heroes, skidmark. You're pathetic." -- Goat fucker, 01 April, 2012 14:55.
Isn't it interesting that an alleged "liberal" would excoriate Democratic party leaders while giving a pass to America's worst president, George W. Bush?
Something's rotten in Denmark, gentlemen.
So Captain Crotchrot, how much does the Republican party pay you to slander "liberals" as conspiracy theorists and World-class nut-bags?
How much do they pay you to participate in this exercise in Kabuki Theater that masquerades as a "blog"?
Can you say another Republican Party-inspired dirty tricks campaign?
You don't believe a word of so-called "9/11 truth," do you, gasbag?
You make me want to puke--you dirty Republican fucker.
@Guitarbill
Thanks for those links! It helped me clarify a lot of things. Cheers.
" Between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabaab in Somalia, Jemaah Islamiah in Inodnesia, not to mention the occasional bombings in Europe, fundamentalist Islam has been on the rise over the past 2 or 3 decades."
It has and it hasn't. As Islam spreads it tends to reflect the cultures of the areas it moves into just as Christianity did before it. Violent cultures are still violent, they just use the Koran instead of the Communist Manifesto to justify their actions.
There is a secondary issue of revolutionary groups re-flagging themselves as Islamic to attract funding from Wahabis in Saudi, and the Peninsula.
The Islamic Brotherhood has been around since the 1930s formed to fight the "Westernization" of Arab countries.
You talk of the fracturing in this country,it's a reflection of change, and transition as the country figures out where it wants to go. We saw the same things during the Depression here and world-wide. Some people embrace extremism as it reflects the fear, and uncertainty people feel as the short-term future is unclear. Throw in the 24-hour news cycle which people have yet to figure out, and the internet which is distorting everything making it difficult for the average person to get accurate information at the initial level you can see one of the driving engines of confusion.
"9/11 brought more attention to it, and MAYBE Bin Laden's death has dampened it a bit, but it remains a real problem."
I disagree with this.
Al Qaeda burned itself in Iraq. They let a child-rapist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, run their show, and he spent more time murdering Iraqi civilians than fighting the US forces. They took advantage of the Baath Party's Syrian network to funnel foreign fighters from Europe into their network, then used them as canon-fodder. This had two results:
1. Future Islamic extremists who could have caused problems in their European homes died by the thousands (AQI's number was 12,000+), the ones who escaped suffered disillusionment of the extremist ideals.
Arab states known to support terror don't want anything to do with Al Qaeda. There has been much in-fighting within what is left of Al Qaeda as to the wisdom of the 9/11 attacks, and the course it followed as it chased us around leading to its destruction as a functioning group.
"Even without the terrorism, fundamentalists are trying to impose sharia in a number of the countries I mentioned above."
True. In this country we have a number of people who'd vote for Rick Santorum who'd do the same thing, it goes back to fear of change.
ButtGoo, your belief that the concrete in the floors is the same as the concrete in the tieback grout is without basis and only shows your incompetence.
Your inability to distinguish data from information suggests why your career never went anywhere.
Where did you get the idea that I'm supposed to be a liberal?
This comment has been removed by the author.
William Rodriguez wrote, "...Thanks for those links! It helped me clarify a lot of things. Cheers."
You're welcome, William.
By the way, you have an excellent first name. :)
Cheers!
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
Face it, asshole, I've proven that tieback grout is 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
And your continued refusal to answer the following question proves that you're lying:
How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
What's the matter, cretin? Are you bumping your microcephalic noggin on that "truth" limit again, Pinocchio?
And how does the expert testimony of Drs. John R. Balmes, MD and Frederick Miller, MD square with your deceptive, 100% fact-free propaganda--you slimy, underhanded Republican scat muncher?
Once again, goat fucker, YOU lose.
So Captain Crotchrot, how much does the Republican party pay you to slander "liberals" as conspiracy theorists and World-class nut-bags?
Go for it, coward. Answer the questions or YOU stand exposed as a liar and a Republican operative with a hidden political agenda--you slimy piece-of-shit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your belief that because 3000 psi tieback grout contained fly ash that therefore 3000 psi floor concrete contained fly ash is just loony. Don't you know anything?
That's like thinking that because a Ford uses 84 octane gasoline and a Mitsubishi uses 84 octane gasoline therefore a Ford is a Mistusbishi.
Still running away squealing, moaning and crying, goat fucker?
Poor, goat fucker. I humiliated the underhanded Republican scumbag again, and all he can do is avoid my questions and whine like a recalcitrant child.
All this whining and crying on your part is a sign of serious emotional distress, Captain Crotchrot.
In fact, your desperation is palpable.
As a result, on behalf of the blog, I'd like to ask you a question:
So, tell us, Captain Crotchrot, where did the priest touch you?
Here, use the doll and point to where he touched you--you pathetic, Hitler-worshiping lizard.
And stop whining. You constantly remind us of someone we've all known...usually an ex-girlfriend.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The goat fucker whines, "...Where did you get the idea that I'm supposed to be a liberal?" -- The goat fucker, 01 April, 2012 21:30.
See what I mean?
Thanks for all the substantiation you've provided in favor of my argument--you slimy, cross dressing, underhanded Log Cabin Republican scumbag.
So when do you plan to answer my question, child molester?
How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
What's the matter, cretin? Is a long night of sniffing glue finally getting to you, clown?
Now squeal, moan and cry like a good little piggy. Okay goat fucker?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now squeal, moan and cry like a good little piggy.
Oh, I think I saw this movie. Isn't this the part where my buddy comes and shoots you with a crossbow, Jethro?
Was that comment your best attempt at humor, genius?
Yawn.
Pathetic.
Once again, you lose, Captain Crotchrot.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
I know, you'll admit defeat when Hell freezes over. Right, shit-for-brains?
Now go peddle your conspiracy prattle at 911flogger, scumbag.
It's too bad that your enormous talent for formulating meaningless questions has no market value. You have the mind of a four-year-old.
Talking out of your pie hole again, cretin?
Unlike you you, Aunt Fancy, I have a four year old--and she has 40 IQ points on you.
So when do you plan to answer the question, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--caput.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Again, your desperation is palpable, scumbag.
Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crotchrot.
NOTE:
The goat fucker is such a pathetic, compulsive liar. After all, he won't acknowledge that the answer to the question I posed can be found in the quote I provided from Protection of Emergency responders against dust. Since the evidence and expert testimony I present brings his propaganda into question, he won't acknowledge the truth.
It's that simple.[
"What a maroon..." -- Bugs Bunny.
Since you've only got one sample, it seems exposure was relatively rare. My guess then would be that the fly ash came from tile grout. There was a lot of tile work in the WTC, wasn't there? You've provided not one shred of evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC floors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Since you've only got one sample, it seems exposure was relatively rare...[blah][blah][blah]."
False.
You didn't read the report, jackass.
"...On 7 September 2006, the Mount Sinai Medical Center released the findings from the World Trade Center Worker and Medical Screening Program. Of the approximately 40,000 firefighters, policemen, construction, and utility workers who worked at the site or were emergency responders, about 12,000 people participated in the study, and about 9,500 agreed to allow their results to be used in the report. Of the 12079 participants, 1660 were exposed to early high intensity dust exposure by being present during the collapse of the Towers. The screening included a comprehensive physical examination and other tests between July 2002 and April 2004. Another 4000 were tested after April 2004. The report concluded that (1) almost 70 percent of the responders had a new or worsened respiratory symptom that developed after or during their time working at the World Trade Center; (2) the responders had abnormalities in pulmonary function tests at the rate twice that expected in a comparable U.S. population, and that these abnormalities persisted for months and years; (3) 84 percent had upper respiratory illnesses; and (4) 47 percent has lower respiratory illnesses such as asthma." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
For a guy with an alleged "scientific reputation," you're certainly averse to reading any evidence that destroys your vicious, insane Al Qeada propaganda. Why is that, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
So if you can't bother yourself to read so much as the first paragraph of the report, why should we take you seriously?
So when do you plan to answer the question, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Again, your desperation is palpable, scumbag. And your silly games don't cut it, Pinocchio.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Your own quote shows that only one sample showed fly ash. You're incompetent. That's why your opinions are so goofy.
One more time for Pat, GB: where does the RJ Lee report say the melted iron came from? Do they say it was in the concrete?
It's a pretty simple question. Why do you have such a hard time answering it?
Shit for brains squeals, "...One more time for Pat, GB: where does the RJ Lee report say the melted iron came from? Do they say it was in the concrete?"
The RJ Lee Report doesn't say anything about "melted iron," jackass.
So when do you plan to provide quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your "iron microspheres" lie?
It's a very simple question, asshole, so why do you refuse to answer it?
The goat fucker squeals, "...Your own quote shows that only one sample showed fly ash"
That's right, goat fucker, pretend that the first paragraph of the report doesn't exist.
So when do you plan to answer the question, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
You won't answer the question becuase your argument is destroyed. Now all I'll get is squealing, lying and semantic games.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...Your own quote shows that only one sample showed fly ash."
There were many cases of acute eosinophilic pneumonia related to WTC dust exposure.
For example, the NIH says the following:
"...There were also fly ash and many silicates. Many of the cases of acute eosinophilic pneumonia reported previously in the literature had acute, high dust exposures." -- Emerging Exposures and Respiratory Health.
So much for your "only one sample showed fly ash" lie.
So when do you plan to answer the question, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Now squeal and lie again, goat fucker.
ButtGale, you only further demonstrate your own scholarly ineptitude and irrationality. It's not surprising that your chose to go into a cookbook profession. Too bad your skills are obsolete and you're too old to learn any new recipes.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...you only further demonstrate your own scholarly ineptitude and irrationality."
Are babbling and lying all you have, goat fucker?
Speaking of "scholarly ineptitude," tell us more about ΔT, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
So when do you plan to answer the question, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So how did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Once again, you're circling the drain, goat fucker, and all you can do is squeal and lie.
I guess that's the way it goes when you're a science illiterate who couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary physics, chemistry or mathematics.
Face it, goat fucker, you're full-of-Pat Cowardly.
Willie Rodriguez is right. You're not only a liar, you're a pussy.
ButtGoo, why do you keep harping on a trivial subject like ΔT? Do you get some kind of secret frisson out of using Greek characters? Ooooo! They're so sciencey!
Your own quote says there was only one sample showing fly ash in the lungs. You're serially incompetent.
No, goat fucker, that's not what the report say at all. And the content of the first paragraph proves that you're lying.
"...Of the 12079 participants, 1660 were exposed to early high intensity dust exposure by being present during the collapse of the Towers." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
"...Many of the cases of acute eosinophilic pneumonia reported previously in the literature had acute, high dust exposures." -- Emerging Exposures and Respiratory Health.
Furthermore, I don't care about the worthless opinion of a proven compulsive liar who dropped out of college to pursue a "career" that consisted of mopping floors and picking up used condoms.
So when do you plan to acknowledge your latest humiliating defeat, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So I'll ask you again, liar: How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
That's expert testimony, jackass.
The opinion, moreover, of a college dropout and science illiterate will never trump expert testimony.
Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Now go peddle ypur conspiracy twaddle at 911flogger, flunky.
ButtGoo, your persistent belief that dust exposure = fly ash exposure only shows your own logical incompetence.
Your quotes only cite one instance of fly ash exposure.
Wrong again, ass face.
The first paragraph provides the CONTEXT of the report.
Now I'm well aware that the concept of CONTEXT is beyond your feeble mind; however, the CONTEXT remains.
The report is not solely concerned with the firefighter who was used as an example. The report also underscores the 1660 first responders who were "exposed to early high intensity dust exposure by being present during the collapse of the Towers."
Thus, we can see that you're quote mining the report and, in the process, trying to pretend that the report only concerns itself with the firefighter used in the example.
And that, you scumbag, is naked intellectual dishonesty.
So when do you plan to acknowledge your latest humiliating defeat, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So I'll ask you again, liar: How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
You keep mistaking dust exposure for fly ash exposure, making the same stoooopid mistake again and again and again and again Mr. Endless Loop NOP NOP NOP NOP.
There is only one sample showing fly ash.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...You keep mistaking dust exposure for fly ash exposure...[blah][blah][blah]."
Moving the goal post again, goat fucker?
Of course you're moving the post--you scurrilous liar.
Fly ash was identified as a component of the WTC dust, as the report points out, idiot.
Again, learn to read and grasp the concept of CONTEXT--you cretin. The entire report is focused on "dust [consisting] of fine caustic cement particles."
Idiot.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
So when do you plan to acknowledge your latest humiliating defeat, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So I'll ask you again, liar: How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Come on, asshole, take the report out of CONTEXT again.
Your never-ending lies are as transparent as a piece of Saran wrap.
FAIL.
Fly ash is dust, as the following report makes clear--and I quote:
"...The size of contaminants and particles are usually described in microns, a metric unit of measure where one micron is one-millionth of a meter. There are 25,400 microns in one inch. The eye can see particles to about 40 microns.
"The size of some contaminants and particles are indicated in the table below.
"Fly Ash.......1 - 1000μ" -- Sizes of airborne particle as dust, pollen bacteria, virus and many more.
That's expert testimony, goat fucker.
Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crotchrot.
You continue to quote a paragraph that reports only one fly ash sample.
Your belief that size of particle makes a material fly ash is as loony as your belief that the psi rating of concrete makes it fly ash concrete. You have clearly lost it, ButtGirl, and you sure as hell ain't finding it here.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...You continue to quote a paragraph that reports only one fly ash sample."
False.
You are reading the report out of CONTEXT. In other words, you're QUOTE MINING.
The report is not solely concerned with the firefighter who was used as an example. The report also underscores the 1660 first responders who were "exposed to early high intensity dust exposure by being present during the collapse of the Towers."
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Your belief that size of particle makes a material fly ash is as loony as your belief that the psi rating of concrete makes it fly ash concrete."
That's a straw man argument.
I never claimed that "the psi rating of concrete makes it fly ash concrete."
Again, you're reading the ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD article out of context.
Do you honestly think that I'll let you get away with deliberately misrepresenting my argument?
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...ButtGirl, and you sure as hell ain't finding it here."
Yep, you can always tell when the goat fucker has suffered another humiliating defeat because now he squealing and calling me a "gurl."
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
So when do you plan to acknowledge your latest humiliating defeat, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So I'll ask you again, liar: How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
Clearly, you've suffered another humiliating defeat and you're not man enough to admit it.
So who's the "gurl," goat fucker?
Answer: Have a nice, long look in the mirror, Aunt Fancy.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
You keep insisting that exposure to dust proves the presence of fly ash. That makes no sense. Did you have a stroke or something?
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...You keep insisting that exposure to dust proves the presence of fly ash."
Another straw man argument.
Are logical fallacies all you have, goat fucker?
Oh, that's right! You're incapable of grasping the concept--which explains why you cling so desperately to logical fallacies.
In fact, I provided EXPERT TESTIMONY, and all you can provide is the worthless opinion of a proven compulsive liar and college dropout.
How many times must I explain this to you, goat fucker? I'm not interested in the worthless opinion of a compulsive liar who failed to complete his undergraduate studies. Got it, cretin?
So when do you plan to acknowledge your latest humiliating defeat, liar? After all, your "no fly ash from concrete at Ground Zero" theory is destroyed--finished.
So I'll ask you again, liar: How did the concretes' alumino-silicate and fly ash particles get into the first responders' lungs, Pinocchio?
"...Little monitoring data is available during the first few days of the WTC attack when exposures were the greatest. After the first few days, site studies reported airborne particulates up to 100 mg/m3 concentration. Settled dust samples were collected east of the site 5 and 6 days after the collapse. Most of the dust consisted of fine caustic cement particles which exhibited a pH of 9 to 11 when contacted with water. More than 90% of the particles in the bulk samples were greater than 10 microns (>10 μm) in diameter, and many were fibers with widths less than 5 μm and lengths greater than 10 μm. Also present were pyrolysis products (from fires, burning of jet fuel) and fines from mineral wool, fiberglass, gypsum, wood, glass, paper, cotton, and asbestos. Bronchoalveolar lavage (performed on one New York City firefighter hospitalized with pneumonitis several weeks after exposure) recovered considerable fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence of significant inflammatory response." -- Protection of Emergency responders against dust.
That's expert testimony, cretin.
Now, either provide expert testimony that refutes Drs. John R. Balmes, MD and Frederick Miller, MD's study or piss off.
Is that simple enough for you, jackass?
There's only one sample that shows fly ash in the lungs. It doesn't matter what kind of experts it comes from when the guy who presents it doesn't understand what he's talking about.
You seem to believe in the power of incantation.
Brian doesn't care, Bill. He's a psychopath so he cannot care. His damaged mind can only see what it wants to see.
It's why he cannot hold a job, why he was kicked out of college, why he's been kicked out of the 9/11 truth movement on every level. It is why he qualifies for disability.
He doesn't care about 9/11. It's a game for him. Think about it, think about the types of people we see attracted to this conspiracy theory. All borderline or complete mental cases. It was only a matter of time Brian was attracted to it, his mental flaws made it irresistible.
He gets to live out his fantasy life with the 9/11 troofers. He gets to be a brilliant scientist, Sherlock Holmes, defender of freedom and liberty rescuing 9/11 widows while fighting the evil George Bush. He probably spends Sundays (when the library's closed) on a rope swing in his mother's backyard wearing a cape , with his red underpants over his jeans.
Facts don't matter to him because none of this is real to him.
If you're going to write total fiction about me, MGF, can't you at least make it interesting? What a pitiful imagination you have!
On the contrary, goat fucker, MGF's description is accurate and to the point.
Your abysmal "debate skills" are only exceeded by your complete disregard for the truth.
Now go peddle your conspiracy twaddle to the brain-dead liars and deniers who frequent 911flogger.
If you're going to write total fiction about me, MGF, can't you at least make it interesting? What a pitiful imagination you have!
My, such squealing!
Poor Brian. He's been humiliated again because everyone knows he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. He has accomplished nothing over the past 4 decades, which is why he babbles about 1968 and worm food like Robert F. Kennedy.
Normal people don't care about ancient history, but for a pathetic failure like Brian, who has to live with his parents because he's never held down a job, his faded glory days are all he has.
ButtGoo, can you provide any actual evidence to establish that any one of MGF's "accurate" claims is factual? No you can't, because he lies and you lie.
Ian, your belief that normal people don't care about history only goes to show your educational and intellectual deficits. Most of the Great Men are now worm food. But you wouldn't know anything about that, because all you care about is a fast buck and pointless, talentless music.
Post a Comment
<< Home