Friday, June 08, 2012

Free Scootle!

I've been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog, but it appears that Scootle Royale is actually beginning to realize that perhaps some elements of 9-11 Trutherism are counterproductive.  He wrote a longish post over there warning his fellow Truthers that perhaps it was time to say ix-nay on the ermite-thay.

Unfortunately, if you surf over there, you won't find it.  Why?  Well, there are two possible explanations.  One is that he wasn't quite done with it (which appears true).  The other is that he's been gagged (which appears more likely).

On May 3 and May 15, Scootle published a post entitled "Red Chips or Blue Pills; A Warning to AE911 Truth."  In the post, he noted the results of the Millette report, which proved pretty conclusively that the red and grey chips claimed by the idiot Harritt and Jones to be nanothermite, were not.  Instead they are quite likely a form of primer paint, although Millette was unable to definitively establish that.

Each time, the post had only partially finished sections, and thus seemed like a draft, and each time, the post was fairly quickly "pulled".  I was advised of this post by several commenters and by an emailer who shall remain anonymous.  It was decided to allow Scootle some additional time to finish off the post.  But at this point it's been five weeks since the first version was posted over there, and three weeks since the second one, and it wasn't that incomplete.

What's more, since then 9-11 Rebunkers have prominently promoted Box Boy Gage's latest opus, 9-11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out, which relies heavily on the nanothermite claim, even though Scootle's May 15 version of his post concluded with this warning:

Red-gray chips could, if debunked, discredit Expert's [sic] Speak Out, and therefore AE911Truth and 9/11 Truth as a whole.
You can read Scootle's post as it appeared May 15 here (click on the image to enlarge it to viewable size).  When will his post return on 9-11 Rebunking?

Labels: , , , , ,

178 Comments:

At 08 June, 2012 15:29, Blogger Oystein said...

Pat,

I get a "Account Suspended" screen when I click on the link to your screenshot of Scootle's post.

I have it uploaded in my public DropBox:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/72370224/ScootleRoyale_20120515_Red%20chips%20or%20Blue%20Pills%20A%20Warning%20to%20AE911Truth.png

 
At 08 June, 2012 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Millette didn't prove anything conclusively. His results have not been replicated. For news you have to rely on hearsay reports from anonymous comenteers? Sheesh!

 
At 08 June, 2012 17:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I'm sure someone is video taping themselves who cardboard boxes right now to counter Millette's report.

 
At 08 June, 2012 18:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Millette's findings have not been replicated.

If you had half an education you would recognize that cardboard boxes demonstrate Newton's 3rd Law very well.

 
At 08 June, 2012 19:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's unclear who's in charge at rebunkers. Talboo the Wise and Adam Taylor appear to be more or less the local ringleaders, with Scootle and others checking in from time to time.

Talboo has a wide variety of derangements, and he has recently declared that 9/11 Truth will get along fine without the ATM paper at all. Taylor is an AE911Truth contributor (yes, the 1700 architects and engineers are represented by a 23-year-old foodservice employee). His last article indeed invokes nanothermite. So I can see arguments both for and against gagging Scootle over nanothermite doubts.

Or, hopefully, maybe Scootle pulled the articles himself while he tries to sort out what he believes. That would be a positive growth step for him.

Interesting that Pat Cowardly has been pretty damn quiet in the period that Scootle is doing so much reevaluation.

 
At 08 June, 2012 20:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit-for-brains squeals, "...Dr. Millette didn't prove anything conclusively. His results have not been replicated."

Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?

As usual, ass-face, you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

Dr. Millette didn't set out to "prove" anything. HE WAS TRYING TO REPLICATE DR. STEVEN E. JONES' EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

He was unable to replicate Dr. Jones' experimental results, AND THE REACTANTS SHOWED NOT A TRACE OF ELEMENTAL ALUMINUM.

Thus, two researchers have been unable to replicate Dr. Jones' experimental results. This proves that Dr. Jones' "nanothermite" theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now get out of here, scum.bag, and go peddle your idiotic conspiracy twaddle to the toothless cretins who frequent 911Flogger.

 
At 09 June, 2012 06:58, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

When will Harrit's Brian? For that matter when will they actually publish in a real journal? Please cite journal, article, & page in both cases.

 
At 09 June, 2012 08:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Millette's findings have not been replicated.

The relevant standards are different. An extraordinary claim like nanothermite requires an extraordinary level of proof, including but not limited to replication of results.

A refuation of an extraordinary claim is held to a much lower standard, which Millette has satisfied.

 
At 09 June, 2012 08:50, Blogger Pat said...

For news you have to rely on hearsay reports from anonymous comenteers?

News is either true or untrue, Brian. In this case, I am not relying on my anonymous commenters at all, other than for the pointer to the post. It is quite obvious that the news is true.

 
At 09 June, 2012 10:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the observation that the 9/11 Truth movement would not die by nanothermite hardly requires a lot of reconsideration. It's simple logic.

ButtGale, if Dr. Millette was trying to replicate Dr. Jones's work he did a piss-poor job because he failed to do the DSC. Also, his chips were not the same as Dr. Jones's chips. Granny Goose is not Lay's. Dr. Millette's work has not been replicated by anybody. The issue is inconclusive until Dr. Millette runs a DSC and someone replicates Dr. Millette's findings.

GMS, I have no idea when or if the Jones team will publish in a real journal. I suspect that Dr. Jones's speculations about earthquake machines and over-unity devices have ensured that he will never publish in a real journal again.

RGT, Millette's failure to replicate Jones's work casts doubt on Jones's work, yes. But the fact that Millette's findings have not been replicated leave doubt on Millette's work. Thus there's doubt on everybody's work. To accept Millette's findings as proven before they have been replicated is unscientific.

 
At 09 June, 2012 11:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the observation that the 9/11 Truth movement would not die by nanothermite hardly requires a lot of reconsideration.

I agree, the Movement is not particularly swayed by facts. You must find it remarkable that the ATM paper has become simultaneously critical and irrelevant.

Thus there's doubt on everybody's work.

Not really. Doubt on Millette's work is contingent upon validation of Jones' work, which has yet to occur.

 
At 09 June, 2012 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

The basic position of the truth movement is that the 9/11 Commission Report is incomplete and dishonest. That is irrefutable.

A subset of truthers who have interest in science and engineering have the same opinions about the NIST reports. Not all truth movement people share this interest, and many of them are distrustful of those who are skeptical of NIST.

A subset of the NIST skeptics believe the evidence for controlled demolition rises to the level of proof.

A subset of the CD enthusiasts believes the nanothermite evidence rises to the level of proof.

The ATM paper is not at all critical. Only a subset of a subset of a subset of of the movement has ever embraced it. If the alleged nanothermite is shown to be paint chips made of kaolin and hematite, that does not alter the other issues asserted by the main movement, by the NIST skeptics, or by the controlled demolition theorists.

Any belief that failure of the ATM paper would implode the fundamental claims of the truth movement is merely wishful thinking.

Doubt on Millette's work is not contingent on Jones's work at all. Millette's work on Granny Goose chips stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of Jones's work on Lay's chips.

 
At 09 June, 2012 14:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"A subset of the NIST skeptics believe the evidence for controlled demolition rises to the level of proof."

A Subset meaning drunks, losers, and fellow mentally disabled people.

"A subset of the CD enthusiasts believes the nanothermite evidence rises to the level of proof."

A subset consisting of guys not cool enough to hang out with the other group.

 
At 09 June, 2012 16:00, Blogger Len said...

I'm harldly the 1st person to make this observation but it's ironic that 'truthers' and other CT constantly complain that their ideas are 'supressed' by the mainstream and even much of the alternative mediavbut seldom if ever allow dissenting views on the sites they run.

Speaking of which how's the "Glasnost" going at 9/11 Blogger?

 
At 10 June, 2012 17:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the 1700 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth include 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 10 Stanford engineers, 47 PhD engineers.

Tell me, Mr. college drop-out, how many of these 1700 are drunks, losers, and mentally disabled?

 
At 10 June, 2012 19:16, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Tell me, Mr. college drop-out, how many of these 1700 are drunks, losers, and mentally disabled?"

All of them.

Their spokesman is a pool cleaner.

 
At 10 June, 2012 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a liar. Also a slanderer, since these are people with professional reputations.

 
At 10 June, 2012 22:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

A&E911 is less than a fraction of a percent of the total of engineers and architects which says something about their professional abilities.

Every profession has its nut-jobs.

 
At 10 June, 2012 22:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

How many architects and engineers can you name who have expressed support for the NIST report? Ian's Uncle Steve?

 
At 11 June, 2012 04:50, Blogger Ian said...

And Brian is back to babbling about architects and engineers.

Brian, I know that it's hard for you to understand that real architects and engineers have work to do and don't waste their time with tiny crackpot cults. If you weren't a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents, you'd probably understand this.

 
At 11 June, 2012 05:00, Blogger Oystein said...

smug.bug: "MGF, the 1700 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth include 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 10 Stanford engineers, 47 PhD engineers.

Tell me, Mr. college drop-out, how many of these 1700 are drunks, losers, and mentally disabled?"

Last time I counted, I found fewer licensed structural engineers than 50. More like 25. But that aside, there are probably very roughly around 50,000 structural engineers with a PE license number in the USA (that would be one SE in a town of 6,000). Of these, no doubt a couple of thousand are drunks, losers or mentally disabled.

To get an idea about how 25 compare to 50,000: My parents' home had a 8x4 meters indoor pool that was 1.5625 meters (5'1.5") deep. It held precisely 50,000 liters of water. If you took out 25 liters from that pool, the water surface would have dropped by 0.7 millimeters (0.03 inches). Totally irrelevant.





And it looks like ScootleRoyale is starting to see through the bogus claims and false appeals to autorities made by twoofers. (Just to get this debate back to topic)

 
At 11 June, 2012 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, belief in the laws of physics is hardly the stuff of crackpottery.

Oystein, in many states a general engineering license allows one to do structural work. Thus many of the engineers at AE911Truth.org who do structural work are not listed as structural engineers on the petition.

You guys aren't answering the question. How many independent architects and engineers have expressed confidence in the findings of the NIST report? Compare zero liters to 50,000 liters.

 
At 11 June, 2012 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oystein, polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible. That would be 36 million adults. And yet only 17,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's over 2000 non-signers per signer.

Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible. Our number of 50 thus represents quite a significant statistic, especially given the great reluctance of professional engineers to associate with anything controversial. Actually,
the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens, and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible.

Before the 2005 NIST report, you would have claimed that your 50,000 structural engineers all believed FEMA's silly zipper/pancake theory despite its obvious shortcomings. When NIST rejected the zipper/pancake, nobody could be found to defend it. This suggests not a robust scientific consensus, but a fearful reluctance to defy authority.

 
At 11 June, 2012 09:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This suggests not a robust scientific consensus, but a fearful reluctance to defy authority.

No this suggests that people follow what the research says, not what some loons write on the internet.

 
At 11 June, 2012 09:25, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Oystein, polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible.

So?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, there is no official research to explain all the features of the collapses of the three buildings. NIST has admitted that they are "unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse" even though they list explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed as one of their investigation objectives.

NIST relies on the ignorance of people like you, who go around opining erroneously that the collapses have been explained, and who also try to equate a belief in the laws of physics and the scientific method with a belief in angels.

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag whines, "...if Dr. Millette was trying to replicate Dr. Jones's work he did a piss-poor job because he failed to do the DSC."

Logical fallacy: Red Herring.

Are logical fallacies all you have, sex predator? Is this another example of your so-called "scientific reputation," Mr. Doesn't Understand the Definition of ΔT?

FACT: Dr. Millette IS NOT required to perform a DSC analysis in order to determine the composition of the alleged reactants. Any number of methods will suffice to determine the chemical composition of the reactants. Thus, DCS IS NOT required in order to replicate Dr. Jones' experimental results.

Once again, we can see that you're resorting to logical fallacies in order to distract from the weakness of your argument, to say nothing of the "truth movements" complete failure to make their case with real, verifiable scientific evidence.

FACT: Dr. Jones experimental results have NEVER been replicated; two efforts to confirm his results have utterly failed. This proves that Dr. Jones' "nanothermite" theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny--period.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail--your obsessive, baseless, and erroneous belief that I don't understand ΔT exposes your crippled epistemology.

Until Dr. Millette replicates the DSC, he can not claim to have replicated Dr. Jones's work. And since his chips are different from Dr. Jones's, he can't claim to have replicated Jones's work even if he did the DSC.

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 10:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum;.bag lies, "...Until Dr. Millette replicates the DSC, he can not claim to have replicated Dr. Jones's work."

Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?

False. The opinion of a college dropout and confirmed sex predator isn't evidence.

DSC is simply NOT required. In fact, DSC won't prove a thing. And you can't provide a compelling argument to justify your "he can not claim to have replicated Dr. Jones's work" red herring.

Again, two scientists attempted to replicate Jones' experimental results, and BOTH EFFORTS FAILED.

Scum.bag whines, "...And since his chips are different from Dr. Jones's, he can't claim to have replicated Jones's work even if he did the DSC."

And who REFUSED to turn over their samples to Dr. Millette in order to facilitate an independent analysis of the WTC dust? The "truthers" steadfastly refused to turn over the samples. This is double-dealing on a grand scale. Thus, if Millette's experimental results are in conflict with Jones' pseudo-science, the troofers can always claim that "[Millette] chips are different from Dr. Jones's [samples]."

This is the equivalent of "heads I win; tails you lose."

Once again, we can see that you simply refuse to debate in good faith, goat fucker. All you have are logical fallacies, duplicity and bald-faced lies. Should we expect less from a confirmed sex predator? Probably not.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And goat fucker, when does the so-called "9/11 truth movement" plan to provide the chain of custody data for their alleged "WTC dust sample"?

Until the troofers have established the chain of custody, they cannot establish the authenticity of the samples (E.g., were the samples altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome [ie, fraud])?

So where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Until chain of custody data is provided and confirmed, the troofer's dust samples are of unreliable origin, and therefore, the samples are NOT admissible in a court of law.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your belief that DSC would not prove a thing only further demonstrates your logical incompetence. If the DSC showed Millette's sample to be non-energetic, it would validate his claim that it does not contain elemental aluminum. If the DSC showed the sample to be energetic, it would suggest that the the energetic nature of Dr. Jones's chips may derive from something other than thermite.

 
At 11 June, 2012 11:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 11:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag lies, "...If the DSC showed Millette's sample to be non-energetic, it would validate his claim that it does not contain elemental aluminum."

Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?

False. Your idiotic belief that only DSC can confirm or validate the presence of elemental aluminum in the samples proves one thing, and one thing only: You have no idea what you're talking about.

You, moreover, have not provided a VALID justification for your insistence on DSC.

Babbling does not equal a valid justification.

Now, give up the misdirection ploys, scum.bag AND ANSWER THE GOD DAMNED QUESTION--you festering gob of shit: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Now dance around like a fag on a hot tin roof and STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, FELCHER.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say anything about ONLY. I said DSC would validate. Where'd you learn to write pseudo-poetry, smart guy? Is that how you got through college, writing papers full of white space?

 
At 11 June, 2012 12:19, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

HUH

 
At 11 June, 2012 12:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag lies, "...I didn't say anything about ONLY. I said DSC would validate."

False.

Again, the opinion of a college dropout and confirmed sex predator isn't proof. Validation by DSC analysis is UNNECESSARY. And you can't provide a compelling argument to justify your idiotic insistence on DSC. End of debate.

Scum.bag squeals, "...Where'd [SIC] you learn to write pseudo-poetry, smart guy? Is that how you got through college, writing papers full of white space?"

Another misdirection ploy, spelling bee champ? Well, it won't work, scum.bag.

Now, give up the misdirection ploys, scum.bag AND ANSWER THE GOD DAMNED QUESTION--you festering gob of merde: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Obviously, you can't provide a valid sample with a clear and unambiguous chain of custody. Dr. Millette, on the other hand, tested a valid sample. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

You don't know the first thing about the scientific method, do you, scum.bag? And your idiotic rebuttals are all the evidence I need to prove that you're a poseur, a blowhard and a charlatan.

Now answer the question, liar: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 12:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

How's that Wayne Newton thing working out for you?

 
At 11 June, 2012 12:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Poor scum.bag. I've humiliated him again, and all he can do is babble like an idiot and try desperately to misdirect the flow of the "debate" away from the obvious failings of his half-baked ideas and bald-faced lies.

Now answer the question, liar: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Once again, you FAIL, charlatan.

 
At 11 June, 2012 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't have any chain of custody data, and never said I did. You're just spreading red herring stink.

 
At 11 June, 2012 14:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another transparent attempt to bury your latest humiliating defeat in dumb-spam and vain attempts to redirect the flow of the "debate," asshole?

FACT: The "9/11 truth movement" can't provide chain of custody data for their alleged "WTC dust samples."

FACT: The "9/11 truth movement" steadfastly refused to hand over samples to Dr. Millette in order to facilitate an independent analysis of the alleged "WTC dust samples."

The troofer's continued unwillingness to cooperate with independent researchers suggests that the troofers have something to hide. Clearly, questions concerning the "9/11 truth movement's" willingness to act in good faith are perfectly justified. In other words, the troofer's alleged "WTC dust samples" were very likely adulterated by the "truthers" in order to provide "evidence" in support of their predetermined, self-serving and utterly false conclusions.

FACT: The troofer's alleged "WTC dust samples" do NOT have a verifiable chain of custody. Thus, the samples are OF UNRELIABLE ORIGIN, and as a result, INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

Now answer the question, liar: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?


Once again, you FAIL, charlatan

 
At 11 June, 2012 15:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 15:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag, why do you refuse to answer the following question?

Question: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

So, in your diseased mind, Dr. Jones' experimental results, which were obtained from unvalidated dust samples and are inadmissible in a court of law, are somehow more reliable than Dr. Millette's experimental results, which were obtained from WTC dust samples with a verifiable chain of custody. Is that your "logic," dufus?

Are you out of your mind, scum.bag? Or are you a delusional liar who trolls SLC in order to advance your hidden personal and political agendas?

Now dance like a barefoot fag on a hot tin roof and steadfastly refuse to answer the questions, loser.

 
At 11 June, 2012 15:54, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, belief in the laws of physics is hardly the stuff of crackpottery.

Yes, and as you've demonstrated many times, you have no idea what the laws of physics are. This is understandable given that you're an unemployed janitor and not a scientist.

You guys aren't answering the question. How many independent architects and engineers have expressed confidence in the findings of the NIST report? Compare zero liters to 50,000 liters.

We don't care about your question, Brian. We just care about mocking you for your hideous haircut.

Oystein, polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible. That would be 36 million adults. And yet only 17,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's over 2000 non-signers per signer.

Nobody cares.

Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible.

False.

Actually,
the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens, and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible.


Nobody cares what a mentally ill unemployed janitor finds "reasonable".

 
At 11 June, 2012 16:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

It is good to see Scootle Royale's catharsis. The facts are the facts. The problem is troofers needed it to be nanothermite so they could claim controlled demo. Now with it ruled out they have nowhere to go.

 
At 11 June, 2012 16:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

MGF wrote, "...The problem is troofers needed it to be nanothermite so they could claim controlled demo. Now with it ruled out they have nowhere to go."

If the last few years are any indication, the troofer's will collectively slither back into their mother's basement, move the goal post, and formulate a new yet equally insane "theory" in order to advance their special brand of lunacy.

Recall that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over-and-over again, while expecting a different result. Thus, you can count on the troofers to invent another justification for their vaunted "new investigation."

 
At 11 June, 2012 16:56, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Oystein, polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible. That would be 36 million adults. And yet only 17,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's over 2000 non-signers per signer.

Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible. Our number of 50 thus represents quite a significant statistic, especially given the great reluctance of professional engineers to associate with anything controversial. Actually,
the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens, and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible."


How nice of you to provide the proof yourself you have no understanding of statistics at all.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:06, Blogger Ian said...

How nice of you to provide the proof yourself you have no understanding of statistics at all.

Stuff like this is why I find Brian so entertaining. When he lets his guard down and starts off on some completely ignorant, insane tangent, it's fun. He's living proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

JR wrote, "...How nice of you to provide the proof yourself you have no understanding of statistics at all."

Actually, scum.bag tried to pass off extrapolation as "extension of that ratio" several months ago, and I proved that he doesn't understand a thing about statistics, let alone elementary mathematics. Notice that scum.bag cannot adequately explain or justify the interpolation that underlies his idiotic assumptions.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: He's not a real troofer, he's a psychopath with a hidden personal and political agenda.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I never made any claims about chain of custody.

Ian, you lie.

MGF, your belief that controlled demolition requires nanothermite is irrational.

JR, your statistical argument has no substance whatsoever.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag whines, "...I never made any claims about chain of custody."

Another misdirection ploy, cretin?

I don't care if you made claims about chain of custody or not--you brain-dead cretin. That you made or didn't make a claim IS IRRELEVANT--you insane psychopath.

Your "WTC dust samples" don't have a valid chain of custody. Thus, your alleged "WTC dust samples" ARE INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

Your argument is illogical, and all the red herrings in the World will NEVER validate your alleged "WTC dust samples" or their broken chain of custody.

Now, give up the misdirection ploys, scum.bag AND ANSWER THE GOD DAMNED QUESTION--you festering gob of merde: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Once again, you FAIL, cretin.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie.

MGF, your belief that controlled demolition requires nanothermite is irrational.

JR, your statistical argument has no substance whatsoever.


Yup, this is the kind of pathetic babbling we've come to expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and was expelled from the truth movement for being a dangerous pervert and stalker.

Brian, I would ask you for the contact info for your legal counsel after your libelous claim that I lie, but I know you're too poor to afford one. You can't even afford a decent haircut!

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:37, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember that time that Willie Rodriguez challenged you to a debate and you ran away squealing and crying?

That was hilarious. Your humiliation is a source of endless amusement.

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

One homeless Mullet mug shot coming up.

LOL!

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:42, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

huh

 
At 11 June, 2012 17:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, your belief that controlled demolition requires nanothermite is irrational."

On your planet maybe.

There were no sounds of explosions as the buildings came down, and there would have been plenty with conventional charges. This is why they fixated on Nanothermite - no BANG. Just a hiss.

Keep trying.

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, 118 first responders reported sounds or sights of explosions. You live in a fantasy world.

Please explain how conventional charges, planted inside hollow core columns, which bulged out and weakened said core columns but did not rupture them, would make noise in the outside world.

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:15, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, 118 first responders reported sounds or sights of explosions. You live in a fantasy world.

Brian is really hysterical now. He should call us "girls" soon.

But I'm amazed that explosions were reported in a massive, uncontrolled fire. That never happens!

Please explain how conventional charges, planted inside hollow core columns, which bulged out and weakened said core columns but did not rupture them, would make noise in the outside world.

So I assume you have overwhelming evidence that this is exactly what happened on 9/11, right?

I mean, this wouldn't be just the hysterical, desperate babbling of a liar and sex stalker who couldn't hold down a job mopping floors, right?

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:16, Blogger Ian said...

Hey, Brian, I asked Laurie Van Auken 185 questions about her involvement in planting silent explosives and nanothermite in the towers. I got zero answers. That's 185 unanswered questions. I think you know what that means....

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag, when do you plan to stop trying to misdirect the "debate" and answer the questions?

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now respond with an another attempt at misdirection. Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, scum.bag?

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys are just doing the Stupidity Dance. Thanks!

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As opposed to what, scum.bag? The Dancing Around Like a Fag on a Hot Tin Roof Dance?

Scum.bag, when do you plan to stop trying to misdirect the "debate" and answer the questions?

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now respond with an another attempt at misdirection. Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, scum.bag?

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:25, Blogger Ian said...

You guys are just doing the Stupidity Dance. Thanks!

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves, and he can't stand being humiliated by people who are smarter and more successful than he is.

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

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

 
At 11 June, 2012 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag brays, "...Please explain how conventional charges, planted inside hollow core columns, which bulged out and weakened said core columns but did not rupture them, would make noise in the outside world."

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ignorance. (ie., Scum.bag is trying to assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false--and that's idiotic on its face).

Trying to shift the burden of proof from you to your detractors, scum.bag?

YOU made the outrageous claim; thus, the burden proof falls on your shoulders, and your shoulders alone.

You just can't debate without resorting to misdirection and logical fallacies, can you, scum.bag?

MGF, there's no reason for you to respond to such an idiotic appeal to ignorance. You simply don't bear the burden of proof.

 
At 11 June, 2012 19:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, 118 first responders reported sounds or sights of explosions. You live in a fantasy world."

Still quoting 2001/2002 interviews? What do those people say now?

Plus no sounds of explosions are heard on any videos. especially from the few taken one or two blocks away.

"Please explain how conventional charges, planted inside hollow core columns, which bulged out and weakened said core columns but did not rupture them, would make noise in the outside world."

How about YOU explain why someone would be that fucking stupid to plant charges in a labor-intensive way which would leave evidence obvious to anybody?

Also, dumbass, you just got done whining you never claim it was controlled demo. Make up your brain damaged mind.

 
At 11 June, 2012 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, if you have any rational reason to believe that the first responders have recanted their oral histories testimony about explosions, by all means share it. But of course you have no rational reason to believe that. You have only your own fuggmuggling: God told me they were wrong, so therefore they must have recanted.

Sounds of explosions have been recorded on videos, as David Chandler shows.

What makes you think the evidence of a small hole drilled into a column protected by fireproof coating would be obvious to everybody?

I never claimed it was controlled demolition. I'm sorry you can't entertain opposing notions at the same time, but you've no cause to jeer at those of us who can.

 
At 11 June, 2012 20:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag, when do you plan to respond with something other than misdirection, logical fallacies and naked attempts to misdirect the "debate" and answer my perfectly legitimate questions, coward?

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now respond with an another attempt at misdirection. Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, scum.bag?

Do you honestly think that no one notices the intellectual dishonesty and bad faith that underscores every comment you spluge on this blog?

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 20:21, Blogger J Rebori said...

First, signing the AE911 truth petition is a self-selecting activity.Therefore, as anyone who survived the first week of statistics could tell you, it has zero predictive value. In other words, at that point yoru premise falls aprt because it is statistically invalid to use the number of signers of a petition as a predicition of the make up of the larger population.

Seond, pretending we haven't already proven your claim ridiculous, let's examine your attempt to "extend the ratio". You want to claim that since x% of the general population is A, then x% of a subset of that population must also be A. That is a mathematical fallacy. To demonstrate it's flaw, examine the US population. approximatly 12% of the US population is African-American. Approximatly 15% of the US population has natural blonde hair.By your illogic, we should expect 15% of African-Americans to be blonde.

I believe the expression is QED. You either are ignoring basic statistics, or you simply lack knowledge of it.

 
At 11 June, 2012 20:26, Blogger Ian said...

Seond, pretending we haven't already proven your claim ridiculous, let's examine your attempt to "extend the ratio". You want to claim that since x% of the general population is A, then x% of a subset of that population must also be A. That is a mathematical fallacy. To demonstrate it's flaw, examine the US population. approximatly 12% of the US population is African-American. Approximatly 15% of the US population has natural blonde hair.By your illogic, we should expect 15% of African-Americans to be blonde.

Actually, it's worse than that. He, with no evidence whatsoever, decided that engineers are MORE likely to agree with Richard Gage, so it would be like expecting more than 15% of African-Americans to be blonde.

Or to make a more apt analogy, 40% of the population are creationists. Biologists are more likely to be familiar with "creation science", and thus, according to petgoat logic, we should assume that more than 40% of biologists are creationists.

That's the kind of "logic" one can expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor.

 
At 11 June, 2012 20:29, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, if you have any rational reason to believe that the first responders have recanted their oral histories testimony about explosions, by all means share it. But of course you have no rational reason to believe that. You have only your own fuggmuggling: God told me they were wrong, so therefore they must have recanted.

Sounds of explosions does not mean there were explosives planted in the towers. Only a hysterical liar who is desperate to believe in controlled demolition like you would make that leap.

What makes you think the evidence of a small hole drilled into a column protected by fireproof coating would be obvious to everybody?

Translation: there is no evidence for explosives used in bringing down the WTC, and I'm just desperately babbling because I need to believe in controlled demolition.

I never claimed it was controlled demolition. I'm sorry you can't entertain opposing notions at the same time, but you've no cause to jeer at those of us who can.

And now the desperate, hysterical denial from a pathetic liar and lunatic who believes in controlled demolition and has been professing that belief here for 3.5 years, despite all the ridicule it gets him.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 11 June, 2012 22:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Sounds of explosions have been recorded on videos, as David Chandler shows."

Not during the collapse.

"What makes you think the evidence of a small hole drilled into a column protected by fireproof coating would be obvious to everybody?"

Little if any of the fire-proofing survived the collapse. An expert in explosive and/or demolition would have anticipated the coating would come off. An explosion big enough to bend or warp steel would leave blatant evidence behind.

The idea of a conspiracy is not to get caught.

"I never claimed it was controlled demolition."

You just did it again.

"I'm sorry you can't entertain opposing notions at the same time, but you've no cause to jeer at those of us who can."

I can. You are either a complete psychopath (which explains why you're still single and unemployed), or you are a professional troll hired by the Bush family to undermine the anti-war movement. See, two opinions based on the same evidence.

 
At 11 June, 2012 22:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, answering "yes" to a pollster's question is also a self-selecting activity. Do you have a point? The issue is the ratio between the number of self-selecting petition signers (17,000) and the number of people who believe controlled demolition to be a credible hypothesis (36,000,000).

Your joke about the blonde Afro-Americans is meaningless because you have designed your example to involve mutually exclusive groups. There is no such mutual exclusion between advocates of controlled demolition and the engineering community.

Ian, since engineers are more likely to be familiar with the laws of physics than is the general population, it is natural to expect engineers to be more sensitive to the issues with the destruction of the towers than is the general population.

MGF, you can't expect to hear explosions during the course of the collapse. Are you maintaining that there wasn't bent and warped and vaporized and molten steel left behind?

Your belief that psychopathology and service to Bush are mutually exclusive only further demonstrates your childish logic. You really need to finish college and get out of Castroville. Your mind is going to seed.

 
At 11 June, 2012 23:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag brays, "...JR, answering "yes" to a pollster's question is also a self-selecting activity. Do you have a point? The issue is the ratio between the number of self-selecting petition signers (17,000) and the number of people who believe controlled demolition to be a credible hypothesis (36,000,000)."

False.

Statistical extrapolation is based upon prediction of values by a statistical model. Since you haven't proposed a statistical model (normally a polynomial) based on a regression model of actual data from date x through date y, your "credible hypothesis" is, in reality, incredible and ultimately meaningless.

So, scum.bag, when do you plan to respond with something other than misdirection, logical fallacies and naked attempts to misdirect the "debate," and answer my perfectly legitimate questions, coward?

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now respond with an another attempt at misdirection. Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, scum.bag?

Obviously, you're a coward and a liar. This explains why you ran screaming and crying from a Puerto Rican janitor.

Once again, you FAIL,, scum.bag.

 
At 11 June, 2012 23:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're just playing with words. It wasn't my credible hypothesis, and the hypothesis under consideration was not a statistical one. You're only fooling the simple-minded.

 
At 11 June, 2012 23:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 June, 2012 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bullshit.

The question isn't the "hypothesis"--you 'tard. The question is your utter lack of a statistical model, to say nothing of the required regression model.

Read it until you get it through your 8 meter-thick, steel-reinforced concrete skull:

Statistical extrapolation is based upon prediction of values by a statistical model. Since you haven't proposed a statistical model (normally a polynomial) based on a regression model of actual data from date x through date y, your "credible hypothesis" is, in reality, incredible and ultimately meaningless.

Thus, you understand statistics about as well as you utterly fail to understand the definition of ΔT.

So, we can see, once again, that you're a poseur, a blowhard and a charlatan.

Stick to trolling, asshole. You're not qualified to debate physics, chemistry, statistics or mathematics.

So where's your regression model, scum.bag? Yeah, I know, we can find it up your unwashed backside.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 04:26, Blogger ScootleRoyale said...

My response:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/procrastination-not-conspiracy.html

 
At 12 June, 2012 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

JR, answering "yes" to a pollster's question is also a self-selecting activity. Do you have a point? The issue is the ratio between the number of self-selecting petition signers (17,000) and the number of people who believe controlled demolition to be a credible hypothesis (36,000,000).

Nobody cares.

Your joke about the blonde Afro-Americans is meaningless because you have designed your example to involve mutually exclusive groups. There is no such mutual exclusion between advocates of controlled demolition and the
engineering community.


Actually, there is. To believe in controlled demolition requires the kind of ignorance and stupidity you display daily at this blog. Engineers do not have such appalling lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Ian, since engineers are more likely to be familiar with the laws of physics than is the general population, it is natural to expect engineers to be more sensitive to the issues with the destruction of the towers than is the general population.

Right, and since they understand what brought down the towers, they'll leave the insanity about silent explosives and super secret nanothermite to hopeless unemployed lunatics like you.

MGF, you can't expect to hear explosions during the course of the collapse.

So these explosives went off after the collapse had started?

Your belief that psychopathology and service to Bush are mutually exclusive only further demonstrates your childish logic. You really need to finish college and get out of Castroville. Your mind is going to seed.

And we finish with the kind of hysterical squealing we expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 12 June, 2012 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, it's off to work. I imagine I will return tonight to find that Brian has posted more dumbspam about his silent, invisible explosives that go off after a building has already started to collapse.

It's what one would expect from someone with no job who lives with his parents and has been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and lunatic and sex stalker.

 
At 12 June, 2012 04:43, Blogger Oystein said...

Hey Scootle,

good and fair reply, your latest post!

I am very interested in what Mark Basile has to post. I am however skeptical if he is intellectually or psychologically capable of reviewing his own data rationally. As I have already shown in my blog:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/how-mark-basile-confirms-that-red-gray.html

I am discussing his quantitative and qualitative analysis of his "best" red-gray chip, and come to these conclusions:

"* The red-gray chip is not thermitic by nature – it's combustion is dominated (99-100% of the energy output) by reactions other than than the thermite reaction

* Basile's data presentation in no way confirms the presence of thermite

* Basile shows that the hydrocarbons in red-gray chips can burn vigorously, invalidating any claims by Harrit e.al. that the vigor of the combustion is a sign for thermite at work

* If Basile, Harrit e.al. as well as other 9/11 Truthers are to be believed that “Basile's results confirm Harrit e.al.'s results”, then they must no accept that these results speak clearly against a thermitic nature of the red-gray chips

* Alternatively, 9/11 Truthers should retract their stance that Basile's data “confirms” Harrit e.al."


It is very surprising, and raises a clear red flag, that Basile didn't see all that immediately after looking at his own graphs.

 
At 12 June, 2012 04:58, Blogger Oystein said...

@ smug.bug
Oystein, polls show that 15% of citizens find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be credible."
99% of citizens are insufficiently informed and qualified. 40% believe God made the first woman out of the rib of the first man. Polls prove nothing.

"That would be 36 million adults."
Yes, pretty sad.

"And yet only 17,000 of those adults have signed the AE911Truth petition. That's over 2000 non-signers per signer."
It's even worse than that: Since the poll is open to internet users worldwide, It's more like 100,000:1 :D

"Extension of that ratio to the engineering community suggests there are 100,000 structural engineers then who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible. "
Actually, 2.5 million LOL

"Our number of 50 thus represents quite a significant statistic"
It is relevant, but not the way you think it is.

"especially given the great reluctance of professional engineers to associate with anything controversial."
Poisoning the well.

"Actually, the awareness of the controlled demolition hypothesis in the engineering community is probably greater than in the larger community of citizens"
Actually, the 50 or 1700 never ever talk to their peers, and/or never ever manage to convince any peers, or else there would have been some organic, exponential increase in the number of signatures. There never was.

"and so we may reasonable suspect that more than 15% of engineers find the hypothesis credible."
99% of the 1700 have been fed false information or are nuts.

Most of the other few hundred thousand are too smart to fall for gage's bag of lies.

"Before the 2005 NIST report, you would have claimed that your 50,000 structural engineers all believed FEMA's silly zipper/pancake theory despite its obvious shortcomings."
FEMA described the collapse progression as cascading floor failure correctly, and clearly and correctly labeled their initiation hypothesis as "tentative".

"When NIST rejected the zipper/pancake, nobody could be found to defend it."
Right, because everyone had been aware that FEMA themselves would defer to a better investigation, as their honest disclaimers revea.

"This suggests not a robust scientific consensus, but a fearful reluctance to defy authority."
INCORRECT. This suggests people change their minds when better evidence becomes available.
Several academic and professional individual groups have however voice substantial criticism of NIST's results. Nine of that criticism of course talks of CD or some such nonsense, because obviously there is no evidence at all for that woo.

 
At 12 June, 2012 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Scootle, thanks for your very intelligent analysis. Your important point is much in danger of getting lost--that if the nanothermite work turns our to be hooey, that does not change the fact that NIST and Bazant are FoS.

Oystein, some polls prove nothing and some polls prove something. It depends on the poll. Thanks for demonstrating your intellectual vapidity.

Your framing of the disconnect between NIST's nonsense and the laws of physics as "Gage's pack of lies" is dishonest and childish. Your belief that engineering professionals are not inhibited by peer pressures is naive.

Your suggestion that NIST's explanation was better than FEMA's is funny. FEMA at least tried to explain the total collapse, though they totally failed. NIST has admitted they didn't even try. Your claim that evidence is available to convince the engineering community is thus contrary to fact.

That you find it necessary to apply the word "woo" to a scientific hypothesis that has not been refuted shows the lack of substance of your remarks.

 
At 12 June, 2012 10:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag, when do you plan to give up the misdirection ploys and answer my questions, coward?

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Go for it, charlatan, CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND BURY YOUR LATEST HUMILIATING DEFEAT IN AN AVALANCHE OF DUMB-SPAM.

 
At 12 June, 2012 10:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your spam is straw man and red herring, unworthy of response.

 
At 12 June, 2012 10:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bullshit.

Where's your statistical model?

Where's your regression model?

Yeah, I know, you don't need no stinkin' statistic or regression model.

FAIL.

Question One: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Two: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

You won't answer the questions, because to do so will blow a hole a MILE WIDE in your idiotic conspiracy theory.

Now change the subject again, coward.

 
At 12 June, 2012 10:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 June, 2012 10:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So scum.bag, you want to open a "new investigation" while you have not a shred of evidence that will survive discovery owing to the complete absence of verifiable chain of custody data?

That's your idea of a "red Herring"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Have another hit off the glue pot, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would I want a hit off your glue pot?

 
At 12 June, 2012 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, scum.bag, it's an evasion.

So, let's see, you have not a shred of evidence that's admissible in a court of law. Yet, you claim that we need a "new investigation"?

Since you have not a shred of evidence, what are you arguing about?

How do you plan to convince a judge to open a "new investigation" while you have not a shred of evidence?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

You're nothing but a blowhard, a charlatan and an insane, compulsive liar.

Have another hit off the glue pot, scum.bag.

Now answer the questions, coward:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Again, you won't answer the questions because [1] you know nothing about statistics; and [2] to do so will blow a hole a MILE WIDE in your idiotic conspiracy theory.

Now hurry goat fucker! Toss out another red herring and steadfastly refuse to answer my perfectly legitimate questions.

You're a fraud, a liar and coward.

 
At 12 June, 2012 11:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

spam away, sir spamsalot

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, scum.bag, it's an evasion.

Accusing your detractors of the crimes you commit, dumbspammer?

The only person who spams SLC can found between your chair and your keyboard, scum.bag.

Now answer the questions, coward:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

You can run, scum.bag, but you can't hide.

Now spam the thread with more 100% fact-free nonsense, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said I had a chain of custody. You are simply trying to bury under repetitive, inane, irrelevant, and stupid spam my substantive posts above.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't care if you never said you have a chain of custody--you God damned fool.

You want to open a "new investigation." Correct?

Then you must present evidence to the judge during discovery. Yet, you have not a shred of evidence to support your case. Dr. Jones' alleged "WTC dust samples" ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW OWING TO LACK OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY DATA.

So how do you plan to prevail in your idiotic quest for a "new investigation"?

Again, in your diseased mind, Dr. Jones' experimental results, which were obtained from unvalidated dust samples and are inadmissible in a court of law, are somehow more reliable than Dr. Millette's experimental results, which were obtained from WTC dust samples with a verifiable chain of custody. Is that your "logic," cretin?

Do you honestly think a judge will fall for that malarkey?

Have another hit off the glue pot, insane spammer for 9/11 troof.

Now answer the questions, coward:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now toss out another misdirection ploy in a vain attempt to hijack another thread--you insane, lying sack-of-shit.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said anybody should take the thermite evidence to court.

You are simply trying to bury under repetitive, inane, irrelevant, and stupid spam my substantive posts above.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Then what the Hell are you arguing about, spammer?

Once again, you're contradicting yourself.

Your stupid spam and off-topic nonsense is hardly "substantive." In fact, your "substantive posts" are 100% fact-free bullshit.

Now answer the questions, scum.bag:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now toss out another misdirection ploy in a vain attempt to hijack another thread--you insane, lying sack-of-shit.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

You blow, ButtGirl

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So let's see if we can follow your "logic," goat fucker.

If you know that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are inadmissible in a court of law, then you must also admit that the Dr. Jones' "WTC samples" are not evidence. Yet, in the same breath, you'll hold up Dr. Jones' non-evidence as "evidence."

Contradict yourself much, scum.bag?

So who's spamming SLC, scum.bag? And you have the unmitigated gall to refer to your spam as "substantive"?

Have another hit off the glue pot, scum.bag.

Now answer the questions, scum.bag:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now toss out another misdirection ploy in a vain attempt to hijack another thread--you insane, lying sack-of-shit.

Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 12:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

You just keep blowing, ButtGirl

 
At 12 June, 2012 13:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The only person who blows can be found between your chair and your keyboard, gay boi.

Contradict yourself much, blowhard?

Now answer the questions, scum.bag:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

You can run, spammer, but you can't hide.

Once again, you utterly FAIL, scum.bag.

 
At 12 June, 2012 14:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So Scootle still believes in controlled demolition, just not the formerly-forensically-proven nanothermite. Ah, well. I was hoping he would grow up like Arcterus.

Somewhat on topic, spotted this today. Interesting thoughts on why otherwise intelligent people pursue stupid ideas.

 
At 12 June, 2012 14:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Bill, Brian can't answer your questions. He's mentally disabled. It is a common trait with sexual predators. He likely masturbates to your posts which is why his relies are so short - he's typing with one hand.

Note how he ignores Pat completely, why? Pat is right, and Brian has nowhere to go with it.

Brian is just in this to get a 9/11 widow in the sack, nothing more.

 
At 12 June, 2012 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Arcterus didn't grow up. He simply exchanged his irrational belief in a conspiracy theory with an irrational belief in the official theory. I used to know a dog who used to chase a Volkswagen every day until the VW hit him and he broke his leg. So the dog didn't quit chasing cars--he just quit chasing Volkswagens.

 
At 12 June, 2012 15:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So the dog didn't quit chasing cars--he just quit chasing Volkswagens.

You're suggesting dogs can identify Volkswagens?

 
At 12 June, 2012 15:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, Arcterus didn't grow up. He simply exchanged his irrational belief in a conspiracy theory with an irrational belief in the official theory."

Nope. He never said that he bought the entire story. He just didn't believe in CT or the Bush Administration was behind the attacks.


" I used to know a dog who used to chase a Volkswagen every day until the VW hit him and he broke his leg. So the dog didn't quit chasing cars--he just quit chasing Volkswagens."

No you didn't. You might have hit a dog with your car once but that's it.

 
At 12 June, 2012 17:53, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, answering "yes" to a pollster's question is also a self-selecting activity. Do you have a point? The issue is the ratio between the number of self-selecting petition signers (17,000) and the number of people who believe controlled demolition to be a credible hypothesis (36,000,000). "

Signing the petition is not the self selecting activity, that would be going out and finding the petition. You have to go looking for that petition, you do not go looking for the pollster.

Since the petition is self selecting, there is no way, zero, nada, zip mathematical basis to extend it past the signees and attempt to use it to predict how any group would actually breakdown.

As further evidence, recall all those self selecting polls showing huge support for Dr. Paul in the 2008 election cycle.In other words the sentence "The issue is the ratio between the number of self-selecting petition signers (17,000) and the number of people who believe controlled demolition to be a credible hypothesis (36,000,000). " is pure mathematical gibberish with no real meaning.

"Your joke about the blonde Afro-Americans is meaningless because you have designed your example to involve mutually exclusive groups. There is no such mutual exclusion between advocates of controlled demolition and the engineering community."

Of course I did. That was the fucking point. Until you provide factual evidence, not your vague impression that "people who know math and physics MUST agree with me", that there is indeed any positive corelation between engineers and truthers you CAN NOT mathematically and honestly claim that there is a relationship between the number of signees and some covert number of other engineers who simply haven't signed the petition. Your correlation of the percentage of the general popultion who may be truthers, and the number of signees is as valid as my comparison.

To sum up, signing an online petition is self selecting and no one with a week of statistical education would find it meaningful, and until you prove that being an engineer and being a truther do not have a zero or negative correlation your attempt to conflate them is illogical, and dishonest.

So until you can find actual evidence or disprove modern statistical theory, you have nothing.

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:02, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug: "I never said anybody should take the thermite evidence to court."

So you don't think it's good evidence? But it has that magic "peer-reviewed!" stamp on it - does that mean nothing? So 9 scientists having proved, by mailing a check to Pakistan, that paint chips devoid of more than traces of aluminium, mean hundreds of tons of high-tech military pixie dust at GZ, is ... not something that would play a role in making a case against ... urrr the NWO?

Interesting.


@ GuitarBill: I don't understand why you are banging so hard on that "chain of custody" drum. Do you seriously doubt the red-gray chips are paint from the WTC?

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:19, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug
"Scootle, thanks for your very intelligent analysis. Your important point is much in danger of getting lost--that if the nanothermite work turns our to be hooey, that does not change the fact that NIST and Bazant are FoS."
That is not the main point to be learned. The main point is that twoofers take more than three years to realize they've been conned, and will defend woo as long or longer than that, while rational people see through the deception right away. With such biases and blinders, truthers are bound to be wrong on much more.

I commend Scootle for coming to grips with the nano-pixie-dust desaster, but he stil needs to learn the real lesson: That everything he has been defending all these years might be FALSE as well. He isn't a true skeptic yet.

"Oystein, some polls prove nothing and some polls prove something. It depends on the poll. Thanks for demonstrating your intellectual vapidity."
You do realize that Gage spent 5 years, a cool million dollars, and thousands of marketing ploys to collect this shitty, embarrassingly low number of signatures, right? He's been spending an average of like $500 every day for 5 years now (much of that to his own purse of course), and got 1 signature from a professional for that amount. I suppose you don't consider that a failure, eh?

"Your framing of the disconnect between NIST's nonsense and the laws of physics as "Gage's pack of lies" is dishonest and childish. "
No. You're framing of Gage's pack of lies as a a problem of others is dishonest and childish. Gage believes Chandler, Chandler invents bogus physics. You believe Gage. You're escrewed.

"Your belief that engineering professionals are not inhibited by peer pressures is naive."
Your belief that all of them are is. There is no peer pressure, because it's a total non-issue for most engineers, and a no-brainer for the rest. Ok, well, and a honey trap for the 0.02% most mentally deranged among them.

"Your suggestion that NIST's explanation was better than FEMA's is funny. FEMA at least tried to explain the total collapse, though they totally failed."
How so?

"NIST has admitted they didn't even try. Your claim that evidence is available to convince the engineering community is thus contrary to fact."
Total collapse was inevitable once the top 15+ floors picked up a minimum of momentum. There is no need at all to "explain" that. It's a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

"That you find it necessary to apply the word "woo" to a scientific hypothesis that has not been refuted shows the lack of substance of your remarks."
You mean "...that has not been proven due to utter lack of actual evidence", right?

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oystein wrote, "...GuitarBill: I don't understand why you are banging so hard on that 'chain of custody' drum. Do you seriously doubt the red-gray chips are paint from the WTC?"

No, I've never disputed the origin of the red-gray chips. If you care to read it, my justification for the chain of custody argument is up-thread.

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:23, Blogger Oystein said...

@ All: Don't you have comments on Scootle's reply to Pat's blog post? Here it is:

Procrastination, not Conspiracy

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:27, Blogger Oystein said...

@ GuitarBill: I could have phrased my question as "Do you believe that the samples were altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome?"

Certainly, at this stage we need not worry about admissibility in an actual court of law, or do we?

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:50, Blogger Ian said...

Well, as expected, Brian continued to spam this blog with his hysterical nonsense. Notice that he didn't even address my point that if the sound of the collapse overwhelmed the sound of explosions, that means the collapse was already underway by the time the explosions occurred, and thus the explosives did nothing. Obviously, I humiliated Brian yet again by asking a question that reveals him to be a hopeless lunatic and ignoramus.

 
At 12 June, 2012 19:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" were collected from several New Yorkers who scooped up the dust from various locations near Ground Zero on or around 11 September 2001. One of the aforementioned New Yorkers admitted that he scooped up the dust and placed it in his pants pocket. To say the least, that's not how we go about collecting "evidence" here in the United States.

Thus, in the United States, chain of custody is very important. As a result, the methods of collecting evidence are strictly controlled. When the chain of custody is "broken," the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law.

If Jones, et al, wished to perform a valid analysis of the WTC dust, they should have requested samples from the USGS or other official source. As a result, Jones, et al's approach was 180 degrees out of phase with accepted practices.

My point is that Dr. Millette analyzed a WTC dust sample with an unbroken chain of custody. In other words, Dr. Millette's sample was collected according to standardized methods that reduced the odds of contamination or alteration. Jones, et al, did not. Thus, whose experimental results are valid and whose experimental results are of dubious quality?

I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

 
At 12 June, 2012 21:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you are only confusing the issue. We have perfectly good data for the number of technical professionals who signed the petition, and the number of lay people who signed the petition. We know the ratio between the number of lay people who find the controlled demolition hypothesis credible (36,000,000) and the number who have signed the petition (15000). That's 2400 to 1. It is perfectly reasonable to apply the same ratio to the 1700 technical professionals who have signed the petition and suppose that these 1700 represent over 4 million technical professionals who have not self-selected by finding the petition.

Oystein, ButtGale is banging a drum because aside from blowing his posterior ocarina it's all he can do.

Ian, your belief that explosions would do nothing once a collapse was underway is based on your unjustified assumption that once a collapse was underway it would be total.

 
At 13 June, 2012 01:00, Blogger Oystein said...

@ GuitarBill:
"I think the answer is obvious, don't you?"
No, because it is not an answer to the questions I asked. which were:

1. Do you believe that the samples were altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome?

2. Certainly, at this stage we need not worry about admissibility in an actual court of law, or do we?

(And 3.: Don't you have comments on Scootle's reply to Pat's blog post? Here it is: Procrastination, not Conspiracy))

 
At 13 June, 2012 01:05, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:

"It is perfectly reasonable to apply the same ratio to the 1700 technical professionals..."
If that passes for "perfectly reasonable" in your world, I now understand better why you fall for woo.


"Oystein, ButtGale is banging ..."
No other response for me? Ok.

"Ian, your belief that explosions would do nothing once a collapse was underway is based on your unjustified assumption that once a collapse was underway it would be total."
That belief is in fact justified. As I wrote earlier: "Total collapse was inevitable once the top 15+ floors picked up a minimum of momentum. There is no need at all to "explain" that. It's a back-of-the-envelope calculation."

 
At 13 June, 2012 02:09, Blogger Mindtreasury mistress said...

This message is intended for the poster going by the name of Richard Gage's Testicles. What gives you the right, legal or otherwise to post MY personal photo as your blogger profile with a label of "drugs are bad...mmmmkay?" and having it saved under the word of whore? You have been reported to blogger. I want anyone else on this board to be aware of what you have done. I normally don't feed trolls but you sir don't have the right to so much as lick the sweat off of Richard Gage's testicles nor do you have the right to utilize my photo just as bait for my son. If ignorance is bliss you must be one happy camper. If you don't like the opinions expressed on this board why don't you just go watch cartoons?

 
At 13 June, 2012 04:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I normally don't feed trolls but you sir don't have the right to so much as lick the sweat off of Richard Gage's testicles nor do you have the right to utilize my photo just as bait for my son.

I don't know who you are, and I don't know who your son is. I didn't create the image. I will defer to your expertise on Richard Gage's testicle sweat.

Because I am a nice guy, I have replaced my profile photo with something I hope you will find less objectionable.

 
At 13 June, 2012 04:50, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your belief that explosions would do nothing once a collapse was underway is based on your unjustified assumption that once a collapse was underway it would be total.

Well, given the nature of the collapse at the WTC, it's quite justified to expect that it would be total. You don't expect that it would be total because you're a pathetic failed janitor and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves.

Brian, now that I've humiliated you by mocking your haircut, I want to discuss the "Goodwill chic" wardrobe you have going....

 
At 13 June, 2012 09:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oystein, your belief that for an anonymous internet poster to quote himself as an authority settles the issue on whether the assumption is justified that any collapse would be total only shows your logical incompetence. If a minimum of momentum was sufficient to sustain total collapse, Dr. Bazant would not have found it necessary to resort to the fiction of the total evaporation of all vertical support for one floor to achieve it in his model.

Ian, I don't expect that a collapse would be total because licensed engineers tell me it's unreasonable to assume it would be total. Also, it appears that NIST's attempts to model the collapse showed that it would not be total.

 
At 13 June, 2012 09:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oystein wrote, "...No, because it is not an answer to the questions I asked. which were:...1. Do you believe that the samples were altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome?...2. Certainly, at this stage we need not worry about admissibility in an actual court of law, or do we?"

Listen asshole, I answered your question when I wrote the following: "No, I've never disputed the origin of the red-gray chips."

Is that clear enough for you, genius? Or must I hold your hand and walk you through that simple 12-word statement?

Your second question asks me to make a prediction which I don't have enough information to answer. I have no idea whether the troofers will ever take their nonsense to court. If they do decide to take their stupidity to court, they should at the very minimum have evidence that will survive discovery.

FACT: Dr. Jones's "WTC dust samples" will NOT survive discovery and are INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

Is that clear enough for you, genius?

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, your compulsive lawyering for the defense betrays a very defensive and unscientific attitude.

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah right, scum.bag. Tell us more about "science," Mr. Doesn't Understand the Definition of ΔT.

So when do you plan to provide real evidence in support of your idiotic conspiracy theory, sex predator?

Yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over. Right, sex predator?

Now answer the questions, scum.bag:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Now lecture us about anonymous internet posters who quote themselves as an authority, while you constantly cite yourself as an authority.

Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity, sex predator.

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, your obsessive lawyering for the defense betrays a very defensive and unscientific attitude.

And what's your point? Are you suggesting that Dr. Jones cooked up some nanothermitic materials in his garage and salted the dust samples with them? Are you suggesting that parties unknown may have tampered with the samples to insert nanothermitic materials in them?

If not, you have no point.

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I don't have a conspiracy theory, and I knew 35 years ago what ΔT is.

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?

Well, it's not going to work, sex predator.

You admitted that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are inadmissible in a court of law. If you acknowledge the inadmissibility of the alleged "WTC dust samples," then you must also acknowledge that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are NOT evidence.

So why do YOU constantly hold Dr. Jones non-evidence up as "evidence," sex predator?

Contradict yourself much, sex predator?

Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity, sex predator.

The sex predator lies, "...I don't have a conspiracy theory, and I knew 35 years ago what ΔT is."

Then why couldn't you answer the ΔT question, liar? Answer: You know NOTHING about physical science. You're simply incapable of passing a formal examination in elementary math, physics, chemistry or logic. And you've proven your incompetence over-and-over again.

Furthermore, all "truthers" are defined as conspiracy theorists--you droolin' cretin.

Any more contradictory and utterly illogical nonsense for us, Mr. Doesn't Understand the Definition of ΔT?

 
At 13 June, 2012 13:04, Blogger Mindtreasury mistress said...

Another message for the poser going by the name of Richard Gage's testicles.

You wrote:

I don't know who you are, and I don't know who your son is. I didn't create the image.

You did know who the image was of, ME, and you deliberately captioned it and used it to taunt my son. However, not late enough that I didn't screen capture the screen shot of my photo being used as your profile picture. I will continue to report your trolling and taunting of people...Scootle included.

You wrote:

I will defer to your expertise on Richard Gage's testicle sweat.

You son have a potty mouth and although you think you are cute or getting under my skin...you aren't. I merely laugh at ignorance.

You wrote:
Because I am a nice guy, I have replaced my profile photo with something I hope you will find less objectionable.

Thanks for changing the photo. :) Now you can go about your business of trying to chew people up and spit them out. I'm done with your shenanigans unless and until you troll me and use my personal photo or information again. Gotta run... I have a unicorn to pet. So in essence...have at your non-productive battle. You leave me alone...I leave you alone but fair warning...you don't want to mess with me again.

Oh and please...take Scootle's family phone number off your bio too. Thanks.

 
At 13 June, 2012 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you live in a fantasy latrine. I didn't admit anything. Legal epistemology and scientific epistemology are two different things. Evidence that is excluded from the court is still evidence--it's just not evidence in the court proceedings.

I told you why I didn't answer the ΔT question: because I knew that if I didn't, you would demonstrate your irrationality and make a fool of yourself. It's worked very well.

Truthers are not defined as conspiracy theorists. Truthers are people who are not satisfied with the superficial and dishonest official investigations of 9/11.

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:49, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:
"If a minimum of momentum was sufficient to sustain total collapse, Dr. Bazant would not have found it necessary to resort to the fiction of the total evaporation of all vertical support for one floor to achieve it in his model."
You neither understood my remark nor do you understand Bazant and Zhou.

BZ and I are mainly talking about collapse progression. The conclusion is that, once a certain momentum has been attained by the top 15+ floors, collapse will progress and accelerate, and will inevitable total.

This does not address the question of collapse initiation, and indeed Bazant "invents" an initiation scenario where all colums across an entire floor buckle and thus allow the top block to accelerate at g through the height of one floor. It can be easily computed what velocity and momentum the top block has thus acquired. Bazant and Zou find, through a back-of-the-envelope calculation that is optimized towards maximum survival, that the kinetic energy is then more than 8 times that which is required to break ALL vertical supports on the next floor. This means, only 1/8th, or less, of the potential energy differential from floor to floor is dissipated in buckling, the rest is available for net acceleration and further destruction (such as mid-air pulverization :D), while collapse arrest is energetically impossible.

Back to initiation: This factor of 8 means that the top block doesn't have to fall through an entire floor, nor does it have to fall freely, to gain a sufficient momentum that will overwhelm the next floor.

Fact is: The top block DID start moving down, and DID gain sufficient momentum, and so it is wholly unnecessary to support collapse progression.


"Ian, I don't expect that a collapse would be total because licensed engineers tell me it's unreasonable to assume it would be total."
You select the most extreme NUTCASES from the trade, the 0.02% fringe, full to the brim with false information about the towers. Pick up your local yellow pages, visit the structural engineer nearest to your home, and chat with him for half an hour. Just don't feed him the Gage bag of lies first. Listen! And be humble.

"Also, it appears that NIST's attempts to model the collapse showed that it would not be total."
Where die NIST model that?

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

scum.bag brays, "...Evidence that is excluded from the court is still evidence--it's just not evidence in the court proceedings."

And that, folks, is what legal experts refer to as pettifogging (and a particularly lame attempt at pettyfogging, I might add), or, if you prefer, double-talk. The Blogging community, on the other hand, will immediately recognize scum.bag's rebuttal as an underhanded attempt at redirection and repetition of long ago debunked lies.

"...I never said I had a chain of custody." -- scum.bag, 12 June 2012 12:03.

FACT: If you admit that you don't have chain of custody, then you must acknowledge that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are not evidence.

scum.bag prevaricates, "...I told you why I didn't answer the ΔT question: because I knew that if I didn't, you would demonstrate your irrationality and make a fool of yourself. It's worked very well."

And that, folks, is pure, unadulterated prevarication (ie., a lie). FACT: You didn't answer the question because you didn't know the answer. You were unable to answer the question until I gave you the definition of ΔT.

In fact, you've amply demonstrated your cowardice on numerous occasions, including running like a coward from a Puerto Rican janitor's challenge to debate. Your behavior in this instance is no different.

scum.bag lies, "...Truthers are not defined as conspiracy theorists."

False.

More pettifogging and specious semantic games, sex predator? The 9/11 "truth" movement is the retarded child of conspiracy theorists. The "truth movement" is owned and operated by conspiracy theorists--and for you to claim otherwise only serves to demonstrate the breadth and depth of your insanity and bottomless dishonesty.

Thus, the question remains: You admitted that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are inadmissible in a court of law. If you acknowledge the inadmissibility of the alleged "WTC dust samples," then you must also acknowledge that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are NOT evidence.

So why do YOU constantly hold Dr. Jones non-evidence up as "evidence," sex predator?

Contradict yourself much, sex predator?

Your a logic cesspool and a troll, goat fucker.

Now go peddle your lies and idiotic conspiracy twaddle to the toothless snot-gobblers who inhabit 911Flogger.

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:59, Blogger Oystein said...

@ GuitarBill
"Listen asshole"
Automatic loser :D

"I answered your question when I wrote the following: "No, I've never disputed the origin of the red-gray chips.""
That isn't the current question. The current, unanswered question is:
Do you believe that the samples were altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome?

"Your second question asks me to make a prediction which I don't have enough information to answer. I have no idea whether the troofers will ever take their nonsense to court. If they do decide to take their stupidity to court, they should at the very minimum have evidence that will survive discovery."
You mean scrutiny, right?

"FACT: Dr. Jones's "WTC dust samples" will NOT survive discovery and are INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW."
Scrutiny.
It is possible to determine whether or not this is genuine WTC dust. RJ Lee have discovered and defined characteristics that help to achieve just that. Perhaps a court would ask for an independent expertise, but that could be arranged, and I think at least some of their samples could well survicve such scrutiny.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Obfuscastone, I understand you and Bazant just fine. If a minimum of momentum were sufficient to initiate total collapse, Bazant would not have found it necessary to impose unrealistic conditions on his hypothetical model.

OinkStone, you can go ahead and dismiss 40 high rise architects, 50 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers, and 6 fellows of the AIA as nutcases.

NIST admitted that the reason they terminated their collapse models at the instant of collapse initiation was because after that instant, the models did not converge on a single solution. In other words, no matter how they tried, they could not get the model to do what the building did.

ButtGale, not only is imposing legal standards on a scientific question bringing a knife to a gun fight, but your knife is a rubber one. And what's your point? Are you suggesting that Dr. Jones cooked up some nanothermitic materials in his garage and salted the dust samples with them? Are you suggesting that parties unknown may have tampered with the samples to insert nanothermitic materials in them?

If not, you have no point.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oystein wrote, "...Do you believe that the samples were altered or contaminated in order to produce a predetermined outcome?"

What part of the word no do you fail to understand, your alleged sir?

Oystein wrote, "...You mean scrutiny, right?"

No, I mean discovery. (Please see the link that I provided for more information on the legal definition of discovery).

Oystein wrote, "...It is possible to determine whether or not this is genuine WTC dust."

Get it through your thick skull, Oystein, I NEVER CLAIMED THAT JONES' "WTC DUST SAMPLES" ARE NOT GENUINE.

Read it again, until the words penetrate your skull:

"...My point is that Dr. Millette analyzed a WTC dust sample with an unbroken chain of custody. In other words, Dr. Millette's sample was collected according to standardized methods that reduced the odds of contamination or alteration. Jones, et al, did not. Thus, whose experimental results are valid and whose experimental results are of dubious quality? I think the answer is obvious, don't you?" -- GuitarBill

Thus, I don't know if the samples are adulterated. And I don't care because I know for a fact that the chain of custody is broken. As long as the chain of custody for Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" remains in question, the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. Thus, anyone who defends the viability Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples," (are you reading this, goat fucker?) by trying to deceptively elevate Jones' "WTC dust samples" to the level or quality of Dr. Millette's dust sample is either delusional or a liar.

Got it, Oystein?

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag squeals, "...not only is imposing legal standards on a scientific question bringing a knife to a gun fight, but your knife is a rubber one. And what's your point? Are you suggesting that Dr. Jones cooked up some nanothermitic materials in his garage and salted the dust samples with them? Are you suggesting that parties unknown may have tampered with the samples to insert nanothermitic materials in them?"

That's not an answer, scum.bag, it's an evasion.

Why don't you try reading my post and responding to the questions found therein and give up the underhanded misdirection ploys, scum.bag?

In fact, you've amply demonstrated your cowardice on numerous occasions, including running like a coward from a Puerto Rican janitor's challenge to debate. Your behavior in this instance is no different.

scum.bag lies, "...Truthers are not defined as conspiracy theorists."

False.

More pettifogging and specious semantic games, sex predator? The 9/11 "truth" movement is the retarded child of conspiracy theorists. The "truth movement" is owned and operated by conspiracy theorists--and for you to claim otherwise only serves to demonstrate the breadth and depth of your insanity and bottomless dishonesty.

Thus, the question remains: You admitted that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are inadmissible in a court of law. If you acknowledge the inadmissibility of the alleged "WTC dust samples," then you must also acknowledge that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are NOT evidence.

So why do YOU constantly hold Dr. Jones non-evidence up as "evidence," sex predator?

Contradict yourself much, sex predator?

Your a logic cesspool and a troll, goat fucker.

Now go peddle your lies and idiotic conspiracy twaddle to the toothless snot-gobblers who inhabit 911Flogger.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, unless you are suggesting that Jones or unknown prankster's salted Jones's dust samples with nanothermitic material, then you have no point, and putting your prattle in bold face only highlights its pointlessness; it doesn't change it.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:39, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug
"Oystein, I understand you and Bazant just fine. If a minimum of momentum were sufficient to initiate total collapse, Bazant would not have found it necessary to impose unrealistic conditions on his hypothetical model."
LOL
No, your wording betrays your lack of understanding :P

You don't understand why it's smart to distinguish between "initiation" (that's where your only hope for CD lies) and "progression" (which ends with "total", and doesn't require any help from CD).


"Oystein, you can go ahead and dismiss 40 high rise architects, 50 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers, and 6 fellows of the AIA as nutcases."
Already done :D
The interesting part is: The leader of these brains got his epiphany from the Gospel of - a theologian! And who are the brains writing articles for these nutcases? Failures like Chandler, who really doesn't have a grasp on the Newtonian physics of collisions; and it goes down from there.
Have you talked to the strcutural engineer nearest to you yet?


"NIST admitted...."
Awww cut that crap that NIST "admitted" this or that. It is actually a virtue to sometimes clearly communicate one's limitations and errata - something that Twoofers should urgently take heed of!

"...that the reason they terminated their collapse models at the instant of collapse initiation was because after that instant, the models did not converge on a single solution. In other words, no matter how they tried, they could not get the model to do what the building did."

Bullshit. It means no such thing. It means that it is impossible to get starting conditions for collapse progression precise enough to warrant a modelling; starting condition for progression is of course end condition of initiating phase.
It is unknown, and unknowable, what the precise condition of the building was at the end of the initiation sequence: Most of that simply wasn't observable.
That's chaos theory, in a nutshell: Small differences in starting conditions lead to unpredictable results - conversely, if you DO run a simulation, the results will be useless.
What's sufficient to know is: Total collapse was inevitable once the top block's downward velocity exceeded, say 1.5 m/s, it will overwhelem the next floor, and the next, and the next, and pick up speed along the way. Doesn't matter how it reaches that velocity in the first place, doesn't matter which hinges and commections and elements broke in what sequence.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, scum.bag, it's an evasion and a naked attempt to redirect the flow of the debate away from your obvious lies and self-contradictions.

Now answer the questions, scum.bag:

Question One: Where's your statistical model?

Question Two: Where's your regression model?

Question Three: Where's your chain of custody data, scum.bag?

Question Four: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the troofers unvalidated dust samples, which are inadmissible in a court of law, somehow trump samples with a clear and verifiable chain of custody?

Thus, the question remains: You admitted that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are inadmissible in a court of law. If you acknowledge the inadmissibility of the alleged "WTC dust samples," then you must also acknowledge that Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" are NOT evidence.

So why do YOU constantly hold Dr. Jones non-evidence up as "evidence," sex predator?

Contradict yourself much, sex predator?


Now hurry, goat fucker, CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND BURY YOUR OBVIOUS LIES AND SELF-CONTRADICTIONS IN AN AVALANCHE OF DUMB-SPAM AND NAKED ATTEMPTS TO MISDIRECT (ie, hijack) THE THREAD.

Your underhanded troll tactics are as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap, scum.bag.

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:57, Blogger Oystein said...

@ GuitarBill
"What part of the word no do you fail to understand, your alleged sir?"
Well, you never answered the latter question with "no", until now ;?

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

I don't know what your beef is then. There is no legal case where legal standards of admissibility would play a role. So why bother? Scientifically, while I accept that there is room for doubt, it is reasonable to assume, as you do, that the chips are genuine.

"No, I mean discovery. (Please see the link that I provided for more information on the legal definition of discovery)."
Oh thanks, I never heard that, I don't know much legalese (not a native speaker).

"Get it through your thick skull, Oystein, I NEVER CLAIMED THAT JONES' "WTC DUST SAMPLES" ARE NOT GENUINE."
So there is no problem with them in your mind. Thanks.

"...My point is that Dr. Millette analyzed a WTC dust sample with an unbroken chain of custody. In other words, Dr. Millette's sample was collected according to standardized methods that reduced the odds of contamination or alteration. Jones, et al, did not. Thus, whose experimental results are valid and whose experimental results are of dubious quality? I think the answer is obvious, don't you?"
Harrit e.al.'s are dubious, sure, but NOT because of the slightly less stringent circumstances of collection and custody. In fact, I would argue that precisely the fact that their data does NOT prove thermite is the best evidence that they didn't tamper with the dust or fake anything.

"Thus, I don't know if the samples are adulterated."
See above. There is no reason to poison that well.

"And I don't care because I know for a fact that the chain of custody is broken. As long as the chain of custody for Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" remains in question, the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law."
Which is a phantasy context - we are not in a court of law, and likely never will be. Twoofers can't even name any defendant to confront with that "nano-thermite" "evidence". There never will be a court case where anyone wants to present the Jones dust. Guaranteed.

"Thus, anyone who defends the viability Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples," (are you reading this, goat fucker?) by trying to deceptively elevate Jones' "WTC dust samples" to the level or quality of Dr. Millette's dust sample is either delusional or a liar.

Got it, Oystein?"
Yes, I get it: You are a rude, yet insecure person who is unsure of the strength of his arguments and feels it's necessary to augment them with insults.

I get that your insults say nothing about me. Insults always say more about the person who speaks them.


Oh by the way, where did I imply that the Jones samples on a quality level with Millette's? Nowhere, I think. Of course Millette's is better, but Jones's is good enough for all practical purposes. Not even you think that his chips are not genuine.

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oystein wrote, "...I don't know what your beef is then. There is no legal case where legal standards of admissibility would play a role. So why bother? Scientifically, while I accept that there is room for doubt, it is reasonable to assume, as you do, that the chips are genuine."

Obviously, you didn't read my comments, which can be found up-thread.

Here's what I wrote at time stamp 12 June 2012 12:17:

"...You want to open a "new investigation." Correct?...Then you must present evidence to the judge during discovery. Yet, you have not a shred of evidence to support your case. Dr. Jones' alleged "WTC dust samples" ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW OWING TO LACK OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY DATA."

That's the context of the argument. If the troofers wish to open a "new investigation" they must eventually face a judge with their evidence--and their evidence will be subject to judicial discovery. Yes, my scenario is a hypothetical, but it is the logical outcome of their "quest for a new investigation."

Otstein wrote, "...Which is a phantasy context - we are not in a court of law, and likely never will be."

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, your alleged sir. I, on the other hand, am entitled to my perfectly valid hypothetical argument. After all, if the troofers wish to initiate a "new investigation," they must face a judge and subject their evidence to judicial discovery.

Oystein wrote, "...Yes, I get it: You are a rude, yet insecure person who is unsure of the strength of his arguments and feels it's necessary to augment them with insults."

No, you didn't do your homework and, as a result, you completely misinterpreted my argument. Your laziness is no reflection on the quality of argument. Thus, you earned the insults.

The Moral of the Story?

Do your homework and I'll spare you the insults.

Deal?

Oystein wrote, "...Oh by the way, where did I imply that the Jones samples on a quality level with Millette's?"

I never said any such thing, Oystein. Read it again, until the words penetrate your cranium:

"...Thus, I don't know if the samples are adulterated. And I don't care because I know for a fact that the chain of custody is broken. As long as the chain of custody for Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples" remains in question, the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. Thus, anyone who defends the viability Dr. Jones' "WTC dust samples," (are you reading this, goat fucker?) by trying to deceptively elevate Jones' "WTC dust samples" to the level or quality of Dr. Millette's dust sample is either delusional or a liar." -- GuitarBill

See the words in bold font, Oystein? That's proof that I directed the comment to scum.bag, not you.

Got it?

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:19, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's still babbling about invisible, silent explosives because he's so desperate to believe in controlled demolition.

You really should seek professional psychiatric care, Brian.

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction: "Your laziness is no reflection on the quality of argument" should read as follows:

Your laziness is no reflection on the quality of my argument.

Sorry. My bad.

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Whew! Now there's two of them having a poofing contest! I'll open the windows and go away to wash my eyes.

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Judging from the funk that wafts from your commentary, don't you think it would be a better idea to close your windows, have your crusty body sandblasted, and "go away" to your bathroom to wash your ass?

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You leave me alone...I leave you alone but fair warning...you don't want to mess with me again.

I'm being civil with you. Give the empty threats a rest.

Who the hell are you, anyway? Some kind of Truther Den Mother?

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:56, Blogger Ian said...

Whew! Now there's two of them having a poofing contest! I'll open the windows and go away to wash my eyes.

Squeal squeal squeal!

All this dumbspam is getting you no closer to answering the widows' questions. Why do you revel in the widows' frustration? What's wrong with you?

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's funny.

 
At 13 June, 2012 17:17, Blogger Ian said...

Yup, that's the kind of response I expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

 
At 13 June, 2012 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

It lies and lies and lies and lies.

 
At 13 June, 2012 17:42, Blogger Ian said...

That's the other response that I expect from a lunatic and sex stalker who was banned from the truth movement.

That's right, Brian was banned from a movement that keeps Bill Deagle, Jim Fetzer, and Kevin Barrett in good standing.

Anyway, Brian, as much as you try to bury it in spam, the fact remains that the widows have not had their questions answered, and their frustration grows each day. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to deny this.

 
At 13 June, 2012 18:29, Blogger J Rebori said...

"It is perfectly reasonable to apply the same ratio to the 1700 technical professionals who have signed the petition and suppose that these 1700 represent over 4 million technical professionals who have not self-selected by finding the petition."

And there is the proof you know not of what you speak.

You can not logically or mathematically make the assumption that the belief make-up of technical professionals matches the same make up in the general public. Untill you prove it does, since you have been told this before, each time you make the claim you prove yourself a liar.

And going looking for and signing a petition is pretty much the definition of self-selecting.

Anyone who doubts my claims can spend about an hour or two with a basic statistical primer and see for themselves.

 
At 13 June, 2012 18:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you are blinded by your ideolunacy.

One can logically assume that technical professionals are more familiar with the laws of physics than the general public is, and more familiar with the issues, and thus are more likely to recognize the problems with the official explanations.

What you're failing to recognize is that the same self-selection process went into the petition signing by the non-technical people as with the technical people. Hence the 1/2400 ratio.

 
At 13 June, 2012 18:46, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, there is no official research to explain all the features of the collapses of the three buildings. NIST has admitted that they are "unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse" even though they list explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed as one of their investigation objectives.

Sounds pretty honest as opposed to a bunch of internet pretenders who see to think their ignorance is a qualification for just about any field.

But if you need an explanation as to how the collapse can happen after seeing a Verinage your problem is with reality, not NIST.

NIST relies on the ignorance of people like you..

Actually Brian they don't have to rely on it. I am well aware I am no expert. Its only delusional fools like yourself who think your ramblings on the internet are equal to a peer reviewed studies. A wise man recognizes not only what he knows but the limits of that knowledge. A fool has no idea what his limits are. Enters you and the rest of twoofdom.

So cry all you want, but until you and the rest of the charlatans can step up to the plate like the rest of the big boys & girls in academics, your opinions will remain irrelevant.

You can sit on the 3rd base line screaming how much better of a hitter you are than Jeter. But until you're on a team, in the game, & knocking them out, you're just another drunk loser who mortgages his house to barely afford season tickets.

 
At 13 June, 2012 18:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian, Grandmaster just used a baseball metaphor. You might have to google this.

 
At 13 June, 2012 19:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, Verinage is a demolition technique by which skilled technicians simultaneously remove all vertical supports on two floors. Can you explain how asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical airplane damage achieved the same thing?

If you watch a Verinage closely, you'll see that as the top block nibbles away the lower block, the lower block nibbles away the upper block as well--just as Newton's 3rd Law predicts. Dr. Bazant's notion that the top "block" can remain intact all the way to the bottom is absurd--and is proven for a lie by the persistence of major portions of the lower core after the surroundings floors had fallen.

NIST relies on the ignorance of people like you. They have issued only half a report, and people like you lie and make up the rest and proclaim that all the questions have been answered.

I'm not claiming to be a better hitter than Jeter. I'm not even claiming to be a player. I'm claiming that the game is crooked because we only got a half a report and people like you are too wilfully blind to see it.

 
At 13 June, 2012 19:54, Blogger Ian said...

One can logically assume that technical professionals are more familiar with the laws of physics than the general public is, and more familiar with the issues, and thus are more likely to recognize the problems with the official explanations.

Yes, one can assume that technical professionals are more familiar with the laws of physics than the general public is.

So it makes sense that technical professionals aren't babbling about "essential mysteries" of the collapse. Only a mentally ill unemployed janitor who has proven time and again that he doesn't understand the first thing about physics does so.

That makes sense to me.

 
At 13 June, 2012 20:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody expects technical professionals babbling about anything. I understand many things about physics. My life has been affected by the fact that I have been subject to the laws of physics from an early age.

You, however, can't even point and hoot without lying, whether the issue is the laws of physics or anything else you spew about.

 
At 13 June, 2012 20:37, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody expects technical professionals babbling about anything. I understand many things about physics. My life has been affected by the fact that I have been subject to the laws of physics from an early age.

No, you don't understand the first thing about physics, as you've demonstrated over and over again on this blog. Your understanding of Newton's laws and thermodynamics would get you an "F" in high school physics.

There's a reason you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents and not the chair of the engineering department at Stanford.

You, however, can't even point and hoot without lying, whether the issue is the laws of physics or anything else you spew about.

My, such squealing!

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him by pointing out how hideous his haircut is, and how he's been thrown out of the truth movement.

 
At 13 June, 2012 20:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, my understanding of physics is just fine. If you're going to claim it's not, it's up to you to point out where I'm wrong. You can't. I'm not.

I never wanted to be the chair of the engineering department at Stanford.

 
At 13 June, 2012 20:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

scum.bag brays, "...I never wanted to be the chair of the engineering department at Stanford."

No, you're not qualified to chair the engineering department at Liberty University, let alone Stanford.

Besides, real engineering professors understand the definition of ΔT. You, on the other hand...

To your credit, scum.bag, you are the professor of prevarication emeritus, Pinocchio Polytechnic.

 
At 13 June, 2012 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would I bother to qualify for something I didn't want to do?

 
At 13 June, 2012 21:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian, my understanding of physics is just fine. If you're going to claim it's not, it's up to you to point out where I'm wrong. You can't. I'm not."

Ian doesn't need to. Oystein has already pointed out where you're "knowledge of physics" fails, and you've run away yet again.

"I never wanted to be the chair of the engineering department at Stanford."

Why? Lack of basic qualifications like a high school diploma? An arrest record?

 
At 13 June, 2012 22:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oinkston has not pointed out any failings in my knowledge of physics. His gassy nonsense wasn't worth any response.

 
At 14 June, 2012 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, my understanding of physics is just fine.

Um, no. You would fail high school physics with the gibberish you've posted here. That's why you're an unemployed janitor and not a scientist and engineer.

Oinkston has not pointed out any failings in my knowledge of physics. His gassy nonsense wasn't worth any response.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. Oystein humiliated him much in the same way I humiliate him, Guitar Bill humiliates him, and Willie Rodriguez humiliates him.

Brian, your understanding of physics is what we'd expect from someone who lacks the cognitive ability to mop floors. Of course, you can't see this because you're too stupid to be able to see it. Dunning-Kruger for the win.

 
At 14 June, 2012 08:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I understand many things about physics. My life has been affected by the fact that I have been subject to the laws of physics from an early age. "

Translation: I fell out of my tree-house while masturbating hitting receiving brain damage when I hit my head. I also fell into my own footprint.

 
At 14 June, 2012 08:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Oinkston has not pointed out any failings in my knowledge of physics. His gassy nonsense wasn't worth any response"

Translation: I couldn't understand anything he said because it was way over my head, and I couldn't google an answer because the guy who usually helps me out at www.physics4kids.com had the night off.

 
At 14 June, 2012 08:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you have not demonstrated the expertise necessary to judge that I would fail high school physics. Nor have you made any specific criticisms of my points. You have only made an ad hominem attack based on lies.

OinkSton has not humiliated me. I understood what he said just fine, and you didn't. That's why I understood that what he said was without substance, and you did not understand that what he said was without substance.

 
At 14 June, 2012 08:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"OinkSton has not humiliated me."

He spanked your ass and called you Sally. You've been whining nobody wants to talk substance with you, and when a guy who comes along who knows what he's talking about you came apart like snot-filled Kleenex.



"I understood what he said just fine,..."

Translation: Derp derp derp derp

"That's why I understood that what he said was without substance"

Translation: He shot me down in glorious flames.


"...and you did not understand that what he said was without substance."


Translation: Quit laughing at me. I said quit it you big meanies. I'm telling my mom.

 
At 14 June, 2012 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, please cite the part where you think GoyStein's flatulence humiliated me. Please explain why he was right and I was wrong. Oinkston doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a waste of time.

 
At 14 June, 2012 20:59, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, you are blinded by your ideolunacy."

This is what people commonly refer to as projection.

"One can logically assume that technical professionals are more familiar with the laws of physics than the general public is, and more familiar with the issues, and thus are more likely to recognize the problems with the official explanations."

It is reasonable to assume that engineering professionals are more familiar with those things, correct. However, you have yet to prove that someone with that knowledge would find anything the least bit compelling about your claims. Until you do, you don't get to make those claims in a logioal or mathematically honest argument.

"What you're failing to recognize is that the same self-selection process went into the petition signing by the non-technical people as with the technical people. Hence the 1/2400 ratio."

No, I haven't. I pointed out in earlier posts that the entire petition is meaningless as a statistical tool because it is self-selecting. Once that is pointed out, every single claim you make using it to try to prove anything is without virtue. You are the only one claiming that ratio has any meaning at all. No one with a week of statistic classes would.

That I was pointing out that you compounded your error by trying to extend a meaningless ratio in a manner that was also meaningless and illegitimate didn't miraculously upgrade the useless ratio to something with any meaning.

 
At 14 June, 2012 22:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 June, 2012 22:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, it seems to have escaped your attention that 1700 architecural and engineering professionals have put their careers on the line by demanding new investigations of 9/11, including 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 6 Fellows of the AIA, 10 Stanford engineers, and 40 PhD engineers.

How many engineers independent of conflicts of interest with NIST have expressed confidence in NIST's WTC reports? Oh that's right ... 0.00. So is that a self-selected population or what?

The fact that the petition is self-selecting is irrelevant to its meaning. We have a comparable self-selecting population for the non-technical people. It shows that 4/100's of 1% of the population that believes in its credibility self-selects to sign the petition.

The ratio is not meaningless, and your attempts to disqualify it are as dishonest and specious as ButtGale's attempts to declare Jones's samples inadmissible. That the ratio can be quibbled with does not defeat it outside of the wooly cockles of your feverishly-impoverished imagination. That it is statistically inexact does not make it statistically meaningless--unless you close your eyes and wish really, really hard and click your ruby red slippers three times and say "There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

 
At 15 June, 2012 04:45, Blogger Ian said...

JR, it seems to have escaped your attention that 1700 architecural and engineering professionals have put their careers on the line by demanding new investigations of 9/11, including 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 6 Fellows of the AIA, 10 Stanford engineers, and 40 PhD engineers.

Nobody cares about this tiny group of crackpots except you, because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who doesn't understand how science works.

How many engineers independent of conflicts of interest with NIST have expressed confidence in NIST's WTC reports? Oh that's right ... 0.00.

You have no evidence for this statement whatsoever. It's just the kind of thing you'd be desperate enough to try because you know there's no evidence of your controlled demolition delusions.

The ratio is not meaningless, and your attempts to disqualify it are as dishonest and specious as ButtGale's attempts to declare Jones's samples inadmissible. That the ratio can be quibbled with does not defeat it outside of the wooly cockles of your feverishly-impoverished imagination. That it is statistically inexact does not make it statistically meaningless--unless you close your eyes and wish really, really hard and click your ruby red slippers three times and say "There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

Wow, this is a particularly long string of hysterical squealing. Well, at least we know that Brian, a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, also fantasizes about wearing ruby slippers.

Anyway, Brian, let us know when you've found a shred of evidence for controlled demolition.

 
At 15 June, 2012 04:50, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, let's talk about all the places you've been banned for being a liar and a lunatic.

You've been banned from Scholars for 9/11 truth, A&E for 9/11 truth, Truthaction, 911oz, and of course Wikipedia (for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team).

Anywhere that I'm missing?

 
At 15 June, 2012 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 June, 2012 10:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it seems that you have not yet learned that the lying ad hominem attack discredits no one but yourself--and everyone in your group who tolerates its stupidity.

You're not changing the fact that MGF can not justify his claim that Oinkston "humiliated" me, that ButtGale's attempts to lawyer away inconvenient evidence are unscientific and specious, that Reboring's claim that a slight margin of error renders a perfectly scientific comparison meaningless is dumb and dishonest, and that y'all can not name one architect or engineer independent of conflicts of interest with NIST who is willing to express confidence in the attack-specific findings of NIST's report.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home