Harrit, Ass, Ass, Harrit
Just in case the idiot Neils can't figure out which was his mouth in this terrific debate:
SS: I would like to ask… Niels, you say that Osama bin Laden was not wanted. To begin with, we know that the reward for him was raised immediately after 9/11. Secondly, we know that the Wanted poster states that he was wanted for other crimes as well. The fact is that once a person is wanted, then you do not necessarily issue a new wanted poster. It is not needed. But, I would like to know, because you use FBI as a source: Is FBI a reliable source or not?Note in particular that this is an early sequence during the discussion; the idiot Harrit is bringing in the Rex Tomb card early like Loose Change and not emphasizing his nanothermite research. In fact, the words "nanothermite" and "thermite" don't appear in the debate at all!
NH: Ha-ha. If FBI is not a reliable source then Osama bin Laden is innocent because we just heard Anders saying that Osama bin Laden was guilty.
SS: But is FBI a reliable source to you?
NH: No, not in this case. I definitely do not think so.
SS: Because you quote Rex Tomb as if FBI is in fact a reliable source.
posted by Pat @ 11:13 PM
82 comments
82 Comments:
i like Nelson Harrit evidence
ha ha
http://goo.gl/0CALW
Ya know that source I just cited? Yeah, it's really not reliable in this case.
Mental Gymnasts for 9/11 Truth!
You're taking the quote out of context. The host, Anders, claimed "There was an investigation by the FBI who concluded that there were obvious, indisputable evidence against bin Laden and al Qaeda concerning World Trade Center."
Dr. Harrit disputed the host's erroneous claim, and brought up the story about Rex Tomb's admission that the FBI had no hard evidence against bin Laden with respect to 9/11.
Noam Chomsky has pointed out that in the Spring of 2002 FBI Director Mueller told the Commonwealth Club that a through FBI investigation had turned up not one piece of paper connecting al Qaeda to 9/11. Chomsky said that when Taliban demanded evidence of Osama's guilt as a condition for turning him over, the US refused--because "they didn't have any."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mprzq1mA9Jk&list=UUCU5Ac7Vd7cqPk074nnKSTw&index=6&feature=plcp
Chomsky more recently opined that when Osama was killed, it was because the US did not have the evidence to convict him in court.
When Harrit says the FBI is "not in this case" a reliable source, he is clearly referring back to the claim Anders made that they had found evidence of Osama's guilt. He's saying the FBI is not a reliable source for a conclusion that they did not reach.
snug.bug a few threads ago: The govt ignored mountains of evidence of a planned bin Laden/al-Qaeda attack on the US.
snug.bug now: There's no evidence connecting bin Laden/al-Qaeda to the attack.
Gotta love the truthers.
I didn't say there was no evidence connecting al Qaeda to the attacks. I simply reported what the FBI said and what Chomsky said.
One of the reasons you guys get so confused about stuff is because you can't distinguish opinions from facts. Such sloppy thinking makes you very susceptible to being deceived.
For instance, look at this textbook debunker argument from the Harrit interview:
Claus Larsen says "It is true when Niels Harrit says that [high-rise collapses from fires have] never happened before but that does not mean it cannot happen. That is comparable to saying that if you broke your leg, and never broke it before… Then you would not say that it is not true that your leg is broken. It is a silly argument."
THAT is a dishonest argument. The analogy is not you breaking your leg when you've never broken it before. Everybody knows that people break legs. The honest analogy would be your skull imploding when it's never happened to anybody anywhere ever.
In the Spring of 2002, FBI director Mueller did not tell the Commonwealth Club that you were still gainfully employed in your chosen field of floor maintenance.
Hi snug.bug
You said: "The analogy is not you breaking your leg when you've never broken it before. Everybody knows that people break legs. The honest analogy would be your skull imploding when it's never happened to anybody anywhere ever."
Two things:
1. Even if your skull imploded, and nobody ever tried that before, it does not mean it cannot happen. And it certainly does not mean, you cannot predict it if the circumstances are right, for instance 5 miles down in the sea.
2. Harrit even uses the argument to say that if a phenomena has not happened before, you cannot even imagine it. He says: "The thought cannot be thought".
You just disproved Harrit by thinking something that had not happened.
Kind regards
Steen Svanholm
Steen, Dr. Harrit is obviously having a bad day in the interview. To say that you can not imagine something that never happened before is pretty silly.
But for you to impose artificial conditions like an environment of 800 atmospheres on the analogy proves my point, not yours. You might as well argue that buildings can collapse from fires symmetrically and at near freefall acceleration as long as all structural support is removed from them simultaneously.
Skulls don't implode under ordinary conditions, and buildings don't collapse from fires under ordinary conditions.
Hi snug.bug
Harrit is not just having a bad day, he is very specific about the concept and repeats several times, for instance:
"NH: You… You… Listen, we are talking about experience. You cannot think… You cannot imagine a phenomena that never has been."
It is not the first time, we have heard him saying it. It is part of his standard repertoire at lectures.
I suggest you read the whole debate here: http://911facts.dk/?p=4071
You say:
"But for you to impose artificial conditions like an environment of 800 atmospheres on the analogy proves my point, not yours."
No, that is you, moving the goalposts. May I remind you that set the specifications by saying:
"The honest analogy would be your skull imploding when it's never happened to anybody anywhere ever."
The standard "anywhere" certainly covers on the bottom of the sea.
I am well aware that you probably mean "your skull imploding without any natural explanation?"
But that is a completely different analogy. It is not Claus' analogy, and it is not Niels' analogy.
So let us finish the first analogy:
Harrit says:
"It never happened before that a steel framed highriser collapsed due to fire". And then he concludes that the cause cannot be fire.
In simple terms he says:
Something cannot happen if it did not happen before.
Which means:
Something can only happen if it happened before.
That means we can never go to Mars or to cut short: That nothing can ever happen.
The analogy with the broken leg is the exact same:
I can only break my leg if I broke it before.
It is, as you put it, a silly argument.
Only problem is that Harrit insists on it.
OK, that aside.
Then you say:
"...and buildings don't collapse from fires under ordinary conditions."
Firstly: Yes, that is exactly what they can do. Buildings can collapse from fires. They do not always do it, but it happens.
Secondly: Ordinarily, fires are fought. That did not happen at WTC 1, 2 and 7. Ordinarily, fires do not start by a plane impact or by being hit by debris from collapsing skyscrapers. So the conditions on 9/11 was everything but ordinary.
Kind regards
Steen Svanholm
Brian doing backflips with the best of them. Harrit paraded around the Rex Tomb quote, then he had to dance around the fact that he picks and chooses when to believe the FBI. The "scholars" are no different than the street level truthers. It's all about maintaining the delusion and ignoring the facts.
Pat's OP reads, "...NH: Ha-ha. If FBI is not a reliable source then Osama bin Laden is innocent because we just heard Anders saying that Osama bin Laden was guilty.
"SS: But is FBI a reliable source to you?
"NH: No, not in this case. I definitely do not think so.
SS: Because you quote Rex Tomb as if FBI is in fact a reliable source."
This is a textbook example of troofer mendacity in action.
E.g., Neils Harrit agrees with the FBI's Rex Tomb when Rex Tomb's testimony supports Harrit's conspiracy theory. When the FBI presents evidence that casts doubt on Harrit's theory or proves Harrit is wrong, the FBI suddenly becomes an unreliable source.
In the alternate reality inhabited by 9/11 troofers like Neils Harrit and Brian "scum.bag" Good, it's important to work backward from a predetermined conclusion and cherry pick the evidence in support of the predetermined conclusion. Meanwhile, 9/11 troofers ignore all the evidence that proves they're wrong. In the twisted opinion of an insane 9/11 troofer, this brand of intellectual dishonesty is called "the scientific method."
"...Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." -- Wikipedia, Cherry picking fallacy
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"Noam Chomsky has pointed out that in the Spring of 2002 FBI Director Mueller told the Commonwealth Club that a through FBI investigation had turned up not one piece of paper connecting al Qaeda to 9/11. Chomsky said that when Taliban demanded evidence of Osama's guilt as a condition for turning him over, the US refused--because "they didn't have any.""
Yeah...Spring of 2002...what did they say any time after the Spring of 2002...you know...after they had evidence?
"I didn't say there was no evidence connecting al Qaeda to the attacks. I simply reported what the FBI said and what Chomsky said."
No, you said the FBI had no evidence, which was not true even then. Bin Laden was already wanted for the Embassy attacks in 1999, so you contradict the thousands of statements you have already made stating there was ample evidence of bin Laden's guilt justifying the Clinton Administrations super-secret plans to take him out that the Bush administration canceled.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say there was no evidence connecting al Qaeda to the attacks. I simply reported what the FBI said and what Chomsky said.
Nobody cares.
One of the reasons you guys get so confused about stuff is because you can't distinguish opinions from facts. Such sloppy thinking makes you very susceptible to being deceived.
Squeal squeal squeal!
We can distinguish fact from opinion. For example, it's a fact that you're an unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. It's my opinion that you're a pathetic loser worthy of nothing but ridicule.
GMS, it's a clear case of quote-mining. No backflips necessary. Dr. Harrit's remarks about reliability were limited to the context of Anders's erroneous statements about an FBI investigation. All in all, Dr. Harrit seems to be having an off day, as I said.
GutterBitch, your attempt to blame Dr. Harrit for the quote-mining attack is stoopid even for you.
MGF, since the FBI never said Osama was Wanted foe 9/11, I suppose they never got better evidence. Dr. Chomsky said the reason he was killed was because the US did not have evidence to convict.
Chomsky said they had no evidence. I didn't. You are very confused.
Ian, thanks for proving that you can't distinguish between truth and lies. But then you believe Willie R's impossible hero tales, even though it's obvious what he is, and was.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he's claiming that there was evidence that bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 and there is no evidence that bin Laden was guilty of 9/11. It's just like the magical substance that brought down the towers: sometimes it's thermite, sometimes it's explosives, and sometimes its the planes after all.
All of this in a desperate attempt to keep his delusions about 9/11 going. Anything to avoid facing the reality of the pathetic failure of his life.
Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
I'm seriously beginning to question the existence of Brian Good on this blog. He is the only person I've seen defending the indefensible. Much like the lone Japanese soldier living in a cave, still fighting the war after 11 years, he camps here making comment to every post regardless of the ridiculousness of his position.
Are you guys slipping him $50 a week for his work as foil made of tin?
GMS, it's a clear case of quote-mining. No backflips necessary.
Keep telling yourself that Brian. The fact, no matter how you choose to dance, is that Harrit presents an FBI source then immediately claims they are not reliable when he gets called out.
The point as always is that truthters pick and choose when to trust govt agencies, and the pattern is always predictable
GMS, it's a clear case of quote-mining. The host, Anders, claimed "There was an investigation by the FBI who concluded that there were obvious, indisputable evidence against bin Laden and al Qaeda concerning World Trade Center."
Dr. Harrit disputed the host's erroneous claim. When Harrit says the FBI is "not in this case" a reliable source, he is clearly referring back to the claim Anders made that they had found evidence of Osama's guilt. He's saying the FBI is not a reliable source for a conclusion that they did not reach.
Dr. Harrit did not say that Rex Tomb was not a reliable source.
Youse guys' inability to recognize that your need to resort to binary black/white thinking to protect your illusions suggests that your illusions should not be protected is quite telling.
Thank you for that Brian. Harrit chooses to believe the FBI when it suits his beliefs. They are not reliable "in this case" (when he doesn't like what their investigation concludes), but agrees with them when a single agent says something off the cuff.
I give you an 8 because you didn't stick the landing.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he's claiming that there was evidence that bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 and there is no evidence that bin Laden was guilty of 9/11. It's just like the magical substance that brought down the towers: sometimes it's thermite, sometimes it's explosives, and sometimes its the planes after all.
Indeed...just like when he says you can see the explosions, but claims they were hush-boom because they were contained within the columns.
No, the FBI is not reliable "in this case" because their investigation did not conclude what Anders claimed it did. And don't forget we may be looking at a bad or dishonest translation.
Your apparent belief that if one cites an indisputable fact (that Osama's Wanted poster did not accuse him of 9/11) from one FBI source then one is foreclosed from being skeptical about FBI claims from another source is a backflip.
I'm sorry that a contradictory world is too complicated for you, but it's not my fault.
When did I say "you can see the explosions"? I may have said that witnesses said they saw explosions. That's not the same thing, I used to think you were a fairly intelligent guy--Ian seems to be dragging all of you down to his level.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...Your apparent belief that if one cites an indisputable fact (that Osama's Wanted poster did not accuse him of 9/11) from one FBI source then one is foreclosed from being skeptical about FBI claims from another source is a backflip."
It's not a "backflip" to point out that Neils Harrit cherry picks his sources.
"...Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." -- Wikipedia, Cherry picking fallacy
Should Neils Harrit's confirmation bias surprise us any more than Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good's intellectual dishonesty? After all, you've demonstrated your contempt for logic or many occasions. For example, haven't you repeatedly referred to quote mining as a "scam"?
You're nothing but a sophist who doesn't know when to STFU.
Cretin.
Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good babbles, "...A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
On the contrary, your specious argument is sophistry. Sophistry, need I remind you, is a specious argument used to deceive someone. The confirmation bias that characterizes your argument, moreover, underscores your intellectual dishonesty.
FAIL.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
UtterFail, your post is completely out of synch with the facts. You've become like a Bush supporter who tries to deny that there is such a thing as a fact.
That's right, idiot, don't address anything I've actually written. Instead, make 100% fact-free assertions and pretend to "debate."
Only an idiot would cite the NIST Report as a reliable source and, in the next breath, state that the NIST Report is "incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable." Likewise, only an idiot would cite the FBI as a reliable source and then claim the FBI is unreliable when the evidence doesn't support his argument.
This is why you're widely regarded as an idiot. Is it any wonder that you're banned from practically every troofer website on the planet?
FAIL.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Your sacred/profane dichotomy reveals your essentially irrational worldview, GutterBall.
Your mind is a one-bit computer.
One need not make a judgment on NIST's reliability in order to cite them for uncontroversial facts. That NIST's findings were distorted by the top dogs, and that certain lines of inquiry, certain evidence, and even certain findings were suppressed does not make all of NIST's claims wrong, and only an idiot (that would be you) would think it does.
That's right, goat fucker, don't address anything I've actually written, make a caricature of my argument and attack the caricature.
See? All you have are logical fallacies. In this case, you're resorting to straw man fallacy.
Face it, goat fucker, all the intellectual dishonesty in the world won't save you from the facts. You're an idiot who has nothing but contempt for logic.
Like Neils Harrit, you'll happily cherry pick the NIST Report, the FBI, you name it. The NIST Report and the FBI are indisputable authorities when it suits your ends, and they are "incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable" when the evidence doesn't support your conspiracy propaganda. Should we expect less from a "miserable troll"? Probably not.
Is it any wonder that you're an unemployed college dropout? Is it any wonder that you're widely despised by debunkers and the troofers? Probably not.
I guess that's the way it goes when you're a duplicitous old sex predator.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I addressed what you wrote. I gave you all the attention it deserved.
"...A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- snug.bug.
Now that's hilarious.
You are so delusional that you'll invent half-baked metaphors to excuse your intellectual dishonesty.
You act as though your stupidity and intellectual dishonesty are virtues.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Youse guys' inability to recognize that your need to resort to binary black/white thinking to protect your illusions suggests that your illusions should not be protected is quite telling.
I love it when Brian gets hysterical and starts posting mangled syntax in an attempt to appear scholarly.
Brian, you're the one with "illusions" [sic], remember? "Meatball on a fork", "molten steel", "smoldering carpets", etc. etc.
See what I mean?
UtterFail, your post is completely out of synch with the facts. You've become like a Bush supporter who tries to deny that there is such a thing as a fact.
Brian, you deny facts all the time. Everyone knows you are petgoat, and yet you deny it.
Also, Brian, you did not answer my question. Have the widows had their questions answered yet? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Brian, does it bother you at all that Harrit never mentions thermite during the debate?
No. Should it?
Pat wrote, "...Brian, does it bother you at all that Harrit never mentions thermite during the debate?"
Notice that George W. Bush vanishes from the face of the earth during Republican National Conventions. Coincidence?
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"Dr. Chomsky said the reason he was killed was because the US did not have evidence to convict.
Chomsky said they had no evidence. I didn't. You are very confused."
You quote him, so you believe him.
I can quote Noam too re: 9/11 Troofers:
"I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission." - Noam Chomsky
Ouch...
This is my favorite part:
"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments." - Chomsky
In short, Troofers are PART of the conspiracy.
MGF, you wouldn't know an ouch if it pulped your toe.
Many among the 1733 architects and engineers for truth "have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis." 50 structural engineers, for instance, 40 high rise architects, 40 PhD engineers.
Dr. Crockett Grabbe has a paper due to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics imminently.
snug.bug, shhh...it's time for the men to talk. You do realize Paris Hilton isn't a good role model, don't you?
MGF, many among the 1733 architects and engineers for truth have delusions of adequacy. They're the female version of Charlie Sheen.
Dr. Heywood Jeblowme has a paper due to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, er...imminently.
When did I say "you can see the explosions"?
Funny how you can't even keep track of the nonsense you post.
"The evidence for explosives is the squibs and the multi-ton debris sections flung at velocities of up to 60mph and distances of up to 600 feet."
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/12/strawman.html
"There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections."
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/05/conspiracy-con-2012.html
So what's the story Brian? The explosives were silenced in the box columns but were still magically able to eject debris hundreds of feet? Something no CD actually does with explosives; at least in reality.
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think I would have said anything so unscientific as "you can see the explosions." As you show, I didn't.
Your inability to distinguish between explosives and explosions and between "There is evidence for explosives" and "you can see the explosions" goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about what happened on 9/11.
The explosives were silenced in the box columns but were still magically able to eject debris hundreds of feet?
Nothing was ejected magically. Debris was ejected hundreds of feet at speeds of 50 mph. It's on video. NIST doesn't consider it worth explaining, because it occurs after the collapse was already underway and NIST shrugged off the obligation to to explain anything that occurs after the collapse began. The high-speed ejections are Essential Mystery #10 that NIST ignores.
So what is your point? That because explosives inside hollow box columns will not eject subassemblies at 50 mph, therefore the subassemblies were not ejected? That since subassemblies were ejected, therefore there were no explosives inside hollow box columns? Could you possibly be more irrational? Do you demand a foolish consistency of all things? Would you argue that because ice is water, therefore water is a solid nobody can drink?
Would you argue that water is a liquid and thus could not possibly be employed as a blunt instrument for the purpose of breaking someone's face?
Why do you advance such childish arguments simply to defend the untenable proposition that all the questions of 9/11 have been answered and no new investigations are needed?
More pretendebunking from GMS and Pathetic Pat. Anyone who reads the "debate" can see that they're simply employing JREF-style gotcha games with Harrit, with absolutely no interest in the facts.
The "quality" of Pat's and GMS's "debunking" only confirms that there's more to the story than they'd have you believe, so keep it up, boys. You're only helping the side of honest inquiry and research.
Ali the Arab child molester lies, "...You're only helping the side of honest inquiry and research."
Only an Arab pedophile would define cherry picking as "honest inquiry and research."
Question: Why is "Pat Cowardly" considered bisexual?
Answer: Because he owns a camel and a goat.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Brian, your dancing is not impressive. You point to the alleged visible effects of explosives, which have no basis in actual CD's, then claim it was a hush boom because of the box columns. Sorry, you can't eliminate sound while simultaneously creating a force far beyond that of an actual explosive. The only essential mystery is how someone could BS themselves into thinking an explosive was both powerful enough to launch debris hundreds of feet, and remained unrecordable at the same time. The fact is Brian you claim that the debris was ejected as a result of explosives. A pressure wave generated by explosives will not be both silent & powerful enough at the same time. You even mention the "squibs" (which you chose to ignore), which are direct effect in real CD's. So we are both seeing and hearing this effect in real CD's. But in your little world they are visible but put in some muffler system you claim to exist based on your non-expertise.
Seriously, take your mindless derp analogies to someone either just entering either grade school, or an asylum.
Since when do explosives propel debris in CD's at 50 MPH? Oh right...Dickie said so, must be true. The point is Brian, all the nonsense you regurgitate has 0 basis in controlled demolitions, and reality in general.
None eject debris at 50 MPH.
None are hush boom.
None are done inside box columns.
It's you and a clown car of irrelevant fringes who say so, that's it.
Glad to see Cosmo is back to stamp his feet.
GMS, you seem to have some problems with reality. You might as well complain that on Tuesday I said it was raining and on Friday I said it was not, that yesterday I said I was hungry and today I'm full.
What significance do you ascribe to the fact that explosive ejections of building components are not part of normal CDs? Are you claiming the ejections didn't happen?
I just claimed that hushboom explosions inside the hollow columns would have had nothing to do with the explosive ejections.
So your continuing attempt to conflate them is baffling. Don't you even read my posts?
I never claimed the explosive ejections were due to explosives. "Explosive" as an adjective or adverb does not necessarily mean explosive as a noun.
You are not making any sense.
Just pointing out your obvious failure to debunk anything, GMS.
Your calling me Cosmo is enough to show your Curleyan grasp of basic facts and research. Keep it up, and those straw men may start to actually fear you.
Not to mention inability to perform simple conditional logic. What a schmendrik.
Shat Squirrely and SpamDisasterSchmendrick, pretendebunking their way to the Big Lie. Here's a tip, Spambi, use the word 'derp' a lot. It helps to mask your nonsense.
GMS is a genetically-modified-schmendrik--sort of the modifed attack baboon of the internet.
GMS, you seem to have some problems with reality. You might as well complain that on Tuesday I said it was raining and on Friday I said it was not, that yesterday I said I was hungry and today I'm full.
#13,481 in Brian Good's series of insane, laughable analogies.
Apparently, the WTC were destroyed by silent nanonexplosives in the columns on Tuesday, and by mega-super ejector explosives on Friday.
What significance do you ascribe to the fact that explosive ejections of building components are not part of normal CDs? Are you claiming the ejections didn't happen?
Well, one wouldn't attribute them to CD if they're not part of CD....unless one is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes explosives and incendiaries have magical properties.
I just claimed that hushboom explosions inside the hollow columns would have had nothing to do with the explosive ejections.
Just to sum up, we've now got hushboom explosives, mega ejector explosives, thermite, and airplanes flying into the building in Brian Good's universe. I guess Dick Cheney was just making thing extra complicated in order to allow mentally ill unemployed janitors who live with their parents to get wise to the conspiracy.
Just pointing out your obvious failure to debunk anything, GMS.
Your calling me Cosmo is enough to show your Curleyan grasp of basic facts and research. Keep it up, and those straw men may start to actually fear you
Not to mention inability to perform simple conditional logic. What a schmendrik.
Shat Squirrely and SpamDisasterSchmendrick, pretendebunking their way to the Big Lie. Here's a tip, Spambi, use the word 'derp' a lot. It helps to mask your nonsense.
GMS is a genetically-modified-schmendrik--sort of the modifed attack baboon of the internet.
It's cute when our favorite winners Brian and Pat Cowardly try stroking each others egos.
They might as well try stroking each others cocks too. Brian, just pretend that Pat Cowardly is actually the love of your life, Willie Rodriguez. Pat Cowardly, eh, just go with it. At least you'll no longer be a virgin.
Ian, if you had any exposure to quantum physics you wouldn't say such stupid things.
Ian, if you had any exposure to quantum physics you wouldn't say such stupid things.
I didn't major in physics in college, but I have a general idea of what quantum physics is.
You, on the other hand, failed out of college, and you think the collapse of the WTC should have been like a meatball on a fork. You don't understand basic physics, which is OK, given that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.
I do think you should stop embarrassing yourself at this blog with your appalling ignorance and delusions about 9/11. Or maybe you like being a target of endless ridicule and mockery.
Also, Brian, you still haven't answered my question. Have the widows had their questions answered yet?
Are you going to run away squealing and crying from me like you did from Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, and so many others?
Oh look, it's Ian feeling left out again. Say "squeal" again, little boy. It's helping you "debunk" things, like Pat does.
So Pat Cowardly, how's the new investigation coming along? I mean, given all the evidence you have for 9/11 being an inside job, I'm sure you've presented it, right? I mean, it's not like you're here because you're pissed off at the world because you can't get laid and can't get a job, right?
I never claimed the explosive ejections were due to explosives. "Explosive" as an adjective or adverb does not necessarily mean explosive as a noun.
You are not making any sense.
^^^BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"The evidence for explosives is the squibs and the multi-ton debris sections flung at velocities of up to 60mph and distances of up to 600 feet."
"There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections."
Dance monkey! Dance!
Once second Brian says these things are from explosives, the next they are not.
Just pointing out your obvious failure to debunk anything, GMS
FYI-Adults don't back up their claims by stamping their feet.
GMS, I'm sorry that basic grammar confuses you, but your educational deficits are not my fault.
You also seem to have trouble distinguishing between the naming the evidence for something and a claim that something has been proven. The deficits in your analytical faculties are not my fault.
"The high-speed ejections are Essential Mystery #10 that NIST ignores."
Because the NIST doesn't see the need to address delusions of retards. The air forced down the central core of the towers caused the ejections. nobody at the grown-up table disputes this.
No explosives were used on the WTC on 9/11.
None eject debris at 50 MPH.
None are hush boom.
None are done inside box columns.
-HamFistedWreck
Assertions aren't evidence
-Shat Squirrely
Try providing some proof or sources next time, spambi. Even Pat knows this. He knows ALL about not providing sources.
Adults don't back up their claims by stamping their feet. -Spambot
That seems to be all you're doing, master of nothing. Try harder. This isn't JREF.
No explosives were used on the WTC on 9/11.
-Phlegm Gregory Careless
Assertions aren't evidence.
-Fat Spurious
Another assertionbot, arguing from credulity. Where does anything get debunked on this blog, anyway?
The air forced down the central core of the towers caused the ejections. -M Peccary Feckless
Oh, you mean by the 'piledriver'? Funny how no one has ever seen or pointed out this pile-driver in the videos. The top portion looks pretty well ventilated to honest observers, but what would you know about honesty OR observation, Feckless? The pretendebunking gets more and more repetitive and desparate around here.
MGF, if air forced down the central core of the towers caused the ejections of building components, how was the force of the air concentrated on isolated windows instead of blowing out all the windows together?
Please tell us how air forced down the central core can accelerate isolated multi-ton building components to 50 miles an hour and hurl them hundreds of feet.
Your education in chemistry didn't include the kinetic theory of gases? Were you driving the tomato-picking machine the day they had that class or something?
The more you try to sound like you know, the more you reveal your ignorance.
Shut up, goat fucker, you don't know a damned thing about chemistry--you lying charlatan.
Tell us more about Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law and ΔT, charlatan.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Ali the Arab child molester whines, "...Another assertionbot, [SIC] arguing from credulity"
Good troofer Nazi! Always accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit.
Question: Which sexual position produces the ugliest children?
Answer: I don't know, ask "Pat Cowardly's" mom.
**********
The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"Oh, you mean by the 'piledriver'? Funny how no one has ever seen or pointed out this pile-driver in the videos. The top portion looks pretty well ventilated to honest observers, but what would you know about honesty OR observation, Feckless? The pretendebunking gets more and more repetitive and desparate around here."
Golly, the top part is ventilated?
You do understand that doesn't apply to the floor, right? The part that would actually push the air down,right? You know, gravity?
Each floor contained over 2 million kilograms of mass. You understand that 2 million kilograms is a lot, right? At the point where the air ejected from the lower floors multiply floors were coming down (multiple means "more than one floor"), so when you multiply 2million times the number of floors collapsing you get a huge force of air. Since each tower was essentially a tube so the air only had one way to go - down. There were many broken windows in the towers well below the impact zone (including the lobby) so some of that air was diverted through the path of least resistance through the broken glass.
You guys always leave out the whole 767-impact issue. The core was taken out through multiple floors. That created a plug in the center of the structure at the point of collapse. So all of that "ventilation" would have meant jack shit. Throw in the fact ( I know facts scare you) that 70% of each tower was AIR you have two of the three primary components interacting with each other in an incredibly predictable way.
We can always tell when your Methadone prescription runs out.
"MGF, if air forced down the central core of the towers caused the ejections of building components, how was the force of the air concentrated on isolated windows instead of blowing out all the windows together?"
The ejections only occur with the start of the collapse of the top floors. Each floor has 2 million kilos of mass. Multiply the number of collapsing floors by 2 million, and you will have the total downward mass at collapse initiation.
I'll clue you in, it was enough to bring down the whole thing.
If you notice the ejections stop as the the collapse becomes decentralized as the building tears itself apart.
"Please tell us how air forced down the central core can accelerate isolated multi-ton building components to 50 miles an hour and hurl them hundreds of feet."
Depends on the component.
Let's look at the amount of mass in motion at the half way point. 55 floors = 110 million kgs of mass moving mostly in one direction.
The problem is you assume those materials were thrown by wind force alone (which was substantial), but they weren't. Some were thrown by mechanical forces created as the structure tore itself to the ground.
I know, it takes all the fun out of it for you. Without 9/11 you don't get to pretend to be a super hero any more.
MGF, if air forced down the central core of the towers caused the ejections of building components, how was the force of the air concentrated on isolated windows instead of blowing out all the windows together?
Oh Jeebus. Brian, please go back to high school and take the physics class you failed because you were sniffing glue. You'll learn how gases work in that class.
Please tell us how air forced down the central core can accelerate isolated multi-ton building components to 50 miles an hour and hurl them hundreds of feet.
Oh Jeebus, part II.
Your education in chemistry didn't include the kinetic theory of gases? Were you driving the tomato-picking machine the day they had that class or something?
Dunning-Kruger at its finest: a mentally ill unemployed janitor who just demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about how gases work babbling about kinetic theory of gases.
The more you try to sound like you know, the more you reveal your ignorance.
My, such squealing!
It also appears that on Planet Petgoat, explosive decompression of an airplane would be impossible. After all, gases couldn't just blow out one part of the jetliner.
MGF, you seem to miss these facts:
1)your floor piston is 40 stories above the isolated windows that are blowing out 40 stories below
2) the kinetic theory of gases demands that ALL the windows be blown out, not isolated ones
3) if your moving piston can blow out windows 40 floors below, it would blow out the windows 1 floor below instead
4) your moving piston transmits its air pressure through elevator shafts and stairways--but the piston has holes in it where those very same elevator shafts and stairways penetrate it. Thus the air leaks upward into the debris pile, not down through the shafts.
Your belief that the 767 took out the core on several floors is contrary to the NIST report. The core columns were 17 feet apart, the plane was shredded into aluminum confetti, and the chances of hitting a core column with a heavy component like a landing gear or an engine were slim. NIST considered the estimate that only one core column was severed a reasonable one.
MGF, where do you get your information that the ejections stop? Have you actually watched the collapse videos?
Can you propose a mechanism by which mechanical force could accelerate a multi-ton steel component to 50 miles an hour? Can you calculate the energy needed to do it? NIST doesn't do it.
Ian, your belief that explosive decompression of an airliner would then blow multi-ton steel components out at 50 mph an hour and a half later is a real hoot.
"1)your floor piston is 40 stories above the isolated windows that are blowing out 40 stories below "
Yup.
"2) the kinetic theory of gases demands that ALL the windows be blown out, not isolated ones"
That would apply if there was no basement. Most of the air went out that way. We know this to be true by historical accounts of people in the subterranean shopping area being thrown many yards by the blast of wind as the WTC2 came down.
We also know jet fuel shot down the elevator shafts and exploded on lower floors causing structural damage as far as the lobby.
"3) if your moving piston can blow out windows 40 floors below, it would blow out the windows 1 floor below instead"
This assumes there was any glass in those windows left at the time of the collapse. More importantly it offers clues to the nature of the collapse as it relates to the unique WTC construction.
You can try all day to make it weird, but you'll fail.
Premature ejections are a problem for you.
Yup, Brian still doesn't understand how gases work, he doesn't understand how the WTC collapsed, and he doesn't understand how explosive decompression works.
I guess that's why he's so confused about 9/11, but given that he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents, it's not surprising.
MGF, what you are describing is like a bicycle pump with its piston at the top, with big holes drilled in the cylinder right under the piston, and bigger holes drilled at the base. And then you expect us to believe that pushing the piston down a little bit would blow out a tiny little bit of the cylinder in the middle and send it flying?
You can try all day to try to make that sound like everyday physics, but you're fooling only those who want to be fooled.
Ian, airplane cabins are not pressurized at low altitudes, only at high ones.
I'd like to know what significance Pat ascribes to the fact that the words "nanothermite" and "thermite" don't appear in the debate at all.
MGF, what you are describing is like a bicycle pump with its piston at the top, with big holes drilled in the cylinder right under the piston, and bigger holes drilled at the base. And then you expect us to believe that pushing the piston down a little bit would blow out a tiny little bit of the cylinder in the middle and send it flying?
Yup, Brian continues to prove that he doesn't not understand a thing about gas physics. No wonder he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
You can try all day to try to make that sound like everyday physics, but you're fooling only those who want to be fooled.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Ian, airplane cabins are not pressurized at low altitudes, only at high ones.
Thanks for proving my point. You don't understand a thing about the physics of gases.
"MGF, what you are describing is like a bicycle pump with its piston at the top, with big holes drilled in the cylinder right under the piston, and bigger holes drilled at the base."
Neither tower was like a bicycle pump. You inability to grasp the obvious, while part of your mental disability, hurts you with this argument.
"And then you expect us to believe that pushing the piston down a little bit would blow out a tiny little bit of the cylinder in the middle and send it flying?"
Ask a plumber about what happens when there is a break in the seal of a pipe. Ask a gunsmith what happens when a bullet set in a shell where there is deformity in the brass is fired.
The ejections are not unprecedented, in fact they are so common they are a non-issue.
"You can try all day to try to make that sound like everyday physics, but you're fooling only those who want to be fooled."
The only fool here is you.
Question:
Is there a good website which details the floor plans of each tower of the WTC? Specifically I'm wanting to know about water storage, if any, on the floors above the impact zone. Also any water storage (tanks) anywhere in the towers.
Thanks...
I didn't say the tower was like a bicycle pump. You are the one who compared falling floors to a piston when there is no resemblance at all.
You're also comparing the towers to the seals on a pipe when there's no resemblance there either. It seems you don't know simple practical guy stuff like plumbing and bicycle pumps. I bet you call Triple A when you get a flat tire, ah macho guy?
If ejections are common please provide another example of them.
For wtc blueprints, try goggling wtc blueprints
There is more to 9/11 research than just making shit up.
I didn't say the tower was like a bicycle pump. You are the one who compared falling floors to a piston when there is no resemblance at all.
Right, the falling floors are like a rake falling on a rake in the universe inhabited by mentally ill unemployed janitors who wear women's underwear.
You're also comparing the towers to the seals on a pipe when there's no resemblance there either.
No resemblance whatsoever. Just ask the mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents because he failed out of San Jose State decades ago. He knows what he's talking about.
It seems you don't know simple practical guy stuff like plumbing and bicycle pumps. I bet you call Triple A when you get a flat tire, ah macho guy?
Hysterical squealing from a "macho" man who wears women's underwear and called Willie Rodriguez a "strutting, bragging, lying, fabulous Latin dream".
Brian knows manliness about as well as he knows physics.
If ejections are common please provide another example of them.
We already have. You fail again, Brian. No wonder the widows STILL can't get their questions answered!
Brian, at what point are you going to change your profile picture? I know how much you find Rodriguez sexy, but the rest of us would rather see you in your homeless person's clothing, and your hideous homeless-mullet haircut.
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
It's nice that 9/11 Scholars keeps your photo around even though they banned you for being a liar and a lunatic and sex predator.
Is there a single truther group that considers you a member in good standing, Brian? Please identify it.
" It seems you don't know simple practical guy stuff like plumbing and bicycle pumps. I bet you call Triple A when you get a flat tire, ah macho guy?"
I can change my own tire. Never had a flat, because I take care of my vehicle. I do my own plumbing too. I also know a shit load about explosives, guns, and aircraft (fixed & rotor).
I also have never sexually harassed a woman to the point of her issuing a warning on the internet, and to various anti-war groups in Northern California.
I have also never been so jealous of another man that I have lied about his exploits on 9/11.
You got kicked out of college, why don't you tell us why?
Post a Comment
<< Home