Political Relevancy
An amusing example of the political relevancy of the increasingly misnamed 9/11 Truth movement. A recent news report showed that the petition on the official White House site to have the US build a Death Star, has reached the 25,000 signatures needed to receive and official government response.
It is a period of civil war. Rebel pranksters, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the forces of Taking White House Petitions Too Seriously. Specifically: They have secured the 25,000 signatures necessary to get a formal response from the White House to their call for America to build a DEATH STAR.
"Those who sign here petition the United States government to secure funding and resources, and begin construction on a Death Star by 2016," the petition reads.
I couldn't even find a truther petition on the White House site for comparison as they have not reached the required numbers, but the AE911 Truth petition has only 16,000 signatures, after 5 years of trying.
posted by James B. @ 9:57 AM
48 comments
48 Comments:
There was such a Truther petition up there last year, but it failed in the usual way. Much like their current fundraising effort.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Almost all truthers know there's no point in petitioning Obama. He's as corrupt as Bush, possibly more so. Bush never pretended to be a progressive, after all.
There's a wide variety of conflicting reasons for signing the petition--because you're a Star Wars cultist, as a gesture of perverse humor showing your disgust with our current military state, because you think it will generate jobs and profits, or because you think the USA has the right to run the world to serve its own interests.
Comparison of the 25,000 to Mr. Gage's 18,000 is not appropriate because there is no polling evidence of wide-spread support for construction of a Death Star.
Polls have shown that that 36% of sdults thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted a war. Polls also showed that 36 million Americans found the controlled demolition hypothesis credible--and this was in 2006, before AE911Truth was even founded.
Mr. Gage's 18,000 thus demonstrably represents the tip of a substantial iceberg.
I used to say that a petition to get Dane Cook appointed to the Supreme Court would get more signatures than AE911 Truth's petition. Looks like I wasn't far off the mark.
Almost all truthers know there's no point in petitioning Obama. He's as corrupt as Bush, possibly more so. Bush never pretended to be a progressive, after all.
Brian, you pretend to be a progressive too, even though you're Rush Limbaugh's core demographic: an angry old white man who hates women and minorities.
There's a wide variety of conflicting reasons for signing the petition--because you're a Star Wars cultist, as a gesture of perverse humor showing your disgust with our current military state, because you think it will generate jobs and profits, or because you think the USA has the right to run the world to serve its own interests.
Or because you get a momentary laugh out of it, which is the reason I come here and mock you for your hideous haircut and the fact that you said "there are no widows".
Comparison of the 25,000 to Mr. Gage's 18,000 is not appropriate because there is no polling evidence of wide-spread support for construction of a Death Star.
There's no polling evidence of wide-spread support for truther nonsense either.
Polls have shown that that 36% of sdults thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted a war. Polls also showed that 36 million Americans found the controlled demolition hypothesis credible--and this was in 2006, before AE911Truth was even founded.
False.
Mr. Gage's 18,000 thus demonstrably represents the tip of a substantial iceberg.
The Kansas City Royals averaged over 21,000 in attendance this past season, and they're one of the most pathetic teams in baseball. That shows you how tiny and insignificant your group of losers is.
And now that I've humiliated you for the delusional spam you posted in a hysterical attempt to convince yourself that the truthers are some sort of critical mass of people, I'd like to remind you that you've been posting said dumbspam for years here, and nothing has changed. The truth movement has failed.
Ian, you're a liar. The Scripps Howard poll showed that that 36% of sdults thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted a war. Polls also showed that 36 million Americans found the controlled demolition hypothesis credible--and this was in 2006, before AE911Truth was even founded.
Ian, you're a liar. The Scripps Howard poll showed that that 36% of sdults thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted a war. Polls also showed that 36 million Americans found the controlled demolition hypothesis credible--and this was in 2006, before AE911Truth was even founded.
Just keep posting that hysterical spam, Brian. Anything to avoid facing the reality that the truth movement has failed, and that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.
If it weren't for lies, Ian wouldn't have anything to say at all.
Brian, I'd like to remind you that no matter how much spam you post, no matter how hysterically you squeal, nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right: FNMA will always be safe as houses, XRX will always be a fast grower because of its loyal brand following, EK will always be a blue chi, and Ian knows everything there is to know about everything.
And what he doesn't know he will make up--which shows that he never had any position of authority or responsibility, and likely never will.
"DECLARE VICTORY AND DEPART" seems to be the disinfo tactic the rebunkers are employing now.
"Almost all truthers know there's no point in petitioning Obama. He's as corrupt as Bush, possibly more so. Bush never pretended to be a progressive, after all."
Prove it.
"There's a wide variety of conflicting reasons for signing the petition--because you're a Star Wars cultist, as a gesture of perverse humor showing your disgust with our current military state, because you think it will generate jobs and profits, or because you think the USA has the right to run the world to serve its own interests."
Your lack of basic understanding of humanity speaks volumes. I signed the petition for two reasons: I want to see the White House response in writing. Death Stars are cool. My unofficial pole shows 95% shows most of the signers felt that way too.
"Comparison of the 25,000 to Mr. Gage's 18,000 is not appropriate"
I agree, people who signed the petition are smarter than Gage's gaggle of frauds and fruitcakes.
"because there is no polling evidence of wide-spread support for construction of a Death Star."
The desire to build a Death Star is universal.
"Polls have shown that that 36% of sdults thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted a war."
So? Doesn't make them right.
"Polls also showed that 36 million Americans found the controlled demolition hypothesis credible--and this was in 2006, before AE911Truth was even founded."
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That just means there are a lot of stupid people out there.
There's one very important mintority of the population that thinks CD of the WTC is bullshit - Guys who do demolition for a living. They even put it on the front page of their website:
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
I tend to side with the experts, and not delusional perverts.
"Mr. Gage's 18,000 thus demonstrably represents the tip of a substantial iceberg."
Not really. The pole is old, and if there were more they've changed their minds as evidence precludes delusion-based conspiracies.
""DECLARE VICTORY AND DEPART" seems to be the disinfo tactic the rebunkers are employing now."
Actually it's "Have sex we didn't have to pay for, and enjoy the holidays instead of amusing ourselves by abusing the mentally ill".
Plus the debunker command center is getting new carpeting, servers, and iPads. So we're busy doing other things.
Not connected with the post, but reading the following news story the words "steel-framed" and "collapsed" caught my eye. A steel framed building collapsed due to fire? I thought that was impossible! http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Raging-inferno-causes-warehouse-collapse-Etruria/story-17710746-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_thisisstaffordshire
Right: FNMA will always be safe as houses, XRX will always be a fast grower because of its loyal brand following, EK will always be a blue chi, and Ian knows everything there is to know about everything.
And what he doesn't know he will make up--which shows that he never had any position of authority or responsibility, and likely never will.
Yup, this the kind of hysterical spam I expect from someone who knows his little crackpot cult has failed, but can't accept it.
"DECLARE VICTORY AND DEPART" seems to be the disinfo tactic the rebunkers are employing now.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, I'm still here to point out that the truth movement has failed and that you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear.
HH, steel-frame buildings can collapse due to fires, and debunkers like to make much of the Kader Toy Factory collapse and the McCormick Center collapse. These buildings were not fireproofed.
Modern fireproofed steel-framed highrise buildings do not collapse from fires. If you look at the roof trusses of your local supermarket or retail emporium you will probably see that they are not fireproofed. The expense is not justified in one-story buildings because they can be easily evacuated in case of fire and a collapse would not need to cause loss of life or damage to adjacent buildings.
HH, steel-frame buildings can collapse due to fires, and debunkers like to make much of the Kader Toy Factory collapse and the McCormick Center collapse. These buildings were not fireproofed.
They also weren't hit by 767s.
Brian, the fact that you're unaware that the WTC was hit by aircraft explains why you're so confused about 9/11. Learn to Google.
Also, Brian, we're not talking about 9/11 truth anymore because the truth movement is dead.
Instead, we should talk about your hysterical homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez, or the fact that you were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team.
MGF, are you denying that Obama claimed he was a progressive?
Have you ever considered the possibility that your unofficial pole was actually a ukrainian?
I didn't say that the 36% of adults who thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them were right. I said they existed. The polls demonstrate that tens of millions of Americans doubt the official reports we've been given, and defeats Ian's claim that 9/11 Truth is a fringe phenomenon.
I note that your statement from demolitions experts was dated October, 2001—and so it was very hastily put together. So hastily that they made a mistake in describing the perimeter structure. They also stated as a fact something that they could not possibly know, claiming “The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core . . . .” Apparently FEMA did not consider this scenario credible—they did not mention it in their 2002 report. There is no evidence of intense heat softening the core. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to soften it.
Also note that your explanation does not address any of the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise.
Ian, you're a liar.
MGF, are you denying that Obama claimed he was a progressive?
Most of his policy positions in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns seemed very centrist. Dennis Kucinich, he is not, and never claimed to be.
Anyway, nobody cares what a mentally ill unemployed janitor thinks about the President.
I didn't say that the 36% of adults who thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them were right. I said they existed. The polls demonstrate that tens of millions of Americans doubt the official reports we've been given, and defeats Ian's claim that 9/11 Truth is a fringe phenomenon.
False. The truth movement is a tiny crackpot cult that is shrinking. Geez, Brian, 2006 was so long ago that the New York Mets had the best record in baseball. Of course, you're still obsessed with RFK, who has been worm food for 4 decades+, so I'm not surprised that you have no idea what year it is.
I note that your statement from demolitions experts was dated October, 2001—and so it was very hastily put together. So hastily that they made a mistake in describing the perimeter structure. They also stated as a fact something that they could not possibly know, claiming “The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core . . . .” Apparently FEMA did not consider this scenario credible—they did not mention it in their 2002 report. There is no evidence of intense heat softening the core. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to soften it.
Nobody cares.
Also note that your explanation does not address any of the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise.
Brian, the "essential mysteries" have been addressed: they're the delusions of a mentally ill unemployed janitor who understands nothing about physics or engineering, and thus thinks there's something odd about the way the towers fell.
Ian, you're a liar.
My, such squealing!
Anyway, Brian, since 9/11 truth is dead, let's talk about more relevant topics.
Since you're the world's foremost expert on modified attack baboons (after Bill Deagle), I wonder if you have any comments on Dr. Deagle's claim that they've spliced the genes of alligators with baboons to create super baboonigators.
What do you think the NWO plans to do with these baboonigators?
I didn't ask if Obama's policies were progressive. My point is that in many respects his policies are worse than Bush's. I asked if MGF denied that he claimed to be a progressive. Do you deny that he said: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
You're a lying weasel Ian, and a cowardly one hiding behind your phony name.
"Nobody cares" only shows my refutation of MGF's ignorant claims about experts to be valid.
Your claim that the ten essential mysteries have been addressed it a bald lie. That's why they are mysteries--because they have not been addressed.
I don't know and don't care about any claims by Dr. Deagle--and neither does anyone in the truth movement.
ALso, given your bald lies about what I have done and said, there[s no reason to believe anything you say about Dr. Deagle either.
I didn't ask if Obama's policies were progressive. My point is that in many respects his policies are worse than Bush's. I asked if MGF denied that he claimed to be a progressive. Do you deny that he said: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
Nobody cares what you think of MGF or the President.
You're a lying weasel Ian, and a cowardly one hiding behind your phony name.
My name is actually Ian. You live in a fantasy world.
"Nobody cares" only shows my refutation of MGF's ignorant claims about experts to be valid.
False.
Your claim that the ten essential mysteries have been addressed it a bald lie. That's why they are mysteries--because they have not been addressed.
I just addressed them above. You lose again, Brian.
I don't know and don't care about any claims by Dr. Deagle--and neither does anyone in the truth movement.
False. Bill Deagle is genuine truther. You are a mentally ill unemplouyed janitor who was banned from the truth movement.
ALso, given your bald lies about what I have done and said, there[s no reason to believe anything you say about Dr. Deagle either.
Nobody cares.
That's really your problem, Brian. You expect people to listen to you and take you seriously. Nobody cares what you have to say about anything, except for those of us, like me, who delight in mocking you.
In contrast, people listen to and take seriously Willie Rodriguez because he is a brave hero who saved many lives.
"MGF, are you denying that Obama claimed he was a progressive?"
He is. He's just not an idiot. He's also black, which is a huge part of your problem.
"Have you ever considered the possibility that your unofficial pole was actually a ukrainian?"
Hey, the Ukrainains would love to build a Death Star too.
"I didn't say that the 36% of adults who thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them were right. I said they existed."
That's what you implied.
"The polls demonstrate that tens of millions of Americans doubt the official reports we've been given, and defeats Ian's claim that 9/11 Truth is a fringe phenomenon."
At the most, there might be 100,000 hardcore troofers. That there are tens of millions of stupid Americans has never been in dispute.
"I note that your statement from demolitions experts was dated October, 2001—and so it was very hastily put together. So hastily that they made a mistake in describing the perimeter structure. They also stated as a fact something that they could not possibly know, claiming “The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core . . . .” Apparently FEMA did not consider this scenario credible—they did not mention it in their 2002 report. There is no evidence of intense heat softening the core. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to soften it."
What? Guys who are demolitions EXERTS wrote something you disagree with? That makes sense.
"Also note that your explanation does not address any of the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise."
They didn't have to, they just addressed what DID NOT bring the buildings down - Controlled Demolition. You know...because that's all they do, blow up buildings.
I didn't imply that the 36% of American adults who thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them were right. It had nothing to do with the point. The point was that they exist. There is no similar data to suggest that 36% of Americans want to build a Death Star. That's the point.
The statement of your demolition experts was premature, without foundation, and sheer speculation.
They may have claimed that as of October 2001 they believed there was no evidence of CD. Much evidence came to light after that.
They are not fire protection experts.
Your claim that they did not address what brought the buildings down is absurd. Do you even read the material you cite? They claimed they knew what brought the buildings down. They claimed they knew it a month after 9/11--when the cleanup had just begun, and when no official findings had been issued. You just make stuff up. No suprise you found college not to your liking.
"I didn't imply that the 36% of American adults who thought it was somewhat likely or very likely that Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them were right."
You did. Your lack of self-awareness stems from your mental health issues.
"It had nothing to do with the point. The point was that they exist."
Yeah, I doubt it.
"There is no similar data to suggest that 36% of Americans want to build a Death Star. That's the point."
Oh well now if we're suppose to think that 18000 slack-jawed, inbred retards at A&ETruth somehow represent 36% of of Americans then the 25,000+ who've signed the petition for the Death Star represent at higher percentage*
*source: Troofer logic.
"The statement of your demolition experts was premature, without foundation, and sheer speculation."
Nope.
"They may have claimed that as of October 2001 they believed there was no evidence of CD. Much evidence came to light after that."
And none of the evidence points to CD, which means they're correct.
"They are not fire protection experts."
No, they're fire-implementation experts. They remain the one minority exclusively qualified to discuss what did, and did not happen on 9/11/2001. They've seen thousands of buildings come down, they understand the work involved to make that happen, the resources needed, and the skill involved. It is a close-knit community, and if the WTC had been CD chances are they'd know someone involved.
It really is that simple.
"Your claim that they did not address what brought the buildings down is absurd. Do you even read the material you cite? They claimed they knew what brought the buildings down. They claimed they knew it a month after 9/11--when the cleanup had just begun, and when no official findings had been issued."
Yeah, they did, and they weren't far off either. What do they claim? Two 767s crashed into each tower, causing fatal damage and fire which brought them down. WTC was one of 7 buildings destroyed by being caught in the debris zone.
Fact is the tax payers could have listened to them and saved $14 million on the NIST investigation.
"You just make stuff up."
You wish.
"No suprise you found college not to your liking."
It's no surprise a college drop out spells "Suprise" wrong. Loser.
Poor Brian, he's been humiliated again by MGF.
And with 2013 less than 48 hours away, I will make a bet with Brian: if the widows have their questions answered in 2013, I will pay for Brian to get a new haircut, and will hire him as a janitor at my company. If the widows don't get their questions answered in 2013, Brian has to wear a pink tutu in Golden Gate Park and hold up a giant sign apologizing for his sex stalking of Willie Rodriguez.
Deal, Brian?
MGF, the context of my mentioning the tens of millions of Americans who doubt the official reports was to point out the incorrect nature of a comparison of Gage's 18,000 names with the Death Star's 25,000 names.
It had nothing to do with whether their view was correct or not. Your poor reading comprehension goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about 9/11.
The poll data shows that 36% of the American people were profoundly mistrustful of the official 9/11 story in 2006--before AE911Truth even started. There is no such data to support the notion that millions of Americans support the construction of a Death Star--and given the known unpopularity of the deficit, there is reason to think Americans would oppose it.
Your persistent claim that there is no evidence of CD is contrary to fact--IOW, delusional.
The effects of explosives and the effects of fires are very different, MGF, and for you to morph demolitionists into "fire-implementation experts" is silly.
You seem to think that fire can do easily and by accident what you claim takes enormous amounts of work to do by explosives. You can't have it both ways. If breaking a few truss clips or buckling a few perimeter columns
or buckling one core column can cause a chain reaction bringing the entire building down, then it can be done just as easily with explosives as with fire.
For you to claim that the professional demolitionists would necessarily have known someone involved is absurd. It's like thinking that a murder could only be done by a prison employee experienced in executions. You pile absurdities on absurdities in an effort to make the issues simple enough for you to think you understand.
If you knew the reports in which you place your faith, you would know that NIST says the 767s did NOT cause fatal damage. The fact that the towers stood for an hour and an hour-and-a-half shows that. We already talked about this. You make erroneous statements and I correct them, and then you make the same erroneous statements. You're not interested in truth but only in maintaining your delusions--and the fact that you would be willing to settle for a hasty, speculative, unauthoritative premature conclusion before the investigation had even begin shows that.
The poll data shows that 36% of the American people were profoundly mistrustful of the official 9/11 story in 2006--before AE911Truth even started. There is no such data to support the notion that millions of Americans support the construction of a Death Star--and given the known unpopularity of the deficit, there is reason to think Americans would oppose it.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because of the humiliating fact that there are more people who want the US to construct a Death Star than there are people who want new investigations into 9/11.
Your persistent claim that there is no evidence of CD is contrary to fact--IOW, delusional.
Well, if there is evidence of CD, why has it never been presented by anyone?
If you knew the reports in which you place your faith, you would know that NIST says the 767s did NOT cause fatal damage. The fact that the towers stood for an hour and an hour-and-a-half shows that.
Yes, there were also fires, remember? It's hilarious how yesterday you were babbling about fires while pretending the impacts did not happen, and now you're babbling about impacts while pretending there were no fires. Anything to keep your desperate delusions about 9/11 going, I guess.
You seem to think that fire can do easily and by accident what you claim takes enormous amounts of work to do by explosives. You can't have it both ways. If breaking a few truss clips or buckling a few perimeter columns
or buckling one core column can cause a chain reaction bringing the entire building down, then it can be done just as easily with explosives as with fire.
Yes, the explosives could do what the fires did. The tiny little problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever of explosives.
A beam from an Imperial Star Destroyer could have destroyed the towers too, how come you never thought of that?
So, to sum up, Brian is still squealing hysterically because he knows 9/11 truth has failed because there is no evidence for the claims made by truthers.
And he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and can't face the reality of the total failure of his entire life.
Too bad you wasted your life and can't be smart and successful like me, Brian.
"MGF, the context of my mentioning the tens of millions of Americans who doubt the official reports was to point out the incorrect nature of a comparison of Gage's 18,000 names with the Death Star's 25,000 names."
That is what this post is about, the sorry ratio to Gage's insane posse to the number of people who signed a White House petition is a clear demonstration of just how pathetic his cause (and lies) are.
"It had nothing to do with whether their view was correct or not. Your poor reading comprehension goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about 9/11."
You are the idiot who tried to hijack this thread throwing pointless polls around. It speaks to your mental illness.
"The poll data shows that 36% of the American people were profoundly mistrustful of the official 9/11 story in 2006--before AE911Truth even started."
I rest my case.
"There is no such data to support the notion that millions of Americans support the construction of a Death Star--and given the known unpopularity of the deficit, there is reason to think Americans would oppose it."
Except the actual petition. With actual names. (and everyone knows it's a joke but you).
"Your persistent claim that there is no evidence of CD is contrary to fact--IOW, delusional."
It's not a claim, it's a fact. The only people who think there's evidence are the people who already believe it was CD.
"The effects of explosives and the effects of fires are very different, MGF, and for you to morph demolitionists into "fire-implementation experts" is silly."
Really, so no building damaged by fire has ever had to be brought down ever? If so, wouldn't CD experts be familiar with the kind of damage fire can cause?
The answer is yes. But continue to argue with people who know what they're talking about. It is so you.
"You seem to think that fire can do easily and by accident what you claim takes enormous amounts of work to do by explosives. You can't have it both ways."
Yes I can. All I need are two 767s flying over 400mph. Then I get both.
"If breaking a few truss clips or buckling a few perimeter columns
or buckling one core column can cause a chain reaction bringing the entire building down, then it can be done just as easily with explosives as with fire."
Then you agree the collapse was caused by the impact and fire of the two jets. This is a serious breakthrough for you.
"For you to claim that the professional demolitionists would necessarily have known someone involved is absurd."
No it's not. It's a small community. They attend the same conferences, read the same journals, and migrate to different jobs to find work. If they don't know someone directly, they know someone who does.
"It's like thinking that a murder could only be done by a prison employee experienced in executions."
Cool, we end 2012 with another classic Brian dipshit analogy that has nothing to do with what the topic is.
" You pile absurdities on absurdities in an effort to make the issues simple enough for you to think you understand. "
Nope, just listing the facts.
"If you knew the reports in which you place your faith, you would know that NIST says the 767s did NOT cause fatal damage."
So the NIST is reliable now? Because you just argued in the last topic the report was a joke. Which is it? You just said there is evidence of CD, the NIST said there was not. So which is it, Fruitcake, either we're believing the NIST or we're not.
"The fact that the towers stood for an hour and an hour-and-a-half shows that."
While they burned... and why did they burn again?
"You're not interested in truth"
No, only the facts. You and your butt-hurt friends cherry pick the facts to fit your sad version of the truth.
" the fact that you would be willing to settle for a hasty, speculative, unauthoritative premature conclusion before the investigation had even begin shows that."
No, they are demolitions experts, so they are the authorities on the subject. That is how it works.
No, they are demolitions experts, so they are the authorities on the subject. That is how it works.
You have to remember that with Brian, no experts are ever experts...until they say something that confirms his delusions about 9/11, even if it's an out-of-context throw-away line (remember Dr. Sunder and "essentially in free-fall"?).
That's why NIST is both a bunch of liars and an impeccable source of knowledge. It just depends on whether Brian likes what they say at the moment.
Remember, we're dealing with a mentally ill unemployed college drop-out. He doesn't understand reason or evidence.
Yup.
The best part of this whole thing is that the petition clearly states it's a prank.
Pat knows it's a joke, you know it's a joke, I know it's a joke (I even signed it), and maybe on some level Brian knows it's a joke. Pat posted it just to needle the troofers, and Brian just can't help himself. He just can't let it pass, and then he can't focus on the topic.
Since this is Star Wars-related I will quote the great author, Carrie Fischer :
There is no such thing as a "Ballbreaker", just balls that can be broken. - Surrender the Pink.
You-know-who is broken.
Ian, you are only trying to spread confusion, because you can not refute my points.
MGF, your belief that scientific polls are pointless only shows your ideologically-bound, anti-intellectual, and reality-denying irrationality.
If CD experts are experts in fire damage, MGF, then they are experts in the kind of fire damage that does NOT bring (highrise fireproofed) buildings down, not fire damage that brings (highrise fireproofed) buildings down--which it doesn't.
NIST says that the airplane damage did not and could not bring the buildings down. They say that the fires could not bring the buildings down--except that they claim that if and only if all the fireproofing were stripped off (a very dubious proposition) then the fire could weaken the steel. But they have no steel samples to support their claim that the fires weakened the steel, and they don't even have the integrity to express regret that the physical evidence was destroyed.
Your inability to parse a conditional sentence reveals the reading comprehension deficits that make you so confused about 9/11, and doubtless many other things as well.
Your inability to understand a simple and very clear analogy also reveals serious reasoning deficits. Were you a glue-sniffer?
For you to ascribe to professional demolitionists infallible knowledge of the causes of building collapses is as silly as ascribing to professional executioners knowledge of all the means by which people can be killed. "Oh he couldn't have been killed with a table leg. We always use lethal injection or electrocution."
In my discussion of the various motivations of the signers of the Death Star petition I alluded to the fact that many of the signatories may have considered the petition a joke. I don't pretend to know the motivations of the person who wrote it--unlike you two, who feel free to invent whatever you want. If the petition is a joke, then it only proves my point--that to compare its numbers to the numbers who signed the AE911Truth petition in all seriousness is illogical.
"MGF, your belief that scientific polls are pointless only shows your ideologically-bound, anti-intellectual, and reality-denying irrationality."
The only science to polling is getting the answers you want, beyond that only morons believe them (see Karl Rove in November , 2012).
"If CD experts are experts in fire damage, MGF, then they are experts in the kind of fire damage that does NOT bring (highrise fireproofed) buildings down, not fire damage that brings (highrise fireproofed) buildings down--which it doesn't."
Fire-proofing was found to be lacking in both towers after the 1993 bombing. It is clear many corners were cut in the construction of the towers, and it is safe to assume (based on statements by Port Authority inspectors) that the supplemental fire-proofing was no applied consistently.
You find it so easy to belive the rich and powerful are behind so many things, yet fail to understand basic cheap-skate activities like putting the minimum fire-proofing on (if at all).
"NIST says that..."
Either the NIST is a believable source, or it is not. If it is then they explained the collapse and you can move onto Bigfoot (you need some fresh air).
"Your inability to understand a simple and very clear analogy also reveals serious reasoning deficits."
I have never seen a clear analogy from you. From meatball on a fork, to your freight-train analogies you lack basic logic skills.
"Were you a glue-sniffer?"
And finally the root of your disease reveals itself. Of all this things you could have types, you chose sniffing glue. That's why you were asked to leave San Jose State under that cloud...isn't it.
"For you to ascribe to professional demolitionists infallible knowledge of the causes of building collapses is as silly..."
See, no it's not. If you dumbfucks ever got a new investigation you would have to consult demolitions experts. Well, they've already spoken.
In their case, all that matters is their conclusion no controlled demolition occurred at the WTC on 9/11/2001. There are no secret ways to bring down a building...other than let you be a janitor in one.
"If the petition is a joke,"
If? IF?
"then it only proves my point--that to compare its numbers to the numbers who signed the AE911Truth petition in all seriousness is illogical."
Nope. It proves A&ETroof lacks credibility a better joke has.
MGF wrote: The only science to polling is getting the answers you want
Thanks for proving my point. Your ideology and arrogance blinds you to science. Do you have some specific criticism of the methodology of the Scripps-Howard poll on attitudes about 9/11, or is yours just the ignorant kneejerk reaction it appears to be?
Fire-proofing was found to be lacking in both towers after the 1993 bombing.
You are comparing a bombing to an office fire. Apples and oranges.
many corners were cut in the construction
That's not what NIST says. If that's true, then NIST is dishonestly covering up construction defects and participating in insurance fraud.
supplemental fire-proofing was no applied consistently.
Correct. NEW fireproofing had been applied on the floors where the planes hit.
Either the NIST is a believable source, or it is not.
One can believe the facts they put forth while disputing the assumptions, the conclusions, and the methodology. Ger an education and you might understand stuff like this.
If it is then they explained the collapse
They admitted that they can not explain the total collapse. Your belief that they explained it is pure ignorance.
I have never seen a clear analogy from you.
If they're not clear to you, then you just lack skill in analogies.
you were asked to leave San Jose State
Where did you get the idea that I went to SJSU?
If you dumbfucks ever got a new investigation you would have to consult demolitions experts.
Where did you get that idea?
There are no secret ways to bring down a building.
What was secret about it? It was on national TV!
" Do you have some specific criticism of the methodology of the Scripps-Howard poll on attitudes about 9/11"
I won't waste my time about a poll that means nothing.
"You are comparing a bombing to an office fire. Apples and oranges."
No, I'm comparing a building inspection done after a bombing in the subbasement, to fires started AFTER the crash of TWO 767s into each tower.
"That's not what NIST says. If that's true, then NIST is dishonestly covering up construction defects and participating in insurance fraud."
The NIST assumes (correctly) whatever fireproofing there was in the impact areas was knocked off.
Once again you site a source you claim is unreliable. Either it is not, or it is, which means you have to accept their findings.
If you had actually read the whole thing you would see in their recommendations there is a subtext of criticism. Then again, you missed the obvious subtext of Pat's post, so no surprise here.
"One can believe the facts they put forth while disputing the assumptions, the conclusions, and the methodology. Ger an education and you might understand stuff like this."
"Ger" an education...like yours?
And no, not in your case.
Why don't you post your concepts over at the JREF forums? We'd love to assist you.
"Where did you get the idea that I went to SJSU?"
You've told us this at least twice now.
You're once again proving my point--that your attitude about polls is ideologically-based, irrational, and anti-scientific. You have not demonstrated any fault in Scripps-Howard's methodology.
You're comparing bomb damage to fire damage--apples and oranges.
Upon what fireproofing expertise do you base your assumption that all the fireproofing shook off? What tests did NIST do to demonstrate fireproofing shaking off? Did NIST claim that all the fireproofing shook off? Aren't you just inventing the "facts" to support your lazy conclusions?
I never said NIST's reports were an unreliable source for the contents of their reports.
What subtext of criticism is in the recommendations? I think you're making stuff up again. The recommendations are about things like making the stairways wider and putting stairways in the corners of the building iunstead of the center. I am not aware that any of the buildings with designs similar to the WTC, such as Sears Tower, ever had any retrofitting done on them.
When did I ever tell you I went to SJSU? You live in a fantasy world.
Post a Comment
<< Home