Thursday, April 25, 2013

This 'N' That

A very funny conspiracy theory flowchart here. The only problem with it is that most of the CT'ists we run into believe in five or more of these conspiracy theories.

How's Operation Tip Richard Gage's Wallet going? Not so hot:



Despite the failure of the "teams" they've raised about $7,500 from the rubes so far.  Assuming the matching funds don't have a minimum requirement that gives them $15,000 to spend so far; that would buy them about one 15-second ad on the Daily Show.

44 Comments:

At 25 April, 2013 12:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

The flowchart is funny, but they lost me with the false dichotomy in the first decision. It's not THAT funny.

I think I'll do a similar flowchart of peedunker logic. It can start with the decision "Are truthers malevolent frauds or just fools?"

 
At 25 April, 2013 14:14, Blogger Pat said...

False dilemma, Brian.

 
At 25 April, 2013 15:39, Blogger Ian said...

"Are truthers malevolent frauds or just fools?"

Some are malevolent frauds (Richard Gage). Some are fools (you).

 
At 25 April, 2013 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, that's the point.

 
At 25 April, 2013 16:55, Blogger Petgoat said...

Q: What happened when I, Brian Good (snug.bug), went to a meeting for premature ejaculators?

A: I left early.

 
At 25 April, 2013 16:57, Blogger Petgoat said...

Question: You know that look women get when they want sex?

Me either.

 
At 25 April, 2013 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, I know that look. I also know the look when they think they're succeeding at hiding the fact that they want sex but they're not, and the look when they hope they're succeeding at hiding the fact that they want sex but they're not confident that they are hiding it.

Any more questions?

And where's the Fraud Manatee? He ran away screaming and crying and he hasn't come back.

 
At 25 April, 2013 19:46, Blogger Petgoat said...

I, Brian Good (snug.bug), admit, I have a tremendous sex drive.

After all, my boyfriend lives 70 miles away.

 
At 26 April, 2013 00:33, Blogger Eric White said...

I think that it is a very questionable practice to call attention to and devote such great focus on an idea that you think is categorically incorrect and only espoused by "fringe" individuals. This calls into question your own motivations. Most likely, it is an attempt to self validate by positioning yourselves intellectually above those in the "truther" movement, but it could also be that they are bringing to you questions that take you out of your comfortable little world. I am by no means a 9/11 "truther", but there have been times in history when certain conspiracy "nuts" have brought things to the forefront and allowed for new evidence to be revealed. The JFK assassination would be an excellent example. Perhaps some of these things are worth a closer look, and the continued refusal to do so will only feed the conspiracy theories.

 
At 26 April, 2013 03:49, Blogger Oystein said...

The biggest donor so far, with US$ 1,000, is a fellow by the name of Sterling Spaulding. He signed the AE911"Truth" "petition" around 9/11/2012 - not so long ago. His profile is:
Sterling Spaulding

He writes:

I am 61, have been a machinist and welder for more than 30 years.
A high school grad of the late 60s, have attended many classes and courses throughout the years in the furtherance of my career. Work some with AutoCAD, comfortable with math and unafraid to examine a problem and draw my own conclusions.

Originally skeptical about so-called "truthers," after viewing several videos questioning the felling of these three steel framed buildings and becoming informed about the significance of free-fall times, thermite explosives and energetic residue found in the WTC dust samples, molten steel found WEEKS after the day of attacks and most especially the "pulling" of Building 7, in the words of Mr. Silverstein himself, no explanation I've seen to date has begun to satisfactorily explain their destruction.
Many peripheral question arise due to the confluence of players in that days events and without sound explanations the implications are disturbing.


My bolding.

Poor chap - parting with his money to support stupid lies. :( I wonder if I should give him a call :D

 
At 26 April, 2013 04:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Most likely, it is an attempt to self validate by positioning yourselves intellectually above those in the "truther" movement,

Most of us are, in fact, intellectually above those in the "truther" movement. Stick around for a while and see if you don't agree.

The JFK assassination would be an excellent example.

Excellent example of what? There are errors in the Warren report, but its conclusions are unrefuted.

 
At 26 April, 2013 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Eric White, I thank you for a very shrewd analysis. Most of the habituees of this board seem to be motivated by a very powerful need to feel superior, and they believe that 9/11 Truthers are the dumbest people on earth and thus an easy target. They expose their desperation and dishonesty when they must lie (stooopidly!) about the truthers to maintain their illusions.

Oystein, perhaps instead of attacking the person of Mr. Spaulding, you would be so good as to support your claim that he is supporting "stupid lies".

RGT, after you lied so blatantly in claiming that the engineer PhDs have no relevant credentials to the Ground Zero incident, I'm surprised that you even dare show up here. Your claim of intellectual superiority is based in what, exactly? In what field did you earn your PhD?

 
At 26 April, 2013 09:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, after you lied so blatantly in claiming that the engineer PhDs have no relevant credentials to the Ground Zero incident,

The vast majority of those PhDs claim no relevant credentials. That's a plain fact. You were unable to argue in favor of their credentials, and instead pasted a bunch of text.

 
At 26 April, 2013 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 April, 2013 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I gave you a vast list of PhD engineers with credentials in materials science, structural engineering, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering that are directly relevant to the Ground Zero incident. Your attack on this list on the basis that it is "a bunch of text" is irrational. You could attack any document with equal illegitimacy on that basis.

In addition, all of the PhD engineers and all of the engineers have the background in the laws of thermodynamics and newton's laws
and are thus qualified to criticize the shortcomings of the NIST report.

For that matter, anyone who had thermodynamics through studies of chemistry and newton through studies of physics is qualified--this includes biologists, doctors, geologists, physicists, and chemists. (MGF doesn't count. He was obviously out somewhere laying irrigation pipe when they discussed the energy of fusion in his Chem 1A class.)




 
At 26 April, 2013 11:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I gave you a vast list of PhD engineers

You cannot overcome the deficiencies of the list by repeating the list. Most of the PhD's on the list are irrelevant. You seem to be struggling with that basic fact.

Even assuming they're all relevant, I hardly see how that would cast doubt upon NIST's conclusions. Maybe I'm just not as easily-led as you.

 
At 26 April, 2013 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

None of the PhDs on my list were irrelevant. Your claim that PhD studies in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, structural engineering, and material science are irrelevant is absurd.

Thanks for making your hysterical denial of reality so blatant.

NIST casts doubt on its own conclusions. They admitted that they can not explain the total collapses of the towers, and they admit that they did not analyze the collapses of the towers.

 
At 26 April, 2013 15:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

However, there is much reason to doubt the veracity of these admissions. Dr. Sunder's discussion with NOVA seems to indicate that NIST had measured the collapse times at 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Catherine Fletcher's letter says they actually ran models of the collapse, but they discarded these because they did not converge on a single solution. And since Dr. Gross's PhD studies were in the area of progressive collapse, it's difficult to imagine that he would eschew the opportunity to analyze the collapses in those terms.

So I am inclined to be skeptical of NIST's claim that they did not analyze the collapses. Much more believable is that they timed them, they modeled them, and they analyzed them--but they found the results of these studies inconvenient to their theory of the case and so they left them out of their reports.

 
At 26 April, 2013 16:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Side note from sane people land:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/new-plane-debris-found-near-nycs-ground-zero/-/11971628/19912494/-/12tc2qe/-/index.html

"A part of a landing gear, apparently from one of the commercial airliners that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, have been discovered near Ground Zero."

It kind of embodies the ineptitude of the government at the Federal, State, and City level.

The line that stands out for me is:

"A decision will then be made concerning sifting the soil for possible human remains."

Why does a decision need to be made? Get down there and sift.


 
At 26 April, 2013 16:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" there have been times in history when certain conspiracy "nuts" have brought things to the forefront and allowed for new evidence to be revealed. The JFK assassination would be an excellent example."

It is and it isn't. JFK assassination nuts forced the government to open most of their files, true, but in the end none of those files changed the story. They just filled in the holes. Nothing pointing away from Oswald, but it was revealed that RFK was behind covering up lines of investigation that would have revealed the White House's activities against Castro which involved working with the mob (which we already knew years before).


"Perhaps some of these things are worth a closer look, and the continued refusal to do so will only feed the conspiracy theories."

The point is that 9/11 has been looked into, and looked into, and looked into. It doesn't matter to troofers, they will find a reason to discount any report that doesn't back up their pet theories.

Just like the JFK gang.

 
At 27 April, 2013 12:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 April, 2013 13:41, Blogger snug.bug said...


Look at yourself. You say that "most of their files" on JFK have been released, and since "most of" them have in your view not "changed the story" you seem to be insinuating that the files that have not been released would not change the story either. That conclusion is not justified.

NIST's experts have never been interviewed under oath, nor have the 118 first responders who reported sounds and sights of explosions.

The five FDNY personages who did reconnaissance in WTC7 and found an elevator car blown out into the hall have not even been identified, let alone interviewed under oath.

The people who went into the WTC7 basement intending to let the guard dogs out of their kennels and who were turned back by structural damage have not been identified, let alone interviewed under oath.

The security guard who was in the building with Michael Hess and Barry Jennings has not been identified, let alone interviewed under oath.

We have no indication that NIST ever did a diligent search for construction photos on WTC7 that might reveal whether the shear studs were or were not placed on the girders.

NIST never tested for explosive residue.

The sulfidation attack on the steel has not been explained.

The ten essential mysteries of the towers; collapses have not been addressed.

The story of Behrooz Sarshar was not incorporated in the reports.

The 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report have not been corrected,

Your claim that "9/11 has been looked into, and looked into, and looked into" may be technically correct, but the insinuation that a complete investigation has been done is simply contrary to reality.

 
At 27 April, 2013 18:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" You say that "most of their files" on JFK have been released, and since "most of" them have in your view not "changed the story" you seem to be insinuating that the files that have not been released would not change the story either. That conclusion is not justified."

Actually, it is the only logical conclusion at this point. With each declassified document there are corroborative tangents that have been followed upon by dozens of researchers (who, unlike 9/11 troofers, actually chase down leads).

The only interesting thing discovered was a listing of a CIA recording from Mexico City to the Cuban Embassy from a man claiming to be Oswald talking about shooting JFK. The CIA acknowledged that Oswald did not make this call, but the recording had been destroyed long ago.
All this means is that at least one other person knew Oswald was going to kill the President, and wanted to frame both him and the Cubans with the phone call. Yet this does not remove Oswald from the equation, it just means he had friends.

"NIST never tested for explosive residue."

If no evidence of the use of explosives was present, why the fuck would they waste their time?

"Your claim that "9/11 has been looked into, and looked into, and looked into" may be technically correct, but the insinuation that a complete investigation has been done is simply contrary to reality."

Hardly.

There are only 2 relevant points to address:

1. Did the crashing of the two hijacked planes cause the corresponding damage?

2. Is it possible explosives were used in any of the WTC buildings.

The answer 11 years on is remains yes to the first question and no to the second.

The more interesting questions are:

1.Were corners cut to get the twin towers built?

2. Was the design flawed?

3. Would the towers have survived had they been constructed using proven construction standards?

The polite answer to all of those questions is yes.

Your obsession about getting people under oath reveals your mental pathology flaws. If the government is behind 9/11 then a court is a waste of time because the government IS the court.

Plus what have we just witnessed in Boston as far as how it was miscovered by the same cable news outlets? How many stories have been retracted because they were false? This was a small event, two homemade bombs. Yet two dozen or more reports had to be retracted when they were proven to false? The same level of misreporting occurred with 9/11, which was a huge event covered multiple acres in NYC, and the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA.

The reporting is unreliable now but there is social media around to quickly correct its mistakes. There was no social media in 2001.

 
At 28 April, 2013 16:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

For you to not just assume that the JFK documents that have been withheld would not change the story, but to actually conclude that (based on no evidence whatsoever) only shows your incompetence.

There's no point in trying to instruct you in logic when you refuse to learn.


 
At 29 April, 2013 04:57, Blogger Ian said...

There's no point in trying to instruct you in logic when you refuse to learn.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's been humiliated because we won't pay attention to the "logic" of a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and believes in magic thermite elves.

Well, you've been squealing and crying at this blog for over 4 years now, Brian. Maybe in the next 4 years, someone will care what you think.

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

 
At 29 April, 2013 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lian, you're a lying liar.

Nobody can care about what you think because you don't think. All you do is lie.

 
At 29 April, 2013 15:19, Blogger Ian said...

Lian, you're a lying liar.

Nobody can care about what you think because you don't think. All you do is lie.


Squeal squeal squeal!

Actually, people do care what I think, which is why I'm paid a lot of money to be a business professional. Companies listen to me in order to make good decisions.

You, on the other hand, are an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents. Nobody cares what you have to say about anything, least of all 9/11.

 
At 29 April, 2013 17:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"For you to not just assume that the JFK documents that have been withheld would not change the story, but to actually conclude that (based on no evidence whatsoever) only shows your incompetence.

There's no point in trying to instruct you in logic when you refuse to learn."

Just the opposite in fact.

I used to be a big-time JFK conspiracy kook, which led me into believe other conspiracy bullshit (just like you do).

I was forced to accept the mounting evidence that Lee Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas that morning. He may have had friends who knew about his plan, or even put him up to it, but if there were such people they were - likely Cuban exiles. Everything about Dallas comes down to Cuba, and a sadsack former Marine. Not big oil, not Vietnam, not Henry Booth, Hunt Oil, the Chicago Mob, or the DAR.

Each year more documents are declassified, and each year these new documents reveal little new information. Most of the files which remain classified are related to CIA operations in Cuba, and they remain secret to protect assets still operating in Cuba, Central, and South America. Cuba is still a hostile country, and we still have ongoing covert surveillance and other operations there.

All the JFK cooks have done is create a straw man that has come to life. The JFK Straw Man is now present any time the goon brigades question some government act. What happens is that any honest inquiry is instantly undermined by the presence of the mentally ill.

Just as 9/11 Conspiracy theories led us into Iraq, and then kept us there by undermining the anti-war movement, the JFK assassholes have done far more damage to the country than good.

 
At 30 April, 2013 08:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lian, since you lie so much, your claims that you are a business professional can not be believed. Every two-bit day-trader who claims to be a business consultant can claim to be a business professional.

MGF, your belief that the fact that newly declassified documents don't reveal new information means that the documents that haven't been released wouldn't reveal new information is silly.

The 9/11 Commission report is demonstrably dishonest and corrupt. The NIST report is demonstrably dishonest and incomplete.
No mental illness is necessary to perceive that.





 
At 30 April, 2013 11:01, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian, the hilarity is that as the fallacious list grows longer, the more ridiculous it is. The more names you collect only increases the number of people who fail to publish anything of substance with regard to 9/11 anywhere on the planet.

 
At 30 April, 2013 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 April, 2013 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, there is no need to publish anything. The NIST report is demonstrably dishonest and incomplete. That alone is sufficient.

You want to reduce the issue to one of dueling theories. There is no need to frame it in such simple-minded terms.

Also, there's nothing fallacious about the list of 1900 architects and engineers. Your claim only shows your incompetence in logic.

 
At 30 April, 2013 14:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, your belief that the fact that newly declassified documents don't reveal new information means that the documents that haven't been released wouldn't reveal new information is silly."

I didn't say they wouldn't reveal new information, you dolt, I said they wouldn't change the story.

 
At 30 April, 2013 14:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

You stated upthread that the conclusion that the files that have not been released would not change the story is the only logical conclusion.

You also claimed that you knew what was in the classified files.

I beg a thousand pardons for assuming that if classified files changed the story, that would involve new information.

So what "old information" would the classified documents reveal that might change the story?

 
At 30 April, 2013 15:14, Blogger Ian said...

Lian, since you lie so much, your claims that you are a business professional can not be believed. Every two-bit day-trader who claims to be a business consultant can claim to be a business professional.

Brian, I've told you many times and you refuse to learn: I don't work in finance.

You, on the other hand, can't even claim to be a two-bit day-trader. You can only claim to be a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

And, as I said before, nobody cares what a failed janitor thinks about anything.

 
At 30 April, 2013 15:16, Blogger Ian said...

The 9/11 Commission report is demonstrably dishonest and corrupt. The NIST report is demonstrably dishonest and incomplete.

False and false. Sorry, Brian. Nobody cares what you think.

The NIST report is demonstrably dishonest and incomplete. That alone is sufficient.

What did I just say?

Also, there's nothing fallacious about the list of 1900 architects and engineers. Your claim only shows your incompetence in logic.

Nobody cares about your tiny crackpot cult.

 
At 30 April, 2013 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say you worked in finance, Lian. I didn't even say you were a two-bit day-trader. Your apparent belief that day-trading has something to do with finance casts much doubt on your claim that you have an MBA.

 
At 30 April, 2013 20:15, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say you worked in finance, Lian. I didn't even say you were a two-bit day-trader. Your apparent belief that day-trading has something to do with finance casts much doubt on your claim that you have an MBA.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I'm smart and successful, while Brian is too incompetent to hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 30 April, 2013 20:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

More lying lianity from a lying liar who lies about his lying lies.

 
At 01 May, 2013 10:47, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, there is no need to publish anything. The NIST report is demonstrably dishonest and incomplete. That alone is sufficient.

Actually there is. See, to the scientifically literate that is where you demonstrate scientific claims. Not in youtube & quack websites.

You want to reduce the issue to one of dueling theories. There is no need to frame it in such simple-minded terms.

There are no dueling theories. There are scientific theories that undergo academic scrutiny, and then there are crackpots who attempt to avoid it.

Also, there's nothing fallacious about the list of 1900 architects and engineers. Your claim only shows your incompetence in logic.

And more hand waving. Appeal to authority & popularity. Try again Brian.



OMG! MY CAPTCHA SECURITY WORD IS "USAFAIL"!!!! 9/11 TROOF!!!!

 
At 01 May, 2013 13:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is sufficient to show that the NIST reports are demonstrably dishonest and incomplete.

There is no need for any crackpottery at all.

There is nothing fallacious about a list of names.

A fallacious appeal to authority would be to say "Dr. Sunder has a PhD in structural engineering and you don't; therefore when he says the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds he is right and you are wrong."










 
At 02 May, 2013 04:58, Blogger Ian said...

It is sufficient to show that the NIST reports are demonstrably dishonest and incomplete.

There is no need for any crackpottery at all.

There is nothing fallacious about a list of names.

A fallacious appeal to authority would be to say "Dr. Sunder has a PhD in structural engineering and you don't; therefore when he says the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds he is right and you are wrong."


Brian, just repeating the same delusional spam doesn't change the fact that there is no scientific challenge to the consensus on 9/11. If you were a scientist and not a mentally ill unemployed janitor, you'd understand this.

Good job posting the same pathetic lie about Dr. Sunder again, though.

 
At 02 May, 2013 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nice job of "flipping", i.e., doing what you are accusing me of doing, i.e., repeating the same delusional spam, Lian.

There is no evidence that there is any scientific consensus on 9/11. NIST admitted that they can not explain the total collapses of the towers, and they claim they did not even analyze the collapses.

I didn't lie about Dr. Sunder. He told NOVA that the measurements have indicated that Tower Two fell in 9 seconds and Tower One fell in 11 seconds. That is easily verifiable, and your persistent denial of this fact is dishonest.

 
At 02 May, 2013 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's your buddy Wizzie? He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie, and he hasn't been back.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home