Psychological Study of Truthers and Debunkers Online
Worth a read.
The raw data consisted of the comment sections of various online news articles. Samples were taken from news articles posted between July 1st and December 31st, 2011, on four mainstream news websites: ABC (American Broadcasting Company) News, CNN, the Independent, and the Daily Mail. This date range was chosen because of the large number of 9/11-related articles around the time of the tenth anniversary of the attacks, and these four news sites were selected on the reasoning that an ideal sample would not be restricted to a single country, journalistic style, or ideological position, as well as for more practical reasons such as search capabilities, comment archiving, and unpaid access.
I do have an alternate explanation for this observation:
We also found that hostility was higher in persuasive arguments made by conventionalists than in those by conspiracists. As 9/11 conspiracism is by and large a minority viewpoint in the West (WorldPublicOpinion.org, 2008), this makes sense: conventionalists, rather than focusing on presenting novel information, instead attempt to enforce conformity to the majority viewpoint (Latané, 1981).There's an element of truth in that; keeping people in line lends itself more to denigrating the opposition, whereas converting people requires gentler persuasion. But there's another dynamic as well. In general, Truthers know a great deal more of the minutiae of 9-11 than those debating them. I have been at this for over 7 years now, and I'll freely admit that many if not most Truthers know more about that day than I do (although on the important issues I have them cold). This is probably true for most conspiracy theories for an obvious reason; if you are into a conspiracy theory you are going to spend a lot more time studying up on the event than if you believe in the conventional explanation.
But of course, what happens when a conventionalist without a lot of background knowledge runs up against a conspiracy theorist who can provide a lot of detail? He gets frustrated and angry; he knows he's right, but he cannot provide the evidence to support his opinions and hence tends to lash out. There's an old joke about how lawyers work: When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.
posted by Pat @ 12:33 PM
137 comments
137 Comments:
The conventionalist THINKS he's right. How can he KNOW he's right when he doesn't know the facts?
As my dear, departed friend, NAMBLA spokesman Allen Ginsburg wrote, "How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb?
"Two. One to change the light bulb and one to observe how the light bulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in the netherworld of cosmic nothingness between my fellow NAMBLA brother Brian Good's ears."
And even though I saw my most hated enemy in a gay porn scene online, I can never mention it...for obvious reasons.
Pat, what makes you think that I'm a sex predator?
Jouse gurls ly and July and July and July and July and July, JULYERS!!!!
Fascinating article. I think conventionalist hostility comes mostly from impatience. We're sick of hearing that 2 + 2 might equal 5 if we'd just investigate it. We also tend to overestimate conspiracists' ability to grasp the data, and become frustrated when they repeatedly fail.
The conventionalist THINKS he's right. How can he KNOW he's right when he doesn't know the facts?
Knowledge isn't composed merely of facts, and not all facts are equally important.
The hostility comes from impatience, and the impatience comes from the conventionalists' unjustifiable assumption that they are right when they haven't bothered to learn the facts--and when much of what they believe comes from the unsupported claims of anonymous internet posters.
If knowledge isn't based in facts, it isn't knowledge. The conventionalists find it difficult to distinguish among facts, opinions, speculations, and assumptions. That makes trying to reason very frustrating for them.
the impatience comes from the conventionalists' unjustifiable assumption that they are right when they haven't bothered to learn the facts
And that's exactly where you keep screwing up. Facts and knowledge are different. Truthers can recall thousands of pieces of 9/11 trivia, but can't assemble them into a theory coherent enough to pursue.
If knowledge isn't based in facts, it isn't knowledge.
Knowledge is composed of facts, judgment and experience. I have a six-year-old who's very good at critical thinking and using logic. But since his experience is limited, he often gets things wrong. The same is true of 9/11 Truthers -- they connect dots with a sort of logic, but it's the absurd logic of a child.
snug.bug: Knock, knock, knock.
Willie Rodriguez: Who's there?
snug.bug: It's me, Brian "meatball on a fork" Good. Can I sleep with you tonight, buddy? I shit my bed...
Willie Rodriguez: Well, okay. As long as you promise not to try anything funny.
snug.bug: Do you consider aggravated homosexual assault "funny"?
RGT, what makes you think that I'm a sex predator?
Jouse gurls ly and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July, JULYERS!!!!
Your belief that Truthers can't assemble the facts into a coherent theory is simply contrary to reality.
You can not think precisely if you don't define your terms precisely.
What could be more coherent than the belief that reptileoids from outer space and/or the international banking cartel staged the 9/11 incident in order to justify draconian curtailments of civil liberties and indefinite and very profitable wars?
Knowledge must be composed of facts. If the facts are wrong, the knowledge is not knowledge.
But of course, what happens when a conventionalist without a lot of background knowledge runs up against a conspiracy theorist who can provide a lot of detail? He gets frustrated and angry; he knows he's right, but he cannot provide the evidence to support his opinions and hence tends to lash out.
Absolutely. I find I get hostile to climate change deniers because of this, often wondering exactly what little minute details they're talking about. That's why I try to know as much as I possibly can about the science of climate change, so I can catch the debunked claims when they come out, or catch the flaws in logic, or the like.
9/11 truth, being a dead conspiracy theory, has me amused rather than angry. Still, this site was very useful early on in learning the facts of the day to catch the debunked nonsense every time it was repeated back when 9/11 truth was still flavor of the month.
How can he KNOW he's right when he doesn't know the facts?
Please identify the "facts" that we don't know.
This is going to be GOOD....
Please identify the "facts" that we don't know.
This is going to be GOOD...
Ian, when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
Brian "Humpty Dumpty" Good.
Ian, what makes you think that I'm a sex predator?
Jouse gurls ly and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July, JULYERS!!!!
There's no point in discussing facts with compulsive liars.
Doing so only aids their agenda of sowing confusion.
There's no point in discussing facts with compulsive liars.
Doing so only aids their agenda of sowing confusion.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so much of late (remember how much he squealed and squealed when I proved that he was banned from Wikipedia for vandalism?) that he's too terrified to post any of his "fact" lest I start laughing at him and humiliating him again.
It's OK, Brian. 9/11 Truth is dead, so it requires no courage on your part. You can be as much of a coward with me as you were when Willie Rodriguez challenged you to a debate, and you ran away squealing and crying.
But it's good for the tens of thousands of people who read this site every day for them to know that you have no facts on your side.
I didn't run away from anything. I tried to find a neutral venue, and Willie wouldn't help. Willie ran away squealing and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie. Here I am, here he is not.
The facts are certainly on my side. If they were on your side you wouldn't find it necessary to lie so much.
Anyway, since you don't want to talk about 9/11, let's talk about your hideous haircut.
here's a guy who has an extremely well-done haircut, which is probably why he's a successful academic with a loving family, while you're a failed janitor who hasn't been on a date in 40 years. You should learn more about getting a good haircut from him, Brian.
I didn't run away from anything. I tried to find a neutral venue, and Willie wouldn't help. Willie ran away squealing and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie. Here I am, here he is not.
Poor Brian. He's such a delusional liar that he thinks he "proved" that Rodriguez' story is a lie. Brian, you've proved nothing of the sort. He's a hero, and you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. You're here because you're a liar and a lunatic who posts squealspam all over the internet. Rodriguez has better things to do with his time than waste it on you.
The facts are certainly on my side. If they were on your side you wouldn't find it necessary to lie so much.
Brian, you have no facts. You just babble about modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows all day.
Ian, I proved that Willie's hero story is a lie. His claim that his key saved hundreds is impossible. His claim that he was opening doors and letting people out is a lie.
I have never babbled about modified attack baboons. I leave the babbling about Babarretboons to you.
Ian, I proved that Willie's hero story is a lie.
You can repeat this as many times as you want, Brian, it doesn't make it true. Rodriguez is a hero. You are a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
His claim that his key saved hundreds is impossible. His claim that he was opening doors and letting people out is a lie.
False.
I have never babbled about modified attack baboons. I leave the babbling about Babarretboons to you.
Thanks for admitting that you babble about magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
Still waiting for you to present some of the "facts" about 9/11 that we apparently don't know.....
Ian, Rodriguez is a fraudulent con artist. I've provdn it. You refuse to learn.
There's no point in discussing facts with a compulsive liar like you.
Calling people names constantly to draw people into arguments, refusing to acknowledge information, crank calling people, focusing on the fringe when they've been discredited in the eyes of the "9/11 Truth Movement," and are no longer followed, etc... is what so called "debunkers" have always done. It's what you do.
To be fair, I DO read what "debunkers" have to say (sometimes) which has improved my own arguments. So thanks for helping me to improve my own arguments.
To be fair, I DO read what "debunkers" have to say (sometimes) which has improved my own arguments.
Do you understand why most debunkers lend no credence to Patty Casazza's mysterious informant story?
Not at all because MANY whistleblowers were ignored and censored by the 9/11 Commission. Just ask Coleen Rowley or Tony Shaffer (right, you "debunked" Tony Shaffer... I forgot... heh).
Not at all because MANY whistleblowers were ignored and censored by the 9/11 Commission.
For the moment we're only talking about Patty Casazza's informant. Do you understand what it is about her informant story that makes people skeptical?
For the moment we're only talking about Patty Casazza's informant. Do you understand what it is about her informant story that makes people skeptical?
RGT, what makes you think that 9/11 truthers are compelled to answer your stupid questions? I'll ask the questions around here, pal!
MGF, my car's got pollen on it. Get over here and wash my car!
What's the matter, you can't even wash cars?
So MGF, what makes you think that I'm a hypocrite, a liar, and a sex predator?
Jouse gurls ly and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July and July, JULYERS!!!!
RGT, what makes you think that 9/11 truthers are compelled to answer your stupid questions? I'll ask the questions around here, pal!
Don't forget to add "What could be more coherent than the belief that reptileoids from outer space and/or the international banking cartel staged the 9/11 incident in order to justify draconian curtailments of civil liberties and indefinite and very profitable wars?" to your quotes page. That's Quote of the Year and it's not even August yet.
Ian, Rodriguez is a fraudulent con artist. I've provdn it. You refuse to learn.
You've proved nothing of the sort.
There's no point in discussing facts with a compulsive liar like you.
Thanks for proving my point. You have no facts.
"What could be more coherent than the belief that reptileoids from outer space and/or the international banking cartel staged the 9/11 incident in order to justify draconian curtailments of civil liberties and indefinite and very profitable wars?"
I'd still love to know what these "draconian" curtailments of civil liberties were. I mean, the TSA stuff at the airport sucks, and I'm all for curtailing NSA surveillance, but this is hardly the kind of thing you see from, say, Vladimir Putin.
Also, the US has flushed, what, over a trillion dollars down the drain in Iraq? Doesn't sound particularly "profitable" to me, especially since it's the Chinese who seem to be making off with the Iraqi oil.
So sneak-and-peek warrentless searches, license-plate readers, hoovering up every phone call and email, face recognition at sports events, torture of prisoners, toss-em-in-the-dungeon-by-presidential-decree, and assassination by presidential order aren't draconian enough for you?
Iraq has been costly only to the taxpayers. It's been incredibly profitable to the military industrial complex.
Gosh, Ian, all this time your colossal ignorance and mountainous arrogance has been obscuring the fact that you're just not very bright.
RGT, I don't think you know what "coherent" means.
So sneak-and-peek warrentless searches, license-plate readers, hoovering up every phone call and email, face recognition at sports events, torture of prisoners, toss-em-in-the-dungeon-by-presidential-decree, and assassination by presidential order aren't draconian enough for you?
Iraq has been costly only to the taxpayers. It's been incredibly profitable to the military industrial complex.
Yup, this is the kind of paranoia I expect from a someone too stupid and insane to hold down a job mopping floors. The New World Order is reading Brian's brain waves, and checking his license plate.
torture of prisoners, toss-em-in-the-dungeon-by-presidential-decree
Um, you know the guy in the White House that you dismiss as the same as Bush? Yeah, he's not doing this.
assassination by presidential order
Why the hell wouldn't the government try to bump off enemy leaders like this? If Lincoln had had drones in 1861, I'm guessing he would have gone after Jefferson Davis with them. And Davis could be considered an American citizen.
Gosh, Ian, all this time your colossal ignorance and mountainous arrogance has been obscuring the fact that you're just not very bright.
Poor Brian, it's tough being him. He can't hold down a job mopping floors, so he lives with his parents while he collects disability. He has no friends. He was banned from the truth movement for being a sex predator. He was banned from Wikipedia for vandalism. He tried to start a relationship with Willie Rodriguez and was rejected, and now posts thousands of pages of spam attacking him. Brian's clothes and haircut are what you'd expect from homeless people.
Given all this, it's understandable that he's be so bitter and resentful towards me, since I'm intelligent, handsome, and successful, and half his age. It can't be fun knowing you're an old loser who has failed at everything in life, and get taunted for it every day by the young and successful.
Hey Brian, do you think the NSA surveillance team has this photo of you?
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
Do you think they load it up on the big screen to laugh at your hideous homeless mullet they way I do?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
"For the moment we're only talking about Patty Casazza's informant. Do you understand what it is about her informant story that makes people skeptical?"
I already answered. "Not at all." She is credible. She was one of the four widows that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission. She was part of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee which supplied the 9/11 Commission with 100's of well researched questions to answer (which they ignored the majority of). She helped to monitor the 9/11 Commission. She worked alongside staffers of the 9/11 Commission. She attended every hearing of the 9/11 Commission (except the one where the families walked out of in protest because Armitage was put in place of Rice). She has more credibility than anyone in the "debunker" world. So my answer is "not at all."
When you think about how whistleblowers are retaliated against, I'm not surprised that they met people on the side of the road in Maryland to talk.
The real hilarity of this article is Kevin Barrett's abysmal initial & continuous misinterpretation of it.
http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/
Jon Gold dissembles, "... She is credible...She was part of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee which supplied the 9/11 Commission with 100's of well researched questions to answer...[blah][blah][blah]."
Bullshit.
Patty Casazza and Lori Van Auken, in lieu of any evidence, spouted all sorts of accusatory innuendo masquerading as questions. Apparently, Casazza and Van Auken decided to weigh in on the debate over "the events of 11 September 2001" with this answer: We fill up articles on topics we don't know the first thing about with nothing but idle speculation, rank innuendo, and 100% evidence-free accusations, all under the guise of "just asking questions". Casazza and Van Auken then strongly imply that the engineers and scientists, who have carefully researched the events of that fateful day, are involved in a criminal conspiracy to protect the Bush administration without bothering even to ask them about it first, while Casazza and Van Auken hide the facts from their gullible followers. In fact, the engineers and scientists who looked into 9/11 have repeatedly, and in great detail, addressed the very "questions" you're posing.
But shoddy research from Internet blowhards is far too common to be worth noting. What was far worse was that Casazza and Van Auken's wild conspiracy theorizing, which is painstakingly documented by this blog, was accomplished only by asserting blatant, easily demonstrated falsehoods.
Patty Casazza and Lori Van Auken are pernicious liars who, like the remainder of the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement, deserve nothing but derision.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why." - Jon Gold
Shame on your anonymous GuitarBill for insinuating 9/11 Family Members are "liars." But, I know you don't care about what you say.
And, I don't plan on getting into an internet argument with you, so have your "fun." I know you love it so.
And incidentally, how many times did family members submit questions to NIST to answer? Several. They even wrote in questions during Shyam Sunder's news conference about WTC7. But nah, they didn't write them "even to ask them about it." That's another thing I forgot about debunkers. They DO lie.
One more thing, I don't give a shit about "Controlled Demolition." If the families think that NIST's reports were unacceptable, then I think it's important, otherwise, I couldn't care less. I think it's a distraction. Which you debunkers make the most of.
And I can support family members seeking truth, accountability and justice without agreeing with everything they have to say. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. And I'm not talking about "truth, accountability and justice" like the kind found at GITMO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow, what a silly GutBleat from GutterBall.
Kindly identify the accusatory innuendo in the widows' 300 questions to the 9/11 Commission.
Which of those questions involved government scientists and engineers? (If you had bothered to read the questions, you would know the answer to that. NONE!)
Please identify any time that Patty Casazza or Lori Van Auken lied.
Back up your claims, UtterFail.
Ian, you continue to lie recklessly. Obama continues the program of rendition. Detainees thrown in the dungeon ten years ago and now approved for release are not released. Obama signed the NDAA which provides that Americans can get the same treatment.
Like I said, there's no point in arguing about facts with the compulsive liar like you.
The lying liar lies, "...Kindly identify the accusatory innuendo in the widows' 300 questions to the 9/11 Commission."
Post a link to the 273 "questions," asshole. And I'll show that each and every question is accusatory innuendo.
The lying liar lies, "...Which of those questions involved government scientists and engineers"
Just the kind of stupidity I"d expect from an illiterate homosexual who can't hold down a job mopping floors.
In fact, I never said the questions involve "government scientists and engineers" -- you illiterate homosexual. Learn to read, cretin. Cassaza and Van Auken, along with the remainder of the "truth" movement," have "strongly [implied] that the engineers and scientists, who have carefully researched the events of that fateful day, are involved in a criminal conspiracy to protect the Bush administration." Do you deny that fact, liar? For example, Jim Fetzer has called for the EXECUTION of the structural engineers who he claims "are involved in the cover up."
Cassaza and Van Auken's "questions" are ignored precisely because they are widely recognized as accusatory innuendo.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
NOTE:
Jim Fetzer Condemns All Structural Engineers to Hell!
NOTE:
"...I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth about this and are keeping their mouth shut. There’s a special place in HELL, reserved for them. And they are going to deserve it." -- Jim Fetzer
The lying liar lies, "...Please identify any time that Patty Casazza or Lori Van Auken lied."
Accusatory innuendo masquerading as "questions" is deception. Thus, like you, Cassaza and Van Auken are liars.
Deal with it, cocksucker.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
More GutBleat from ButtGale.
Here are the questions:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
The fact that you express extreme opinions about questions you don't know how to find on the internet tells us a lot about your epistemic and research skills, UtterFool.
I already answered. "Not at all." She is credible.
OK, let's try this. I see no reason to trust the anonymous roadside informant. We don't know who he is and we can't verify what he said.
Now you tell me what's wrong with me. What error in judgment am I making? Why should I trust him?
...As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, DC or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack?"
"...On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?"
"... In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?"
"...Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?"
"...If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the White House Situation Room Director being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th."
"...What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report?"
"...What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack?"
"...What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States?"
"...As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda?"
"...During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL?"
And that's just a FRACTION of the first page.
The entire document is nothing but accusatory innuendo -- and that why "the widows" questions are ignored.
Now, hand wave, deny the obvious and give us another argument from incredulity -- you drooling cretin.
When will you learn, jackass? Your incredulity isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.
GutBleater, all you did was list some questions. You didn't show that any innuendo was involved. Why didn't Bush return to DC? Who was in charge when he obviously wasn't? How are those not legitimate questions?
Your empty posturing fools only 8-year-olds, and those with an 8-year-old's mentality, like Ian and TAW and MGF.
The lying liar lies, "...You didn't show that any innuendo was involved. Why didn't Bush return to DC?"
That's right, asshole, as I predicted, you reply with an argument from incredulity.
All the "questions" are accusatory innuendo. For example,
"...As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, DC or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack?"
That question is accusatory innuendo. The question implies that Bush did something wrong by not returning "immediately to Washington, DC or the National Military Command Center once [he] became aware that America was under attack."
That's naked accusatory innuendo.
"...In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?"
This "question" implies a LIHOP scenario. That's naked accusatory innuendo.
"...Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?"
This question implies that Bush didn't follow normal procedure. That is pure accusatory innuendo.
"...If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the White House Situation Room Director being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th."
Ditto.
I can go on and on.
But given that you're a compulsive liar and a sex predator, you're not worthy of a more extensive reply.
"The widows" questions are nothing but accusatory innuendo.
How does a simple, and neutral, request for information imply that Bush did something wrong?
Are you implying that for their 273 questions the government is in effect taking the Fifth and declining to incriminate itself?
How does a question about the nation's unpreparedness imply a LIHOP scenario? You are quite paranoid, Mr. Bill.
The third question doesn't imply anything. It asks what the normal procedure was, and if there was anything unusual about the procedure on 9/11. You are quite paranoid, Mr. Bill.
Your attitude seems to be that the president owes no explanation to the people who suffered from his actions and non-actions relative to 9/11. Where did you get such an unjustified attitude? Were you raised by fascists, perhaps? Refugees from the Mussolini government? Or veterans of the German-American Bund?
Ian, you continue to lie recklessly. Obama continues the program of rendition. Detainees thrown in the dungeon ten years ago and now approved for release are not released. Obama signed the NDAA which provides that Americans can get the same treatment.
Like I said, there's no point in arguing about facts with the compulsive liar like you.
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because he has no facts on his side, and nobody cares about the self-serving liars who claim to be "widows", Patty Cazassa or Laurie Van Auken
Here are the questions:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
The widows have no questions.
Lyin Ian posts more Liananity. He seems to think he's funny.
Brian, I asked Laurie Van Auken 486 questions about her involvement in placing thermite in the towers. She gave me 0 responses. That's 100% of my questions that have been unanswered.
I think you know what that means.
Lyin Ian posts more Liananity. He seems to think he's funny.
Brian, you're supposed to say "It thinks its funny", remember?
Anyway, since we're done talking about your attention-whore fake widows, let's go back to talking about how you were banned from Wikipedia for vandalism, and how you were banned from the Northern California Truth Alliance for being a sex stalker.
The lying liar whines, "...Your attitude seems to be that the president owes no explanation to the people who suffered from his actions and non-actions relative to 9/11."
That's right, liar! Claim there was no accusatory innuendo while YOU POST ACCUSATORY INNUENDO!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The only thing you've managed to prove is that you don't understand the meaning of accusatory innuendo. The remainder of your reply is nothing but DUMBSPAM.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Cretin.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
Brian Good vandalizes the Chinese Womems Gymnastic Team Wikipedia page:
UtterFail, your pretense that I am failing to provide links is transparent. I haven't failed to provide links. You have...I don't watch Olympic gymnastics. It's too upsetting to see 15-year-old girls who haven't reached puberty because their training is so stressful. They're freaks like Castrati. It's child abuse.
BANNED BY WIKIPEDIA FOR WEB VANDALISM (Chinese gymnasts webage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:63.199.155.82&action=history
Proof that Brian Good used the 63.199.155.82 IP Address:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sf911truth/WiVhIVxFfp4/xYavRqbAc0oJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sf911truth/LsyvOfOKzss/OETOArw60SMJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sf911truth/3T0kdVggnxA/y5DHeCNxs4YJ
Imagine that! A homosexual who's obsessed with Asian girls who have no tits and boy butts.
Pervert.
Guitar Bill, I never vandalized any wikipedia pages, and certainly not any having to do with gymnasts.
I see that you can't support your paranoid claims that the widows' questions were laden with accusations, and you prefer to deal with your preferred subject--your elaborate fantasies about me.
Guitar Bill, I never vandalized any wikipedia pages, and certainly not any having to do with gymnasts.
False. It's been proven. I demonstrated it the other day, and you were so hysterical that you tried to cover it up by posting spam about Willie Rodriguez.
I see that you can't support your paranoid claims that the widows' questions were laden with accusations, and you prefer to deal with your preferred subject--your elaborate fantasies about me.
The widows have no questions and 9/11 truth is dead. What else are we going to do other than mock a failed janitor, liar, and sex stalker who lives with his parents?
They (the Jersey Girls) "call me all the time. They monitor us, they follow our progress, they've provided us with some of the best questions we've asked (and didn't ask). I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them." - Thomas Kean
You should be kissing their asses. If not for them, you wouldn't even have had the corrupt and compromised 9/11 Commission.
Sorry you don't like their questions of a President and Vice President that initially fought against them, that didn't speak under oath, and not without each other. Boo Hoo for you.
Assholes.
I would love to debate any of you in a public setting. Any of you. You make it happen and I'll be there. Even though I recently broke my back and am now partially paralyzed. I'll be there.
My email address is Gold9472@comcast.net. Go ahead and make something happen for a change. I would absolutely LOVE to debate any of you in a public setting.
Yes, it's what they're best at, and about all they're good for--demonstrating their assholery.
I would love to debate any of you in a public setting. Any of you. You make it happen and I'll be there. Even though I recently broke my back and am now partially paralyzed. I'll be there.
I'm sorry that you're partially paralyzed, Jon. Maybe it will give you time to reflect on life and how one shouldn't waste one's life chasing idiotic conspiracy theories?
Yes, it's what they're best at, and about all they're good for--demonstrating their assholery.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Brian. Nobody makes him post here and get taunted and ridiculed. He just has nothing else in life. No friends, no job, no family, no hobbies.
I would absolutely LOVE to debate any of you in a public setting.
Not that you asked for any advice, but this would be a good time for you to spent less time chasing 9/11 shadows and get healthy. I don't believe you're proud of the trainwreck you've turned into.
Not saying that to be a dick, but make of it what you will.
The lying liar whines, "...Yes, it's what they're best at, and about all they're good for--demonstrating their assholery [SIC]."
As an Al Qaeda apologist and someone who routinely tramples on the graves of the victims, you don't have the moral authority to accuse anyone of "assholery." [SIC]
You'll find the asshole between your chair and your keyboard.
I don't trample any graves, GutSqueal. I leave that to you, with your sneers at the 9/11 widows and your support of the con artist Willie Fraudriguez, who steals his glory from the dead.
Were you abused by a clergyman when you were a child? That would explain a lot.
I don't trample any graves, GutSqueal. I leave that to you, with your sneers at the 9/11 widows and your support of the con artist Willie Fraudriguez, who steals his glory from the dead.
Nobody cares about your "widows". And your continued libel of hero Willie Rodriguez just demonstrates your depraved irrationality. You live in a fantasy world.
It thinks it's funny.
It thinks it's funny.
That's the humiliated dumbspam I've been waiting for. Thanks, Brian!
Do you have any big plans for this weekend, Brian? I mean, most likely, you'll just be posting spam about invisible widows and Willie Rodriguez everywhere like you do every weekend, but I figured I'd ask.
They forgot 1 thing.
The reason why Debunkers go on the offensive is because the Truthers tend to get violent when they are asked a valid question and the Truther ignores the question asked of them. When called out on their bullshit the Truthers take it to the next level, personally attacking family members of the Debunker. Debunkers aware of what's happening go on the defense and persuade the Truther into talking about the topic or discussion rather than attack innocent people. Then the Truther switches the agenda and says that the debunker was attacking his family from the start and also making threats to do them bodily harm.
You see the truth is a 2 way street, Truthers see the truth as a 1 way only street.
Funny how A&E9/11Truth points out that WTC7 free falled for 2.25 seconds. What they DON'T show you is the 1.4 seconds AFTER the 2.25 free fall of WTC7 decelerating.
Question is: Whose really distorting the facts and omitting the evidence?
David, what significance to do ascribe to the 1.4 seconds after the 2.25 seconds of freefall?
Dr. Shyan Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, explained quite clearly what the significance of 2.25 seconds of freefall was when he denied that there was free fall. He said it couldn't be freefall, because that would mean there was zero structural support underneath.
Later he was forced to admit that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall.
he denied that there was free fall. He said it couldn't be freefall, because that would mean there was zero structural support underneath.
If you take his quote out of context. He was addressing the collapse time of WTC 7; which is not FFA. When it was shown that there was 2.25 secs of FFA acceleration, truthers moved the goal posts, and ascribed his denial post hoc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David, what significance [do you] ascribe to the 1.4 seconds after the 2.25 seconds of freefall?
The deceleration indicates the presence of structural integrity, which rules out controlled demolition.
GMS wrote, "... When it was shown that there was 2.25 secs of FFA acceleration, truthers moved the goal posts, and ascribed his denial post hoc."
Its worse than that, GMS. The compulsive liar, snug.bug (aka, Brian "the lying liar" Good), carefully omits the relevant information (ie., lie by omission): The collapse began when critical column 79A failed. As a result of column 79A's failure, the east penthouse collapsed into the building, which can be seen in the videos of the collapse. Column 79A failed a full 8 seconds BEFORE the parapet wall began its decent. Thus, building 7's collapse took in excess of 18 seconds.
A collapse duration of 18 seconds for a 226 meter-tall building IS NOWHERE NEAR "FREE FALL" ACCELERATION.
Proof? Right here:
Given h = 1/2gt^2
free fall distance = 226 m
g = 9.80665 m/s^2
Hence,
t = √2h/g
v = √2gh
Thus,
Free fall time for a 226 meter-tall building = 6.789 sec
Free fall velocity = 66.577 m/s or 239.680 km/h
As you can see, if the collapse had occurred at "free fall" acceleration, the collapse duration would have been 37% (~1/3 or 6.7 seconds) of the 18 second collapse duration.
So, once again, we see that you can't believe a word that emanates from "snug.bug"'s semen encrusted keyboard.
Should we expect less than lies and half-truths from a proven compulsive liar? Probably not.
GMS, please provide us with your source for your information about the context of Dr. Sunder's statement that freefall collapse would mean there was no structural support whatsoever underneath. The context is his denial that there was any freefall collapse. His denial was not true, and NIST was forced to change their report to acknowledge the 2.25 seconds of freefall. You are very confused.
RGT, please explain how you think structural integrity rules out controlled demolition.
GutBleat, go out and play. Grownups are talking.
The science illiterate compulsive liar whines, "..GutBleat, go out and play. Grownups are talking."
Yawn...
Yep, when your back is against the wall, condescend and, above all, DUMBSPAM. You're as predictable as you are depraved.
Naturally, your "rebuttal" is precisely the kind of dumbspam I expect from a brain-dead homosexual who was kicked out of the 9/11 "truth" movement for being a pervert and a sex predator. Not surprisinly, you ran squealing and crying from William Rodriguez's April 2011 challenge to "debate." Did I mention that you vandalized the Chinese Gymnasts Wikipedia webpage? Did I mention that you can't hold down a job mopping floors?
So idiot, have you always believed that ~18 seconds is equal is 6.789 seconds? Or are you lying again about the events of 11 September 2001? Take your pick, cretin.
RGT, please explain how you think structural integrity rules out controlled demolition.
Controlled demolition works by removing structural integrity. The presence of residual structural integrity rules out controlled demolition.
GutBleat, it's because I'm not a scientific illiterate that I'm not intimidated by your immaterial equations. The fact that you think we should be impressed by junior high school algebra casts much doubt on your claim that you have a degree in applied mathematics.
Your a fartulent poseur, nothing more.
RGT, the presence of residual structural integrity in no way rules out controlled demolition. If you just blew the damn thing up willy nilly so it fell down in a heap, it would not be very controlled. Residual structure is necessary to keep it controlled, and it worked very well, as the videos show.
Also, in this case, it was not possible to blow up the upper part of the building, because it would have showed in the videos, and there would be no way to explain it. So there was no choice but to leave the upper structure intact.
The behavior of the building is certainly consistent with controlled demolition. I could be convinced that fires brought the building down, but I don't think NIST even tried to convince.
Residual structure is necessary to keep it controlled, and it worked very well, as the videos show.
Now you're saying a building can drop at free-fall acceleration when structural integrity is greater than zero. That's the opposite of what you've been saying.
Funny how explosives could bring down WTC7 at free fall and yet slow it down to where there's structural support underneath the falling debris.
The 1.4 seconds after the free fall event shows it wasn't a CD. Plain and simple. The TM and A&E9/11Truth omitted the 3rd Stage of WTC7's collapse to further Richard Gage's career as a hoaxer.
The lying charlatan squeals, "...GutBleat, it's because I'm not a scientific illiterate that I'm not intimidated by your immaterial equations. The fact that you think we should be impressed by junior high school algebra casts much doubt on your claim that you have a degree in applied mathematics...Your [SIC] a fartulent [SIC] poseur, nothing more."
Oh, I see. When the illiterate charlatan can't prove my calculations are in error, all he can do is smear and condescend while he pretends to know what he's talking about.
You fool no one but yourself. All you have are lies, smears and innuendo.
FAIL
By the way, dunce, the contraction of you are is "you're" not "your."
For example,
"You're an illiterate, homosexual charlatan, Brian Good."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So idiot, I'll ask you for the second time: Have you always believed that ~18 seconds is equal is 6.789 seconds? Or are you lying again about the events of 11 September 2001? Take your pick, cretin.
Answer the question, liar.
RGT, I never said that a building can drop at free-fall acceleration when structural integrity is greater than zero.
But that seems to be what NIST is saying when they say in NCSTAR 1 that WTC1 fell in less than 12 seconds, and when Dr. Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
David, why is it funny that explosives could bring down WTC7 at free fall and yet slow it down to where there's structural support underneath the falling debris? What's funny about that?
How does the 1.4 seconds after the free fall event show it wasn't a CD? Seems to me that's like arguing that a gunshot victim died of blood loss, not the gunshot.
GutBleat, I don't need to show that your calcs are in error. I'll assume that even you can do the 8th-grade algebra involved. Your calcs are irrelevant, an empty attempt to impress fools who are impressed by 8th-grade algebra.
I can't answer a question that's based on logical fallacies. Such a question reveals your lack of intelligence, your dishonesty, or both.
RGT, I never said that a building can drop at free-fall acceleration when structural integrity is greater than zero.
You've stated 2.25 seconds of free-fall is impossible unless all structural support is removed, which is only possible during a controlled demolition, which does not remove all structural support, which does not prevent free-fall. Don't blame me if you can't make sense out of your own words.
2.25 seconds of free-fall is impossible unless all structural support is removed, correct.
I never said that a building can drop at free-fall acceleration when structural integrity is greater than zero.
You're mixing up two separate timeframes. Your argument is like saying "You said you went to Denver! But you went to Atlanta! How can you go to Atlanta when you went to Denver! You make no sense!"
I can go to both Denver AND Atlanta, just not at the same time.
You're mixing up two separate timeframes.
You're suggesting that all structural integrity was removed, resulting in 2.25 seconds of free-fall, after which structural integrity was partially restored?
Indeed that's what I'm suggesting. It appears that structural integrity was suddenly disrupted for 8 stories in the lower part of the building so the upper part fell 100 feet at free fall acceleration. After falling 100 feet, the intact upper part destroyed itself one floor at a time at less than free fall acceleration.
These issues are discussed by licensed structural engineers in the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out".
After falling 100 feet, the intact upper part destroyed itself one floor at a time at less than free fall acceleration.
I thought intact upper parts were supposed to tip over in one piece. That's what you claim the WTC1 and WTC2 upper parts should have done.
The intact upper parts are supposed to obey the laws of physics. In the case of WTC2, since the top part was in motion (rotating to an extent of 22 degrees or 24 degrees) it was supposed to stay in motion (according to Newton's Third Law) unless there was some force to oppose its rotation. Thus it should have continued rotating until it fell off the top of the building.
The upper part of WTC7 is supposed to tip if the structural failure is asymmetrical. Since it didn't tip until the end of the collapse (and it didn't tip very much even then) the structural failure must have been simultaneous all throughout the floor area of the building.
The intact upper parts are supposed to obey the laws of physics.
Then the top portion of WTC7 should have suddenly decelerated. How do you explain the missing jolt?
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, the jolt issue applies to a top section hitting an undamaged lower section after accelerating through just 3 meters.
In WTC7 we're talking about the top 35 stories hitting a debris pile after accelerating at free fall for 30 meters. The jolt is absorbed by the debris, the kinetic energy taken up on scattering and bending and rubbing and twisting the lower debris.
The jolt is absorbed by the debris, the kinetic energy taken up on scattering and bending and rubbing and twisting the lower debris.
I see. And this method was chosen in order to keep the detonations out of camera view, all of which were known ahead of time?
Stage 1: 3.9 seconds
Stage 2: 2.25 seconds
Stage 3: 1.4 seconds
Now any moron can take a look at that and determine that Stage 1 had a faster acceleration than Stage 2.
So why does Staqe 2 interest Twoofers? Because they have nothing to validate their BS theories.
Also Stage 3 proves the building slowed down enough to result in a non free fall event.
Suck it Brian.
3 meters = 9 feet.
So you're saying it took 2.25 seconds and 9 feet to reach terminal velocity (free fall speed) of 125 mph?
Yeah, I call BS on that.
It took the people jumping from both Towers to reach 125 mph in 10 seconds, at the 10 second mark they hit the pavement going 125 mph.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David, how do you determine that Stage 1 has faster acceleration than Stage 2?
Truthers are interested in Stage 2 because it proceeds at free fall acceleration, which is impossible (as Dr. Sunder explained) unless there is no structural resistance at all underneath it. It's a free fall event if freefall occurred at all. Slowing down means nothing. Your reasoning is like a defense attorney claiming "No, your honor, my client did not murder the decedent. In the 30 years before the decedents death, there was no murder, and in the year since the death there was no murder. Therefore his death was a non-murder event."
No, David it did not take 9 feet to reach terminal velocity. If you simply watch the WTC7 video you can see that the external collapse begins instantaneously.
The reference to 3 meters was with respect to the "missing jolt". That pertains to the collapse of WTC 1.
Watching a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of college try to explain physics (or what he thinks physics should be) is hilarious.
So I was wrong. Brian didn't spend another lonely weekend posting spam about Willie Rodriguez. He spent the weekend explaining how sometimes there was structural resistance when the towers collapsed, and sometimes there wasn't.
This fits in well with Brian's theory that sometimes, the towers were destroyed by invisible silent explosives, and sometimes, thery were destroyed by magic spray-on thermite.
The only thing missing is one of Brian's classic analogies: "sometimes, I eat a bowl of Froot Loops for breakfast, and sometimes, I watch 'Days of Our Lives' all afternoon."
Also, in the dual reality universe where Brian lives, sometimes Dr. Sunder's quotes are irrefutable evidence, and sometimes Dr. Sunder is a shill and a liar whose quotes can be hand-waved away.
GMS, please provide us with your source for your information about the context of Dr. Sunder's statement that freefall collapse would mean there was no structural support whatsoever underneath. The context is his denial that there was any freefall collapse. His denial was not true, and NIST was forced to change their report to acknowledge the 2.25 seconds of freefall. You are very confused.
NIST Public comments on WTC 7 study conference.
Truthers are interested in Stage 2 because it proceeds at free fall acceleration, which is impossible (as Dr. Sunder explained)
And you have yet to show him saying it's impossible.
These issues are discussed by licensed structural engineers in the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out".
Yes we know, the "experts" are still making youtube videos and not publishing studies.
Truthers are interested in Stage 2 because it proceeds at
Funny how Stage 1: 3.9 seconds is faster than Stage 2's 2.25 seconds.
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about Brian.
No, David it did not take 9 feet to reach terminal velocity.
Then why claim free fall existed when it clearly didn't?
The reference to 3 meters was with respect to the "missing jolt". That pertains to the collapse of WTC 1.
Stick to WTC7 and not the other buildings Brian, that's pretty damn bad when you have to change the subject.
BTW I am an architect and yes WTC7 came I>down, as the CTers would say: "the path of greatest resistance"
Ian, you are delusional. Where do you get the idea that I "failed out of college"?
I didn't explain how sometimes there was structural resistance and sometimes there wasn't. I pointed out the fact that sometimes there was structural resistance and sometimes there wasn't. Do you doubt that this is a fact? If so, please explain why you doubt it.
I never proposed that the towers were destroyed by magic anything. You employ deprecatory adjectives because they give the illusion that you have an argument. There is nothing magic about thermite.
Obviously no one can expect a beanie-cap like you to understand that sometimes the Wall Street market goes up and sometimes it goes down, and an analyst might point out that technical indicators look bad on a particular stock while fundamentals appear to be improving. But you would sneer at the contradictions, and reveal yourself for a fool.
Ian, I never said Dr. Sunder's claims were irrefutable. I present them because they are official evidence, and they are consistent with the information about collapse times in the official reports.
Go ahead and refute them--if you can.
You accept the information of the official reports when it suits you, and for no reason you discard that information when it does not. If the official reports are wrong as you claim, then you're only showing the need for new ones that we can believe.
GMS, where in the "NIST Public comments on WTC 7 study conference" is it shown that I took out of context his statement that freefall is only possible when there is no structural support underneath?
Here is what he says: "A free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."
Here is the context:
August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing
"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_i9skcDOec
Here is a longer video, with context (see at 4:33)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtRlOVymmz8
David, where do you get the idea that the acceleration is faster in Stage 1 than in Stage 2? In the video you can't see any acceleration at all in Stage 1.
Where do you get the idea that freefall did not exist? NIST admitted that it existed for 2.25 seconds in Stage 2.
I was talking about WTC1 because RGT asked me a question about it.
http://en.webfail.com/cf4ed3e5edf
This is how low twooferism has fallen. The only affect they have is rational people mocking them over the Internet. So much for starting a revolution, then...
Sayin' it don't make it so. Empty claims are self-discrediting, but fools don't know that.
The most amusing thing about this latest theory is its after-the-fact reasoning (they only demolished the bottom eight floors because they somehow knew cameras would be looking above that point). The new information about how controlled demolition simultaneously does and does not rob a building of all structural integrity, that's kind of cute too.
Debunkers are stuck with the boring old NIST report, which stands unchanged and unrefuted for five years now.
Your undeserved incredulity does not improve your straw man argument any.
Nobody says that a CD "simultaneously does and does not rob a building of all structural integrity."
Maybe if you would take the time to watch the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" (it's free on Youtube) you would gain some understanding as the licensed structural engineers explain the issues to you.
The NIST reports refute themselves. The report on the towers failed to fulfill its number one objective--to explain "why and how" the towers came down. NIST even claims they did not analyze the collapses.
Some report!
The WTC7 report removed its claim that its analysis was consistent with physical principles. There is thus no reason to believe its conclusions. Some report!
Ian, you are delusional. Where do you get the idea that I "failed out of college"?
You told us you failed out of college. You lack the cognitive ability to mop floors, hence you living on disability with your parents.
I didn't explain how sometimes there was structural resistance and sometimes there wasn't. I pointed out the fact that sometimes there was structural resistance and sometimes there wasn't. Do you doubt that this is a fact? If so, please explain why you doubt it.
So you've finally conceded that one of your idiotic "essential mysteries" was just your own ignorance? Of course there was resistance. It wasn't a controlled demolition.
I never proposed that the towers were destroyed by magic anything. You employ deprecatory adjectives because they give the illusion that you have an argument. There is nothing magic about thermite.
Right, there's nothing magic about thermite, which is why it's ridiculous to suggest it was used to destroy the towers. You might as well suggest the towers were brought down by mayonnaise.
Obviously no one can expect a beanie-cap like you to understand that sometimes the Wall Street market goes up and sometimes it goes down, and an analyst might point out that technical indicators look bad on a particular stock while fundamentals appear to be improving. But you would sneer at the contradictions, and reveal yourself for a fool.
Aaaaand there it is, the idiotic analogy of a mentally ill unemployed janitor that doesn't make a lick of sense to the sane.
Remember, Brian, I'm a successful businessman. I know how securities markets work.
Ian, I never said Dr. Sunder's claims were irrefutable. I present them because they are official evidence, and they are consistent with the information about collapse times in the official reports.
Go ahead and refute them--if you can.
I'm not the one who calls him a liar, Brian. That would be you. You also lie about what he said happened in the collapse, because you're a failed janitor who needs 9/11 truth to validate his worthless, failed existence.
Sayin' it don't make it so. Empty claims are self-discrediting, but fools don't know that.
SQUEAL SQUEAL SQUEAL!!!
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because nobody is taking his idiotic theories of buildings that sometimes collapse in free-fall, and sometimes don't, seriously. He'd understand why if he was intelligent enough, but sadly, he's so stupid and insane that he can't mop floors competently!
Nobody says that a CD "simultaneously does and does not rob a building of all structural integrity."
Actually, you said that. But don't worry, nobody listens to anything you have to say.
Maybe if you would take the time to watch the video "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" (it's free on Youtube) you would gain some understanding as the licensed structural engineers explain the issues to you.
What makes you think we haven't watched it? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?
The NIST reports refute themselves. The report on the towers failed to fulfill its number one objective--to explain "why and how" the towers came down. NIST even claims they did not analyze the collapses.
Some report!
The WTC7 report removed its claim that its analysis was consistent with physical principles. There is thus no reason to believe its conclusions. Some report!
We'd better listen to him. He's the dean of engineering school at Cornell.
Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Brian, please let us know when serious engineers and scientists dispute the NIST report, because nobody cares what a liar and lunatic who was banned from Wikipedia thinks.
The lying liar lies, "...GutBleat, I don't need to show that your calcs are in error. I'll assume that even you can do the 8th-grade algebra involved. Your calcs are irrelevant, an empty attempt to impress fools who are impressed by 8th-grade algebra."
My "calcs" are "irrelevant," but you can't tell us why they're "irrelevant."
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
In fact, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, so you spew empty, blowhard bullshit.
FAIL
The lying liar lies, "...I can't answer a question that's based on logical fallacies. Such a question reveals your lack of intelligence, your dishonesty, or both."
Oh, my question is a "logical fallacy," but you can't tell us which "logical fallacy"?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Thus, we can see that your "rebuttal" is more empty, blowhard bullshit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So idiot, I'll ask you for the third time: Have you always believed that ~18 seconds is equal is 6.789 seconds? Or are you lying again about the events of 11 September 2001? Take your pick, cretin.
The only person you manage to fool is yourself, liar.
Answer the question, liar.
Lyin Ian, if you took all the lies out of your posts there would be nothing left.
GutBleat, I can tell you why your calcs are irrelevant.
I can't answer your question because it's a false dichotomy and it's a straw man.
The lying liar lies, "...GutBleat, I can tell you why your calcs are irrelevant."
No, you can't.
The lying liar lies, "...I can't answer your question because it's a false dichotomy and it's a straw man."
Another 100% fact-free assertion, ass?
So idiot, I'll ask you for the fourth time: Have you always believed that ~18 seconds is equal is 6.789 seconds? Or are you lying again about the events of 11 September 2001? Take your pick, cretin.
In the video you can't see any acceleration at all in Stage 1.
Not my fault you are blind as you are stupid Brian. Tell me, do you know anything about being an architect? Did you ever work for a firm that draws up blueprints for buildings? Do you know where each piece of steel, nut, bolt or even rivet is?
Stage 1 is on the video Brian. And yes Stage 1 accelerated faster than Stage 2. Don't sit there giving me BS data that you pass off as being irrelevant.
Where do you get the idea that freefall did not exist? NIST admitted that it existed for 2.25 seconds in Stage 2.
I'm an architect dumbass, remember or did that slip your mind when you ignored it?
So what, Stage 1 was faster than Stage 2 and you can't say it wasn't cause it was. Simple math my idiotic friend.
Now I have a theory for you Brian. believe me or not I don't care either way:
Richard Gage is an architect. He worked for AIA. He knew how buildings were built because he drew up the blueprints. He was also big on fire protection.
Now the theory is that Richard Gage placed explosives on key columns in all 3 WTC Towers because he had the blueprints. He knew when they were removing the fire proofing from the floor pans and inner core columns. He also knew when they were shutting down the elevators so he can secretly ship explosives on each floor. He then contacted Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush on a secure phone line. He made a suggestion to both of them that Bush would get his war and Bin Laden would be the scapegoat. Gage then wired money to Bin Laden because he had 19 people waiting for the money to fly into the US. Then Gage wired some money to Bush saying that 19 people from Afghanistan were in the country and that they were "terrorist" and Gage ordered Bush to wire up military drones with fake transponders of the original flights. And Bush asked about the Pentagon and said: "I'll wire you some more money and you provide us with a cruise missile."
I too can make a theory based on absolute bullshit like you're doing now Brian. And I would convince a lot of people into believing it without any evidence to back it up.
David, you keep claiming that Stage 1 accelerates faster than stage 2, but that's not what the chart in the report shows, and that's not what the video shows. Where are you getting your information?
What does your alleged status as an architect have to do with the fact that NIST's report admits that freefall existed for 2.25 seconds in Stage 2?
I can say that Stage 1 was not faster than Stage 2 because that's what the data show.
Richard Gage never worked for AIA, and if you were any kind of architect you wouldn't make such a silly claim.
You can't convince anyone of your silly theory, because you have no evidence to back it up.
I'm not making up any theories at all, and I'd like to know where you got the idea that I am.
Isn't it past your bedtime, Junior?
Lyin Ian, if you took all the lies out of your posts there would be nothing left.
GutBleat, I can tell you why your calcs are irrelevant.
I can't answer your question because it's a false dichotomy and it's a straw man.
Yup, this is the kind of humiliated squealing one expects from a failed janitor who knows 9/11 truth is dead.
David, you keep claiming that Stage 1 accelerates faster than stage 2, but that's not what the chart in the report shows, and that's not what the video shows. Where are you getting your information?
What does your alleged status as an architect have to do with the fact that NIST's report admits that freefall existed for 2.25 seconds in Stage 2?
I can say that Stage 1 was not faster than Stage 2 because that's what the data show.
Poor Brian, he's hysterical because everyone knows he's a liar and a lunatic who failed out of San Jose State, and nobody takes anything he says seriously.
I'm not making up any theories at all, and I'd like to know where you got the idea that I am.
Well, given that you're an unemployed janitor who is suffering from serious mental illness that leads to many delusions, it's not surprising to us that a) you don't understand what happened on 9/11, and b) you'd attribute 9/11 to wild paranoid delusions.
Also, you are well known for being a pathological liar. You lied about being petgoat. You lied about stalking Carol Brouillet. You lied about running away from a debate with Willie Rodriguez, you lied about failing out of San Jose State, and you lied about being banned from Wikipedia.
Basically, all you post here is lies and paranoid delusions that magic thermite elves blew up the WTC.
I also imagine you tell yourself lies too. How else could you keep going out in public with that hideous homeless mullet of yours and think people won't notice how awful you look?
You can't convince anyone of your silly theory, because you have no evidence to back it up.
Well now ain't that just something that a CTer would say about his own theories, huh Brian?
How about I tell everyone to use my theory and run with it. I'm sure some of them would like to go to the JREF forum and copy and paste it there and see what everyone says about it.
I bet I'd get more debunkers believing my theory than your theories combined.
I'm not making up any theories at all, and I'd like to know where you got the idea that I am.
Well know who comes here on a daily basis and logs in under "SnugBug" all the time Brian? Unless you want to make a claim that a hacker hacked into your computer and stole your username and password.
I've got 30 yrs. experience being an architect, what have you got Brian?
Post a Comment
<< Home