Tuesday, July 16, 2013

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.

137 Comments:

At 16 July, 2013 13:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

The conventionalist THINKS he's right. How can he KNOW he's right when he doesn't know the facts?

 
At 16 July, 2013 14:18, Blogger snug.butt.plug said...

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!!!!

 
At 16 July, 2013 14:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 14:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 14:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 14:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 15:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 15:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 15:40, Blogger snug.butt.plug said...

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!!!!

 
At 16 July, 2013 15:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.


 
At 16 July, 2013 15:54, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 15:57, Blogger Ian said...

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....

 
At 16 July, 2013 16:03, Blogger snug.butt.plug said...

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!!!!

 
At 16 July, 2013 17:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no point in discussing facts with compulsive liars.

 
At 16 July, 2013 19:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Doing so only aids their agenda of sowing confusion.

 
At 16 July, 2013 20:14, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 20:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.



 
At 16 July, 2013 20:19, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 20:21, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 16 July, 2013 23:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 04:25, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 04:26, Blogger Ian said...

Still waiting for you to present some of the "facts" about 9/11 that we apparently don't know.....

 
At 17 July, 2013 08:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 12:10, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 14:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 17 July, 2013 15:50, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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).

 
At 17 July, 2013 17:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 17 July, 2013 17:37, Blogger snug.butt.plug said...

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!!!!

 
At 17 July, 2013 17:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 20:11, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 20:14, Blogger Ian said...

"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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 23:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 17 July, 2013 23:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I don't think you know what "coherent" means.

 
At 18 July, 2013 04:51, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 04:55, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

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!!!!!

 
At 18 July, 2013 07:37, Blogger Jon Gold said...

"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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 10:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

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/

 
At 18 July, 2013 11:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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!

 
At 18 July, 2013 11:45, Blogger Jon Gold said...

"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

 
At 18 July, 2013 11:48, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 11:55, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 11:56, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 12:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 July, 2013 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 12:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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!

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

NOTE:

Jim Fetzer Condemns All Structural Engineers to Hell!

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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!

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

...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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 15:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

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?






 
At 18 July, 2013 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

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

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:30, Blogger Ian said...

Here are the questions:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


The widows have no questions.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ian posts more Liananity. He seems to think he's funny.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:35, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:37, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 16:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 17:01, Blogger Ian said...

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?

 
At 18 July, 2013 17:53, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 17:57, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 17:58, Blogger Jon Gold said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 18:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, it's what they're best at, and about all they're good for--demonstrating their assholery.

 
At 18 July, 2013 18:09, Blogger Ian said...

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?

 
At 18 July, 2013 18:11, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 18:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 19:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 20:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 20:57, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 18 July, 2013 22:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's funny.

 
At 19 July, 2013 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 19 July, 2013 09:58, Blogger David Banner said...

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.

 
At 19 July, 2013 10:54, Blogger David Banner said...

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?

 
At 19 July, 2013 13:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 19 July, 2013 14:41, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

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.

 
At 19 July, 2013 16:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 July, 2013 16:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 19 July, 2013 23:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.



 
At 20 July, 2013 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, please explain how you think structural integrity rules out controlled demolition.

 
At 20 July, 2013 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutBleat, go out and play. Grownups are talking.

 
At 20 July, 2013 10:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 12:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 13:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 14:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 15:44, Blogger David Banner said...

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.

 
At 20 July, 2013 18:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 08:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.


 
At 21 July, 2013 08:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.





 
At 21 July, 2013 10:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 10:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.




 
At 21 July, 2013 11:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 21 July, 2013 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

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".

 
At 21 July, 2013 17:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 18:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 21 July, 2013 20:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 July, 2013 20:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 21:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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?

 
At 21 July, 2013 22:21, Blogger David Banner said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 22:26, Blogger David Banner said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2013 22:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 July, 2013 23:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 04:36, Blogger Ian said...

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."

 
At 22 July, 2013 05:02, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 05:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 05:47, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 08:18, Blogger David Banner said...

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"

 
At 22 July, 2013 09:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 09:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

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

 
At 22 July, 2013 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 12:31, Blogger Alec B said...

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...

 
At 22 July, 2013 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sayin' it don't make it so. Empty claims are self-discrediting, but fools don't know that.

 
At 22 July, 2013 14:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 14:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

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!

 
At 22 July, 2013 15:29, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 15:32, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 15:34, Blogger Ian said...

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!

 
At 22 July, 2013 15:39, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 18:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 22:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

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.




 
At 22 July, 2013 22:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 23:01, Blogger David Banner said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2013 23:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

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?


 
At 23 July, 2013 04:54, Blogger Ian said...

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.

 
At 23 July, 2013 05:00, Blogger Ian said...

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?

 
At 23 July, 2013 09:01, Blogger David Banner said...

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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home