Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Dylan is Back

Loose Change's Dylan Avery is back giving an interview on 9/11 conspiracy films together with Jonathan Elinoff of Core of Corruption to Jesse Ventura's son Tyrel and some guy I have never heard of. I thought Dylan had moved out west to go legit like Michael Corleone, but I guess they always pull you back in.

Nothing too exciting about the interview, but I do find it amusing how someone always has a friend in the FBI or the Mossad who secretly told them the truth about 9/11, but apparently doesn't have any actual evidence or has never told anyone who mattered. Yeah, OK, I have a friend in the FBI and he thinks you are a moron.




43 Comments:

At 15 August, 2013 13:02, Blogger Pat said...

The other guy is Oliver Stone's son. Proof positive that stupidity is inherited.

 
At 17 August, 2013 07:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The narrative doesn't quite add up..." -- Sean Stone, proving that, where delusional liars are concerned, perception is reality.

Of course "the narrative doesn't quite add up." After all, you have math illiterates and compulsive liars like Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug") doing the "calculations."

 
At 17 August, 2013 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I haven't lied about anything.

 
At 17 August, 2013 14:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You lie about everything.

Now, adios, puto!

 
At 18 August, 2013 09:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's the standard answer from people who can't back up their claims. You must have me confused with someone else. Like yourself.

 
At 18 August, 2013 09:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The link backs up my answer -- you lying homosexual.

Now take your dumbspam and shove it so far up your filthy, unwashed ass that you'll need a world-class team of proctologists to find it. Oh, that's right! As a homosexual bottom, you'd enjoy having the dumbspam shoved up your ass.

 
At 18 August, 2013 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

How does that link back up your answer? Do you really expect us to believe that Googlegroups provide the IP addresses of their members?

You have claimed expertise in so many different areas (and been so laughably wrong in almost all of them) that there's no reason to believe anything you say.

 
At 18 August, 2013 10:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...How does that link back up your answer? Do you really expect us to believe that Googlegroups provide the IP addresses of their members?"

Another 100% fact-free non-denial denial. Pathetic.

FACT: The email headers are included in your post to Googlegroups, liar.

Proof? Right here, liar:

Received: by 10.114.193.1 with SMTP id q1mr1246561waf.1195226556505;
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path:
Received: from bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.171])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v36si2309438wah.2007.11.16.07.22.36;
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of snug...@hotmail.com designates 65.54.246.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.54.246.171;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of snug...@hotmail.com designates 65.54.246.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=snug...@hotmail.com
Received: from BAY115-W2 ([65.54.250.102]) by bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:22:35 -0800
Message-ID:
Return-Path: snug...@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_53a8fff2-1578-40e5-8e13-8aa4679a9bb8_"
X-Originating-IP: [63.199.155.82]
From: Brian Good
To:
Subject: William Rodriguez Defenders Needed
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:22:35 -0800
Importance: Normal
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2007 15:22:35.0898 (UTC) FILETIME=[8425F5A0:01C82864]


Your IP address is highlighted in BOLD FONT. That's the same IP address -- 63.199.155.82 -- that you used to vandalize the Chinese gymnasts Wikipedia entry.

You lie first, last and always.

Now if you want to claim the Googlegropup webpage is a forgery, the PROOF RESTS ENTIRELY ON YOUR SHOULDERS. And your empty, 100% fact-free denials PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Talking to you is like stepping in dog shit.

Now post more 100% fact-free dumbspam, liar. After all, lies can't be substantiated.

 
At 18 August, 2013 10:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2013 10:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction:

"the BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ENTIRELY ON YOUR SHOULDERS."

 
At 18 August, 2013 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

And you expect us to believe that IP addresses are included in email headers?

I never vandalized any wiki pages about Chinese gymnasts. You're lying if you claim I did. If you're half the IT you claim to be, you know all kinds of reasons that the truth can be the truth. By pretending those reasons don't exist, you are proving your dishonesty.

There's no reason to believe anything you say.

 
At 18 August, 2013 11:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and to remove some ambiguity. Lest somebody think I'm quibbling about the meaning of "vandalize", let me say more objectively "I never edited any web pages about Chinese gymnasts".

 
At 18 August, 2013 12:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...And you expect us to believe that IP addresses are included in email headers? "

[1] Yes, IP Addresses are ALWAYS DEFINITELY included in email header -- you droolin' idiot.

[2] SMTP RFC 5321

[3] RFC 4291 - IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture.

[4] "...There are basically two steps involved in the process of tracking an email: find the IP address in the email header section and then look up the location of the IP address...For example, if someone in Germany sends you an email using Gmail, the last IP address in the header section will probably be the public IP address assigned to that user from the ISP, which will give you the location of the user ranging from within a mile all the way to the city or region level." -- [1] How to Track the Original Location of an Email via its IP Address

See? You're not only a liar, you're an incompetent idiot who knows nothing about everything -- including electronic mail protocol.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

Now post more dumbspam, jackass.

 
At 18 August, 2013 12:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And here's another RFC that proves IP addresses are always included in email headers:

RFC 3864 -- Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields.

See? You're a liar and an idiot. What a charming combination.

Jackass.

 
At 18 August, 2013 14:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, I didn't lie about anything.

Most of your links go to an obscure website called rfc-base.org.

Do you have any quote from a credible and well known source that email address headers contain the IP address? I would expect the civil libertairians to be all up in arms about this if it were true.

Just a quick look found me a whole lot of information about forged email headers.

 
At 18 August, 2013 14:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Most of your links go to an obscure website called rfc-base.org..."

RFC-base.org is NOT obscure -- you lying asshole It's THE source for RFCs from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the LEADERS in Internet technology and innovation. You'll find the same RFCs at the Internet Engineering Task Force's website.

You have NO idea what you're talking about.

And who are YOU to question my sources? I'm the Internet expert, not you, jackass. You are a failed janitor and college dropout who can't hold down a job mopping floors, let alone understand Internet Protocol (IP).

Now, either provide evidence -- ie., links and direct quotations -- to substantiate your bogus lies or STFU, liar.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

 
At 18 August, 2013 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never heard of the IETF, and the fact that they are world-famous all pver Planet GutterBall does not impress me.

Now the EFF is a credible, qualified source. Does the EFF say that email headers contain IP addresses?

Show me someone in the real world who says that email headers contain IP{ addresses.

 
At 18 August, 2013 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's not incumbent on me to prove or disprove your idiotic assertions, jackass. That's YOUR responsibility -- and so far you've utterly failed to make your case.

In fact, the EFF are not technology experts -- you droolin' jackass. The EFF is composed of lawyers, policy analysts, advocates and activists.

The IETF, on the other hand, takes ownership of a protocol or function like SMTP, and the IETF accepts the responsibility for all aspects of the protocol. The IETF are THE TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS WHO SET THE TECHNOLOGY AGENDA FOR THE INTERNET, not the EFF.

You don't consult lawyers when you want to know how the Internet works, you consult the RFCs provided by the engineers at IETF.

And I quote:

"...The IETF's official products are documents, published free of charge as RFCs. "RFC" stands for Request for Comments, and this name (used since 1969, before the IETF existed) expresses something important: the Internet is a constantly changing technical system, and any document that we write today may need to be updated tomorrow. One way to look at the IETF is as the group of people who work together to improve the technology of the Internet on a daily basis. As well as producing RFCs, the IETF is a forum where network operators, hardware and software implementers, and researchers talk to each other to ensure that future protocols, standards and products will be even better. This is not the only technical forum for the Internet, of course. But it is the forum where the basic technical standards for Internet protocols are set and maintained." -- IETF

See? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Once again, you FAIL, jackass.

 
At 18 August, 2013 16:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Th lying retard whines, "...I never heard of the IETF"

Of course you've never heard of them, idiot. You're not an engineer, I'm an engineer. You, on the other hand, are a college dropout who couldn't hold down a job mopping floors, so it's not surprising at all that you're totally ignorant of Internet technology and information sources like IETF.

Who cares what a technology illiterate of your ilk "knows"? You don't know anything. You're an Internet blowhard who couldn't hold down a job mopping floors.

Now get out here, puto

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


I don't have idiotic assertions. You do.

You claim I vandalized web pages I didn't vandalize. You make the extraordinary claim that email headers contain the IP address, and you can't corroborate it from any credible mainstream source.

You're not an engineer. You don't even understand the relevance of Newton's 3rd Law and the first law of thermodynamics to building collapses. You fell off your Peter Principle plateau years ago.

Here are the qualificationso the EFF staff. https://www.eff.org/about/staff

 
At 18 August, 2013 20:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2013 20:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2013 21:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You claim I vandalized web pages I didn't vandalize."

I didn't claim anything, I proved it.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

The lying liar lies, "...You're not an engineer. You don't even understand the relevance of Newton's 3rd Law and the first law of thermodynamics to building collapses. You fell off your Peter Principle plateau years ago."

Talking out of your ass, again? Prove it. And I want links and direct quotes.

Go for it, blowhard.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to do the calculations I asked for over two months ago, liar.

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

And when you're finished, tell us more about Newton's Third law of Motion, liar.

You won't do the calculations for two reasons: [1] you can't do them because you're a math illiterate; and [2] to do so will prove that you're idiotic interpretation of the collapse is a pile of crap.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The lying liar lies, "...Here are the qualificationso the EFF staff. https://www.eff.org/about/staff"

What does that prove? Where does the EFF claim that IP addresses are not included in email headers? So when do you plan to substantiate your assertions, ass?

You're so full-of-shit your eyes are brown.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

 
At 18 August, 2013 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Blah blah blah. You and your phony hooly hoops. Why should I jump through the hooly hupes held by the guy in the zebra-stripe spandex? I never said I was an engineer.

I don't need to be an engineer to understand the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, and understand their applicability to the towers.

 
At 18 August, 2013 21:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You don't understand anything about Newton's laws of Motion, and you demonstrate your incompetence every time that you STONEWALL and lie.

You're the one who claims to have a "scientific reputation" (your words), so where are the calculations, liar?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're pathetic.

 
At 18 August, 2013 22:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 August, 2013 22:34, Blogger snug.bug said...



Why do I need calculations? NIST didn't do any calculations on the towers' collapses. Why should I?

NIST claims they didn't analyze the collapses.

All you've got is bad breath and attitude, ButtGale.

 
At 18 August, 2013 22:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...NIST claims they didn't analyze the collapses."

We've already been over this a million times -- you goddamned jackass.

Leslie Robertson, and every other competent structural engineer, will tell you that it's is not possible to "analyse the collapse." You can only determine the collapse mechanism. Everything that happens after that is a foregone conclusion, liar.

LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1.

LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2.

LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.

The lying liar lies, "...Why do I need calculations? NIST didn't do any calculations on the towers' collapses. Why should I?"

You have no evidence to substantiate that assertion, liar. Of course NIST performed calculations. The collapse simulations are based on nothing but calculations used by experts in structural mechanics.

You're an idiot.

But that's neither here nor ther, liar, WHERE ARE YOUR CALCULATIONS -- you lying charlatan?

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

What's the matter, charlatan, are math and physics beyond your feeble grasp of reality? I thought you claimed to have a "scientific reputation"? I guess that was another lie. Right, Pinocchio?

You're almost as pathetic as you are worthless.

 
At 18 August, 2013 23:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST didn't provide any collapse calcs, so why should I?

NIST they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?

NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking.

If analyzing the collapse is impossible, how can you claim that NIST provided calcs for the collapse?

You just make stuff up.

 
At 18 August, 2013 23:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stop changing the subject, liar. And stop hiding behind your lies about NIST and their alleged lack of calculations. That's a bald-faced lie, and the simulations prove that you're lying. The sims consisted of millions of calculations -- you lying charlatan.

You wrote, "... I can't help it that I'm better looking, smarter, and better educated than you."

Prove it, liar. And you can start right here:

[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.

[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.

[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states

F = ma

derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.

[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.

[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.

[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?

And, once again, YOU FORFEIT THE DEBATE. Refusal to answer legitimate questions is STONEWALLING -- WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF DEBATE.

You lose, I win.

End of "debate."

Now, get out of here, puto. You're a fraud and a charlatan.

 
At 18 August, 2013 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST didn't provide any collapse calcs, so why should I?

NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?

NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking.

If analyzing the collapse is impossible, how can you claim that NIST provided calcs for the collapse?

You just make stuff up.


Look at yourself, stamping your little patent-leather pig-feet!

 
At 18 August, 2013 23:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?"

I"m not asking you to analyse the collapse -- you liar.

I want the weight of the each floor of the WTC towers; the static load boundaries for each floor; I asked you to derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass; I want you to tell me how fast the accreting mass was moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor; I asked you to calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors; and I asked you to compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]; and, finally I asked you to tell me which value is greater? And by how much?

You can't do the math because you're a fraud and a charlatan. You don't have a "scientific reputation." You're an idiot and a liar.

Once again, you FORFEIT THE DATE.

I win, you lose.

Adios, puto!

 
At 19 August, 2013 00:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lookit you stamping your little patent leather pig feet!

You're so funny when you try to pretend you're smart!

NIST didn't do calculations on the collapses of the towers, and claims they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?

NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking.

 
At 19 August, 2013 02:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You can't "calculate the collapses of the Towers" -- you jackass. You can only determine the collapse mechanism. And I challenge you to show me the alleged engineering discipline and the mythical "calculations" you assert NIST neglected to use.

So where's your evidence, liar? Or are you blowing smoke up our collective ass? (Don't bother to answer, we already know you're blowin' smoke up our ass.)

And what would you, or any other idiot "truther," do with the simulation data? Shove it up your backside? Plug it into your wimpy, decrepit old Windows or Mac desktop machines for dummies and run "simulations"?

I can hear it now: "Uh yeah Dr, Jones, given the 'massive' computing power of my chicken-shit i586 machine, I estimate this simulation will complete sometime in the summer of 2089. I hope I live that long, Steven."

Or are the losers and perpetual virgins who comprise the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement prepared to fork over a half-million dollars ($500,000.00) or so to purchase the computing hardware necessary to complete the simulation sometime in the early 21st century?

LOL!

You're a joke.

And NIST has nothing to do with it, liar. You never mentioned NIST until after I challenged you to prove your assertion as regards your alleged superior [cough] "intelligence." Your whining about NIST is nothing but a red herring to distract from your failure to substantiate your assertion.

You fool no one, Little Brian Good. You're a liar, fraud and a puerile little putz who behaves like a child.

Is it any wonder that you can't hold down a job mopping floors? It's a wonder that you don't eat out of a trough.

 
At 19 August, 2013 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say anything about calculating the collapses, silly.

The discipline is Progressive Collapse, and it happens to have been the subject of Dr. John Gross's PhD work. You've heard of Dr. Gross? Thus NIST's failure to provide an analysis of the collapse is very puzzling. It was right up Gross's alley, and they chose to pretend they did not analyze the collapses.

Computers get more powerful every year, and cheaper. Maybe you haven't noticed while you've been practicing your FORTRAN.

Where's Old Jigglecheeks, anyway? He ran away squealing and crying after I exposed his hero story as a scam.

 
At 20 August, 2013 12:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You've heard of Dr. Gross? Thus NIST's failure to provide an analysis of the collapse is very puzzling.

Why do you find it puzzling? You're doing that autistic thing again, where you fixate on tiny incongruences as though they carry meaning.

 
At 20 August, 2013 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're trying to dismiss a major issue by labeling it a "tiny incongruity".

1. NIST's stated objective was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed.

2. Dr. Gross is an expert in building collapse, having done his PhD studies at MIT in Progressive Collapse.

3. NIST claims it did not analyze the collapses.

4. The notion that NIST should ignore the expertise of one of its lead investigators and ignore one of its two main objectives is puzzling. How can you deny that?

5. NIST's claim that they did not analyze the collapses appears to be untrue. They ran computer models on the collapses, and apparently found the results disappointing, and they kept those models secret and left them out of their report. How they could run models without analysis, I don't know.

You argue as a vicarious solipsist, assuming everything is in my mind.

 
At 20 August, 2013 13:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You're trying to dismiss a major issue by labeling it a "tiny incongruity".

You've subtly shifted from "NIST refused to analyze the collapses" to "NIST analyzed the collapses but claims they didn't". I presume there's some reason for that.

In any case, you exhibit an abnormal fixation on incongruities. It's totally not your fault. Autism was an obscure disorder when you were a child and you grew up unaware you even had a problem.

 
At 20 August, 2013 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say "NIST refused to analyze the collapses".

I said "NIST claims they didn't analyze the collapses."

I said "They chose to pretend they did not analyze the collapses."

So here's you, so hung up on incongruities that you get hung up on incongruities that don't exist.

There's no incongruity in the fact that NIST only gave us half a report, punted on one of their two objectives, and probably lied about it. None at all. That's what I expect from a government investigation of a controversial subject.



 
At 20 August, 2013 17:49, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 August, 2013 17:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I didn't say "NIST refused to analyze the collapses".

Oh, bollocks. You said it here, here, and here.

Go ahead, nitpick about word choice now. I know you're itching to.

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

I said they refused to address the collapse. That's true. They didn't address the collapse. They left it out of their report.

I didn't say they refused to analyze the collapse.

said "NIST claims they didn't analyze the collapses."

I said "They chose to pretend they did not analyze the collapses."

Dr. John Gross, one of NIST's lead researchers, had done his PhD work on Progressive Collapse and surely knew all the world experts on the subject. It stretches credulity to think that these experts resisted the temptation to try to apply their specific skills to the stated objective of the report. Not only is the claim that they did not analyze the collapses unbelievable, it is contradicted by the fact that they ran collapse models that they apparently found disappointing. These models "failed to converge", and so they were discarded and have been kept secret. I will assume that by failing to converge, they failed to exhibit the total, symmetrical, and near-freefall behavior of the towers. Instead, I'll suppose, these models behaved as any reasonable person would expect a tower with asymmetrical and localized behavior to behave-to show local and asymmetric collapses. NIST has got a lot of explaining to do.

 
At 20 August, 2013 18:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I will assume that by failing to converge, they failed to exhibit the total, symmetrical, and near-freefall behavior of the towers.

A person prone to over-literal interpretation might think that. It really means the various test outcomes were different enough that they were not useful in explaining the event.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home