Thursday, May 22, 2014

AE911Truth Upset at CNN for Covering Them Accurately

Richard Gage's gaggle proudly announces their effort to crash the opening of the 9/11 Museum in New York City by handing out mock museum pamphlets, and then gets upset because CNN reports on it.  Some people are impossible to please.


In an example of Orwellian newspeak, the CNN show The Lead with Jake Tapper took on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth over its decision to distribute information pamphlets outside the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero in New York City. The pamphlets mimic the design of the "official" ones, but instead of the official story, they contain key scientific forensic evidence indicating that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives and incendiaries. Unlike the official version, the photo on the cover of the AE pamphlet shows the Twin Towers and Building 7.


36 Comments:

At 23 May, 2014 08:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

AE911truth is legitimately upset about CNN's claim at 0:22 that they are spreading lies. Did CNN actually identify any lies in the pamphlet?

 
At 23 May, 2014 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Can anyone here identify any lies in the "fake" pamphlet?

Is CNN's claim of lies when there are no lies "Covering them Accurately"?

 
At 23 May, 2014 11:36, Blogger Ian said...

Everything in the pamphlet is a lie.

 
At 23 May, 2014 12:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

How about you give some evidence that you read the pamphlet? Name a specific statement that you think is a lie.

 
At 23 May, 2014 14:37, Blogger Ian said...

The statement "Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth" is a lie since there are none of either in the group. There's just one carnival barker.

 
At 23 May, 2014 15:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's just typical lying Iananity from Lyin Ian. Thanks for showing that you haven't read the pamphlet.

 
At 23 May, 2014 17:12, Blogger Ian said...

I have read the pamphlet. You're just humiliated that I pwn3d you once again.

 
At 24 May, 2014 07:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

You haven't shown that you've read the pamphlet. You lie and lie and lie--and none of your so-called debunker buddies ever call you on it.

 
At 24 May, 2014 10:03, Blogger James B. said...

The pamphlet argues that the government found traces of incendiaries in the rubble, that is a lie. Of course as per their usual their claims jump back and forth randomly between explosives and incendiaries without noting the contradiction

 
At 24 May, 2014 11:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

To be precise, the pamphlet claims that "residue of incendiaries was documented by the USGS."

That's the pamphleteer's opinion that's stated as if it were a fact, and I have no evidence that it's the USGS's opinion, but it is a supportable opinion.

Probably they're talking about the iron microspheres reported here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Probably they're also referencing levels of barium in the dust as reported here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

The CD crowd regards the levels of barium to be mysteriously high, not to be expected in office buildings, and points out that barium is commonly used as an additive to high-grade thermite.

As to the microspheres, I had quite lengthy and repetitive discussions with Guitar Bill about them. He claimed they came from fly ash in the lightweight concrete, but he was never able to provide any evidence that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete formulas (it was used in the "bathtub" tieback grout). My guess was that if fly ash had been used, that the supplier would have gone to the trouble to remove the iron from the fly ash with a magnet, because it could have been quite valuable as scrap and would have contributed unnecessary weight to the lightweight concrete.

RJ Lee said the microspheres had been formed on 9/11, but they could be wrong.

Some claim the microspheres are from construction welding operations or from cleanup operations.

The CD crowd of course claims that they're the product of thermitic reactions. I believe a thermite demonstration at Burning Man produced microspheres.

And of course the other hypotheses could be tested in various ways. A chunk of lightweight concrete could be examined for embedded microspheres. The construction records could be searched for the concrete specs. The dust of demolished buildings could be examined to see if microspheres and barium (and, for that matter, red/gray chips) occur in other buildings.

It seems that nobody but the CD crowd has any interest in testing their opinions--least of all the government investigators, who did a heroic job (considering the lack of evidence) of trying to justify the opinions that were handed to them on day one.


 
At 24 May, 2014 16:33, OpenID mgferris said...

"The CD crowd regards the levels of barium to be mysteriously high, not to be expected in office buildings, and points out that barium is commonly used as an additive to high-grade thermite."

This is because they're idiots.

Barium is used in glass making, ceramics, superconductors, filler for plastics and resins. All things found in abundance at the WTC complex.

The one thing they didn't find was evidence of thermite being used.

"To be precise, the pamphlet claims that "residue of incendiaries was documented by the USGS.""

But the USGS made no such claim. Troofers just took their data and made an assumption.

Therefore, a lie.

 
At 24 May, 2014 16:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, since you have tendency to just make stuff up, your claims about barium have a face value of less than zero. What is your source for your claims in that regard?

Evidence of the use of thermite appeared in photos taken by Dr. Astaneh-Asl, and in the samples studied in the FEMA Appendix C report.

I made clear that the USGS made no claim that incendiary residues had been found. I made clear that the statement was the opinion of the pamphleteer. I showed that the opinion was supportable. Expressing a supportable opinion is not a lie.

 
At 25 May, 2014 17:01, OpenID mgferris said...

"mgf, since you have tendency to just make stuff up, your claims about barium have a face value of less than zero. What is your source for your claims in that regard?"

Science.

"Evidence of the use of thermite appeared in photos taken by Dr. Astaneh-Asl,"

Nope. I've seen the pictures, they in no way resemble thermite damage, just corrosion from exposure to water, chemicals, and galvanic interaction with copper pipes and wires. Anyone who's worked with metals for a week would know this.

" and in the samples studied in the FEMA Appendix C report."

Thermite is not listed in Appendix C.

You fail.

 
At 25 May, 2014 20:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, "Science" is your source? Thanks for making that clear.

What pictures from Dr. Asataneh are you referring to? I'm referring to one published 10/3/01 that shows a steel I_beam worn down to paper-thin thickness? How did "water, chemicals, and galvanic interaction with copper pipes" do that, and how come NIST doesn't say so? What is your source for that claim? "Science"? What about the other photo, which shows a square biscuit cut out of a girder flange?

What about the FEMA Appendix C photos? How did "water, chemicals, and galvanic interaction with copper pipes" cause intergranular melting? And if it's so easy to explain, why did the WPI scientists not do so? Why did they call for further investigations that were never done?

The FEMA Appendix C report cites a high-temperature sulfidation attack that has not been otherwise explained. Sulfur-enhanced thermite can do exactly that, and Jonathan Cole's thermite attacks on experimental steel beams reproduced the thinness and holes showed in the APpendix C samples

.

 
At 26 May, 2014 17:14, OpenID mgferris said...

"What pictures from Dr. Asataneh are you referring to?"

Same ones you are, Slug.

"I'm referring to one published 10/3/01 that shows a steel I_beam worn down to paper-thin thickness? How did "water, chemicals, and galvanic interaction with copper pipes" do that"

Gosh, you're the science expert...oh wait, that's right, you're not.

," and how come NIST doesn't say so? What is your source for that claim? "Science"?"

Why does NIST have to explain damage that happened AFTER the collapse? You are such a moron.

" What about the other photo, which shows a square biscuit cut out of a girder flange?"

What about it?

"What about the FEMA Appendix C photos?"

Nobody cares. More importantly, none of the thousands of qualified experts who've seen the photos care.

Just sad loons.

"The FEMA Appendix C report cites a high-temperature sulfidation attack that has not been otherwise explained."

They don't have to explain it. Jet fuel, diesel fuel (for emergency generators), and flame retardant all have sulfur in them,and were all present in large quantities on 9-11.

If it was important they would have put it in the main body of the report under the heading "Holy Shit, Some Dumbass Tried to Use Thermite".

"Sulfur-enhanced thermite can do exactly that, and Jonathan Cole's thermite attacks on experimental steel beams reproduced the thinness and holes showed in the APpendix C samples"

Neat, but the problem is that Cole's experiments have not been duplicated by independent sources.
Those who have tried have not had the same results. I wonder why?




 
At 26 May, 2014 17:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

So are we supposed to have "Appendix mgf" to the FEMA report and the NIST reports that tells us how galvanic corrision caused a high-temperature sulfidation attack at 1800 F and cause steel to vaporize when neither FEMA nor NIST could explain it?

OK, have at it, genius. But don't forget that Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders".
He did not say he saw corrosion of girders.

NIST has to explain all the observables of the event if it is to plausibly explain "why and how" the towers collapsed.

If flying monkeys exited the WTC basement just after the attack, NIST has to address the flying monkeys. They can't just claim they don't matter.

The square cut in Dr. Astaneh's girder flange can not be giggled away as corrosion.

No scientist can honestly not care about the mystery of the evaporated steel. Please identify ONE in the world who says it's not an issue.

If jet fuel can explain the sulfidation attack in the steel, why then did neither FEMA nor NIST invoke jet fuel as the source of sulfur? Once again, if you want to have Appendix mgf to the official report, you're going to have to do better than giggle the issue away.

Who has tried to replicate Jonathan Cole's findings and failed? I don't believe you.


















 
At 26 May, 2014 23:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

And whatever happened to your claims about barium? Why won't you back them up?

 
At 26 May, 2014 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

And then of course how come those fabulous George-Cloony-morphed pix of Willie haven't been picked up by 911blogger, wearechange, ae911truth, 911truth, communitycurrency--or even at Veterans Today or truthjihad?

How come they're only featured at SLC? What's that about?

Looks like Willie is kind of out of friends.

 
At 28 May, 2014 08:03, Blogger Damian Murray said...

allowing the american government and its puppeteers to rule the world. 2.3 trillion dollars just missing oh our computers don't talk to each other oh derr why are we in debt, they are taking your money/power!!!!!!!!!!!!
america will not move forward until people like you look at facts instead of having a preconceived notion about everything. the people at loose change ask questions and are rightfully concerned about america

 
At 28 May, 2014 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 May, 2014 11:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Speaking of friends of Wizzie, I'm supposed to find out when GuitarBill last posted here. I believe it was Feb. 28. I'm also supposed to find out when he started putting links to libelous web pages as a tag line to every one of his posts. And I'm supposed to note the occasions on which I objected to his libels, demanded that he stop, and asked for the name of his legal counsel.

Any assistance in this regard would be much appreciated. TIA

 
At 28 May, 2014 14:05, OpenID mgferris said...

"And whatever happened to your claims about barium? Why won't you back them up?"

Not a claim. The uses of Barium are listed on every chemical website.

Which is why you've failed.

 
At 28 May, 2014 15:38, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

1800 F is nowhere near the temp of a thermite reaction. Thanks for proving it wasn't thermite, Brian.

 
At 28 May, 2014 15:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

mgf, since you have tendency to just make stuff up, your claims about barium have a face value of less than zero. What is your source for your claims in that regard?

I always love watching Brian make this claim while filling the thread with his baseless claims.

 
At 28 May, 2014 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, does "every chemical website" claim that barium should be present at high levels in the rubble from collapsed office buildings? That seemed to be what you were claiming.

GMS, naturally the steel avsilable for study was that which survived the sulfidation attack. One would expect that the steel subjected to a full-scale thermitic attack would be missing--consistent with the holes in the FEMA Appendix C samples. You guys are so quick to yell "proof". Proof is very rare in the world of science. Hypotheses are proposed, they are tested, theories are developed that are consistent with the evidence. Disproof of the current fad theories is common. Proof is rare.

I have proved, of course, that Wizzie LiedRugAs's hero stories are impossible. But that was a trivial exercise. Every fireman, cop, security guard, locksmith, and architect in the world could see that if they just took a quick look.

If you think I have made baseless claims, please identify one and I will base it. I am reluctant to put much work into my posts because until recently they would always be very quickly buried under the libelspam of GuitarBill and Lyin Ian.









 
At 29 May, 2014 04:51, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, I know you spent Memorial Day weekend posting hysterical spam on this blog because MGF and James B. pwn3d you, so this might not be the right time, but I'd like to remind you that you STILL haven't gotten a new investigation, you STILL haven't gotten the widows questions answered, and you STILL haven't convinced anyone that Willie Rodriguez is a liar.

However, I notice that you're desperately looking for more photos of the "strutting, bragging, lying, hot sexy hunk of Latin manhood" because you're homosexually obsessed with the man.

All in all, a typical few days for the worthless liar and unemployed janitor who was banned from the truth movement and can't afford a decent haircut.

 
At 29 May, 2014 05:01, Blogger Ian said...

If you think I have made baseless claims, please identify one and I will base it. I am reluctant to put much work into my posts because until recently they would always be very quickly buried under the libelspam of GuitarBill and Lyin Ian.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I've humiliated him every time he's posted his dumbspam about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives on this blog.

I've also humiliated him by reminding him that he was banned from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

 
At 29 May, 2014 07:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's Rodeo Clown Ian again, trying to distract from the other posters' inability to answer my questions.

You STILL think that the fact that the widows' 300 questions only got 27 answers somehow supports the notion that they should not get answers. The logic of that proposition is unimpressive.

I have convinced anyone who will look at the evidence that your buddy William Rodriguez is a liar. Your refusal to look at the evidence is not my problem.

I looked for photos of Willie because that was a way of testing two hypotheses.

1. The SLC/Ian/GutterBall hypothesis that Willie is a recognized hero predicts that when Willie releases new fabulous photos of his contacts with authority figures, his admirers would publish them oreferentially over the dumpy photos that have been in the news lately.

2. My hypothesis that Willie's lies have made him a pariah and only Randian SLC and nobody in the mainstream news or in the truth movement will take the opportunity to publish the photos and say "Willie's Back!"

I found no evidence to support hypothesis 1. If anyone wants to cite evidence refuting hypothesis 2 they are free to do so.

I never said Willie was a "hot sexy hunk of Latin manhood." I said he was a sagging, bragging blob of latin manboob.

My request that GMS back up his claims is hardly "squealing". You have never humiliated me, and you're too dumb to know you do not have the power to do so.

I did not stalk Carol Brouillet. You lie about this repeatedly. Willie and Barrett claimed I stalked them--because I leafleted to protest Barrett's public appearances in Sacramento and because I commented on news articles about Willie.

If that's stalking, I've stalked George Bush, Condi Rice, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, John Rizzo. Mrs. Brouillet never claimed that I stalked her.





 
At 29 May, 2014 09:56, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody cares.

 
At 29 May, 2014 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Correct. Nobody cares about your inability to back up your specious claims. That's expected. Everybody knows you're a lying clown.

 
At 29 May, 2014 11:43, Blogger Ian said...

False. Nobody cares what you say. No matter how much squealspam you post, the widows will never have their questions answered, there will never be a new investigation of 9/11 , and you will never convince anyone that Rodriguez is a fraud. You fail.

 
At 29 May, 2014 14:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

So can you explain why Willie's fabulous pictures aren't all over the internet?

I can. It's 'cause everybody but
Willie's special Friends of Randi
knows he's a fraud.

 
At 29 May, 2014 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian's so successful he sprung for the 8" crystal ball--more than twice as big as the 6" crystal ball!

History tends to answer questions, Ian. And when it does, all the effort you put into trying to obstruct the truth will be for naught.

 
At 29 May, 2014 15:41, Blogger Ian said...

So can you explain why Willie's fabulous pictures aren't all over the internet?

I could if I took the time to think about it, but I won't because I'm not a pervert and homosexual stalker like you and thus don't care.

Ian's so successful he sprung for the 8" crystal ball--more than twice as big as the 6" crystal ball!

Yup. I'm successful, which is why I can afford a decent haircut and decent clothes, unlike you. Then again, your homeless lunatic look goes well with your status as an unemployed janitor.

History tends to answer questions, Ian. And when it does, all the effort you put into trying to obstruct the truth will be for naught.

History doesn't give a rat's ass about a mentally ill unemployed janitor and his obsession with magic spray-on thermite, invisible silent explosives, and invisible widows.

 
At 29 May, 2014 15:44, Blogger James B. said...

The $2.3 trillion isn't mssing. I'm keeping it in my sock drawer. I'm saving up to buy the Clippers.

 
At 29 May, 2014 18:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

So James, can you explain why Willie's fabulous pictures haven't been picked up anywhere else on the internet, not even on PressTV?

Here are the images used in his latest news coverage:

http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/278698/los-tesoros-de-un-latino-legados-al-nuevo-museo-del-911/

http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=47860&idArt=8780843

Could you possibly provide the images used in Willie's latest 9/11 Truth movement coverage?

I don't know of anything after November, 2007.

Could you possibly help me with regard to when GuitarBill started his libelous SEO linkspam campaign? I'm pretty busy right now and don't have time for the tediosity of such work, but I bet you have tools that can help you find these posts fast.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home