Sunday, February 17, 2013

Salon Yanks Goofy Truther Piece

Missed this when it came out, but apparently a writer managed to get a Troofer article published at Salon, but it was quickly "pulled" after a number of caustic tweets.  The article itself is posted here.  He starts off with a weaselly explanation:

My point here was not to endorse the 9/11 Truthers, but to explain them. If there were more transparency in government, if so many questions did not go unanswered, such conspiracy theories would wither and die. I wrote that I was concerned that the 9/11 Truthers would be “tarred with the same ‘crackpot’ brush” as the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists—the idea being that the latter were crazier than the former. I was right to be concerned, because I am writing this with tar-stained fingers, having been plastered with the stuff for the last 24 hours. And I am not even a Truther.
 As we shall see, that last line is a bunch of horse puckey.   He's a Truther, through and through.  Here's the crucial passage from the article:

What concerns me about the repudiation of the Hookers is that the 9/11 Truthers are being tarred with the same “crackpot” brush. Yes, many of the September Eleventh conspiracy theories are implausible, and too often veer, as conspiracy theories unfortunately tend to do, toward the anti-Semitic. But unlike with Sandy Hook, 9/11 conspiracy theories flow from a scientific fact: whatever the 9/11 Commission Report might claim, fire generated by burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel.
By Hookers, he's talking about the dolts who think that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy by the government to get our guns.  As you can see, he makes the two most common errors in Trutherdom with the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel" claim. First, the jet fuel burned off rather quickly, so while it was the initiating cause of the fire, it was long gone by the time the buildings collapsed.  Second, the fire does not have to melt the steel; it only has to weaken it, and the fires generated by jet fuel which then spread to office equipment was quite adequate to lessen the structural integrity of the building sufficiently to cause a global collapse.

When this latter point is mentioned in the comments, the writer, Greg Olear, responds:

We can all agree that the burning jet fuel in the towers was not hot enough to cause WTC 7 to collapse, though. ; )
So much for his claim that he's not a Truther.  And I do have to chuckle a bit at his horror at the notion that the Sandy Hook nuts are going to discredit the 9-11 fruitcakes.  In fact, as I pointed out last month, many people have called the former "Sandy Hook Truthers"--discrediting them by association with the 9-11 nutbars, not the other way around.

He goes into the usual cui bono bit as well; by this "logic" the French were clearly behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, as they benefited the most from it.  He's a JFK Truther which fits the pattern; if you're stupid enough to fall for one conspiracy theory you'll probably fall for another.


At 18 February, 2013 16:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

As a recovering conspiracy loon troofers disappoint me.

None of their theories are plausible in any way. No grainy photos of mysterious men carrying ominous black bags into the towers and WTC7. No mysterious radio transmissions recorded on 9/11 of mysterious orders. No eye witnesses to evil-doing silenced. No deathbed confessions.

They're not even trying.

Worse, thanks to the internet, they can feed on each other in a circle jerk. Even if they don't start out as crackpots they soon become crackpots.

The JFK assassination happened before maybe 250 to 300 people, only 100 or so had line of sight, and maybe 40 were close enough to see the final shot on Elm Street.There was no news footage, and only two Super-8 film cameras that caught the action. 9/11 had in excess of 200,000 eye-witnesses and hundreds of video cameras (that we know of), 50+ high-rez TV cameras, and thousand of still cameras all pointed at the towers.
JFK was killed in a few seconds. The events in NYC took eight hours.

JFK's body was handled by a few doctors in Dallas, flown to DC where the autopsy was witnessed by a select few.
The Ground Zero was home to thousands of police, firefighters,rescue personnel, and steel workers for over a year. The wreckage was trucked to Staten Island where hundreds more sifted through it all.

The only thing both events have in common was the FBI dropped the ball on surveillance.

The JFK conspiracy seems solid until you get to the motives and the suspects supposedly behind it.Real conspiracies are discovered as evidence leads back to a single group with a single motive. Who killed Kennedy depends on who you ask and what their political bent is.

Watergate is a good example of a conspiracy in every way. All of the evidence pointed in one direction, and someone talked, and then someone else ratted out the rest of the conspirators. This is how it always happens.

9/11 troofers are not asking question looking for answers, they ask questions looking for their own version of reality.

At 18 February, 2013 18:16, Blogger Billman said...

Well said, sir. Though I doubt that will convince our resident truthers. Not that we should care. They'd argue the sky was orange and claim noone could ever debunk it.

At 18 February, 2013 20:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

As usual, MGF makes up his facts. "The wreckage was trucked to Staten Island where hundreds more sifted through it all."

That's not how Dr. Astaneh-Asl tells it.

He told PBS "After 9/11, we realized that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has sent all this steel that we need to study. That's why I'm here to study steel. To send steel to a recycling plant to go to China for recycling, for what? For 15 cents a pound. That's nothing. And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot."

"If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That's only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major machine, a major manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what's going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."

At 18 February, 2013 22:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I should have added that conspiracy loons all suffer from multiple character flaws rooted in ego.

Outcasts from an early age they grew up on the fringe of society, and at some point they gravitated away from the mainstream - the rejected them - and eventually grow to embrace anything and everything that runs counter to acceptable culture weather it's Satanism, Communism, Nazism, child pornography,anarchy,and so on.

Trooferism has special appeal to the biggest losers, and mental defectives in modern society because it requires no proof, only accusation by innuendo. Keepers of this secret knowledge of the troof they finally feel special, and they are accepted by other kooks. Well, for a while until their antisocial underpinnings take over and they squabble was their various pet theories conflict with each other.

I know I can never change their minds due to the fact most have deep mental and emotional problems. I'm just here to reach out to the few before they fall into the pit of stupidity that is trooferdumb.

At 18 February, 2013 22:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sounds like you're describing yourself, MGF, who moved to isolate yourself from Monterey and Santa Cruz in the artichoke capital of the world.

And of course your post has nothing to do with my post, which is nothing but facts.

At 19 February, 2013 09:02, Blogger Pat said...

Yes, MGF, Brian is a classic case of Dunning-Kruger. Delusions of adequacy.

At 19 February, 2013 09:13, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Second, the fire does not have to melt the steel; it only has to weaken it..." -Pat Weasel

...but when they find melted iron pervading the dust, or actually cite melted steel in the FEMA report, you resort to sourceless explanations about cutting torches. Why is that, Pat? Are you lying, or just senile?

At 19 February, 2013 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Who needs adequacy? Any fool can kick peedunker butt. It's easy.

At 19 February, 2013 11:01, Blogger Michael Lewis said...

or actually cite melted steel in the FEMA report,

Wait a second -- Cowardly actually thought "intergranular melting" was the same as molten steel?

At 19 February, 2013 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually, the NYT used the words "vaporized" and "evaporated".

At 19 February, 2013 15:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Actually, the NYT used the words "vaporized" and "evaporated"."

...because they're retards.

At 19 February, 2013 16:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right. You're the only smart guy on the planet. You're smarter than the intelligence apparatchiks, you're smarter than the scientists and the engineers, you're smarter than the soldiers and the bureaucrats. You're so smart you don't actually have to know anything, 'cause you live in your own made-up reality. Nice work if you can find it.

At 19 February, 2013 17:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"'re smarter than the scientists and the engineers, you're smarter than the soldiers and the bureaucrats..."

The NY Times reporters who wrote those things were none of those.

At 19 February, 2013 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

As usual you make up your facts. You don't even know who the NYT reporters were.

At 19 February, 2013 20:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

We covered the good doctor over at JREF (where the grownups are):

Here's what he said:

"Dear Mr. Bollyn: As I clearly stated in our phone conversation a few minutes ago, I am very disturbed by the people such as yourself , who are part of this "Conspiracy theorist" regarding World Trade Center collapse. These people have used my name and research results in totally incorrect way , and in completely opposite way of what the research results had indicated. By doing so, you and all others have implied that our research somehow support your totally incorrect theories.

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research.

Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists".
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.

A. Astaneh, Professor"

...and he wrote this:

"Dear Mr. _______: Thank you for your interest in our research. We publish our findings in public domain and considering a great deal of e-mail I get on our research, in order to provide you with more information, I need to know a bit more about you including your affiliation and possibly a phone contact number. This is due to the fact that I have seen the statements made by the WTC researchers have been taken totally out of context by conspiracy theorists and used as evidence on the Internet that there was a conspiracy of some sort in the collapse of WTC towers. Our research and that of others have shown no evidence of any conspiracy. I find it very unfair and unjustified and to blame the collapse of these towers on conspiracy , which distract the attention from the lessons that we can learn from this tragedy to make our structures more resilient to prevent such a loss of life in the future. Those 19 murderers and their organizers and supporters , who attacked us and killed so many of our loved ones, were the perpetrators of this crime. In my opinion , and in the opinion of any 9/11 victims' family members that I have talked to, the conspiracy theorists are committing a second act of injustice , perhaps unknowingly, by blaming it on some conspiracy. Not knowing you and your motives in seeking the information in your e-mail, I prefer not to get involved with aiding such conspiracy theorists and hope that they will stop such acts. However, to show my courtesy, I am responding to your e-mail and hope that you are not one of the conspiracy theorist or a believer in what they promote.Hope to hear from you on who you are and what do you think of these conspiracy theories.Thank you.A. Astaneh"

So to paraphrase him:

You and your butthurt troofer buddies are full of shit, and quit quoting him out of context.

At 19 February, 2013 22:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't quote him out of context. You claimed that the wreckage was pored over on Staten Island. I quoted him to show that you were quite mistaken. He complained about the destruction of the steel evidence and about the resulting poor quality of the investigation. There was nothing out of context there at all.

My quotes come from PBS and cbs. Your alleged quotes come from whom, exactly?

At 20 February, 2013 09:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

They're signed.

At 20 February, 2013 09:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Video of WTC steel at FreshKills:

Troofers won't like it, it has actual experts.

At 20 February, 2013 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Did you really say "they're signed"? Say, you sound like you might be interested in my Lou Gehrig autographed baseball. Special deal for you, just $88,000.

I bet you think Wizzie saved hundreds of lives.

At 21 February, 2013 09:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You can e-mail the man any time you'd like. Ask him about the things you thing he said. He will answer back.

This is what honest people looking for honest answers will do.

You won't because you're only interested in lies, and you're lazy.

At 21 February, 2013 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't need to ask him. He said it to cbs and PBS. Upthread I provided the quotes and the links.

I'm not interested in harassing busy people by asking them pointless questions.

At 21 February, 2013 12:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I don't need to ask him. He said it to cbs and PBS. Upthread I provided the quotes and the links."


I won't e-mail him because I know he will tell me they had enough steel to make their evaluations, and that the floor and bolts were the problem, and there was no evidence of controlled demolitions, and the science supports collapse due to impact and fire from the passenger jets.

At 21 February, 2013 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 21 February, 2013 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Between his Rice Krispies whispering and his crystal ball, MGF knows everything--and everything that's going to happen. And if most of what he knows just ain't so, he's not to concerned about that.

At 21 February, 2013 14:52, Blogger Michael Lewis said...

I'm not interested in harassing busy people by asking them pointless questions.

Would you email him if the widows asked you to?

At 21 February, 2013 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, they should email him themselves.

At 22 February, 2013 15:24, Blogger Michael Lewis said...

Offtopic: apparently, this is happening on Monday. Funny comments here.

If somebody familiar with the UK court system could figure out how to obtain a transcript afterwards I'd be grateful.

At 22 February, 2013 20:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I'm not interested in harassing busy people by asking them pointless questions."

All of your questions are pointless.

"No, they should email him themselves."

So, for the record, you want justice for the widows of 9/11, but they have to do all of the work.

Class act.

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

MGF, if you were any kind of activist you'd know that all the back-and-forth about me drafting an approvable email would be more work for the widows than if they write it themselves.

Youse guys accuse me of inappropriately speaking for the widows as it is when I point out that 91% of their 300 questions to the 9/11 Commission were never answered.

And then you make much of it when I decline to speak for them. Gee, use the double bind much?

At 23 February, 2013 14:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This proves you are in this for your own delusional self aggrandizement.

Your interest in 9/11 is all about your need to resist something that doesn't require resistance.

This way you can fool yourself (and you are a fool) that you are doing something worthwhile without actually doing anything.

At 24 February, 2013 09:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your childish concept of proof devalues your observations.

Your belief that lies about the inciting incident of the decade-long (and still escalating) campaign of war, terrorism, and neo-fascism need not be resisted defines you. My interest in 9/11 stems from the fact that I was in NYC that day, I knew people who were hurt by it, I'm sensitive to injustice, and I have training in physics and chemistry and a knowledge of building construction.

You also fail to recognize that your criticism is projection. If working toward new investigations accomplishes nothing, then surely the countless hours you spend here opposing those working toward new investigations accomplish less than nothing. You're resisting something that needn't be resisted.

At 24 February, 2013 14:21, Blogger Billman said...

Brian, you're under the assumption anyone who posts here that isn't a "ha ha, Pat. You're fat and have never debunked anything" troofer is here to oppose 9/11 truth under some kind of Truth suppression agenda.

Those few of us who still come here are just bored enough to actively engage you to see what you'll say next, and that's it. You're implying nefarious motives where simple "lulz" can explain everything.

The same goes for 9/11. Don't assume malice where incompetence (and refusal of accountability) can explain it just as well

At 24 February, 2013 15:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

You seem to believe that lack of accountability reinforces the incompetence theory.

Failure to hold the incompetents accountable becomes malicious itself, and justifies suspicions that the alleged incompetence was deliberate and malicious.

"Ooops! Did I run over your husband? Oh silly me! Well believe me, I meant no harm. It's just that I can't text and drive at the same time."

Should that be good enough for your wife? Should it be good enough for the 9/11 widows?

At 24 February, 2013 16:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Your belief that lies about the inciting incident of the decade-long (and still escalating) campaign of war, terrorism, and neo-fascism need not be resisted defines you."

The only lies of 9/11 are when the government says it did everything possible when it clearly did not.

Everything else happened exactly the way it did.

The Movement continues to undermine the Peace Movement, but neither you nor your butt-sniffing friends even care.

Whenever a peace rally was shown on TV the cameras always found the idiot with the "/11 was an inside job" t-shirt and banner, and it allowed everyone to ignore them.

9/11 Truth made the war possible, and allow it to continue as it lacks any credibility.

" My interest in 9/11 stems from the fact that I was in NYC that day, I knew people who were hurt by it,"

And this makes you the greatest liar of them all. You know there were no explosives, you know nothing important was moved, and you know this because while NYC is a big city, you can't take a shit there without everyone knowing about it.

"I'm sensitive to injustice"

No you're not. Just the opposite in fact. You give weight to the dishonest like Gage, while ignoring the facts collected by honest people. This is not justice.

"I have training in physics and chemistry and a knowledge of building construction."

No, you don't, and it's obvious to anyone who has read your tripe. You have taken a bad position because it does not take an engineer or physicist to explain any aspect of 9/11 from the WTC, Pentagon, or Shanksville. This is the main reason Troofers fail, they try to make it all so complicated when the attacks were so simple.

If you could just put one known CIA operative on any of the planes there might be a case, but there's wasn't one, and troofers have nothing.

The war in Iraq? Why did we invade? Because Rumsfeld and others on the NSC couldn't believe Al Qaeda could have pulled off the attacks, and that they must have had help.

We invaded Iraq because the Bush NSC were TRUTHERS.

That's why I'm here, to keep your lies from killing more people.

At 24 February, 2013 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you make up your facts. I assure you that when I was in NYC I took many shits with nobody knowing it.

How do you know there were no CIA operatives on the planes? Do you expect that George Tenet would have announced it to the world if there were?

You really need to get out of Castroville, dude, because the day is fast approaching when you won't be able to. Your faith in your own fantasies is corrupting your mind.


Post a Comment

<< Home