See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 7253
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: Critter, ALL (#24)
Wow! The government sure went to a lot of effort to cover up this smoking gun, critter. ROTFLOL! But why do you assume the spheres were produced before/during the collapse rather than after ... when no one argues that molten steel wasn't present? Here's what a chemist/metallurgist (rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist ... he he he) has to say about the production of metal spheres: ************ http://www.mujca.com/procrustes.htm The Collapse of WTC 1 and 2: A New Theory F. R. Greening ... snip ... Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers. I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed. Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.” 1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005) 2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006) 3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003. 4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004). The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 mm to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses. In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period. Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 mm of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use our previous estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. We have shown in the first part of this article that if some of the thermal insulation that was applied to floor assemblies in the Twin Towers was spiked with 25 % by weight of ammonium perchlorate and subsequently exposed to jet-fuel fires, it would have heated the steel decking to ~ 1390 °C. Now, since the boiling point of zinc is 908 °C, this degree of heating of a floor assembly would have been sufficient to vaporize the zinc in the galvanized steel! To conclude: we have shown that an AP collapse theory accounts for all four processes that collectively led to the observed level of destruction to WTC 1 & 2, namely: the buckling and fracture of floor elements; the collapse of entire floor sections; explosive spalling and “powderizing” of the concrete; melting of the floor pans. As an aside, we note that the addition of ammonium perchlorate to the thermal insulation on the upper floors of the Twin Towers comes very close to being the perfect crime. The deadly AP-spiked concoction would have been almost identical to the un-spiked coating; it could have been sprayed on selected surfaces with impunity; it required no elaborate detonator devices to be activated – moderate heating worked just fine. And finally, because AP decomposes to gaseous products, it leaves no telltale residues. Of course, I haven’t proved that AP was used in the Twin Towers, but to end with a famous quote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth……..” F.R. Greening, March 15th, 2007 ************** Or perhaps professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 has the answer (http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399 ): "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground." *************** Also, the steel rebar in the concrete floors and steel members in the structure were scraped during the collapse producing tiny particles. The melting point of steel is lower in this form? Think along the lines of the glowing particles coming off a grinding wheel. Perhaps micron size particles formed their spherical shape at the elevated temperature in the falling debris itself just due to mechanical friction? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
More BS I see. None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere. Occams razor. Remember that one? You use it all the time. The simplest explanation for the makeup up the spheres is the use of thermate. Too many coincidental anomolies have to take place to produce thermate signature spheres without using thermate. Go chase yoruself.
Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
#30. To: BeAChooser (#29)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#31. To: Critter, christine, Minerva (#30) (Edited)
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him. He knows he just has to blur the picture to dampen the increasing awareness of the American People to what has happened. He goes for making it seem like a reasonable debate is occurring to discourge people's interest in piercing the psychological thrushhold of not wanting to deal with the horror of having the worst sort of criminals possible in charge of government. He has failed to make his case, and doesn't have the tools to even try. I say react to an attack on getting the truth out that Goldi's biker bar banishment with a quid pro quo banning of Bealiar. It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
More like a professional moron. Keep it up BAC your "professionals" are nothing more than a bunch of liars. Are you the one threatening Jones' life?
professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
#34. To: RickyJ, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#32)
So a professional engineer says the towers fell in 11 seconds? Is he right about that BeALoser? I may actually take the time now to rip your post into shreds. You contradict yourself all over it.
professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat ....
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#35. To: christine (#33)
LOL.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#36. To: christine (#33)
The trouble is that if his spam posts are left unrefuted, it may seem to a lurker that he has posted fact and that we cannot dispute it. I have this debate with myself all the time. What is better? Refute and get another spam post as his response, or leave his lie unrefuted at the risk of it being mistaken for fact. Which is worse?
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#37. To: Critter (#36)
I would say it would depend on how much time you want to waste.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Good analysis of BeachOoser. I like the tag also. ;0)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#39. To: Critter, christine (#36) (Edited)
I have long opposed arbritrary banning based on difference of opinion. But we have here a person who shows in his early posting history at LP to be open to promoting a very scetchy conspiracy on Ron Brown because it fits his political agenda to do so. He does not work based on what is likely to be true, but to squash what hurts his overall promotion of NeoCon wars under the scetchy and vague heading "The War on Terror." He is terrified that if the truth comes out on the false flage opperations, his precious 'war' and the further destruction of what control the people have of this government will be hurt or reversed. He is not working in good faith, and his presence here is suspicious and bizarre. He refuses to answer questions pertaining to his activities elsewhere to try to fight the truth movement, and I am of the opinion you give him the oppertunity to proof and test the net of lies trying to destroy the truth movement for cracks and troublesome inperfections. If he won't answer what motives he has in doing what he does which are obviously more then merely to argue the issue, I would ban him immediately. If he won't stop stonewalling and start involving himself with good faith give and take of a lively discussion on this issue, I would ban him with extreme and well deserved prejudice. He is poison, and adding nothing to the discussion. Banning him would not be censorship, it would be removal of someone who has this virtual community's worst interests at heart.
#40. To: christine, Ferret Mike (#39)
I concur with Mike, FWIW. I don't really care one way or the other though, since I have BeAGayLoser bozoed and can't see his worthless posts.
#41. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Interesting theory - although I'm not sure goldi's that smart.
It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
#42. To: Esso (#40)
bozo & ignore thread bumps
#43. To: Critter, ALL (#30)
Gee ... do you know what contains sulfur? Gypsum board (3rd most widely used construction material in the WTC towers). Dr Greening estimated there was about 4 kg of sulfur per square meter of floor space. I've posted a link to his article on Sulfur at the WTC several times at 4um and many times at LP. The presence of sulfur isn't all that hard to explain, Critter. It doesn't have to come from thermite or from steel melted by thermite. And don't you think gypsum board is a much simpler explanation than thermite? As to the Manganese, many things contain it. Building materials, for one. The levels of many of the elements found in these samples are reportedly consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The aluminum alloy in the planes was about 0.5% Mn. It could come from cutting operations during the cleanup. It could come from welding operations during the building. It doesn't have to come from thermite or from steel melted by thermite, if that is what you are suggesting. Funny thing, Critter ... I don't see any REAL chemists, metallurgists, materials engineers or experts in fire coming forward to join Jones' *truth* movement. Even with all the interest by environmentalists in the WTC dust, I see no REAL experts coming forward scratching their heads about the source of the compounds found in that dust. Are they all living in fear? No. A whole bunch are actively investigating what happened to the steels in the WTC structures. (e.g., http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html ). Surely you've heard of some of those investigations, being so well informed. So why hasn't a single one linked arms with Jones to proclaim *the truth*? Surely with all the *evidence* you folks have, you can convince at least ONE to join you?
None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#44. To: Ferret Mike, Critter, ALL (#31)
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#43) (Edited)
Did you watch the video dipshit? It is obvious by your comments that you haven't. Shut up until you do. Funniest thing is he already defeated your arguments in the video. How it could not be cutting during cleanup, how it could not be welding during building, etc. He already planned for assholes like you. ROTFLOL!!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#46. To: Critter, BeAChooser (#34)
Looky here government stooge, molten steel at the pile. 
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#47. To: BeAChooser (#43)
Gee, do you know the composition of thermate reactions on steel? Jones does and his WTC dust sample proves you and all the academic and so-called professional are really only professional liars.
Gee ... do you know what contains sulfur?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#48. To: BeAChooser (#44)
Cartoons is all you have. Yeah, if you can't do any better than that then you might as well be banned.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#49. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#39)
ROTFLOL! There's nothing "scetchy" about the allegations surrounding Ron Brown. Unlike your WTC thermite/beam weapon/mini-nuke/or whatever conspiracy, that one actually has all the experts in the relevant disciplines who have made statements about the matter (that would be forensic pathologists and experts in gunshot) on the side of those saying there should have been an autopsy because the evidence suggests a possible bullet wound. You, on the other hand, don't have a SINGLE expert in the relevant disciplines supporting the theory that thermite brought down the towers. Even though there are tens of thousands available who could do so, many in other countries that are not even possibly controlled by the evil Bush cabal. Unlike your WTC thermite/whatever conspiracy, the Ron Brown allegation doesn't require a cast of thousands (or is it tens of thousands) be in on it or still helping to cover it up. Perhaps 20 people overall could have been part of the plot and in the positions needed to keep the lid on. One conspiracy is doable ... the other is not. Unlike your the WTC conspiracies, the Ron Brown case actually has a logical and reasonable motive for why someone(s) needed Ron Brown to die. You folks can't even decide whether Bush is brilliant, stupid, crafty or an idiot. Whether world domination, jews or oil is the reason. Unlike the WTC conspiracy theories, killing Ron Brown and disguising it as a plane crash has a certain understandable logic to it. What you folks claim Bush and his cabal were trying to achieve could have been achieved with a lot less trouble than hijacking and crashing 4 planes (several into buildings), then using bombs, missiles and thermite to bring down the buildings. One conspiracy makes sense, the other is nothing short of overkill for what the supposed objective was. Unlike members of the WTC CT community here at 4um, I haven't had to lie about or distort the facts. My experts haven't had to do the same (as compared to folks like Jones, Ryan, Griffith, etc). And unlike you folks, I haven't had to ignore criticisms of the Ron Brown theory. I've been able to address each and every one. And there is plenty more regarding Ron Brown where that came from, FM. The trouble is that folks like you never stick around to actually debate it. I post only on this forum. I have always posted as BeAChooser ... whereever I have posted. Beyond that, you don't really need to know anything else about me, FM. I have answered that question. Repeatedly. You just didn't listen. I've said there are good questions that deserve answers regarding 9/11. But I've also said, you will not find the truth if you start with a foundation of lies, misinformation and distortions. I'm trying to stop folks from doing that ... from muddying the water so we can't determine the truth. I've said you will not find the truth if you also fill your accusations with nonsense about bombs in towers and no flight 77. I said you will not find the truth if you refuse facts and logic which counter that nonsense. You will not find the truth if you follow the 9/11 Truther Credo. Other than a bunch of facts that you don't happen to like. But we have here a person who shows in his early posting history at LP to be open to promoting a very scetchy conspiracy on Ron Brown because it fits his political agenda to do so.
He refuses to answer questions pertaining to his activities elsewhere to try to fight the truth movement
If he won't answer what motives he has in doing what he does
He is poison, and adding nothing to the discussion.
Banning him would not be censorship, it would be removal of someone who has this virtual community's worst interests at heart.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#50. To: RickyJ, ALL (#48)
This isn't a cartoon, Ricky. It's proof that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#49) (Edited)
All you do is lie. You lie about us lying, you lie about the "experts" not lying, you lie about who is paying you to post this crap. You are a total fraud that anyone with half a brain can see straight through. So, are you the one that is threatening to kill Dr. Stephen Jones?
Unlike members of the WTC CT community here at 4um, I haven't had to lie about or distort the facts.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#52. To: BeAChooser (#50)
It's proof that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher. It is proof of no such thing. The paper that you are so fond of in this slag could have very well blown there AFTER it was no longer molten metal. It proves nothing.
isn't a cartoon, Ricky.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#53. To: BeAChooser, christine, Minerva, lodwick, Jethro Tull, IndieTX, Skydrifter, RickyJ, all (#44) (Edited)
Your post merely proves my point. I can tolerate others with whom I disagree, but you refuse to let me. You ignore my questions and avoid elaborating along lines others and I inquire regarding to do a very focused set of tactics. You avoid developing human relationships and focus on various points more concerned about creating an atmosphere of derision and incredulous scorn anyone would advocate anything other then you advocate. You go for the atmosphere of destroying discussion on this issue, not adding to it I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it. Listen bub, I am an environmental activist in real life, but in spite of this I come in here and try to give people a little more then I get, and I listen to what others say and weigh the merits of their words and thoughts. I often pass up environmental threads to make a point I am not here solely to advance personal agendas. I talk of many things in here. But you focus on one issue like it is a job to do so, and you are utterly detached on the personal level from everyone else in forum. You need to do better then that and learn some respect of others as fellow interlocutors in a BBS, or you should leave, or be severed from this virtual community. I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice. From the source linked below: "Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so. Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'. Fuckwits drop litter in the street. Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else. Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness. Fuckwits talk lots and listen little. Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit. Fuckwits, basically, are fuckwits. There is no cure." http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
#54. To: Ferret Mike (#53)
classic - thanks
It's a sad fact of life and the Internet that this site is so very badly needed.
#55. To: lodwick, christine, Minerva (#54)
Thanks. That idiot just posted another long spam piece with scant words of his own. Most of them are quoted above. IT is the classic fuckwit response of ad hominem on top of scornful derision and using so much spam others don't bother reading and examining. Which he doesn't care occurs as he is not trying to win this discussion in the least bit. He just wants to give lurkers the appearence of the sort of argument where you can't tell the idiot from someone arguing ion good faith. His tactic is to stall the growth of knowledge about and interest in the false flag operations that occured on September 11th, 2001. He stonewalls and has respect for nobody here. I move he be denied posting privilages.
"Your problem is that you are just too lazy..."
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#53) (Edited)
Hell yeah! Way to Kick A**!!! :))))) [Of course I've had his spew filtered for some time on BOZO because I also to refuse to read his paste snow blow jobs] LOL
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#57. To: RickyJ, ALL (#52)
Now that's a very serious thing to accuse someone of, Ricky. Now, for the record, I've done no such thing. I've simply pointed out on this little tiny forum that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher. The facts showing that he may be a liar you haven't even attempted to contest. No, your response has only been to get totally hysterical and make a completely unfounded and silly claims. And in so doing, further discredit the *truth* movement. Shame on you. And the rebar, concrete and metal beams in this closeup? Were those blown in, too? Is that why they didn't melt in that "pool" of molten steel, Ricky? ROTFLOL!
So, are you the one that is threatening to kill Dr. Stephen Jones?
The paper that you are so fond of in this slag could have very well blown there AFTER it was no longer molten metal. It proves nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#53)
Fuckwit bump!
#59. To: christine (#33)
See post 57.
"on this little tiny forum"
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#60. To: BeAChooser (#57) (Edited)
I have no idea what that blob is composed of. If there is concrete in there then it probably isn't what Jones thought it was. But I don't know what it is composed of and I don't think you do either. So you do acknowledge that someone is threatening Dr. Stephen Jones. At least that is a start. Why do you think someone would do this? Why is it that anyone that has a large audience that tells people about 9/11 is threatened? In the attacks against Rossie on Fox news you could almost sense that they wanted to kill her. They hated her for speaking out, it was so plainly obvious.
Were those blown in, too? Is that why they didn't melt in that "pool" of molten steel, Ricky?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#61. To: IndieTX (#56)
Note the fuckwit goes from a condescending approach to complete derision of RickyJ's tongue in cheek question born more of exasperation derived from the difficulty of dealing with in incommunicable fuckwit. I note to he choses a picture from the one other source I did not query him concerning regarding his participation in it too curiously enough. This indirectly indicates he is reflexively covering a vulnerable flank. Fuckwits usually invite the person they talk top to wrestle in the mud with them, because as I said, the tactic is to leave the lurker wondering which of the two sides is the childish idiot and which isn't. Something they never bother to waste time trying to determine. As I said, his tactic is to stall and demoralize those involved in, or curious about the Truth Movement. He has no useful function in forum, fuckwits never do. David McLemore, the moderator of the old Time.Com /Politics forum used to give these guys all the rope they needed to prove they were an out to disrupt one issue with no personal association or desire to advance the discourse concerning it.
"No, your response has only been to get totally hysterical and make a completely unfounded and silly claims."
#62. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#53)
That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM? I think I must be right. Of course not. (sarcasm) Don't believe I've ever done something as uncouth as that. For all you know, I might even be disabled. No, I'm an extremely courteous driver. In fact, I ALWAYS drive defensively. And I usually give others the right of way in hallways, on sidewalks, when entering or exiting elevators ... and I never cut lines. Never. Why I've even been known to pick up other folks litter. People have been known to compliment my generousity. And I always say "you first". I don't pretend to know everything. That's why I never call myself an expert in any topic being discussed. I just do a little research and let others speak for me. I listen. Which is why I always respond to posts and often respond line by line to their content. That is getting more difficult to do around here since christine cut me back to 15 posts a day, though. ROTFLOL! I'm not the one refusing to discuss the facts in this thread. Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed. And by the way, does http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm say anything about rudeness?
I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it.
I am an environmental activist in real life,
I am not here solely to advance personal agendas.
I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice.
From the source linked below:
"Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so.
Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'.
Fuckwits drop litter in the street.
Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else.
Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness.
Fuckwits talk lots and listen little.
Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
Although I am a hard-core Freedom of Speech guy, you are correct. Once someone has been given a MULTITUDE of chances to prove themselves a value to a forum, once they have repeatedly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a waste of bandwidth, and that they are no longer constructive to discussion, and therefore, no longer of value to a forum, they should be terminated. [Freedom of NON-association]
the moderator of the old Time.Com /Politics forum used to give these guys all the rope they needed to prove they were an out to disrupt one issue with no personal association or desire to advance the discourse concerning it.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
No, I was serious about that question. I don't expect a serious answer, but I am defintely serious about the question.
Note the fuckwit goes from a condescending approach to complete derision of RickyJ's tongue in cheek question born more of exasperation derived from the difficulty of dealing with in incommunicable fuckwit.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#65. To: BeAChooser (#62) (Edited)
Sherlock Holmes, you ain/t. I am from the Pacific Green Party. But it is fasinating youi try to paint me as a Democrat. You see, in all your early LP posts you made plain you serviced the agenda of destruction of the two party system as it is currently. You make plain that the "War on Terror" is your main advocacy, and in that you view the Truth Movement as a distraction from the atmosphere for "the War on Terror" the false flag operations were meant to enhance. Therefore you are not here to determine the truth of whether this is an inside job or not, you are here only to advance President Bush and Richard Cheney's "War on Terror." You don't honestly think I was a poster in good standing at Free Republic for three years as a Clintonite and a Democrat do ya booby? I can't stand the Clintons, and have a bit over 700 posts at DU though I first signed up there in 1998, just like I did at the Free Republic. Try again dear boy, perhaps you might draw blood if you try hard enough, but I doubt it. Thanks for sharing, I always appreciate it when you show yourself to be a fuckwit in interlocutor clothing by showing what you really care about attacking and show your real motives when you post in threads about 9 11.
"That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM?"
#66. To: RickyJ, ALL (#60)
Really? Yet you called all the real structural engineers in the world morons? But Jones is an expert, isn't he? And his source for the image of that chunk that he used saw the item close up. Surely she could tell the difference between concrete and slag. Surely almost anyone could. Well I'll just let the photos speak for themselves, Ricky. I'll just let the caption by the person who took the photos do my talking, Ricky. "Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. I acknowledged no such thing. In fact, this is the first I've heard about it. I simply stated that I have not threatened Dr Jones ... which is what you so basely accused me of doing, Ricky. Unfortunately, Ricky, the folks at Fox News aren't here to defend themselves from your base accusations ... like I am.
I have no idea what that blob is composed of.
If there is concrete in there then it probably isn't what Jones thought it was.
But I don't know what it is composed of and I don't think you do either.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" So you do acknowledge that someone is threatening Dr. Stephen Jones.
In the attacks against Rossie on Fox news you could almost sense that they wanted to kill her.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#67. To: IndieTX (#63)
Thank you. This is very well articulated and I fully agree.
"Although I am a hard-core Freedom of Speech guy, you are correct. Once someone has been given a MULTITUDE of chances to prove themselves a value to a forum, once they have repeatedly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a waste of bandwidth, and that they are no longer constructive to discussion, and therefore, no longer of value to a forum, they should be terminated. [Freedom of NON-association]"
#68. To: BeAChooser (#62)
So what do you have to say about this video's claim that the "meteorite" is indeed the product of intense heat, as hot as the earth's core, and that the paper was carbonized? I've noticed that you avoided this question posed to you earlier. Or did you indeed shove the video up your ass as I requested?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#65) (Edited)
Someone has documented posts from another forum where Looser has posted to people like "DancingFairyBoy" and "BigButtBuddy" et al where he admits to spamming this forum with RNC talking points purposefully. That alone should be cause for removal. He is not here for intelligent discourse, merely to salt the internet with his paste jobs. This isn't a forum for BushCo advertising.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
.
.
.
Comments (70 - 150) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest