Another Kevin Ryan Laugh Riot

[LashL]

This logic can only come from someone who is uncritically trusting the government and federal police. Skeptic my donkey.

Wrong.

This logic comes from someone who happens to know that "there are very good reasons for the FBI not to disclose the details of all of their investigations on the Internet"

Just like I said.

Are you suggesting otherwise? Do you think that the FBI should, in fact, "disclose the details of all of their investigations on the Internet"?

ETA: What is it with you and your repeated references to "the government" as if it is a monolith? And what is this other monolithic "federal police" to which you refer? And why on earth would you think that I would uncritically trust these mythical monoliths that you have constructed? If you think that you can pigeonhole me into one of the preconceived, misguided, and utterly incorrect categories that you have constructed in your mind, you are quite wrong.

What the %&"# does my location have to do with this?

There is no need to lose your cool and resort to vulgarities. Take a deep breath, GregoryUrich.

I don't know why you focused on your location while ignoring entirely the context in which your location was mentioned in my post. My entire post was there - you even quoted it - but you failed to acknowledge the context in which your location was mentioned, and you seem to think that it was entirely about your location. It wasn't.

It referred to: investigooglers such as yourself in Sweden and elsewhere assessing and opining upon the FBI's performance in their numerous investigations, especially in relation to crackpot conspiracy fantasies.

Now, try to put it all together, the way it was originally written, and see if you can figure out why and how you went so wrong the first time around, without getting your knickers in a knot this time.

 

[GregoryUrich]

This logic comes from someone who happens to know that "there are very good reasons for the FBI not to disclose the details of all of their investigations on the Internet"

Who said anything about details? They couldn't possibly tell the public that they checked for evidence of arson 7 years ago and found none...it might compromise their case.

Since you know why the FBI would not disclose basic non-sensitive information regarding already completed phases of the investigation, I suggest you tell us.

 

[LashL]

Who said anything about details? They couldn't possibly tell the public that they checked for evidence of arson 7 years ago and found none...it might compromise their case.

Since you know why the FBI would not disclose basic non-sensitive information regarding already completed phases of the investigation, I suggest you tell us.

It seems that you're not even trying these days to disguise your deliberate derails, your goalpost moving, your silly strawman arguments, your lack of reading comprehension abilities, and your hopeless evasions, GregoryUrich.

You'll have to do better. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[Stellafane]

As an american citizen, I want my interests served. Like I said, what the #"¤% does my location have to do with anything.

As an American citizen, it serves my interests to ensure that not a single one of my tax dollars gets wasted by pandering to the insane delusions of lunatics too stupid to know the truth if it came up and hit them on their empty foreheads.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If there is no evidence of explosives or thermite, why do they need to investigate it?

Well, perhaps "indications" is a better word than "evidence" to use with conspiracy fantasists. Saying "no evidence", no matter how correct, leads to the stupidly circular argument "how do they know there's no evidence if they haven't investigated?". Saying "indications" gets the point across. For example, you can say "There was no indication the patient was shot, he's got no bullet wounds, so that's why there's no investigation into any shooting".

 

[GregoryUrich]

It seems that you're not even trying these days to disguise your deliberate derails, your goalpost moving, your silly strawman arguments, your lack of reading comprehension abilities, and your hopeless evasions, GregoryUrich.

You'll have to do better. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Typical LashL, you have no response so you resort to insults and lying. The more reasonable debunkers see you for what you are. A sad individual looking for an excuse to vent your spleen.

Do not attack the person. Attack the argument. Refute the claim about you making logical fallacies - that's fine - but don't attack the character of the person making the claim. LashL is clearly referring to your argument, and not you, personally.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[GregoryUrich]

As an American citizen, it serves my interests to ensure that not a single one of my tax dollars gets wasted by pandering to the insane delusions of lunatics too stupid to know the truth if it came up and hit them on their empty foreheads.

Let me see if I follow your logic. A simple press release to dispel conspiracy myths would be a waste of money even if it makes it more difficult for conspiracists to gain political ground .

 

[gumboot]

If Government Agencies had to proactively issue statements to address every crackpot theory that anyone ever proposed about anything they dealt with, the US Government would have to establish a Department of Pointless Press Releases just to deal with the work load.

A single FBI press release might not seem like much, but that's because you're only interested in your points. If they are going to address every point you raise they have to address every point the other 299,999,999 Americans want answered.

ETA.

That's precisely what the Freedom of Information Act is for. How many FOIA requests have you filed to the FBI about their work at the WTC GregoryUrich?

 

[DavidJames]

Let me see if I follow your logic. A simple press release to dispel conspiracy myths would be a waste of money even if it makes it more difficult for conspiracists to gain political ground .

A "simple press release" would do nothing to dispel the CTists. Would such a release satisfy you, answer honestly.

CTists would parse every word looking for the clues to prove it's "disinfo" or a lie or whatever. The reason why scientists, politicians, corporations and others ignore such requests is they know responding does not stop the claims. In fact, a case could be argued it only adds fuel to their fire, keeps the conversation going as the CTists would invariable respond and demand an inkind response.

Should CTists or anyone bring forth credible evidence, I would agree a response is in order, but so far no credible evidence exists to support any of the CT's.

 

[GregoryUrich]

If Government Agencies had to proactively issue statements to address every crackpot theory that anyone ever proposed about anything they dealt with, the US Government would have to establish a Department of Pointless Press Releases just to deal with the work load.

A single FBI press release might not seem like much, but that's because you're only interested in your points. If they are going to address every point you raise they have to address every point the other 299,999,999 Americans want answered.

ETA.

That's precisely what the Freedom of Information Act is for. How many FOIA requests have you filed to the FBI about their work at the WTC GregoryUrich?

Actually the only FOIA I have filed was related to the NIST SAP2000 data. It got released on someone elses FOIA before I got through the process.

The FBI did provide a press release regarding the theft of personal items and mementos by FBI personel. I'm not suggesting that they respond to every question people have. A simple overview of the most important investigation in FBI history is not too much to expect from a government agency.

 

[GregoryUrich]

A "simple press release" would do nothing to dispel the CTists. Would such a release satisfy you, answer honestly.

CTists would parse every word looking for the clues to prove it's "disinfo" or a lie or whatever. The reason why scientists, politicians, corporations and others ignore such requests is they know responding does not stop the claims. In fact, a case could be argued it only adds fuel to their fire, keeps the conversation going as the CTists would invariable respond and demand an inkind response.

Should CTists or anyone bring forth credible evidence, I would agree a response is in order, but so far no credible evidence exists to support any of the CT's.

Yes I would be satisfied. I'm not questioning the integrity of the FBI, but I am surprised by the complete lack of transparency. Of course they can't tell us everything, but they could tell us quite a lot with no risk of jeopordizing their investigation.

If you look further back in the thread you will see that I was just trying to point out that there are no official or media sources stating that the FBI checked for thermite, etc.

 

[Stellafane]

...If you look further back in the thread you will see that I was just trying to point out that there are no official or media sources stating that the FBI checked for thermite, etc.

They didn't check for Godzilla semen either, so what? See, this is where Truthers disconnect from reality. They think every stray bit of lunacy that happens to stagger across their fevered little consciousnesses deserves to be taken seriously. No one checked for thermite because -- wait for it now, because this is really, really important -- there was absolutely no reason to do so. Not only is there zero physical evidence that thermite was present, it doesn't even make a lick of sense to anyone with a passing acquaintance with sanity.

The day my government is expected to jump around pandering to this type of idiocy is the day to renounce the Declaration of Independence and bring back the English monarchy. Because pandering to stupidity doesn't make it go away, it just makes stupid people produce even more of it, because it makes them feel, you know, important.

 

[GregoryUrich]

They didn't check for Godzilla semen either, so what? See, this is where Truthers disconnect from reality. They think every stray bit of lunacy that happens to stagger across their fevered little consciousnesses deserves to be taken seriously. No one checked for thermite because -- wait for it now, because this is really, really important -- there was absolutely no reason to do so. Not only is there zero physical evidence that thermite was present, it doesn't even make a lick of sense to anyone with a passing acquaintance with sanity.

The day my government is expected to jump around pandering to this type of idiocy is the day to renounce the Declaration of Independence and bring back the English monarchy. Because pandering to stupidity doesn't make it go away, it just makes stupid people produce even more of it, because it makes them feel, you know, important.

What? See, this is where Truth-haters disconnect from reality. They think any idea that gets filtered into their fevered little consiousness (assuming it passes the knee-jerk response stage), and doesn't fit into their naive world view, deserves to mocked. Checking for Godzilla semen is not standard practice in a fire investigation. Checking for thermite is. Not only is there zero information from the investigations about whether or not thermite was present. Independent researchers believe they have found it. What doesn't even make a lick of sense, to anyone with a passing acquaintance with sanity, is that our governmental institutions should get a pass on accountalbility and transparency.

The day my government is not expected to tell the citizens what it is or is not doing is the day to throw out that goverment and bring back the constitution. Because an uninformed public makes stupid people, who mock legitimate inquiry, because it makes them feel, you know, important.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

<snip>Checking for Godzilla semen is not standard practice in a fire investigation. Checking for thermite is. <snip>.

Do you have a cite for this? There is a fire investigation standard that states an investigator must check for thermite as part of their investigation?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Typical LashL, you have no response so you resort to insults and lying. The more reasonable debunkers see you for what you are. A sad individual looking for an excuse to vent your spleen.

Do not attack the person. Attack the argument. Refute the claim about you making logical fallacies - that's fine - but don't attack the character of the person making the claim. LashL is clearly referring to your argument, and not you, personally.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

Let me have another go at it, JREF style. This is the typical Truth-hater approach, they have no response so they resort to insults and completely unbased accusations. The more reasonable debunkers see them for what they really are, sad individuals looking for an excuse to vent their spleen.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Do you have a cite for this? There is a fire investigation standard that states an investigator must check for thermite as part of their investigation?

Did you read the paper we are discussing?

 

[beachnut]

Did you read the paper we are discussing?

'Did you read the petition you signed? You claim to have the evidence, you have "ample evidence"! Use it, go to the police and turn in all the bad guys you have "ample evidence" on. Now you are stuck trying to back in evidence. No thermite was used at the WTC, you have all your engineering skills to help, but they are not working; yet you claim "ample evidence". As you post here, you should be taking your ample evidence to the authorities.

Alas, you are not an expert on 9/11, you seem surprised and taken by surprise at each new turn of information, albeit 6 years old, as you struggle to understand why you are not making headway on your purely bias ideas on 9/11. .

But I suspect you have no idea what you signed, or what it really means. Even the terrorist are better than 9/11 truth at figuring out 9/11. Sad for you and your scholars of 9/11 truth and justice, just no evidence. Is it a lie, you do not have what you say you have?

9/11 truth and you have nothing. After 6 years, nothing, just hearsay and talk of "ample evidence" 9/11 truth and you can't produce, and will never produce.




Take your "ample evidence" and spring it on the world. We are all waiting.

But the key here is, do you support Kevin Ryan's fantasy into nano thermites as you blames many people for CT on 9/11. What an insane set of ideas Kevin Ryan has presented. Please explain how nut case ideas become something you support? The signature of Thermite would clearly be seen on the debris at the WTC, why do you seem to support ideas that to me are insane, or the product of a mind void of logic and rational thought?

 

[~enigma~]

Did you read the paper we are discussing?

The question has nothing to do with it appearing in aquaman's piece of fiction. You were asked...

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Did you read the paper we are discussing?

Well, I did flip through NFPA 921 last week, but it's a rather long standard (about 80 or 90 pages, IIRC). I was just wondering if you could quote chapter and verse, so to speak, where this requirement was spelled out in the standard.

Thanks in advance.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Well, I did flip through NFPA 921 last week, but it's a rather long standard (about 80 or 90 pages, IIRC). I was just wondering if you could quote chapter and verse, so to speak, where this requirement was spelled out in the standard.

Thanks in advance.

Maybe I was being silly, but I assumed that since it was cited and that anyone could check up on it that it was legitimate. I think some of the thruther researchers may be inept or confused, but I don't think they are just making stuff up. Is that document available on-line?