9-11-2011 Pacifica Radio-Griffin,Ryan,Kay,Stollznow,Gage,Harrit,Thomas, Mueller

bill smith said:
That was a good line from Dave Thomas. " Your cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay them down'.
Click to expand...


Yup. Everybody did well, i'm willing to call this a tie. Kinda agnostic on the issue anyway.

Which still makes it 1:0 for truth. :D

Good event. Next: Call In!

P.S.: just want to notice that the guy from the charming little smear blog told us to not expect fairness from the hosts. :rolleyes:
 
Childlike Empress said:
Yup. Everybody did well, i'm willing to call this a tie. Kinda agnostic on the issue anyway.

Which still makes it 1:0 for truth. :D

Good event. Next: Call In!

P.S.: just want to notice that the guy from the charming little smear blog told us to not expect fairness from the hosts. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The fairness will be determined by how they field any call ins. As you yourself pointed out the format was preset and timed with no input from them outside of introductions and keeping time. Just by choosing who they put on the air during the call in section will tell us how fair or unfair they will be. If it's roughly 50:50 then I'd say it was about as fair as they can make it. If it's 50:50 with the hosts berating or cutting off one side or the other more than the other side then it's not going to be considered fair.

We shall see soon enough.
 
Jonathon Kay was just talking about helicopters above WTC7 20-30 minutes before the collapse seeing how bad the fires were. I wonder why they didn't stick around to film the actual collapse ? It would be nice to have some aerial footage of that.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Yup. Everybody did well, i'm willing to call this a tie. Kinda agnostic on the issue anyway.

Which still makes it 1:0 for truth. :D

Good event. Next: Call In!

P.S.: just want to notice that the guy from the charming little smear blog told us to not expect fairness from the hosts. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Never heard the debate.... but I never ever heard a truther not claim anything other then outright and complete victory no matter how bad they get thumped. SO If a truther is declaring a tie... they must have really got thumoed.
 
Caper said:
Never heard the debate.... but I never ever heard a truther not claim anything other then outright and complete victory no matter how bad they get thumped. SO If a truther is declaring a tie... they must have really got thumoed.
Click to expand...

Talking about Ace elevator and their 18-month elevator renovation in the Towers a few minutes ago. Somebody said that maybe they could have planted the explosives. Jonathon Kay wanted to know why Ace Elevator would want to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Get the picture ?
 
Childlike Empress said:
You're grasping at straws, Sam.
Click to expand...

:confused:

What part of we shall see didn't you understand. I gave you my opinion of what would make it fair in my eyes before they started the call ins. The hosts can guide the discussion just by who they screen and then accept or reject to talk on their show. That's about as objective of a metric that you can get. Lets see how the hour went shall we?

Truther friendly callers are highlighted
****************************************

1st call: Caller neutral.

2nd call: Caller was supporting truthers views.

3rd call: Caller was supporting truthers views.

4th call: Caller was supporting truthers views.

5th call: Non-truther call in.

6th call: Caller undeterminable but leaning towards truthers.

7th call: Caller was supporting truthers views.

8th call: Truther views and unfamiliarity with conspiracy theorists in general. I'd call it a wash with a slight leaning towards truther in that the caller didn't appear to be familiar with the subject but was repeating what he read on the internet.

9th call: Caller was supporting truthers views

10th call: Caller was supporting truthers views

1th call: Non-truther call in.

12th call: Non-truther call in.

13th caller: Non-truther call in.

14th caller: Caller was supporting truthers views and was clearly uninformed of new facts since 2005

15th caller: Caller was supporting truthers views

16th caller: Caller was supporting truthers views

****************************************

That's 1 neutral, 11 truther or truther leaning and 4 non-truther. Now then according to the metric that I gave prior to the show starting, the bias of the hosts and screeners was almost 3-1 pro truther. That's not what I would consider a fair treatment of the topic.
 
Even if your labeling would be correct, it's only meaningful if you know about the people who tried to call, which you don't. There's not the slightest indication that your 50:50 demand has anything to do with a representation of the group which tried to call in. Fact is that Kay had amble time to spread his slippery shill sauce during the hour, and the debate itself - and here is where you are grasping at straws - was as fair as possible. Live with it. Doesn't make 9/11 an inside job, if that helps. ;)

Third hour archived.
 
RedIbis said:
Is this supposed to be funny? Regardless of difference of opinion it's bad form to joke about serious health problems. He's an older gentleman who has apparently recovered from some very serious health issues, you might suspend your partisan hackery and show a bit of class.
Click to expand...

He's just a vicsim. He never really existed but is a computer construct.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Even if your labeling would be correct, it's only meaningful if you know about the people who tried to call, which you don't. There's not the slightest indication that your 50:50 demand has anything to do with a representation of the group which tried to call in. Fact is that Kay had amble time to spread his slippery shill sauce during the hour, and the debate itself - and here is where you are grasping at straws - was as fair as possible. Live with it. Doesn't make 9/11 an inside job, if that helps. ;)
Click to expand...

For a debate of this kind, it is usually important to give an impression of non-bias. The twoofer-friendly moderator failed in this. I think that was Sam's point.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Even if your labeling would be correct, it's only meaningful if you know about the people who tried to call, which you don't. There's not the slightest indication that your 50:50 demand has anything to do with a representation of the group which tried to call in. Fact is that Kay had amble time to spread his slippery shill sauce during the hour, and the debate itself - and here is where you are grasping at straws - was as fair as possible. Live with it. Doesn't make 9/11 an inside job, if that helps. ;)

Third hour archived.
Click to expand...

Well at least you can see that I tried to be as objective as possible in the labeling (your link has the show so you can judge for yourself if I wasn't being accurate). I was going to do it in more detail but I'm not that great of a typist and I can't listen and condense a call into a few lines from a previous call while listening to the next call. I can agree that there is no way to know if the ratio of who got aired is a reflection of who called in or not but if it did reflect the call in ratio it does show what type of listeners that show draws in and that is also a reflection of the hosts own biases in its own way. That holds the same for the conservative talks shows as well.
 
It amazes me how ignorant Americans are (please excuse my labeling) when it comes to events regarding their own country. Every person sitting on the fence or leaning toward a truther idea either repeats what they hear on the internet ["Um....I'm just a bit suspicious because I've seen things on the internet that say.......(insert speculative claim here)] or act like they understand how the scientific method works and how the "official story" doesn't fit the paradigm.

It's sad that group think is actually a natural phenomenon though (advancing the human species since 100,000 A.D. :D) despite all the help we get from it.
 
IIIClovisIII said:
It amazes me how ignorant Americans are (please excuse my labeling) when it comes to events regarding their own country. Every person sitting on the fence or leaning toward a truther idea either repeats what they hear on the internet ["Um....I'm just a bit suspicious because I've seen things on the internet that say.......(insert speculative claim here)] or act like they understand how the scientific method works and how the "official story" doesn't fit the paradigm.

It's sad that group think is actually a natural phenomenon though (advancing the human species since 100,000 A.D. :D) despite all the help we get from it.
Click to expand...

Do you think they are any different in Canada or Europe?
 
Childlike Empress said:
The first hour is already archived.
Click to expand...

I listened to the first bit. Where was Grifter? Couldn't they have morphed his senile wheeze voice to show us how it was done?

Anyway, it was pretty much as irritating as I imagined it would be. I'll have to listen to the next two parts to get myself even more irritated.

I thought Jonathon Kay was quite good but the other guy from Skeptical Inquirer (?) was too conciliatory. Doesn't he know that Truthers thrive on the whole let's-treat-the-two-sides-of-the-debate-as-being-of-equal-value thing?
 
angrysoba said:
Thanks. Isn't that the "science" bit? What have they got a theologian on for? Isn't that a bit of a waste of time? Why am I even asking these questions?
Click to expand...

Because you are obviously stressed out of your brains. Relax. The end is not quite nigh.
 
bill smith said:
Because you are obviously stressed out of your brains. Relax. The end is not quite nigh.
Click to expand...

I'm now listening to the science bit. Grifter's not on it.

I am listening to Dave Thomas. Good opening summary, Dave.

Gage is now on. My blood pressure will now rise.
 
angrysoba said:
I'm now listening to the science bit. Grifter's not on it.

I am listening to Dave Thomas. Good opening summary, Dave.

Gage is now on. My blood pressure will now rise.
Click to expand...

I thought that by Grifter you meant Gage. Was that not whom you meant?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
I thought that by Grifter you meant Gage. Was that not whom you meant?
Click to expand...

David Ray Griffin (AKA: Grifter)

Richard Mueller gave a really nice summary. Good stuff for the layman to get his head around. I know because I am a layman.

ETA: Harrit is unbelievable. Essentially if it hasn't happened before it cannot happen. It must have been demonstrated in experiment before it can exist as a real phenomenon or something. This is a bizarre take on empiricism.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
David Ray Griffin (AKA: Grifter)

Richard Mueller gave a really nice summary. Good stuff for the layman to get his head around. I know because I am a layman.

ETA: Harrit is unbelievable. Essentially if it hasn't happened before it cannot happen. It must have been demonstrated in experiment before it can exist as a real phenomenon or something. This is a bizarre take on empiricism.
Click to expand...

Nothing bizarre about it. The issue is decided, Haven't you seen the conclusive video that may well lead to the early arrest of Shyam Sunder ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOn32pZ__Mw
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
1:0 for truth. Other side had nothing but blatant denial and problems to stay on the debate topic.
Click to expand...


So CE, do you still think Mr Morin was a NOC witnesses and would not have seen a flyover?

Pentagonandcitgoannotated.jpg



Talking about being in denial!:rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
Very powerful point by Richard Gage. He mentioned the guns encased in concrete in some police museum and the fact that it takes 3,000 degrees to make concrete molten. Way to go Richard. That's absolute empirical proof on it's own.
Click to expand...


Molten concrete?:confused::confused: Where did anyone report molten concrete???
 
bill smith said:
Jonathon Kay was just talking about helicopters above WTC7 20-30 minutes before the collapse seeing how bad the fires were. I wonder why they didn't stick around to film the actual collapse ? It would be nice to have some aerial footage of that.
Click to expand...

Fuel? grounded by ATC? Had enough of watching people jump to their deaths?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Molten concrete?:confused::confused: Where did anyone report molten concrete???
Click to expand...


There are a few pistols from the WTC in a police museum somewhere in New York. They are encased in formerly liquid concrete. Most of the pictures have been purged from the net by the perps but you will still find some mention of them.

If concrete melted then so did the steel in the floors because the components of concrete like stone and so on become molten at a temperature above that of steel. About 2,600 degrees centigrade. (nanothermite type temperatures)
 
bill smith said:
What do you think Readers ? Is he believable ? No ? I thought not.
Click to expand...

Believable? I just suggested some reasons why someone would land their helicopter............whats not believable about them?

Fuel - helicopters have to refuel from time to time.

ATC ordered everyone to get on the ground at one point - did that include helicopters or could he have thought it did?

Sick of watching people die? Perhaps twoofers have a stronger stomach for that or are simply sociopaths but I can see why someone might have had enough.........
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Believable? I just suggested some reasons why someone would land their helicopter............whats not believable about them?

Fuel - helicopters have to refuel from time to time.

ATC ordered everyone to get on the ground at one point - did that include helicopters or could he have thought it did?

Sick of watching people die? Perhaps twoofers have a stronger stomach for that or are simply sociopaths but I can see why someone might have had enough.........
Click to expand...

Dig, dig dig..
 
bill smith said:
There are a few pistols from the WTC in a police museum somewhere in New York. They are encased in formerly liquid concrete. Most of the pictures have been purged from the net by the perps but you will still find some mention of them.

If concrete melted then so did the steel in the floors because the components of concrete like stone and so on become molten at a temperature above that of steel. About 2,600 degrees centigrade. (nanothermite type temperatures)
Click to expand...

Where are the pictures of these pistols and where are these pistols now and why oh why am I even pursuing this ridiculously desperate "evidence" for a controlled demolition given that "pistols encased in molten concrete" is definitely not evidence of a controlled demolition?????????
 
bill smith said:
There are a few pistols from the WTC in a police museum somewhere in New York. They are encased in formerly liquid concrete. Most of the pictures have been purged from the net by the perps but you will still find some mention of them.

If concrete melted then so did the steel in the floors because the components of concrete like stone and so on become molten at a temperature above that of steel. About 2,600 degrees centigrade. (nanothermite type temperatures)
Click to expand...


Well first cite your source, then shown that it was concrete and thirdly that it had been melted.

A more plausible scenario.......

Cement is made by heating stone etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement

so it seems possible that a portland cement like material could be created in the fire and then washed down by fire hoses to form a slurry which would reset as "concrete". Even if the guns just got buried in the cement dust it could well reset into a hard material just by getting damp.

Sorry your "smoking gun" is likely just another curiosity.
 
angrysoba said:
Where are the pictures of these pistols and where are these pistols now and why oh why am I even pursuing this ridiculously desperate "evidence" for a controlled demolition given that "pistols encased in molten concrete" is definitely not evidence of a controlled demolition?????????
Click to expand...

It is indeed a good time for Truthers these days. It's like a comedy listening to your pathetic rebuttals. The Readers must be having a hoot..
 
bill smith said:
Dig, dig dig..
Click to expand...

Sorry Bill, Its Monday morning and maybe I'm being a little slow today but what on earth are you going on about? Please explain.

By the way do you concede on the Winter garden? That it was not destroyed and that the columns did reach all the way to it so there was no need for any "explosive expulsion" to reach it?
 
bill smith said:
There are a few pistols from the WTC in a police museum somewhere in New York. They are encased in formerly liquid concrete. Most of the pictures have been purged from the net by the perps but you will still find some mention of them.

If concrete melted then so did the steel in the floors because the components of concrete like stone and so on become molten at a temperature above that of steel. About 2,600 degrees centigrade. (nanothermite type temperatures)
Click to expand...

:dl:

concrete doesn't melt,lol.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Sorry Bill, Its Monday morning and maybe I'm being a little slow today but what on earth are you going on about? Please explain.

By the way do you concede on the Winter garden? That it was not destroyed and that the columns did reach all the way to it so there was no need for any "explosive expulsion" to reach it?
Click to expand...

One thing...was that the wreckage of WTC1 or WTC2 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom