Just another conspirabunk from the self-importing "testing" who "cherry picks" as much as those he claims to deplore using such tactics.

As for "scientists" who are "suppressed": BS. There is no shortage of means for "them" to get their views publicly circulated. The fact is that the conspirabunkers will believe anything which supports their view -- even at umpteenth-hand -- especially if someone, somewhere, says a "scientist" said such-and-such.

He fails to ask hjimself: Would it have been NECESSARY for the WTC to collpase for the US citizenry to be outraged at the attack? No, it would not.

I'll go so far as suspect the attacks were ALLLOWED to happen; but all the other claptrap about it being an "inside job" is a mix of right-wing anti-gum'mint anti-Americanism, from those who havemn't a clue as to the nature of our system of laws as detailed in the Constitution, and an obvious and predictable anti-Semitism.

In short: the conspirabunk about the OK City bombing didn't accomplish what the right-wing anti-gum'mint nuts wanted, so it's been repackaged and recycled. And idjits on the Left have swallowed it whole without noticing the taste it imparts of horseshit.

"testing" is a pseudo-intellectual who knows nothing of actual law, yet attempts to give his blowhard's crap some sort of objective credible gloss by packaging it in references to laws about which he knows nothing, especially as concerns context and actual legal processes.

He is at core anti-gum'mint-no-matter-what, and thus anti-Constitution.

The refutation of his junk is simple and direct and the law of the land:

We the people are the gov't.

Only law-illiterate fools believe the right-wing anti-American lie that "the gov't" -- We the people -- "is the problem".

This doesn't address any of the arguments related to reviewing 9-11 in the context of the nazi warmachine:

Irrelevant: "The refutation of [testing's ]junk is simple and direct and the law of the land: We the people are the gov't."

It's irrelevant whether we are or are not the government. The issue is war crimes prosecutions related to the ruse of 9-11. None of the points have been addressed or adequately discussed.

This doesn't address any examples; nor address the topic:

No examples: "Just another conspirabunk from the self-importing "testing" who "cherry picks" as much as those he claims to deplore using such tactics."

Whether there are or not claims "deploying" such conduct misses the point: You're not backing up what you're saying. You lose.

This ignores the retaliation against professors who believe the government was behind 9-11; and have been openly challenged for their views:

As for "scientists" who are "suppressed": BS.

This doesn't address the concerns that because of the suppression and retaliation, that the public has been deprived of valuable oversight, Congressional reviews, and consequences for the leadership failure on 9-11:

Misdirectino: "There is no shortage of means for "them" to get their views publicly circulated."

You'll have to explain to others why their views have been suppressed; or evidence was suppressed; or scientific conclusion were suppressed. Here is only one example.

This shows we can agree that there was malfeasance; and war crimes prosecutors are reasonably looking at whether that decision was linked with planned war crimes:

We agree: "I'll go so far as suspect the attacks were ALLLOWED to happen"

Normally, when there's an agreement with the central thesis -- that prosecutors are reasonable in examining the link between (a) government inaction and/or complicity on 9-11, and (b) planned war crimes -- we might end the discussion, but there's no reason to stop a discussion.

The problem you have is, despite this agreement, you're asking others to ignore arguments despite that person agreeing with you. The rest of the discussion shows you're arguing against yourself, or making invalid assertions.

Note, this doesn't address the topic: The inclusion of 9-11 within the war crimes investigation as a pretext for illegal warfare:

Misdirection: "The fact is that the conspirabunkers will believe anything which supports their view -- even at umpteenth-hand -- especially if someone, somewhere, says a "scientist" said such-and-such."

This changes the subject from whether or not there will be an adequate defense for war crimes related to the 9-11 pretext; to whether or not the public was or wasn't reasonably responding:

Irrelevant"[Testing] fails to ask hjimself: Would it have been NECESSARY for the WTC to collpase for the US citizenry to be outraged at the attack? No, it would not."

Look at this: A discussion about buildings collapsing, and someone raises "anti-semitism":

Irrelevant religious issues: "but all the other claptrap about it being an "inside job" is a mix of right-wing anti-gum'mint anti-Americanism, from those who havemn't a clue as to the nature of our system of laws as detailed in the Constitution, and an obvious and predictable anti-Semitism.

Never considered religion as "obvious" or "predictable" re: War crimes investigations, but feel free to justify your point. You haven't convinced one reader. You haven't provided examples of "problems" with legal commentary. Your assertion isn't supported by any textual references to links. Your argument collapses.

This does not address the war crimes implications of 9-11 and the hexpansive abuve of power in violation of Geneva:

Irrelevant: "In short: the conspirabunk about the OK City bombing didn't accomplish what the right-wing anti-gum'mint nuts wanted, so it's been repackaged and recycled. And idjits on the Left have swallowed it whole without noticing the taste it imparts of horseshit.

This is about 9-11, not Oklahoma.

This is a sweeping assertion, not supported by anything, provides no liks to examples, and doesn't address the topic. For some people who aren't familiar with that, that is called an ad hominem argument:

Irrelevant, smokescreen: "testing" is a pseudo-intellectual who knows nothing of actual law, yet attempts to give his blowhard's crap some sort of objective credible gloss by packaging it in references to laws about which he knows nothing, especially as concerns context and actual legal processes."

Suppose the proponent of the concerns had a problem, does this mean the evidence or argument should be rejected? That is an attack on the messenger, not the argument. That isn't an argument, but a smokscreen.

This isn't an argument related to the topic:

Irrelevant: "[testing] is at core anti-gum'mint-no-matter-what, and thus anti-Constitution."

Unclear why someone who supposedly prides themselves on discussing issues wants to resort to trivial discussion about irrelevant issues. Since you opened the door.

Something failed before, during, and after 9-11. It's time to discuss whether or not a war crimes proseuction will be thwarted; or whether we can rely on "truth and reconcilation" or whether another approach will work:

You've failed to discuss the topic, or what the solutions might be:

"Misdirection, sweeping assertion"Only law-illiterate fools believe the right-wing anti-American lie that "the gov't" -- We the people -- "is the problem".

Let's try to focuse on the topic, and move away from weak, unsubstantiated assertions unrelated to the topic.

Always appreciate your hard work testing, and appreciate your articles as well. It's clear that some people are VERY upset by your due diligence. Please don't allow them to distract you, or to rope you into wasting the valuable time you spend on researching this stuff.
A few months back i saved your article "Data Mining DoD Analyst Documents" as it was long and i didn't have the time to get into it. When i went back to check it out i noticed that most of the DoD links you pointed to had been removed. Is there any way of fixing those to point to archived versions? There was a lot of information there and apparently DoD didn't think it was important to keep it available to the public. If people were aware of how widespread and entrenched the domestic spying programs were, they wouldn't have been so dismayed at Obama's refusal to tilt at windmills as regards the FISA deal, i believe.
Keep up the good work, and please don't waste time on those that seek only to discredit and attack you. More of us appreciate your efforts than you may know.

Read the report. Do you understand it? Do you understand anything in it? Do you know the difference between stress, strain and strength? Do you understand how both the elastic properties and strength properties of materials are affected by temperature? Do you know what thermal expansion is? Do you know what thermal conduction is? Do you know what it means to construct a multi-scale model of a building subjected to extreme thermal loads due to fire? Do you know what it takes to simulate an impact event? A collision? Do you know what finite elements are?

...and JamesDD finally has the tantrum we've been waiting for. I vote he doesn't post here anymore since he just outed his real purpose as harrassment of a regular and respected poster here at TPM. Buhbye little bushie troll!