Thursday, April 29, 2010

I Don't See How This Could Backfire On Them

NYC-CAN is organizing a fax-blast campaign. Hilariously, they want everybody to copy a two-page letter and fax it to several NYC Council members' offices.

The topic, as usual, is WTC-7. Their hook is the recent article at Fox News which contained this crucial passage:

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


In addition to the Fox News article, the letter contains the ridiculous statements of Kevin McPadden, and footnotes citing YouTube videos and WhatReallyHappened.com.

121 Comments:

At 29 April, 2010 12:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see how maintaining a character assassination blog could backfire on you either.

You just got roasted by a fellow debunker on another thread for your tactics and your pro-war rhetoric.

How does it feel? You've always had a few screws loose in the attic yourself, Patty boy.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey troofer morons...why would Silverstein be on the phone asking permission for controlled demolition....if it was already planned, as a secret operation?

Holding totally inconsistent and contradictory beliefs in one small brain is an accomplishment; your head may explode at any time.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, because his insurer might not be informed, you think? Have you even read the Fox News article you think you are referring to, you dweeb?

Also, there is no reason whatsoever, to rule out an ad hoc military demolition. There was no need to carefully cut columns to place shaped charges, or bother too much about the surroundings.

Shapiro simply confirmed something the truth movement knew all along, from other sources, such as Indira Singh, FDNY lieutenant Rastuccio that there was talk of bringing the building down and video footage from people walking away saying that "the building is about to blow up".

Anyways, thanks for wasting everyone's time with your ill informed bullshit. Go back to JREF and learn the proper talking points, frivolous fucktard of folly.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey check out this funny picture!

Look at cockroach Silverstein, lying about 9/11!

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:46, Blogger Billman said...

Who is committing character assassination? And who roasted Pat?

And how does this prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Or do I need the gift of wild speculation to get any of this?

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You need the gift of functional synapses, "super"man.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:48, Blogger Billman said...

What's sad for you troofer is, President Obama will never approve your new investigation because he doesn't agree with your movement's methods, and would likely pardon any of those your investigation ever deemed "guilty" should you miraculously ever get one.

Which I would love to see, so sign me up. Ill help you get to that moment.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:49, Blogger Billman said...

That's BILL man, A-NON-ymous...

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:50, Blogger Billman said...

Obviosuly my synapses function within normal parameters if I am able to look past troofer rhetoric and not come to a conclusion that doesn't fit established facts and evidence.

 
At 29 April, 2010 15:54, Blogger Billman said...

Going on 9 years and... what have you accomplished for the troof movement, anonymous?

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Obama isn't going to go along with that. Hell, he couldn't even prosecute the barbaric executioners at the CIA and DoD.

No, instead he uses his little Nazi pointman Sunstein who plots COINTELPRO operations that were probably going on already anyway.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:04, Blogger Billman said...

Well, Anonymous, you win. Can't argue with a man who honestly believes in COINTELPRO...

I have a moon landing to go "fake.."

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can't argue with a man who honestly believes in COINTELPRO"

Ha ha ha, are you that deluded?

They authorities did it before, and they will do it again. Especially now.

So don't give me any of that tragic, silly, authority worshipping ostrich bullshit, assclown.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:25, Blogger Billman said...

LOL! I know the definition, insane one. But you're right, I should have made it clear that I meant "9/11 COINTELPRO". I apologize that your synapses were unable to come to that logical conclusion...

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:30, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, I mean, after all, we're only on a 9/11 website... So I guess it would be hard to logically expect most conversations or topics to refer to 9/11... MY MISTAKE!

LOL!

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I apologize that your synapses were unable to come to that logical conclusion..."

Oh no no no, "super"man, you'll duly not that I specifically said: "They authorities did it before, and they will do it again. Especially now."

While, you, you little cradle of deceit, were forced to correct yourself, weren't you?

Of course, you'd like nothing better than to censor any form of historical precedent from the debate, wouldn't you!

What did Sunstein propose? Cognitive infiltration, wasn't it? And what position does Sunstein have now in the Obama government? Should we expect this man to have even the slightest trace of integrity? You fool!

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:44, Blogger Billman said...

Ok, so YOU saying "They'll do it again, especially now! INSIDE JOB!!!!1!!1!1!" Somehow means there is a 9/11 COINTELPRO based off your word alone? With no proof?

You're so right, mega-synapse endowed one, I am a "fool."

Fine, I won't clarify myself for your benefit anymore when your pathetic noggin can't associate simple related concepts together. MY MISTAKE AGAIN!

LOL! Seriously, what have you got in your troofer bag of tricks, next? Because your little ad-hominem and wild-speculation and qoute mining has gotten you and your troof movement SOOOOOO far in the last 9 years... LOL!

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LOL! Seriously, what have you got in your troofer bag of tricks, next? Because your little ad-hominem and wild-speculation and qoute mining has gotten you and your troof movement SOOOOOO far in the last 9 years... LOL!"

It brought you here, didn't it! Oh the irony! ROFL! And here you are, barely able to muster the mental capacity of a maze traversing lab rat. It doesn't get any clearer than Glenn Beck and former CIA operative Mike Baker appearing together on Fox News to equate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, "super"man. And what part of Sunstein's paper exactly was it that tilted that cerebral pinball machine of yours?

What part of that paper and Sunstein's subsequent function in this administration don't you understand?

Do you know where Annie Machon worked? Hmm? That department is still active.

Did you catch that leaked CIA paper about promoting the war in Afghanistan? Did you catch the hired generals "catapulting the propaganda" for the Pentagon? Hmmm? Have you been on a ten year vacation to Timbuktu or something?

How the FUCK, could you claim ignorance of all these state sponsored subversions of public opinion? Cointelpro symbolizes perfectly what this government did then, and does now.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The debunker cult: the most desperate mendacious travesty ever to hit a brick wall in a blog debate.

 
At 29 April, 2010 16:58, Blogger Billman said...

Meh. None of that proves WTC 7 was a controlled demo or that there's a cointelpro for it.

Next?

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:00, Blogger Billman said...

Yes, I'm desperate to "cover up the inside jobby job!" For whatever reason, you tell me. I dislike the government as much as you. But they're too retarded to do half the things you accuse them of.

I'm not debating you. I'm trolling. Big difference.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Previous.

You are connecting an answer to a question it does not belong to, which is a non sequitur.

Try again.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But they're too retarded to do half the things you accuse them of."

Yet 19 muslims with box cutters from a third world country CAN pull off a successful attack. I am prepared to believe that, so I am certainly prepared to believe they got help.

The incompetence argument doesn't fly, "super"man.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, "super"man, this just in:

Leaked ICE memo details media strategy to counter citizen activist groups

Such manipulation of public opinion happens ALL THE TIME.

It even happens WHILE WE ARE "DEBATING".

You fool.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:14, Blogger Billman said...

Alright, fine. You win. 9/11 was an inside job. Now what?

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:30, Anonymous Marc said...

See, the Jooos used their super-secret Zionist "Noiseless Explosives", known as "Shush Bombs". They are invisible, silent, and leave no residue except for nanothermite.

....or maybe the building collapsed from the structural damage from the fall of WTC-2 along with the internal fires that raged for hours. Maybe the way that #7 (and the other two main towers) fell speaks to the quality of their design and construction considering the scope of the attack.

But no, it's more fun to blame the Joooos, as long as they're from Israel because you don't want people to think you're racist.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I reject the term "inside job". And your concession is insincere, so therefore pointless. I do not desire to turn people into "9/11 truthers", I desire to eradicate the notion that the "debunking" done by this and other blogs and forums is "legitimate". What your ideas about 9/11 are, is your business, as long as you don't play fast and loose with the facts. To me, the 9/11 report is a cover-up. What is being covered up? Probably foreknowledge, various degrees of complicity, as well as reckless endangerment and incompetence. Furthermore, the lack of intent to get to the bottom of 9/11, without self-censorship and secrecy in the name of so-called "patriotism" is unforgivable.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"See, the Jooos used"

Straw man argument.

"their super-secret Zionist"

Straw man argument.

""Noiseless Explosives", known as "Shush Bombs". They are invisible, silent, and leave no residue except for nanothermite."

The collapse from WTC 7 was far from noiseless. Neither was the extremely large and loud explosion around noon, observed by firefighters at a payphone nearby.

"....or maybe the building collapsed from the structural damage from the fall of WTC-2 along with the internal fires that raged for hours."

According to the NIST report on WTC 7, which you did not read, the building fell due to fire alone.

"Maybe the way that #7 (and the other two main towers) fell speaks to the quality of their design and construction considering the scope of the attack."

Aha. So the unprecedented, catastrophic failure of WTC 7 due to fire alone, according to NIST, must be a desirable outcome. That one is new.

"But no, it's more fun to blame the Joooos, as long as they're from Israel because you don't want people to think you're racist."

Straw man argument. Guilt by association attack. If anybody did indeed rig WTC 7, the covertly operating wing of the United States Government is the culprit, not the "joos". 9/11 was not a Jewish crime, 9/11 was a crime. Period.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, it was not WTC 2 that caused some damage to WTC 7, it was WTC 1, you twat. Why am I not surprised you got this completely wrong?

And again, according to the NIST report, the damage did not cause the collapse. The fire did.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:49, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous, I appreciate your response.

I reject the term "inside job".

Ok, I can accept that as you don't mean the government planned it. But more clarification is now needed... because I could assume you are now saying they "let it happen on purpose" which is technically not an inside job as far as semantics are concerned.

And your concession is insincere, so therefore pointless.

Well, duh. I was just trying to be an ass. It happens sometimes.

I do not desire to turn people into "9/11 truthers", I desire to eradicate the notion that the "debunking" done by this and other blogs and forums is "legitimate".

But WHY is it not legitimate? Who are you to decide what is, or isn't?

I'm not saying this is YOU who acts like this, but to most truthers, if Dylan Avery says there was no plane at the Pentagon that's PROOF! Then we simply show that there are plane parts clearly visible on the lawn in his own video and we call that "debunking" (which is technically true) you're now calling that illegitmate. Why? The plane parts DON'T prove a plane was there? It's not legitimate because we're don't agree with you? That's kind of childish.

I can at least admit sometimes the troofers make some interesting points, as far as some things go. But none of it ever proves inside job, but some of it does raise questions that the governemnt probably didn't handle 9/11 the way they should have.

What your ideas about 9/11 are, is your business, as long as you don't play fast and loose with the facts.

I won't as long as you won't. You ever want to have a real discussion (doesn't have to be a "debate" or argument) I'm all for it. Mostly, you all just want to snipe and snark, and yeah, mostly, we here do as well.

To me, the 9/11 report is a cover-up. What is being covered up? Probably foreknowledge, various degrees of complicity, as well as reckless endangerment and incompetence.

You know, I could possibly agree with you to some extent on this.
But wether that's for NEFARIOUS purposes to start some wars, is not something I agree with.

Furthermore, the lack of intent to get to the bottom of 9/11, without self-censorship and secrecy in the name of so-called "patriotism" is unforgivable.

I'm all for placing blame on those who failed to heed warnings. But someone has gotta prove there were warnings specific enough to have prevented 9/11 that had been ignored. Speculation isn't enough.

 
At 29 April, 2010 17:52, Blogger Billman said...

To clarify, I don't agree with:

various degrees of complicity,

or

reckless endangerment (at least, not intentionally)

but

possible (and very limited) foreknowledge that might have helped prevent it and incompetence to follow up or do something effective about it, I can see.

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm all for placing blame on those who failed to heed warnings. But someone has gotta prove there were warnings specific enough to have prevented 9/11 that had been ignored. Speculation isn't enough."

Well, as you know....

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:21, Blogger Billman said...

Ok, anonymous, you've just convinced me to add "alleged hearsay from a media whore" to that list as well...

Is that all you require as proof? Someone who agrees with you saying "phantom whistleblowers who I can't reveal to you, but just trust me on this, say they knew 9/11 was gonna happen!"

How did you expect me to react to that article? Like it was "proof?" C'mon... hearsay is seriously all YOU need?

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Did you just call Patty Casazza a "media whore" and the whistleblowers who came to her and told her this, who were like Sibel Edmonds in a position to know, "alleged hearsay"? You fucking piece of filth?

Did you just do that, you two-faced creep?

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:49, Blogger Billman said...

Yes. I did. And Sibel Edmonds? Holy shit, you must be new here...

Or, you're Brian Good. Only he would flip out whenever someone disagrees with his precious widows and their unanswered questions.

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:54, Blogger Billman said...

It's not exactly "two-faced" when I've been up front from the beginning that I don't believe in any 9/11 evil plot shit you come up with, and also when I admitted I was trolling earlier. I see it's paid off.

Now, if you want to get the sand out of your Vagina and explain why I should take her at her un-verifiable word, you can go ahead and do that.

 
At 29 April, 2010 18:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are upset aren't you, that I immediately threw that back into your lap after you requested it.

You don't want to hear it. Tells me all I need to know. You just can't handle it. You are feeling outraged inside, aren't you. So you revert to the usual SLC platitudes about Brian Good, yada yada.

You're an open book. I see that further discussion is pointless. You will accept no evidence or you will simply move the goal posts.

 
At 29 April, 2010 19:08, Blogger Billman said...

You are upset aren't you, that I immediately threw that back into your lap after you requested it.

Upset about what? An article of alleged hearsay? Why? That didn't prove anything, or even raise any real speculation that could possibly be taken seriously. You kind of need to be UP FRONT and TELL PEOPLE EVERYTHING when you have REAL INFORMATION. Otherwise, you're whoring for attention. Fact. Nothing to be upset about. You're the one freaking out and calling people "fucking filth." It's pretty funny.


You don't want to hear it.

I'll hear whatever you want to say, when you start producing SOMETHING that isn't hearsay or speculation.

Tells me all I need to know. You just can't handle it.

Yeah, that's why I come in here occassionaly, sometimes more than once a day, and respond to idiots such as yourself who flame people for having an opinion that isn't the same as yours. Because I "just can't handle it."

Well, maybe the stitches in my side that keep getting split whenever one of you morons think you could ever say anything form the troofer handback that will "upset me."

You are feeling outraged inside, aren't you. So you revert to the usual SLC platitudes about Brian Good, yada yada.

I revert to Brian Good when someone repeats exactly the same things he says, like you did. If you ARE Brian Good, then it means you've become to cowardly to post under your name anymore, which is pointless, Brian. Noone can think less of you than they already had.

You're an open book.

Yet, you're illiterate, so I'm not worried.

I see that further discussion is pointless.

Cause you just won't provide anything solid.

You will accept no evidence or you will simply move the goal posts.

Really? That's what you've been doing this entire thread... You started with Silverstein, then moved on to a hundred other things and ended up having your period come early over Patty and Sibel. BOO HOO! Take a midol, and try to explain why what they say is so important that it can be used as evidence in the troofer world.

Some people WILL disagree with you in life. If you want to have a debate, or even a new investigation to find the answers you seek, you're gonna have to learn to deal with it.

 
At 29 April, 2010 19:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not the point "super"man, I could give a toss about the customary SLC rejoinders when confronted with inconvenient facts about 9/11 and the paranoid projections of past truther-tormentors onto "Anonymous". Troy the child abuser has Willy, GuitarShrill has Glenn, and you have Brian. Whatever. I'm used to the cerebral meltdown you overconfident, vainglorious halfwits suffer following another harsh truth rub.

The point is, you're clearly a schizoid and a sociopath. I'm always amazed at the slumbering dormant nuttery suddenly released when the SLC puppies feel violated in their wide-eyed paternal relationship with the government you claim to understand.

You're a crazy, unhinged, two-faced freak, and your sudden IED like mood swing on Casazza speaks volumes. You're upset. Perhaps this is natural byproduct of a true epiphany about 9/11, who knows. However, more likely this is just you taking your mask off, when the proper buttons are pressed. You can drop the "reasonable" act now, creep.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:07, Anonymous Paul said...

Citing WhatReallyHappened.com and YouTube videos is one of the reasons why the Truth movement hasn't accomplished jack shit and likely will never accomplish jack shit other than giving David Ray Griffin an alternate career path.

Anonymous... The Truth movement doesn't need character assasination due to the fact most of its members commit character suicide.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:10, Anonymous Paul said...

It doesn't get any clearer than Glenn Beck and former CIA operative Mike Baker appearing together on Fox News to equate 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial

Well... The Truther religion undeiably employs a lot of the same fallacies that Holocaust deniers too... and there are shit tons of holocaust deniers in the Truth movement....

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And there also a godawful lot of arab hating, extremist, torture supporting assholes on your side. Are you one of them? Or would you rather I didn't generalize?

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:29, Blogger Billman said...

You're a crazy, unhinged, two-faced freak, and your sudden IED like mood swing on Casazza speaks volumes.

Heh, calling an obvious media whore a media whore is a crazy unhinged sudden mood swing?

Ok then. I am literally LOLing.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:30, Blogger Billman said...

And there also a godawful lot of arab hating,

Nope. Just Islamic extremists. I know plenty of Arabs who are nice guys.

 
At 29 April, 2010 20:49, Anonymous Paul said...

And there also a godawful lot of arab hating, extremist, torture supporting assholes on your side. Are you one of them? Or would you rather I didn't generalize?

Well... I don't hate Arabs. I'm against torture. I'm reluctant to support premeptive war.....

That's beside the point though... but you've got to admit the Truth movement is hardly respectable. Pretend you're an outsider looking into the Truth movement.... besides the demonstable fact that most of the truther talking points are BS.. I think a supporter of the Truth movement even has to admit the Truth movement has a PR problem (this is an understatement.)

 
At 29 April, 2010 21:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The actual truth movement... are the 9/11 family members. I don't care who calls himself a "truther", those are the real truthseekers.

Billman just showed his true face by brutally bashing Patty Casazza for telling him something he didn't wish to hear. So he called her a whore. Do you think that's respectable? You can play that respectable card with me any which way you want, but there just isn't anything less respectable than the atrocities committed in the name of the "global war on terror".

 
At 29 April, 2010 21:33, Blogger Billman said...

Pfft... nice double standard, Anonymous. Call the entire government evil and cite "atrocities" commited, but don't dare call out a 9/11 family member who is known for attention seeking.

 
At 29 April, 2010 21:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A double standard implies that I exempt certain parties from a set standard, while there are no good grounds to do so.

Well, this is false, "super"man. Patty Casazza doesn't have record of treason and mass murder like the US government does. In fact, she's a victim of 9/11, in fact, she's victim of the 9/11 cover up, perpetrated by that government.

So I am applying only one standard here, contrary to your spurious claim.

Quite simply put: call Casazza a whore and you are a filthy, schizoid, creepy, mentally unstable, low-down, cowardly swine; call the United States government a cesspit of evil and you aren't only right on the mark, you're being relatively charitable.

 
At 29 April, 2010 21:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further more, did I mention that I didn't give a rat's ass about, nor do I lend the slightest amount of credence to, your baseless, spineless tabloid invective directed at Patty that she "wants attention"? It reflects only, and I mean only on you that you would say these things about a woman like that.

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:11, Blogger Billman said...

Pfft... my wife think the Jersey Girls are media whores too. What are you gonna do about it? Go argue women's right semantics somewhere else. But please make sure you fill out the Butthurt Report Form and tell all the troofers that mean ol Bill Warren made your pussy hurt, before you go.

Judging by your psychotic tirade over the term "media whore," I'll be sure to watch the morning news for whatever busload of school children you're gonna murder and then claim "the atrocities the government has commited (that I can only speculate, imply, and not porve) in the "illegal" war on terror are worse!"

Yeah, you totally don't sound like a rabid mouth foaming sociopath... not at all.

I think we got our 5th troofer murderer here, guys...

 
At 29 April, 2010 22:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pathetic.

 
At 30 April, 2010 01:08, Anonymous chakka said...

Billman said...
Yes, I'm desperate to "cover up the inside jobby job!" For whatever reason, you tell me.

i think its called a "self-reinforcing delusion"


I dislike the government as much as you. But they're too retarded to do half the things you accuse them of.

i've brought this up before, the two camps debunkers fall into. the first, like yourself, think that the military industrial complex is just too incompetent, or retarded as you put it, to pull off a successful false flag operation. the other camp is of the thought that the military industrial complex is just too nice and would never ever do anything bad like a flase flag attack.

I'm not debating you. I'm trolling. Big difference.

what ever your reasons, trolling or otherwise you still know much less than you pretend too....

 
At 30 April, 2010 07:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the two camps debunkers fall into. the first, like yourself, think that the military industrial complex is just too incompetent, or retarded as you put it, to pull off a successful false flag operation."

You're ignoring that it's not just "a" false flag operation, but an absurdly complex and logistically impossible false flag operation. I remind you that after 8.5 years no truther has EVER come up with a detailed inside job hypothesis that he can tell you with a straight face. Truthers' failure to come up with a false flag scenario that would have any chance of success makes truthers, by your own admission, incompetent and retarded.

"the other camp is of the thought that the military industrial complex is just too nice and would never ever do anything bad like a flase flag attack."

Fallacy of the excluded middle. You're implying that the only alternatives are (1) that the "military-industrial complex" is a gang of mass-murderers who unanimously agree to slaughter thousands of their co-citizens, or (2) any such people are "just too nice and would never ever do anything bad."

Go take your meds.

 
At 30 April, 2010 08:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous whines, "...Further more, did I mention that I didn't give a rat's ass about, nor do I lend the slightest amount of credence to, your baseless, spineless tabloid invective directed at Patty that she 'wants attention'? It reflects only, and I mean only on you that you would say these things about a woman like that."

Holy rhetoric drippin' with feigned indignation, Batman!

Clearly, someone spent too much time hanging around the Women's Studies department at the local Junior College on a divinely inspired mission to "convert the lesbians".

%^)

In case you were wondering, Einstein, the reason you consistently left the Women's Studies Department with the palm of your hand, as opposed to your sexually confused prey, should be obvious by now: They hate you--you pathetic waste of skin.

So there, consider yourself enlightened, Anonymous. And don't say I never did anything for you, nut-bar.

And whatever you do, Anonymous, take a 20mg Valium, pop a Midol and get the sand out of your veejayjay.

 
At 30 April, 2010 10:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billy Boy, if there is any particular point you were trying to raise in that boring, inspirationless rant, just let me know.

And by the way that Mexican gardener you hired is doing a whole more while you are away than just "trimming the weeds".

LOL.

 
At 30 April, 2010 10:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous whines, "...And by the way that Mexican gardener you hired is doing a whole more while you are away than just 'trimming the weeds'."

Big words coming from a chump who didn't lose his virginity until the age of 45--and then he had to pay to get waxed.

But that's beside the point, because Anonymous is so conceited that his eyes behold each other perfectly.

 
At 30 April, 2010 11:42, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"You're ignoring that it's not just "a" false flag operation, but an absurdly complex and logistically impossible false flag operation."

And that is exactly why no one would even attempted such an operation. Even if you assume Bush is so evil as to entertain the murder of so many Americans he and his people are smart enough to know pulling it off is down right impossible. Keeping it a secret is impossible, it will come out in time. The rewards of pulling it off are very small and can be accomplished in less risky ways. And unlike Iran Contra the risks of exposure are monumental, (sure didn't hurt Reagan) the murder of thousands is nothing like ignoring the wishes of congress, if exposed you will be executed and go down in history as a mass murderer.

Basically you would be a fool or an idiot to even entertain this big conspiracy truthers imagine. Unless you are someone like Al Qieda and don't care who knows, for them it's a religious thing, doing gods work.

Truthers being the cognitive runts they are would never see this logic. They believe the conspiracy theorist scam like all good morons do, it sell well with the uneducated and low IQ. These types have a history of being suckers for this sort of stuff, the kind of people Nigerian's selling their million dollar trust fund love to deal with. Same with free energy con men and anti vaccination scare mongers. You fundamental Chumps.

 
At 30 April, 2010 11:49, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Billbo has one too many espressos and the shit starts pouring out of him.Beware!! Calling Patty a "media whore" proves you're a hater.Apparently your wife is as dumb as dirt also.

 
At 30 April, 2010 11:56, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Now just think about what these fools what you to buy.

Silverstein is going to destroy WTC7 in a controlled demolition and blame it on fire and structural damage from WTC1. BUT! He take the time to call his insurance company to give them a hint of his plan, not only that but does it in front of the FDNY.

Of course logically this make no sense, but logic is never a truthers strong suit. But if you are a truther you are so disparate for something to question you will buy anything on matter how silly.

 
At 30 April, 2010 13:54, Blogger Billman said...

I won't deny that the Family Steering Commitee (of which the jersey girls were part of) was responsible for implementing changes that may be effective in preventing another 9/11 in the future, and for that, she and the rest of them should be commended.

They even said they were satisfied and released a statement saying they found closure.

And then, suddenly, there's these phantom whistleblowers they never mentioned before and letters to senators for a new investigation...

And say you're right, its not attention getting, and there really are whistleblowers who came to her... well, why her? She's obviously been very ineffective at getting their information out, and has alerted your phantom conspirators to dissent in their ranks. So she's either making it up so she can cry and get money for it, or she's disinfo and trying to flush out the whistleblowers for the NWO by saying they can come to her.

 
At 30 April, 2010 14:01, Blogger Billman said...

Would you not call Willie Rodriguez an attention whore? Because the only difference between him and what the Jersey Girls have become, is the Jersey Girls actually accomplished something before they became like Willie.

 
At 30 April, 2010 14:06, Blogger Billman said...

And yes, Arhoolie, I am a "hater" and I supporrt torture of anyone in the NWO's way, kill all the Arabs, and all truthers are holocaust deniers and murderers, and... shit I've lost track of everything we accuse each other of... oh yeah! I throw my kids over fences, and cover up the truth for money. I'm an evil hateful person who will murder you for cash as long as I get to torture someone in a war for oil.

Now what are you going to do about it? If you have evidence or proof that 9/11 was done by the government in any capacity, maybe you could show it to a court that I don't control.

 
At 30 April, 2010 15:03, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If anyone should be looked down on as true scumbags it is truthers. These guys are accusing thousands of Americans of complicity in mass murder. And all based on the simple fact they have question, mind you, no real proof, but question derived from their own ignorance of the event.

A majority of FDNY must be in on it because it was such an obvious controlled demolition and few support that little bit of conspiracy tripe. Same with structural engineers and controlled demolition experts. All those military pilots here and in Canada must have known they were being stood down and say nothing.

And all those gifted and intelligent people in society who laugh at truthers must know 9/11 was an inside job.

The world is full of people who planned and orchestrated 9/11 and even more who cover-up the plot.

Amazing the only people who have got a handle on the truth is the shallow end of American intellectual pool.

 
At 30 April, 2010 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with this whole thing is the answers or debunking was two or more years after the fact. It took years for these lame excuses.
You cant remember and i cant forget.

 
At 30 April, 2010 16:15, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

This is GREAT!

Via POWIP,

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Brilliant, amazing piece of writing, objectively looking at the conspiracy kooks and concluding that, yes, they are kooks.

 
At 30 April, 2010 20:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hot off the press:
http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/sec-finds-no-sign-911-conspirators-bet-on-attacks/19461094

 
At 30 April, 2010 21:36, Blogger angrysoba said...

The Truther read:

blah-blah-blah-blah...We have not developed any evidence that suggests that those who had advance knowledge of the attacks traded on the basis of that information...blah-blah-blah...

Hey! The article says there were those with advance knowledge of the attacks!

9/11 was an inside job! Quick, tell Gandhi, MLK, Jefferson and Eisenhower to start vomitting over the entire situation!

 
At 01 May, 2010 05:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

One comment from 'Anonymous' sticks out from all the usual troofer bullshit:

'Yet 19 muslims with box cutters from a third world country CAN pull off a successful attack.I am prepared to believe that, so I am certainly prepared to believe they got help.'

Aside from the fact that it proves our troofer knows fuck-all about al-Qaeda as an organisation, particularly its position in Afghanistan prior to September 2001, notice the implicit racism here - namely that 'dem Ayrabs are just too damn dumb to hijack four of dem planes by demselves'.

I suggest a basic course in Terrorism 101 for 'Anonymous'. 'Skyjack Sunday' on 7th September 1970 would be a good start for anyone who doesn't believe that a transnational terrorist group can't hijack passenger jets simultaneously as part of a pre-planned op.

 
At 01 May, 2010 07:12, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Aha. So the unprecedented, catastrophic failure of WTC 7 due to fire alone, according to NIST, must be a desirable outcome. That one is new.

Given that WTC7 was successfully evacuated, no one died, and the fire that brought it down was the largest office building fire in history, I'd say "yes".

 
At 01 May, 2010 08:06, Blogger angrysoba said...

I made a post, But I think that saying 9/11 nutjobs are idiots is a bit like saying "flat-Earthers" are nutjobs. Or even, Holocaust deniers are nutjobs. Almost everyone knows that, already.

 
At 01 May, 2010 09:06, Anonymous mr tibbs said...

Yet they're proud to be nutjobs. Like the delirious freak howling on a street corner about the end of the world, they don't see what everyone else sees. It's staggering, really.

Regarding the current post, how compromised do your mental faculties have to be in order to believe that Larry Silverstein makes this kind of phone call & is stupid enough to allow someone to overhear him?

They must be in despair at NWO hq at the antics of this old bastard Silverstein. He's a liability, boys. He's a law unto himself. But we can't take him out, - he's probably got an 'in the event of my death' letter stashed away.

 
At 01 May, 2010 11:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given that WTC7 was successfully evacuated, no one died, and the fire that brought it down was the largest office building fire in history, I'd say "yes".

BULLSHIT!

WHY ARE YOU FUCKERS SO FULL OF SHIT?

Despicable government dick suckers and liars. You can't even tell the goddamn truth about the simplest, most trivial fucking detail, you fucking nazi scum.

 
At 01 May, 2010 11:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aside from the fact that it proves our troofer knows fuck-all about al-Qaeda as an organisation, particularly its position in Afghanistan prior to September 2001, notice the implicit racism here - namely that 'dem Ayrabs are just too damn dumb to hijack four of dem planes by demselves'.

What part of "I believe they could have done it" don't you fucking understand? Do I need to school you about Al Qaeda? Because believe me, I've studied them better than your sorry, jarhead self.

I suggest a basic course in Terrorism 101 for 'Anonymous'. 'Skyjack Sunday' on 7th September 1970 would be a good start for anyone who doesn't believe that a transnational terrorist group can't hijack passenger jets simultaneously as part of a pre-planned op.

Well, given that I already knew about it, and remember reading up about it again about a month ago, I think it is your proper place to shut the fuck up, Tommy. Why do you have so much confidence in yourself? Can't you tell you and your buddy child abuse apologist GuitarBill have been outclassed in every single discussion the past month? Kneel and kiss the ring.

 
At 01 May, 2010 12:22, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

BULLSHIT!

WHY ARE YOU FUCKERS SO FULL OF SHIT?

Despicable government dick suckers and liars. You can't even tell the goddamn truth about the simplest, most trivial fucking detail, you fucking nazi scum.




Oh goody! Another chance to rub twoofers faces in the truth (not "twoof", there's a huuuuuge difference)!


___________________________________


I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
–FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.
– Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy, FDNY

We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside.
–Port Authority Police Department Officer William Connors

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor."
– Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6, FDNY

7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica

So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.
–FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
__________________________________

No building before or since has had 47 floors on fire all at once. That makes WTC7 the largest office fire in history according to those who were there that day.

Now, dumbasshole... please explain to the class how the brave men and women of the FDNY are "despicable government dick suckers and liars".

This should be amusing.

 
At 01 May, 2010 13:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You FUCKING SACK of SHIT.

WTC 7's 47 floors were NEVER all on fire at once.

QUOTE me the RELEVANT SECTIONS of the WTC 7 NIST report that PROVE your BULLSHIT ASSERTION or SHUT .. THE .. FUCK .. UP ... YOU LYING .. DEGENERATE .. SACK of SHIT.

Show me a photo. ONE PHOTO. ONE PHOTO that shows WTC 7 "fully engulfed". And no, smoke is not fire. And no, the South side is not the North, East and West side either, so that is not "fully engulfed" you LYING SACK OF SHIT.

 
At 01 May, 2010 13:30, Anonymous chakka said...

dave and the anonymous think that "You're ignoring that it's not just "a" false flag operation, but an absurdly complex and logistically impossible false flag operation. I remind you that after 8.5 years no truther has EVER come up with a detailed inside job hypothesis that he can tell you with a straight face....."

Okay, first, the 'massive operation'. Now, I'm not a demolitions expert. But a retired physics professor from Brigham Young University, Steven Jones, has done a lot of research on this. According to him, it would take about 1,000 pounds of this stuff called thermite, an explosive used for building demolition, to bring down each tower. Let's add another 500 pounds for WTC 7, since it was roughly half the size of each tower. We're now talking 2,500 pounds. Let's also say we have a team of 10 men who are doing this. That's 250 pounds a piece. Let's say they only carry 40 pounds of the stuff at any one time. That means they'd have to make 7 trips to plant all the explosives. Seven trips each for 10 men. Plus a few insiders in building security, to make sure their entry and exit isn't noticed, or at least, doesn't look suspicious. Let's say that's another 10 guys. We're now talking 20 people. That's not very massive, is it? But let's say this professor, who's done this research, and has asked mechanical engineers and demolition experts what it would take, let's say he underestimated. Let's say he's underestimated by a factor of 100%, so in fact it would take twice as many explosives, 5000 pounds. Oh what the heck, let's say he was WAY off, and instead of 2,500 pounds, it would take 4 times that, a whopping 10,000 pounds. So now, instead of 7 trips per guy, it's 28 trips. And let's say it takes two hours per trip. We're now talking a little over 56 hours.

Now before I go on with this math lesson, let's take a look at another one, and go back to December 9, 2000. It was on that day that the US Supreme Court voted in favor of Bush in the case of Bush v. Gore, and in effect handed him the Presidency, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote. But as was pointed out, this is about the worst way there is to get the Presidency, with the absolute lack of a mandate. And all the way back in December of 2000, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang knew this. They knew their dreams of a 'revolutionary transformation' would be the longest of long shots. But between January 20, 2001, when Bush took office, and September 11, 2001, they had over 7 months to plan and execute this operation. Is that enough time?

Now let's combine the two math lessons. Seven months over which to spread a 56 hour – oh, let's go crazy and double it, we'll say 112 hour – operation, to be performed by a whopping 20 guys. If we break it up into, say, 14 missions, of 8 hours each, it's really not such a huge deal. 'Massive' it ain't. And that's after we've multiplied the original estimate by a factor of 4, and then doubled it again. We're now at 8 times the size of a reasonable, researched estimate of the magnitude of the operation.

 
At 01 May, 2010 13:31, Anonymous chakka said...

And if you want details, here's a possible scenario: Cheney tells one of his true-believer cohorts in the CIA – maybe George Tenet himself, maybe someone else, someone not quite so high up, but one of the few actual conspirators – that he needs 20 eager young agents for a top secret mission. These 20 eager young agents, all of whom have cover identities, are to report directly to the Vice President himself. It's that important. The purpose of the mission, which will span a number of years, they are told, is this: to test the security of various high-probability terrorist targets in the US. Top of this list: the World Trade Center buildings. The method: have one team of 10 agents attempt to penetrate the World Trade Center with the purpose of planting explosives in the buildings, with the ultimate 'goal' being the complete collapse of the buildings. And because the best way to test anything is to make everything as real, as authentic, as possible, the agents will go through all the motions of actually rigging the buildings with real wire, real relays, detonators, etc, attached to real steel columns. The only thing that'll be phony is the explosives. After all, this is only a test of building and area security; it's not like they actually intend to blow up the buildings. But again, for authenticity's sake, the stuff looks like thermite, feels like thermite, heck it even smells like thermite! I bet only a chemical test could distinguish it from the real thing! A virtual twin. But, of course, there's nothing 'virtual' about it.

In addition to first team, the ones planting the explosives, there will be a second team of 10, who will man the security posts on the occasions when team one will be attempting to plant the explosives. This second team, the 'security' team, will be told that the purpose of their activities is to protect the 'bombers' from being detected, and to test the WTC's security staff's ability to spot infiltrators, i.e., will the real security staff at the WTC be able to detect that someone on their staff is 'not who they appear to be'. The 'security' team in Cheney's project will know about the team planting the explosives, but the bombers, if you will, will not know about the 'security' team. In this way, both teams will think that their mission is the primary one.

 
At 01 May, 2010 13:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goddammit, the deceptive *BULLSHIT* you degenerate, lying pieces of dung are trying to get away with are absolutely UNBELIEVABLE.

Also, sack of SHIT, you are free to quote me ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE, just ONE, that WTC 7 was "the largest office building fire in history".

Revisionist asshole.

 
At 01 May, 2010 13:31, Anonymous chakka said...

So now we have our teams – one team in security, one team that'll be planting the explosives – assembled and in place. The explosives, which are real, but thought by the operatives to be fake, will be placed in the WTC over a number of weeks, maybe months. After all, if they did it all in one day, and succeeded, they might have just gotten lucky. It might have just been an 'off day' for the WTC security folks. By extending it over multiple excursions, at different times of day, different days of the week, they'll get a much better picture of just how vulnerable the buildings are. And of course, after they test out the WTC buildings, they'll move on to other potential targets, and glean important information from those experiences as well. Or so the story goes. And finally, if any of the agents are worried about getting caught, they are assured that, should it come to that, Federal agents will step in and establish their jurisdiction, taking the 'suspects' away, never to be heard from or seen again – that is, assigned to an entirely different mission, maybe overseas.

he mission ends after the last 'explosives' are planted, sometime during the weekend of Saturday, September 8, 2001. The agents are ordered to report back to Washington DC on Monday, September 10, 2001, for their final briefing from the Vice President before their next mission, which will begin on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. This next mission will be of a significantly different nature than the WTC assignment; whereas the WTC operation involved bringing down 3 huge buildings in a relatively small area, this new operation will involve placing smaller explosives – ones designed to cause explosive damage, per se, not cut through steel, like the 'thermite' they used at the WTC – in various locations throughout a sprawling, high-population urban setting. The city of Los Angeles, let's say, has been chosen for this operation, as it is just such an urban setting. The agents have been issued their tickets. They are ordered to be on American Airlines Flight 77, scheduled to depart Dulles International Airport at 8:10 am on September 11, 2001.

 
At 01 May, 2010 14:00, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

You FUCKING SACK of SHIT.

WTC 7's 47 floors were NEVER all on fire at once.


The firefighters who were there say otherwise.

QUOTE me the RELEVANT SECTIONS of the WTC 7 NIST report that PROVE your BULLSHIT ASSERTION or SHUT .. THE .. FUCK .. UP ... YOU LYING .. DEGENERATE .. SACK of SHIT.

NIST isn't the word of God. The firefighter reports are sufficient.

Unless you think the first responders are all liars?

Show me a photo. ONE PHOTO. ONE PHOTO that shows WTC 7 "fully engulfed". And no, smoke is not fire. And no, the South side is not the North, East and West side either, so that is not "fully engulfed" you LYING SACK OF SHIT.

Like this?

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/ZafarWTC7.jpg

Seeing how really huge the fires in WTC7 were kinda changes your opinion of the "official" story, doesn't it?

 
At 01 May, 2010 14:03, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Also, sack of SHIT, you are free to quote me ONE CREDIBLE SOURCE, just ONE, that WTC 7 was "the largest office building fire in history".

The first responders are credible. I quoted eleven of them.

 
At 01 May, 2010 14:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Like this?

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/ZafarWTC7.jpg

Seeing how really huge the fires in WTC7 were kinda changes your opinion of the "official" story, doesn't it?"

Godddammit you SCUMBAG, don't you think I KNOW that picture? Don't you see that that picture doesn't show "all 47 floors" on fire, nor does it support in the slightest your BULLSHIT assertion that WTC 7 was: "the largest office building fire in history"?

Why must you turn this blog into a house of lies? (My bad, it was never anything else)

 
At 01 May, 2010 14:36, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...


Godddammit you SCUMBAG, don't you think I KNOW that picture? Don't you see that that picture doesn't show "all 47 floors" on fire, nor does it support in the slightest your BULLSHIT assertion that WTC 7 was: "the largest office building fire in history"?


Only in bizarro-twoofer-world is numerous firefighter reports and spoke pouring from every floor of a building considered not proof of fire.

I'm sticking with the FDNY over those who call them "despicable government dick suckers and liars". The FDNY has earned our respect and trust.

 
At 01 May, 2010 14:45, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

BTW, funny how telling a twoofer that WTC7 was on fire gets the same reaction as telling a muslim that the Kabbah is just an unremarkable piece of volcanic rock, isn't it?

Maybe Screw Loose Change should host a "Everybody Draw Burning WTC7" Day? :D

 
At 01 May, 2010 15:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can draw prophets, smiley puppies, you can doodle your little government idolatry all day long, or you can dance the Hully Gully. I don't care, because:

Fact: the photo does not show WTC 7 "fully engulfed", and you cannot produce any photo that does.

Fact: WTC 7 was not the "largest office building fire in history".

Facts: Kryptonite to SLC-ers and other elements of the 9/11 lie movement.

 
At 01 May, 2010 15:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all the cameras and media there that day, why no coverage of this massive 47 story building engulfed in flames? Most people didnt even know that building fell that day.

 
At 01 May, 2010 15:39, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

The photos show smoke pouring from every floor.

The firefighters saw fire on every floor.

WTC7 was undeniably the largest office building fire in history.

You can call them "despicable government dick suckers and liars" all you want, but at the end of the day, FDNY > you.

 
At 01 May, 2010 15:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The photos show smoke pouring from every floor."

False. And smoke is not fire.

"The firefighters saw fire on every floor."

They were wrong, because the pictures of the North, East, West and South side clearly show that the building was never "fully engulfed". If you and the firefighters you quote, are right, then the NIST WTC 7 report is completely false and it should be pulled. Nice eh?

"WTC7 was undeniably the largest office building fire in history."

Quote me one reliable source who agrees with you. One. I don't give a FUCK what your stupid little sorryass thinks.

"You can call them "despicable government dick suckers and liars" all you want, but at the end of the day, FDNY > you."

They are not, you are. It's self explanatory that when I'm talking about a "despicable government dick sucker" and a "liar", that I'm talking about you. And FDNY > you also. Obviously.

 
At 01 May, 2010 17:14, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

They were wrong,

If it were just one of them maybe. But not 11. Sorry.

because the pictures of the North, East, West and South side clearly show that the building was never "fully engulfed".

False. Photos and video show smoke pouring from every floor.

If you and the firefighters you quote, are right, then the NIST WTC 7 report is completely false and it should be pulled. Nice eh?

If the FDNY I quoted are right, then fire destroyed the building.

Nice, eh?

Quote me one reliable source who agrees with you. One.

The first responders are reliable. I quoted eleven of them.

They are not, you are.

But they report seeing fire on every floor.

 
At 01 May, 2010 18:52, Blogger angrysoba said...

And if you want details, here's a possible scenario: Cheney tells one of his true-believer cohorts in the CIA – maybe George Tenet himself, maybe someone else, someone not quite so high up, but one of the few actual conspirators – that he needs 20 eager young agents for a top secret mission.

Yes, yes, right. And the scenario is correct except you've got the names wrong. How about, "Osama bin Laden tells Khalid Sheikh Mohammed he needs 20 eager young agents for a top secret mission..."

This is much closer to the truth as you will know if you've actually read such things as the 9/11 Commission Report or Perfect Soldiers.

Anyway, George Tenet was appointed head of the CIA in 1997. He wasn't one of Dick Cheney's men.

 
At 01 May, 2010 19:20, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Top of this list: the World Trade Center buildings. The method: have one team of 10 agents attempt to penetrate the World Trade Center with the purpose of planting explosives in the buildings, with the ultimate 'goal' being the complete collapse of the buildings.

Yeah.. too bad for you the buildings collapsed in 2001 and not 2201.

Try multiplying your team size by two thousand and try again.

 
At 01 May, 2010 23:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If it were just one of them maybe. But not 11. Sorry."

You sound like CIT.

"False. Photos and video show smoke pouring from every floor."

(1) Smoke is not fire, you fucking dunce.
(2) NIST disagrees with you. IF you are right, the WTC 7 report is FALSE!!
(3) You are showing ONLY ONE SIDE, YOU *LYING FUCK*.
(4) You *CUNT*

"If the FDNY I quoted are right, then fire destroyed the building.

Nice, eh?"


Nope. You start all over with a new hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis, by investigating and writing a report, providing a probable collapse mechanism that matches visual observation. So you got that wrong, too.

But all of that is irrelevant, because you are trying to sell A FUCKING LIE, you FUCKING PIECE OF DUNG. You're such an outrageous piece of lying filth that you think that you can convince me that smoke on one side of a building constitutes "fully engulfed", even though I warned you BEFOREHAND (I am always two steps ahead of you) that THIS ISN'T FULLY ENGULFED. You *FUCKERS* always think visual observation can be redefined in your own alternative little government cock sucking reality. Guess again, filth. The photo you showed proves the building was not fully engulfed, I know those pictures, I know the video footage that exists of it, smoke is not fire, one side does not equal all side, and you are a drooling doorknob of dastardly deceit.

THIS is what's called fully engulfed, you shameless, mendacious, terrorist swine.

"The first responders are reliable. I quoted eleven of them."

You were quote mining and special pleading off of Mark Roberts' website, techniques just like the ones CIT used when they defend their "North Side of Citgo" bullshit.

"But they report seeing fire on every floor."

See above.

Did NIST quote these eleven in the WTC 7 report they issued last year? No? Why not? Didn't NIST believe their accounts? Your own photo shows WTC 7 wasn't "fully engulfed".

There's one thing that's fully engulfed here though, and that's your frontal lobe, which is obviously "fully engulfed" in a tsunami of utter mendacious self-deluding terminal BULLCRAP.

Bitchass.

 
At 02 May, 2010 00:43, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

You sound like CIT.

CIT quotes witnesses who say the plane hit the building in an attempt to prove that no plane hit the building. I'm quoting witnesses who saw fire to prove the existence of fire.


(1) Smoke is not fire, you fucking dunce.

Smoke is a product of combustion. Its presence proves the existence of fire.

Nope. You start all over with a new hypothesis. Then you test that hypothesis, by investigating and writing a report, providing a probable collapse mechanism that matches visual observation. So you got that wrong, too.

No we don't. If NIST says that fire destroyed the building, but the fire was much larger than NIST says it was, then that means that fire destroyed the building.

But all of that is irrelevant, because you are trying to sell A FUCKING LIE, you FUCKING PIECE OF DUNG.

So the firefighters are lying then? That's a cruel and heartless thing to say considering they lost 343 of their sons and brothers that day.

You're such an outrageous piece of lying filth that you think that you can convince me that smoke on one side of a building constitutes "fully engulfed", even though I warned you BEFOREHAND (I am always two steps ahead of you) that THIS ISN'T FULLY ENGULFED.

When smoke is coming from every floor, yes it is.

The photo you showed proves the building was not fully engulfed,

Yes it does. You're being silly.

I know the video footage that exists of it, smoke is not fire, one side does not equal all side, and you are a drooling doorknob of dastardly deceit.

Smoke doesn't need to be coming out all four sides. There only needs to be a lot of it.

THIS is what's called fully engulfed, you shameless, mendacious, terrorist swine.

THAT is what WTC7 would have looked like if the 9/11 attacks had occurred 12 hours later. Fire footage always looks more spectacular at night and WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history.


You were quote mining and special pleading off of Mark Roberts' website, techniques just like the ones CIT used when they defend their "North Side of Citgo" bullshit.


Quote mining is when a twoofer twists the words of someone who does not believe 9/11 was an inside job to make it sound like the individual believes in their nuttery. Engineering expert Dr. James Quintierre is an example of such quote mining.

I quoted firefighters who believe WTC7 was on fire as proof WTC7 was on fire. Ergo, I committed no quote mining.

Did NIST quote these eleven in the WTC 7 report they issued last year? No? Why not? Didn't NIST believe their accounts?

NIST took eyewitness reports into account in formulating their models.

Your own photo shows WTC 7 wasn't "fully engulfed".

Yes it does. Smoke is plainly visible pouring from every floor.

 
At 02 May, 2010 01:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CIT quotes witnesses who say the plane hit the building in an attempt to prove that no plane hit the building. I'm quoting witnesses who saw fire to prove the existence of fire."

You're using special pleading and quote mining, and again, the physical evidence (photos, video) proves you are. Plus you are deviating from the official report while also accepting the NIST report. You are in denial.

"Smoke is a product of combustion. Its presence proves the existence of fire."

But it doesn't establish the exact origin, nor the intensity of that fire. Smoke is not fire. This is again proven by the miscalculations of the first responders you quoted. Period. How many scientists can you quote that support your view that WTC 7 was "fully engulfed"? List them.

"No we don't."

Yes you do.

"If NIST says that fire destroyed the building, but the fire was much larger than NIST says it was, then that means that fire destroyed the building."

The engineering community will determine whether or not the NIST report corresponds with reality. If it does not, we call for a new investigation until the corrupted, lily-livered stooges grow enough hair on their balls to get it right.

"So the firefighters are lying then? That's a cruel and heartless thing to say considering they lost 343 of their sons and brothers that day."

Being the malodorous sack of shit that you are, your only recourse is to put words in my mouth. Obviously.

"When smoke is coming from every floor, yes it is."

No it isn't.

"Yes it does. You're being silly."

No it doesn't, and I warned you beforehand, because I know that photo, and I knew you were going to present it, pathologically lying fuckwit that you are, as supporting your view while the opposite is true.

"Smoke doesn't need to be coming out all four sides. There only needs to be a lot of it."

False.

"THAT is what WTC7 would have looked like if the 9/11 attacks had occurred 12 hours later. Fire footage always looks more spectacular at night and WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history."

Incorrect.

"Quote mining is when a twoofer twists the words of someone who does not believe 9/11 was an inside job to make it sound like the individual believes in their nuttery. Engineering expert Dr. James Quintierre is an example of such quote mining."

You are not automatically exempt by virtue of your membership of the ridiculous state worshiping cult, dickwad.

"I quoted firefighters who believe WTC7 was on fire as proof WTC7 was on fire. Ergo, I committed no quote mining."

You quote a small section of firefighters, who are proven wrong by the visual evidence, such as the photo you linked to.

"NIST took eyewitness reports into account in formulating their models."

And their models exclude a building that was "fully engulfed", sack of shit.

"Yes it does. Smoke is plainly visible pouring from every floor."

Smoke is not fire.

 
At 02 May, 2010 01:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI, Dildo of 9/11 Lies, the authoritative account is the NIST report, and if you deviate it from it in any way, you are a truther. Congratulations!

 
At 02 May, 2010 01:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

• There were fewer photographs and videos of the WTC 7 fires than there were of the fires in
the WTC towers. This resulted in intermittent coverage of the building exterior from about
11:00 a.m. until just after the collapse at 5:20:52 p.m. Nonetheless, the visual evidence was sufficient to guide the reconstruction of the growth patterns of the fires.

• Fires were observed on multiple floors of WTC 7 following the collapse of WTC 1. The fires were likely to have started at locations facing WTC 1, caused by flaming debris, induced electrical failures, etc.

o Early fires were seen on the southwest corner of Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 shortly after
noon. These were short-lived. Firefighters reported seeing fires on the south and west faces of WTC 7 as soon as visibility allowed (estimated to be 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.).

o Sustained fires occurred on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. The fires on these six floors
were fed by combustibles (e.g., desks, chairs, papers, carpet) that were ordinary for
commercial occupancies.


o Unlike the situation in the WTC towers, there was no widespread spraying of jet fuel to ignite numerous workstations simultaneously. Rather, in the earlier hours of the fires, the
flames spread from one workstation to another, which is a much slower process.


NIST NCSTAR 1A, pg. 51 ("Reconstruction of the Fires")

Notice, that nowhere NIST mentions that EVERY FUCKING FLOOR WAS ON FIRE.

But... if it's so obvious, according to your bullshit mantra, that "smoke" means "fire", then why haven't NIST concluded the same, since they credit Zafar in NCSTAR 1A?

Could that be because NIST is still much better than some wide-eyed prick getting bounced around by a truther at SLC, who thinks that one facade covered in smoke is "proof" that WTC 7 was "fully engulfed", you pathetic, mentally underequipped windbag?

 
At 02 May, 2010 01:56, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

You're using special pleading and quote mining, and again,

No I am not.

the physical evidence (photos, video) proves you are.

The physical evidence confirms the firefighters reports.

Plus you are deviating from the official report while also accepting the NIST report. You are in denial.

Where did I say I accepted the NIST report?

You quote a small section of firefighters, who are proven wrong by the visual evidence, such as the photo you linked to.

The photo evidence corroborates the firefighters stories.

And their models exclude a building that was "fully engulfed", sack of shit.

Source, please.

FYI, Dildo of 9/11 Lies, the authoritative account is the NIST report, and if you deviate it from it in any way, you are a truther. Congratulations!

Believing fire was the primary cause of WTC7s collapse makes me a truther?

 
At 02 May, 2010 01:59, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Notice, that nowhere NIST mentions that EVERY FUCKING FLOOR WAS ON FIRE.

Numerous firefighter reports claims fires on every floor, and are corroborated by extensive photo and video evidence.

 
At 02 May, 2010 03:14, Anonymous chakka said...

Anyway, George Tenet was appointed head of the CIA in 1997. He wasn't one of Dick Cheney's men.
you're right about which administration appointed him as the director of central intelligence, but as i posted it could have been someone just under George Tenet, Maybe a Deputy Director.

I know that debunkers celebrate all the awards and accolades that the military and intelligence bestowed upon themselves for doing such a great job stopping the attacks of 9/11, but some of us think it a bit odd when everybody who fucked up, not just a little fuck up like you kids do, but monumentally fuck up beyond all previous fuck ups; get promoted and award presidential medals of freedom.

 
At 02 May, 2010 08:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chakka,

You haven't described your hypothesis in workable detail. "Have ten people go in and plant charges" isn't good enough.

You haven't explained how the office workers in the building would not see all the cord, charges, the stripped walls, etc. Prepping a building only a fraction of the size of the WTC buildings requires months of work and extensive alterations that are glaringly obvious to everyone inside and out of the building.

You haven't explained how your thermite demolition charges would work. Truthers' attempts to cut steel beams with thermite/superthermite (see Truth Burn and Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show) have been embarrassing fiascos. Have you come up with something better?

You haven't explained how to make your demolition system robust enough to withstand a plane crash and the resulting fires.

You haven't explained how to make the demolition initiate at the same point the plane hits, which also happens to be the point where your demolition apparatus is going to be most damaged.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of what you've overlooked.

 
At 02 May, 2010 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous quote mines the NIST Report on WTC 7, "...Sustained fires occurred on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. The fires on these six floors were fed by combustibles (e.g., desks, chairs, papers, carpet) that were ordinary for commercial occupancies."

Up to your old tricks again, quote miner?

After all, since you read the NIST Report--and so did I, pal--why not relate all the information found therein?

Yes, it's true that no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes as the fires pogresssed through the building; however, you fail to mention that during the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29 and 30. Moreover, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and, critically, 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control for the remainder of the afternoon.

NIST concluded that diesel fuel fires were not a factor in the collapse. In addition, NIST determined that structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was not the primary culprit either.

The failure of the building's manual sprinkler system; lack of water pressure to fight the fire; and office contents that burned at high rate of release temperatures were the three most important factors in the collapse of building 7.

The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including the 13th floor, which housed the critical interior truss-column system (column 79A) that buckled just prior to the collapse of the east penthouse. When column 79A failed, the remaining columns failed pulling down the floor structure above, which initiated a vertical progression of collapse from floor 13 to the roof.

I've asked you this question before and I'll ask you again, Anonymous:

"Tell us, Glenn the cyber parrot, how does a 50 ksi steel column, which is rated to withstand fire for only two hours, withstand an 8 hour fire?"

Since you steadfastly refuse to answer, I'll provide the answer for you, Okay? The answer is obvious: It can't--period.

Fire and the inability to contain the fires in WTC 7 led to the collapse of the structure, not "controlled demolition".

Remember Anonymous, a half truth is still a whole lie.

 
At 02 May, 2010 22:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billy Boy, I find it heartening to see that you've become more reasonable wrt WTC 7.

For example, you concede that:

"Yes, it's true that no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes"

and you concede that:

"NIST concluded that diesel fuel fires were not a factor in the collapse."

and you concede that:

"In addition, NIST determined that structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was not the primary culprit either."

Great!

Although you word it such that you still leave room for damage to have played a role in the collapse. Fine.

About those fires, several of them were simply short-lived and therefore not relevant. You know this, I know this.

"The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 110 m (350 ft) to the south. The debris also caused structural damage to the southwest exterior of WTC 7, primarily between Floors 7 to 17. The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, xxxvi

While I don't believe NIST convincingly proves that the fires in WTC 7 were initiated by debris from WTC 1, I'm prepared to accept that for the sake of argument.

Far from "fully engulfed". I believe NIST is correct, because the photos demonstrate the building was not fully engulfed. Smoke is not fire, either. Smoke only indicates that there is source of fire somewhere. This is why SOT is so disingenuous and stupid in his Mark Roberts parrot droppings.

Now about that column fire rating, I find it funny that you bring it up, after saying, and I quote again:

"Yes, it's true that no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes"

Furthermore, it was never claimed that a column succumbed to fire, was it? NIST postulates it was thermal expansion of the floor system that led to unseating of a girder, which led to a cascade of floor collapses, which led to column 79 being unsupported across about 8 floors, which caused it to buckle, becoming the initial event that would eventually down the entire building.

Why would you ask me this question if you had read and properly understood the NIST report?

And why do you contradict yourself w.r.t. fires relocating in 20 minutes versus a single column being exposed for eight hours?

Remember, holding two contradictory beliefs at once is known as "cognitive dissonance".

 
At 02 May, 2010 22:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nevertheless, I do want to announce that your progression instills hope, and fills me with mirth. I think it's best to enjoy this moment while it lasts. { probably not very long }

 
At 02 May, 2010 23:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous flat out lies, "...and you concede that"?!?!?!

"concede"?

[GuitarBill shakes his head in amazement].

Can you read, Anonymous?

Really, that's a serious question.

Show me where I ever claimed that the buildings burned for longer than 20 minutes in each section?

Show me where I ever claimed that Diesel fuel fires where the cause of the collapse?

Show me where I ever claimed that structural damage was the primary cause of the collapse?

So, much for your first round of straw man arguments--you chickenshit sophist.

Next.

"...Far from 'fully engulfed'."

I never claimed that the building was "fully engulfed"--idiot.

Here's what I wrote, "...The failure of the building's manual sprinkler system; lack of water pressure to fight the fire; and office contents that burned at high rate of release temperatures were the three most important factors in the collapse of building 7."

Now, just keep pretending that I never wrote that paragraph, Pinocchio.


Next, straw man argument.

"...Furthermore, it was never claimed that a column succumbed to fire, was it? NIST postulates it was thermal expansion of the floor system that led to unseating of a girder, which led to a cascade of floor collapses, which led to column 79 being unsupported across about 8 floors, which caused it to buckle, becoming the initial event that would eventually down the entire building. "

Anonymous, you're a flaming idiot.

"thermal expansion" is caused by heat--ie., fire.

Moreover, your description of the collapse fails to mention the design of the column-truss assembly (located on floor 13). The "girder" you mention was part of the assembly I mentioned in the last post.

Ultimately, column 79A did fail and the cause remains the same: "...The failure of the building's manual sprinkler system; lack of water pressure to fight the fire; and office contents that burned at high rate of release temperatures were the three most important factors in the collapse of building 7."

"...And why do you contradict yourself w.r.t. fires relocating in 20 minutes versus a single column being exposed for eight hours?"

There's no contradiction whatsoever, shit-for-brains.

Column 79A was exposed to fire along its entire length from floor 13 to at least floor 30; thus, it was exposed to fire, on one floor or another, for over 8 hours. Moreover, the fires on floor 11-13 were documented by FDNY personnel, who made it clear that the fire burned for the remainder of the afternoon. Hence, the failure of the critical column-truss assembly, which included column 79A, was inevitable--period.

Thus, we're force-fed another example of your boundless intellectual dishonesty, Anonymous.

Seek psychiatric intervention, swine.

"...Remember, holding two contradictory beliefs at once is known as 'cognitive dissonance'."

I agree. And it's too bad that you don't have the good sense to take your own advise.

Any more twisted rhetoric and outright lies for us, Mister Intellectual Dishonesty?

 
At 03 May, 2010 00:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another example of your boundless intellectual dishonesty, Anonymous:

"...NIST postulates it was thermal expansion of the floor system that led to unseating of a girder, which led to a cascade of floor collapses, which led to column 79 being unsupported across about 8 floors, which caused it to buckle, becoming the initial event that would eventually down the entire building."

There you you go again, trying to mention "buckling", when you completely and conveniently ignored buckling in our previous "debates"

So, where in your vaunted "three questions" did you mention the "buckling" of column 79A?

Answer:

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Go for it, Mister Quote Miner, change the subject and claim victory.

"...What a maroon..." -- Bugs Bunny.

 
At 03 May, 2010 00:35, Anonymous chakka said...

You haven't described your hypothesis in workable detail. "Have ten people go in and plant charges" isn't good enough.


the purpose was to illustrate that the idea of an inside jobby job being a "massive operation" that would require thousands of participants who knew every operational and organizational detail of the false flag attack is a fallacy that has no basis in reality.

 
At 03 May, 2010 01:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like I said Billy Boy, probably not very long...

And that comment about "fully engulfed" was directed at Sword of Truth, which I abbreviate as "SOT", in my reply to you.

Since you claim that:

"Column 79A was exposed to fire along its entire length from floor 13 to at least floor 30; thus, it was exposed to fire, on one floor or another, for over 8 hours"

...please point me to the relevant quotes from the NIST report that support this claim, that column 79A was exposed to fire over a length of at least 17 floors, for over 8 hours.

Further, suppose I grant you this vagary of fire somewhere along column 79 for "over 8 hours", then what? How is the fireproofing supposed to fail, when, as you yourself admit, "no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes"?

Then, you follow up with some more boring, same old same old:

"There you you go again, trying to mention "buckling", when you completely and conveniently ignored buckling in our previous "debates"

So, where in your vaunted "three questions" did you mention the "buckling" of column 79A?"


Heh! I see you are still haunted by the vaunted (questions), Billy Boy.

Let me help you with that. My three questions deal with absence of exterior deformation as opposed to NIST's claims of the building being a "hollow shell". My three questions deal with the 2.25 seconds of freefall in conjunction with the implications of the LS DYNA model.

My short lecture to you about column 79 though..was in order to refresh your memory on the NIST report and the NIST position.

In order for me to debate you, it's helpful if you don't defend any non-existent claims, such as that column 79 failed due to heat. No. Column 79, according to NIST, failed due to lack of support

So when I speak about buckling, Bogart McFuckwit, I am clarifying to you the NIST position which you fail to understand.

And when I pose my three questions, Billy Boy, which you tragically, but entirely expectedly fail to answer even to this day, I am highlighting internal inconsistencies in the NIST report. I know sometimes it's just too much, Billy Boy. I advise you take a long vacation to repair your marriage, and allow your tiny brain to recuperate.

Keep in mind that it is not my job to read and summarize the NIST report for you.

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...please point me to the relevant quotes from the NIST report that support this claim, that column 79A was exposed to fire over a length of at least 17 floors, for over 8 hours."

Exhibit [A]: Proof that Anonymous can't read.

"...column 79A was exposed to fire over a length of at least 17 floors, for over 8 hours."

I never said that, scumbag lair.

Try again, Pinocchio.

(But hurry because I'm going to bed.)

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well go to bed then, because I think you need to sleep on it.

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous slithers, "...Well go to bed then, because I think you need to sleep on it."

Yup, as predicted, another 100% fact-free non-response. Check

 
At 03 May, 2010 02:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is your quote, Billy Boy:

"Column 79A was exposed to fire along its entire length from floor 13 to at least floor 30; thus, it was exposed to fire, on one floor or another, for over 8 hours"

And this is your other quote:

"how does a 50 ksi steel column, which is rated to withstand fire for only two hours, withstand an 8 hour fire?"

And this is also your quote:

"no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes as the fires pogresssed [sic] through the building;"

Now, please explain, Billy Boy, how these three quotes reconcile with each other. Nighty night. Make sure to brush your teeth, I can smell the sulfur from here =)

 
At 03 May, 2010 07:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Read it again, illiterate, and this time pay attention to the words in bold font, okay stupid?

"Column 79A was exposed to fire along its entire length from floor 13 to at least floor 30; thus, it was exposed to fire, on one floor or another, for over 8 hours."

Now, just keep reading the part in bold font until you get it through your thick skull, troofer scum.

 
At 03 May, 2010 13:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Billy Boy, that is not an explanation.

Do I need to spell it out for you? Of course I do, you're pretending not to see the blatant contradiction in your words :)

You said:

""no section of the building burned longer than 20 minutes as the fires pogresssed [sic] through the building;"

How does 2 hour fireproofing fail from 20 minute fires?

 
At 03 May, 2010 14:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see how maintaining a character assassination blog could backfire on you either.

You just got roasted by a fellow debunker on another thread for your tactics and your pro-war rhetoric."

OMG LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I've heard rumors Pat's not as popular with debunkers as he used to be. Sound like its true! Couldn't happen to a person more deserving. Anyone still pushing the war(the WAR, not the troops) at this point is a deluded rightwing piece of shit who doesn't care about the troops or their families.

 
At 03 May, 2010 15:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's so funny to watch the "Git"
go into Jack Torrance mode as he absorbs another bruising! Keep typing Bozo,you're a regular riot! A useful video was produced by a guy named Steve Spak called "Day of Disaster" which has good footage of the south side of #7.

 
At 03 May, 2010 17:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...absorbs another bruising!"

No scumbag, all you accomplished was changing the subject from quote mining to bullshit.

Now, let's get back to the subject, scumbag.

"...There you you go again, trying to mention "buckling", when you completely and conveniently ignored buckling in our previous "debates"

So, where in your vaunted "three questions" did you mention the "buckling" of column 79A?

Answer:

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Go for it, Mister Quote Miner, change the subject and claim victory."





AS PREDICTED, YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT AND DECLARED VICTORY.

NOW COCKSUCKER, ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION:

So, where in your vaunted "three questions" did you mention the "buckling" of column 79A?

NOW, ANSWER THE QUESTION--YOU QUOTE MINING COCKSUCKER!

 
At 03 May, 2010 20:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should he?

 
At 04 May, 2010 17:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

It's official,the "Git" has just taken a job at the Overlook Hotel and Shelly Duvall and little Danny had better watch out! Redrum,redrum,redrum!!

 
At 04 May, 2010 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Look! It's The ArseHooligan™, and it's loose again, apologizing for habitual liars and lunatics.

And since it's on-line again, it's safe to conclude that today must be Internet day at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

%^)

 
At 05 May, 2010 13:55, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

How hot was it yesterday? It was so hot that the fat "Git" was on the corner selling shade!! Kla-boom!

 
At 06 May, 2010 06:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deeply impressed and inspired! This article really made much sense to me! I want to recommend you a really great website where you can have a pair of vintage nike shoes Tn Requin with no more than 40Eu! Hurry up and go to www.nike-max-tn.com to get your favorite shoes now! Tn Requin provide various styles of nike tn, nike max,nike chaussure , tn chaussures, requin tn, we also retail Nike Chaussures Femme,Nike chaussures homme ,nike shox nz online in whosale prices. NIKE AIR MAX 360 will make you run faster and jump higher,Texture and comfortable shoes is your choice,Preferential price make you satisfied. We have Alife chaussures homme of supreme quality. Our nike shoes contains not only nike chaussures enfant, but nike chaussures femme as well as nike chaussures homme, which are all our best sellers. As to puma chaussures femme and puma chaussures homme we supply in stock contains all sizes and models. All nike shoes are being retailed in wholesale prices. Wholesale are supported, too. Express shipping!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home