Saturday, May 29, 2010

Oh, The Irony!

David Ray Griffin is back with another craptacular article on WTC-7, apparently cribbed from his speech at the Deep Politics confab the other week in Santa Cruz. It's the usual BS from Grifter, but I did have to laugh a bit at this part:


Omitting Testimonial Evidence

NIST failed, for one thing, to mention any of the testimonial evidence for explosions. Besides claiming that the event described as a mid-morning explosion by Michael Hess and Barry Jennings was simply the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower – which occurred at 10:28 and hence about an hour later than the explosion they had described – NIST failed to mention any of the reports of explosions just as the building started to come down.


Of course, the irony is that Griffin himself is guilty of omitting testimonial evidence himself. Testimony like this:

Firefighter Edward Kennedy:

"But this is as the day was going on and, of course, there were so many transmissions going over. I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse...."


Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler:

"Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."


Firefighter George Holzman:

"We stayed there for quite sometime when I don't even know who, I think it was someone, Lieutenant Lowney spoke to, asked us to leave the area, they were concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing."


Firefighter Kevin Howe:

"At that time there was a lot of fire going on. I think it was the Customs House was roaring. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring."


Captain Robert Sohmer:

"As the day went on they started worrying about 7 World Trade Center collapsing and they ordered an evacuation from that area..."


Assistant Chief Harold Meyers:

"Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured."


Firefighter Fred Marsilla:

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. But you do what you got to do as usual. We operated till they finally started pulling people back.


Firefighter Adrienne Walsh:

Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q. Right.
A. Then they pulled everybody out.


Firefighter Kevin Quinn:

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the Chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down.


Captain Anthony Varriale:

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.


Firefighter Vandon Williams:

It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7.


Firefighter Eugene Kelty, Jr.:

And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building?


Firefighter Richard Banaciski:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.


Chief Frank Cruthers:

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ?
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.

51 Comments:

At 29 May, 2010 05:37, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

But......But....but....FREEFALLLL!!!!!!!

 
At 29 May, 2010 06:32, Blogger Billman said...

Wait Pat, one guy says he may have heard a pulsed transmission on a radio that could have been a countdown, so you're gonna have to discount all of those quotes just to focus on this one because it helps me believe in troof!

 
At 29 May, 2010 06:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If SLC debunker cultists weren't so delusional they would consider the possibility that the "firefighters" describing the "collapse" of WTC7 from a few small office fires *might* just *possibly* government plants. But they won't. The "firefighters" said it so it must be true.

 
At 29 May, 2010 06:45, Anonymous Bikerman said...

Anon. Fuck you for that. Go to hell asshole. I'm being nice.

 
At 29 May, 2010 06:51, Blogger Billman said...

Sure, I'll admit they were plants if you can provide PROOF besides speculation they were.

 
At 29 May, 2010 06:53, Blogger Billman said...

If YOU weren't so delusional, you wouldn't come in here saying crap like that. Jeez... if only you could hear yourselves.

 
At 29 May, 2010 07:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Um, guys, I think that was satirical....

 
At 29 May, 2010 07:23, Blogger Billman said...

It's hard to tell anymore...

 
At 29 May, 2010 07:56, Blogger Billman said...

Hey Troy, not sure if you're around, but cracked.com is running an article on 8 Psychotic Overreactions by Adults at Youh Sporting events. Amazingly, the troofers will be surprised that wou weren't on it, and some of these people, wow..

Might be an interesting read.

 
At 29 May, 2010 08:03, Anonymous Gost said...

"cracked.com is running an article on 8 Psychotic Overreactions by Adults at Youth Sporting events."

Oh, you mean the Hearst-owned cracked.com, run by Michael Chertoff's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate? No wonder they don't mention Troy!

 
At 29 May, 2010 08:05, Anonymous Gost said...

Re: the Griffin article:
I especially liked Griffin's fantasy that the controlled demolition system in WTC7 was "a dud" before the fire, yet was fully functional after the fire had burned for hours. I didn't really expect anything DRG says to make sense, but c'mon, this is ridiculous.

 
At 29 May, 2010 09:19, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Except, the NCSTAR 1A refutes the notion that WTC 7 was compromised by structural damage from the collapse. This is fact. The NIST report claims, contrary to the firefighters who were told what to think by the higher ups, that WTC 7 fell solely due to an unexpected thermal expansion fracturing of composite floor slabs, causing internal collapse and leaving column 79 unsupported. There was nothing "expected" about that at all. Too bad Pat chooses to withhold this important contextual nuance. Or perhaps, completely in line with Pat's regular professional 9/11 lying slash character assassination campaign.

Everybody in the truth movement knows that the firefighters were warned that WTC 7 was going to "come down" or be "brought down". (E.g. FDNY Rastuccio) Exactly were those warnings were ultimately coming from, is unclear. A few firefighters assessed this on their own, but their conclusions don't rhyme with the NIST report at all.

Furthermore, the firefighter quote mining is thoroughly discussed and refuted in Prof. Graeme MacQueen's paper at the Journal of Nine-Eleven Studies: Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories.

Of course, the "debunker" gaggle hates this website more than any other, because it completely eviscerates their perverted nationalist extremism, their pseudoskepticism, their revenge fantasies, and their ruthless exploitation and oversimplification of 9/11.

Cheers =)

P.S. Pat: do your homework.

 
At 29 May, 2010 09:24, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Hey Troy, not sure if you're around, but cracked.com is running an article on 8 Psychotic Overreactions by Adults at Youh Sporting events. Amazingly, the troofers will be surprised that wou weren't on it, and some of these people, wow..

Might be an interesting read.


So tell me, Billman or should I say Dr. Jeckyll, are you Troy's friend?

 
At 29 May, 2010 09:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous Jizzmop for 9/11 troof scribbles, "...Except, the NCSTAR 1A refutes the notion that WTC 7 was compromised by structural damage from the collapse. This is fact. The NIST report claims, contrary to the firefighters who were told what to think by the higher ups, that WTC 7 fell solely due to an unexpected thermal expansion fracturing of composite floor slabs, causing internal collapse and leaving column 79 unsupported."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, jizzmop?

Normally, in your typically duplicitous fashion, you disagree with the NIST Report and refer to the report as a pack of lies.

Correct, jizzmop?

However, when the NIST Report suits your hidden agenda, suddenly the NIST Report becomes an absolute authority.

ROTFLMAO!

Hypocrite.

LOL!

You can't have it both ways, jizzmop.

So which is it, jizzmop: Is the NIST Report accurate, or not?

 
At 29 May, 2010 10:12, Blogger Billman said...

Nope. Never met Troy. Never talked to him outside of these comments.

Why are you so obsessed with him? So he made some crank calls, are you that butt hurt about them?

Its been proven he hasn't abused his kids, so... not sure what you even care about Troy for anyway.

I certianly don't give a shit. That article sort of pertains to his behaviour, don't you think?

 
At 29 May, 2010 10:28, Blogger Pat said...

Well, if you trust NIST, then....

=^)

 
At 29 May, 2010 11:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Graeme MacQueen's paper is worth reading because it exposes him as a jerkoff. Basically: he finds that of sixty or so firefighters who heard warnings of WTC7's collapse, a little more than half didn't conclude that themselves but rather heard it from somebody else. Then he asks "But if, as many in the 9-11 truth movement believe, the damage sustained by Seven in no way justified the collapse that eventually took place, how could so many of the firefighters have accepted without question the warnings of such collapse?" That reduces to the qustion: "If WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then doesn't that prove that somebody knew WTC7 was coming down by controlled demolition?"

MacQueen is a professor of Buddhist studies by the way. Yet another religious nut. When will the Troofers get a scientist on their side?

 
At 29 May, 2010 11:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the firefighters who were told what to think by the higher ups"

If there is a heaven and hell, that disgusting smear of American heroes, on Memorial Day weekend no less, guarantees you in a spot for eternity in a place where troofers will find out for sure that fire melts steel.

 
At 29 May, 2010 11:32, Blogger Billman said...

Ah, but Anonymous, fire can't melt stupid. I'm sure they'd just spend eternity trying to convince the Devil 9/11 was an inside job, and then question him about his face appearing in the smoke.

 
At 29 May, 2010 12:14, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
Except, the NCSTAR 1A refutes the notion that WTC 7 was compromised by structural damage from the collapse."

Oh shut the fuck up.

You're too stupid to breathe without assistance.

 
At 29 May, 2010 12:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Everybody in the truth movement knows"

Absolutely nothing that has any connection with reality.


"...that the firefighters were warned that WTC 7 was going to "come down" or be "brought down"."

Who mentioned "brought down", when and where.

Who said it, fucktartd?

""Exactly were those warnings were ultimately coming from, is unclear."

They came from the firefighters on the scene, which you are too chicken shit a coward ever to even think about being.


"A few firefighters assessed this on their own, but their conclusions don't rhyme with the NIST report at all."

How? Where? Who says?

Prove it, fucktard.


"Furthermore, the firefighter quote mining"

It ain't "quote mining" if your quoting, you know, the actual words of real people, fucktard.


"Of course, the "debunker" gaggle hates this website more than any other, because it completely eviscerates their perverted nationalist extremism, their pseudoskepticism, their revenge fantasies, and their ruthless exploitation and oversimplification of 9/11."


W.


T.



F.?


Get in your iron lung, you retarded marmoset.

 
At 29 May, 2010 13:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Pat, for those quotes about the damage to the corner of the building. Of course those cast muc doubt on the veracity of Chief Hayden's claim that they saw a bulge on the corner between 10 and 13--because according to those othe guys the corner was gone, and Hayden didn't mention that.

 
At 29 May, 2010 13:17, Blogger Billman said...

Someone didn't mention something! Inside job!!!!

 
At 29 May, 2010 13:35, Blogger avicenne said...

"David Ray Griffin is back..."

Did he ever go away? Will he ever go away?

Irony is too kind a word, especially given his breathtaking "One type of fraud is falsification, which includes 'omitting data.'"

The best part might be where he says that 9/11 was a SCAD. Of course. It all makes sense now.

There's a disturbing question here. Grifter displays all the signs of a man who has cut his ties with the planet earth, yet he's competent enough to plug his books half a dozen times in a single article.

It's hard to say which is worse, - Grifter's psyops/SCAD bullshit or the anonymous dismissal of men who walk into burning fucking buildings as automatons, grunts, blindly accepting their lowly place in the food chain. Probably the latter.

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:02, Blogger Triterope said...

NIST failed, for one thing, to mention any of the testimonial evidence for explosions.

This is too stupid for words.

Sure Dave, let's investigate the "testimonial evidence" for something that the entire eastern seaboard would have not only heard, but found in their front yards.

We don't need to test for explosives any more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki needed to test for evidence of nuclear bombs. The presence of that much explosive is pretty fuckin' obvious.

Is this really the best he can do anymore? What's next, the Airfone crap again? The hijackers are still alive? Signs point to yes.

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I`ll ask again.
Why arent there many, many videos of WTC7 falling, when it was so widely known it may collapse?

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:34, Blogger Triterope said...

Because filming a building while it's collapsing will kill you, you fucking imbecile.

 
At 29 May, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HMMM...That just makes me wonder how they film all those CD`s that you see on TV and youtube. Maybe since they filmed wtc1 and 2 falling they used all the film and stuff, so they couldnt video. Yeah thats it. faggot.

 
At 29 May, 2010 18:12, Anonymous paul w said...

'molybdenum-rich spherule'

Oh boy, I'm impressed!

Molybdenum. Hell, that sounds so knowledgeable!

Spherule. Yeah, S.P.H.R.U.L.E. Wow! Another really great scientific-sounding, er, thingie...

'unreacted nanothermite'

UNREACTED! Fuck dude, that's not even reacted! I mean...awesome!

And now..SCADS!!!

Eat that, debunkers!!!!


As has been said here many times before, and no doubt will be repeated, this lot is beyond parody.

 
At 29 May, 2010 18:30, Anonymous paul w said...

Oh, and did you see the 94 'notes' supporting the comments.

From such impeccable sources as: prison planet, youtube, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, 911 Eyewitness, youtube, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Griffin himself, David Chandler, youtube, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Griffen), Patriots Question 9/11, Niels Harrit, Serendipity*, Global Research, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and, er, youtube.


* get this corker about WTC7: "allegedly being struck by the North Tower's plummeting debris"

 
At 29 May, 2010 18:45, Anonymous Marc said...

The reason that there weren't a lot of video cameras on WTC7's collapse was BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE AND THEY PUSHED EVERYONE BACK.They knew it was coming down because of the visable damage to one side of the building, and also because the two main towers had come down after similar damage.

The second reason is that WTC-7 was not as tall as the twin towers, so not everyone could film it.

Why do we have to explain the painfully obvious to you fucktards anyway?

Did you happen to think that the great footage that we do have of #7 coming down is because the camera team had been tipped off that it was going to fail?

 
At 30 May, 2010 09:33, Blogger Triterope said...

prison planet, youtube, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, 911 Eyewitness, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Griffin himself, David Chandler, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Griffin), Patriots Question 9/11, Niels Harrit, "Serendipity*, Global Research, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

And if you consider how much these sources all source each other, it's all one big incestuous circle of bullshit.

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:02, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Sideshow Bill says: "You can't have it both ways, jizzmop."

Yawn. And I don't. Part of the NIST report is correct, part of it is complete fabrication. (Ask Frank Greening ;-)Of course, you know as well as I that there is a paper called Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, which demonstrates the position of the Journal Of 9/11 Studies on the NIST reports, which is miles ahead of the childish oversimplifications you come up with, Bill.

Hence, your argument constitutes a false dilemma fallacy, Bill. (Take notes, Pat, you might learn something other than new ways to creatively smear and lie about everybody who isn't a hobbyist 9/11 liar like you are.)

Pat says: "Well, if you trust NIST, then...."

See above, Pat. You know about that paper, so don't pretend it doesn't exist. You know damn well there are points of agreement between the TM & the NIST reports. Have a read, gutter blogger.

-~-~-~-~-~-

Billman said:
"Its been proven he hasn't abused his kids, so... not sure what you even care about Troy for anyway."

He fucking pleaded no contest to domestic battery charges and served time. He's still on probation, you fucking two-faced loon. He even fucking bragged on this blog about giving his son a "black eye" and that he would tell the cops that he "fell down the stairs". In the mean time, I've noticed that fucking over-haired necrophiliac is trying to scrub the internet, so I'd better cache these articles locally. In the mean time, why don't you go fuck yourself, with a pogo stick, asshole. You and your buddies here are mentally diseased, child abusing racist filth.

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:29, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Prof. Graeme MacQueen's paper is worth reading because it exposes him as a jerkoff."

....Prattles the anonymous know-nothing imbecile from deep within the noisome bowels of the debunker cult. Let me know when you ever reach an adult level of intellectual aptitude.

"Basically: he finds that of sixty or so firefighters who heard warnings of WTC7's collapse, a little more than half didn't conclude that themselves but rather heard it from somebody else."

Bullshit. Of those 60, 50 heard it from others, seven determined it themselves, and 5 unknown. That's a bit different from "a little more than half", don't you think? You godawful disgusting cesspool of deception; don't you dare lie and fudge the numbers again.

"Then he asks "But if, as many in the 9-11 truth movement believe, the damage sustained by Seven in no way justified the collapse that eventually took place, how could so many of the firefighters have accepted without question the warnings of such collapse?" That reduces to the qustion [sic]: "If WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then doesn't that prove that somebody knew WTC7 was coming down by controlled demolition?"

No it doesn't "reduce" there at all. You are putting words in MacQueen's mouth. The question is exactly as he poses it, not your distorted alternative. He asks why the firefighters would accept collapse rumors while the damage to WTC 7 clearly wasn't enough to justify that (And NIST confirms this in NCSTAR 1A). He proceeds to offer several suggestions, which you omit. The most obvious one, of course, that the firefighters had just seen the (previously perceived as) impossible happen twice.

"MacQueen is a professor of Buddhist studies by the way. Yet another religious nut. When will the Troofers get a scientist on their side?"

When will pseudoskeptic clowns like you finally stop lying? I know: never, because you need these distortions, exaggerations, fallacies and lies to maintain your pathetic fantasy of American exceptionalism. And the baby in you needs reassurance from authority figures. Now go forth and please, please, do not multiply.

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:34, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

If there is a heaven and hell, that disgusting smear of American heroes, on Memorial Day weekend no less, guarantees you in a spot for eternity in a place where troofers will find out for sure that fire melts steel.

Excellent fact-free non-response and appeal to emotion. You aren't "honoring" anybody, you vile, cowardly, stupid, deceitful, jingoist bowl of filth. Tell it to these people. Now FOAD.

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Normally, ...you disagree with the NIST Report and refer to the report as a pack of lies. However, when the NIST Report suits your hidden agenda, suddenly the NIST Report becomes an absolute authority.

Hey Fretboard Fool. Let me make a few corrections to your silly remark:

Normally, ...you agree with the NIST Report and refer to the report as what actually happened. However, when the NIST Report does not suit your hidden agenda, suddenly the NIST Report becomes just a report by a government agency.

We can accuse you guys of doing exactly the same thing...and you guys do...

I have had to point out to Billman that the NIST reort is the official Dogma when he was running away from the inconsistancies that I was pointing out.

So stuff it hypocrite

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:54, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Oh shut the fuck up.

You're too stupid to breathe without assistance."


Without a doubt the most eloquent and logically cohesive refutation I've ever seen.

"Who mentioned "brought down", when and where.

Who said it, fucktartd [sic]?"


E.g. Indira Singh, FDNY Lt. David Rastuccio. Do your fucking homework, neanderthal.

"They came from the firefighters on the scene, which you are too chicken shit a coward ever to even think about being."

You never read MacQueens paper, so you obviously don't have a CLUE what you're talking about, you illiterate, gun toting, warmongering imbecile, so shut .. the .. fuck .. up.

"How? Where? Who says?

Prove it, fucktard."


Take reading lessons and start reading the NIST report. It might take a degenerate ape like yourself a decade, but then you're down you can sit at the grown up table and talk.

"It ain't "quote mining" if your quoting, you know, the actual words of real people, fucktard."

Quote mining is quoting out of context, dim bulb. The context is provided in prof. Graeme MacQueen's paper Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories. I advise you to read it, although I understand you'd rather play with your toy soldiers.

"Get in your iron lung, you retarded marmoset."

Get a fucking brain transplant, you drooling, knuckle-dragging, blathering, boneheaded bungler. And get you and your moronic offspring sterilized to protect the human gene pool. Not later, but right fucking now!

 
At 30 May, 2010 10:58, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

We don't need to test for explosives any more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki needed to test for evidence of nuclear bombs. The presence of that much explosive is pretty fuckin' obvious.

Read NFPA 921, you twat. And who the FUCK is "we". Go FUCK "you" and "yours".

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:49, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Bullshit. Of those 60, 50 heard it from others, seven determined it themselves, and 5 unknown."

Note that this adds up to 62 because of those 60, there are two who are listed as "O + S" under the column "Whose judgment", so we end up with 50 O, 7 S and 5 U.

Just anticipating the unavoidable cheap shots from the self-styled "debunker" cult.

 
At 30 May, 2010 14:18, Blogger Triterope said...

Read NFPA 921, you twat. And who the FUCK is "we". Go FUCK "you" and "yours".

You're not even interesting enough to mock. Go away.

 
At 30 May, 2010 15:16, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Nah, you just don't like being exposed for the assiduous double talker you are.

That Hiroshima/Nagasaki comparison was deliberately deceitful; this is simply how you operate. In fact, how all of you SLC-fans operate. Birds of a feather flock together...

 
At 30 May, 2010 16:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Normally, ...you agree with the NIST Report and refer to the report as what actually happened. However, when the NIST Report does not suit your hidden agenda, suddenly the NIST Report becomes just a report by a government agency."

Oh fuck you, 'tard.

You cherry pick the NIST Report when it suits you, it's that simple.

I never said, moreover, that the NIST Report is always correct, nor do I agree with everything found therein.

So stuff the straw man argument, jizzmop.

Nevertheless, it's more than disingenuous for a troofer to cite the NIST Report, given your vocal opposition to the report. It's a bit like an Atheist quoting the Bible. And twice as disgusting.

Furthermore, scumbag, I gave you data from NASA which proves that the temperature you cite for the fire is far too low.

So why are you going out of your way to avoid addressing that point, jizzmop?

More misdirection, shit-for-brains?

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Wow, the fascist reactioanry fucktard #2 must be getting really, really frustrated at being exposed for the completely ignorant, moronic conspiracy mongering, moral zero he really is.

He's the Abyss staring back at us.

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:52, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Conspiracy monger? Tell us again about the climate change conspiracy theory, Laz. Or the liberal media conspiracy. Or the global anti-American leftist conspiracy.

You crazed, kooky, mentally deprived, infantile, ill-informed, duplicitous, butt-stupid, boneheaded, triple somersault loopy pile of fascist offal.

I so love your double standards.

And stay the fuck away from Nietschze metaphors, you hunch-backed, armpit scratching baboon. Your perversions and defacements of iconic thinkers are a goddamn disgrace ;-)

 
At 30 May, 2010 22:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullshit. Of those 60, 50 heard it from others, seven determined it themselves, and 5 unknown. That's a bit different from "a little more than half", don't you think? You godawful disgusting cesspool of deception; don't you dare lie and fudge the numbers again.

Correct. The "little more than half" indeed refers to the number of "definitely collapsing" vs. "might be collapsing", not "heard from somebody" vs. "decided for themselves". I acknowledge the error. Too bad it doesn't get you anywhere.

He asks why the firefighters would accept collapse rumors while the damage to WTC 7 clearly wasn't enough to justify that (And NIST confirms this in NCSTAR 1A).

False. NCSTAR 1A states that the damage from the Towers' collapse by itself was not enough to significantly affect WTC7. The firefighters' perceptions, however, were based on the subsequent out-of-control fires and clues from the building's behavior. The stability of WTC7 at 3PM was much less clear than it was at 10AM. MacQueen is either being ignorant or dishonest in ignoring that key fact.

In addition, MacQueen's idea of how a team of firefighters works is mistaken. When two or three individuals on a team make independent assessments of impending collapse, it would be surprising if another several dozen individuals didn't accept that information unquestioningly and get the hell out of the way.

My assertion that MacQueen is simply a pseudointellecutal jerkoff stands unrefuted. In addition, Anonymous #2 is a jerkoff for attempting to defend the indefensible. Nicely written attempt though.

 
At 30 May, 2010 23:30, Blogger www.makemoney.usersboard.com said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 31 May, 2010 15:20, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Glad that you're acknowledging your goddamn mistakes, you pathologically lying scumbag. Shame that you dress up your non-apology apology in more denialist obfuscation.

False. NCSTAR 1A states that the damage from the Towers' collapse by itself was not enough to significantly affect WTC7. The firefighters' perceptions, however, were based on the subsequent out-of-control fires and clues from the building's behavior. The stability of WTC7 at 3PM was much less clear than it was at 10AM. MacQueen is either being ignorant or dishonest in ignoring that key fact.

What?! You repeat my assertion, then justify it, acknowledge it, fucking admit it to boot, yet you still call it "false"? You're a rare breed of pathological denialist scum, I'll give you that, you airpocket slithering cockroach.

There was no structural damage compromising WTC 7, period.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:26, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

For reference: Non-apology apology

Cheers! =)

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:27, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

It sure is fun watching the Debunker Cult get their butts waxed by a few 9/11 skeptics.Why is the spineless jellyfish "GitFiddler" allowed anywhere near his home computer? Probably because he was bounced from there a long while ago.

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:28, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

It sure is fun watching the Debunker Cult get their butts waxed by a few 9/11 skeptics.Why is the spineless jellyfish "GitFiddler" allowed anywhere near his home computer? Probably because he was bounced from there a long while ago.

 
At 04 June, 2010 13:22, Anonymous ambalaj said...

Hey Troy, not sure if you're around, but cracked.com is running an article on 8 Psychotic Overreactions by Adults at Youh Sporting events. Amazingly, the troofers will be surprised that wou weren't on it, and some of these people, wow..
<a

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home