Gage's New Consultant
Box Boy Richard Gage and Waterboy Kevin Ryan are teaming up to appear on Coast-to-Coast, the show that's usually about alien abductions and lizards ruling us all. They are to appear against some debunkers supposedly from JREF, although of course it's not really a JREF event, just forum members, including Dave Thomas, who has done some excellent debunking.
Gage even picked up a consultant, the brilliant and aptly named Winston Wu.
Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program in the next few months. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd and which points to emphasize, because he would like me to be a consultant to his team. I am honored of course.
The debate is scheduled for July 31st. Gage is truly fortunate to have a razor-sharp mind like Wu's on his team:
It's too bad ciscop isn't here. He would love the group that Dave Thomas is president of, New Mexicans for Science and Reason (http://www.nmsr.org), since ciscop is mexican too. Why is it "new mexicans" though? Is there referring to Mexico or the state of New Mexico?
No, they're New Mexicans because they just became Mexicans. ;)
Labels: Coast To Coast, Dave Thomas, Radio
posted by Pat @ 8:49 AM
173 comments
173 Comments:
"Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!
twoooofers™ wouldn't know science if it snuck on 'em and bit 'em in the ass.
LL, last time I checked there were almost 50 PhDs in AE911Truth, not including the PhD engineers and architects.
What are your scientific credentials?
Trolling again, scumbag?
Whatever, Anonymous.
Let me know when A&Efor911truth is ever considered as a legitimate scientific organization by anyone other than troofers...
PhD= Piled Higher and Deeper
"Anonymous said...
LL, last time I checked there were almost 50 PhDs in AE911Truth, not including the PhD engineers and architects."
And Benedict Arnold was a war hero.
What's your point?
Some cretin who can't even divine the point in a simple two-post exchange was making remarks about science, LL. That's the point.
Who are you to call anyone a "cretin"?
After all, you're still working on the following:
147,000 > 1,200
(read, 147,000 (ASCE) Civil and Structural Engineers > 1,200 charlatans and nutters)
Keep working on it, and perhaps in a generation or two you'll get it, cretin.
And remember, I'm just askin' questions...
GB, how many independent ASCE members can you list who will express confidence in the NIST report?
Just in case the concept of independence puzzles you, it's engineers whose firms do not have contracts with NIST.
I haven't been able to find even one. Happy hunting, chump.
JREF gets another debate gig, while you fools sit on the bench.
This blog is the laughing stock of the whole ct industry, but you keep on posting like youre actually helping. Just a bunch of has beens that cant cut it at JREF.
Mega-Fail.
The anony twoofer writes: "GB, how many independent ASCE members can you list who will express confidence in the NIST report?"
They were involved in the 9-11 report from NIST you jackass. Jeeez where do you get these ill-informed twoofers.
BIGDOG
Just in case the concept of independence puzzles you, it's engineers whose firms do not have contracts with NIST.
How did you come up with that standard? Just asking.
Crickets from the twoofer!!
Anonymous dissembles, "...GB, how many independent ASCE members can you list who will express confidence in the NIST report?"
Why are you asking that question again, idiot? I've already addresses that question, and I provided hyperlinks to substantiate my points, too. So what's your major malfunction, shit-for-brains? After all, asking the same question over-and-over again, doesn't prove your point, cretin.
Again, I've already proven that the ASCE endorses the NIST Report. I've also proven that the ASCE speaks for all its members.
Answer: All 147,000 ASCE members.
Another epic fail, cretin.
"...How did you come up with that standard? Just asking."
The same place he gets all of his tripe: He pulls it out of his ass.
Wait for a few microns and his lizard lovin brain will malfunction into rational thought?? I mean is that crickets im hearing?
crickets
crickets
crickets
crickets
It doesn't take a genius to debunk 9/11 troof, as the following mp3 audio amply demonstrates:
Source: radiodujour.com: Kim Hill destroys Richard Gage. (digital audio encoding format: mp3)
Without question another twoofer or thw samr one mind you, bites the dust. These people are pathetic.
BIGDOG
P.S. Waiting for the goal post to change.
LL, last time I checked there were almost 50 PhDs in AE911Truth, not including the PhD engineers and architects.
So your group has 50 people who don't know what New Mexico is?
Hell, they can't prove that "nanothermite" exists.
This paper was written in 2007--that's almost six years after 9/11.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 23, number 4, July--August, 2007.
Processing and Ignition Characteristics of Aluminum–Bismuth Trioxide Nanothermite System.
"...During the past few years, significant progress has been made in the development of new nanoenergetic materials consisting of mixtures of metal and oxidizer nanopowders."
Source: JoPP: Processing and Ignition Characteristics of Aluminum–Bismuth
Trioxide Nanothermite System.
"Significant progress"? Obviously, the stuff was still in the development stage as of 2007.
ROTFLMAO!
And remember, I'm just askin' questions...
Where did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report?
The same place ASCE expressed their confidence that the sun rises in the east, you ignorant boob. Christ, how many times are you lot going to ask the SAME QUESTIONS?
Off topic a little bit: I'm back to updating ae911truth.info again. I'm moving the content over to the new Wordpress software, which is as nice to work with as Tikiwiki wasn't. The top 10 mistakes list is updated again, and you will not believe it - well, you will - but AE911Truth is back to using that deceptive audio without explosive sounds in the Philips building demolition video. Really, really sad.
Wow, that CDI photographer/powder carrier was something, huh? Gage and crew published his W-2 form for 2001. He said he was dismissed right after 9/11, so he made a grand total of $11,000 for the entire year. That just fills me with all kinds of confidence about his CD expertise. Doesn't it you? :D
When did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report? I want to see exactly what they said.
Or did they just say "Wow! It sure is big!"
"Or did they just say "Wow! It sure is big!""
Not to you they didn't.
He said he was dismissed right after 9/11, so he made a grand total of $11,000 for the entire year.
Maybe he was hired on 8/11.
Anonymous dissembles, "...Where did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report?"
Don't play coy with me--you stupid fucker.
You know as well as I do that the NIST reports' recommendations for building safety improvements were adopted and implemented by the ASCE.
Again, asking the same question over-and-over again, doesn't prove that your batshit crazy ideas are true.
LL wrote, "..."Or did they just say "Wow! It sure is big!""
"Not to you they didn't."
ROTFLMAO!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Anonymous dissembles, "...When did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report? I want to see exactly what they said."
Don't play coy with me--you cretin.
Go back to the thread where you asked this question the first time, scumbag. Click on the hyperlinks to ASCE I provided and read the content found therein.
Question #1: Does your mommy still take you to the bathroom, junior?
Question #2: How's the combination of brain death and Altzheimer's disease treating you, Anonymous.
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
I wish the truthers who talk themselves up about fighting the police state, and what heroes they are, would take time to see what it's like for some who live in the real world:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/02/the_least_free_places_on_earth_2010
Anonymous dissembles, "...When did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report? I want to see exactly what they said."
Is congressional testimony from the ASCE as regards adoption of NIST's new standards good enough for you, chump?
LOL!
It took me two minutes to find the data. So what's your major malfunction, Anonymous? Are you still working on that search engine thing?
Source: asce.org: Testimony of Dr. James Harris, Ph.D, P.E.
Source: asce.org: Statement of the ASCE on fiscal year 2005 Appropriations for the NIST.
And these are only two examples. There are many more examples to be found.
Read 'em and weep, Anonymous.
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
Maybe he was hired on 8/11.
Most definitely, could be. In fact, I'm happy to posit that he didn't work full-time the entire year.
But his employment history is first photographer, then powder carrier. Making $11,000 means he'd just started the powder carrier gig. He's no expert on CD at all - he was just starting to learn the craft...
...and then he was let go, and he's not produced any verification of further employment in the field since. And now AE911Truth has suddenly grabbed him up from outer space, even though they've got 50 Ph.D's. Heaven forbid the word disgruntled enter this conversation, eh? ;-)
I'm happy to posit that he didn't work full-time the entire year.
It's obvious he didn't hold the job for very long if that's all the money he made.
The amazing part is how the Truthers will gleefully post things like this to the Internet, thinking it gives their experts more credibility. "Our next speaker is a man with $11,000 career income in the demolitions industry..."
council on foriegn relations hurry up and debunk this shit!!! i got into with this dipshit, basically he says all kinds of shit about the CFR and world banking conspiracies. can we get this guy shamed into silence or something? no matter what i say he just tells me that i don't understand economics. thanks!
the finest the land of and home of the brave has to offer....
great caesers ghost.. the finest the troof movement has to offer.
Can't even spell caesar's right.
*golf clap*
Where did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report?
Irrelevant. Express ASCE approval is not a factor in assessing scientific validity. And even if ASCE had made such an express approval of the NIST report, you'd just claim they were lying or bought off or controlled by the NWO or whatever.
How was your 4th, fumblenuts? Did you stare at the grill and think about thermite? I thought so.
"And now AE911Truth has suddenly grabbed him up from outer space"
That's where all their theories originate.
"He's no expert on CD at all - he was just starting to learn the craft..."
It wouldn't even matter if he was, although you have to laugh at this multitasker - photographer/powder carrier/controlled demolition expert - being feted like his expertise has unleashed some kind of shitstorm.
Pandemonium at NWO hq.
"Where did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report?"
Once again you ignorant SOB. The ASCE was directly involved in the investigation and compilation of the NIST report. IF and i do mean IF they did not express confidence in the report then they are cutting their own throats because they were involved.
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Before the Committee on Science
House of Representatives United States Congress
Quote: "NIST experts participated in the initial assessment of the collapse conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Coalition that comprised a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) funded by FEMA. The ASCE Coalition Team also included professional members of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). NIST is lending its expertise in structural disasters to ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to store WTC steel at its Gaithersburg, MD, headquarters for further scientific study."
BIGDOG
Oh and the ASCE is doing further SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. The twoofers have you believe they shipped everything off and nothing is left to study.
Anonymous: "JREF gets another debate gig, while you fools sit on the bench.
This blog is the laughing stock of the whole ct industry, but you keep on posting like youre actually helping. Just a bunch of has beens that cant cut it at JREF."
It is Pat and James who are in the right here and the JREF forum members who are wrong. There was a time, back in the beginning with LC2 and whatnot, when it was proper to debunk the lies and delusions of the troofers and even to confront them directly. But that time is now long past and and the troofers should be ignored unless they pop up in respectable quarters. The JREF members are merely giving publicity and credibility to the disgusting and evil by "debating" them. Troofers should merely be mocked.
-manny
mocked??
You mean exposed.
Hear those crickets??
Laura Bush Fails to Connect the Anthrax Dots
http://grand-chessboard.com/2010/07/05/laura-bush-fails-to-connect-the-anthrax-dots/
Wow, that CDI photographer/powder carrier was something, huh?
sorry to correct you but he was an explosive loader for CDI. while the ae911truth article posted his powder carrier license, he admitted in his ae911truth profile that he was a photographer and loader for CDI. which ultimately means 2 things: he wasn't even an apprentice nor was he allowed to possess a set of keys to the explosives locker by NYC law.
LL, last time I checked there were almost 50 PhDs in AE911Truth, not including the PhD engineers and architects.
Haven't been here in a while, but it's good to see that Brian "Petgoat" Good is back and babbling about nothing once again.
Seek professional help, Petgoat.
Laura Bush Fails to Connect the Anthrax Dots
Nice to see you're keeping up with current events, BG. How about that World Cup? I hear it's in Germany this year.
GB: "the NIST reports' recommendations for building safety improvements were adopted and implemented by the ASCE."
So they expressed confidence in the fire safety aspects of NIST's report. Where did they express confidence in the collapse mechanism findings?
GB: "Go back to the thread where you asked this question the first time, scumbag."
Hmm, you seem to be confusing me with some other Anonymous. Logically challenged, eh?
GB: http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf
That's about their fire safety recommendations. It nowhere expresses confidence in the collapse mechanism report.
GB: Statement of the ASCE on fiscal year 2005 Appropriations for the NIST.
Hmmm, that nowhere expresses confidence in the NIST report on the WTC. You're a big fat liar, GuitarBill. Of course the lamos at SLC won't figure it out.
Anonymous dissembles, "...That's about their fire safety recommendations. It nowhere expresses confidence in the collapse mechanism report."
Telling half-truths again (and half-truths are still a whole lie), jizzmop?
Logic (not to mention honesty) isn't your strong suit, is it?
Why would ASCE adopt all the NIST recommendations if they didn't endorse the NIST report and its conclusions?
Furthermore, they didn't merely adopt "fire safety recommendations"--you liar. The ASCE also made changes to standard design practices and engineering curricula.
FACT: It's a given that they support the collapse mechanism BECAUSE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES TO BUILDING CODE (not to mention engineering curricula) ARE BASED ON THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM.
Now get out of here, scumbag.
"sorry to correct you but he was an explosive loader for CDI."
AKA "powder monkey".
AKA someone who doesn't know shit from shinola.
Anonymous dissembles, "...That's about their fire safety recommendations. It nowhere expresses confidence in the collapse mechanism report."
Telling half-truths again (and half-truths are still a whole lie), jizzmop?
Logic (not to mention honesty) isn't your strong suit, is it?
Why would ASCE adopt all the NIST recommendations if they didn't endorse the NIST report and its conclusions?
Furthermore, they didn't merely adopt "fire safety recommendations"--you liar. The ASCE also made changes to standard design practices and engineering curricula.
FACT: It's a given that they support the collapse mechanism BECAUSE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES TO BUILDING CODE (not to mention engineering curricula) ARE BASED ON THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM.
Now get out of here, scumbag.
That's about their fire safety recommendations. It nowhere expresses confidence in the collapse mechanism report.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Did you even READ the goddamn thing?
Triterope: No. They didn't. And if they did they didn't understand. And if they understood they just assume lies. And if they're unable to assume lies they just make some up of their own.
That's one of the reasons not to engage them in debate. These people aren't analogous to climate skeptics; they're analogous to moon-landing deniers. They deserve mocking and the occasional punch in the nose and nothing else.
Triterope wrote, "...Did you even READ the goddamn thing?"
Apparently he read the title.
%^)
The ASCE document is obviously a response to the NIST report, and a series of counter-recommendations to NIST's recommendations. The fact that they're addressing the recommendations (and not the report itself) implies that they accept the findings of the report.
That Brian Good (or someone who sounds a lot like Brian Good) thinks this document proves the ASCE doesn't support the NIST report is flabbergasting stupidity.
See, these people, called the twoofers, need not be enGAGED in their rhetoric. Well its cause we all know they are full of shite!!!
Has the goal post changed yet??
BIGDOG
The fact that ASCE endorsed NIST's fire safety report doesn't mean they expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
So I challenge you again. Name one independent (non-NIST-tainted) engineer who will express confidence in NIST's report on the collapse mechanism.
Anonymous dissembles, "...The fact that ASCE endorsed NIST's fire safety report doesn't mean they expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism."
Yes, it does, jackass.
As an engineer I can tell you that a flawed report and its recommendations would NEVER be adopted if the conclusions found therein are in error.
In addition, if the ASCE, as you allege, had the slightest doubt about the NIST's findings as relates to the collapse mechanism, why would Dr. Harris state--and I quote: "...The events at the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, were the worst building disasters in the history of the United States"?
Does that sound like a troofer to you, jizzmop?
If the ASCE, moreover, believes that something other than fire and the aircraft impacts caused the collapse, why would Dr. Harris state, "...With respect to recommendation #9, ASCE/SIE has been working with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and has already prepared a draft to update ASCE/SIE/SFPE, by incorporating performance-based fire resistant design...ASCE favors the development of tools to assist engineers in addressing the issue of PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE." (emphasis added--ed)
Thus, the ASCE agrees with the NIST Report's progressive collapse hypotheses.
Got it, dissembler for 9/11 troof?
Now, crawl back into your bomb shelter, jackass.
The seventh paragraph should read:
"...Thus, the ASCE agrees with the NIST Reports' progressive collapse hypotheses."
I used the plural form of hypothesis (hypotheses, plural), because the NIST Report addressed several points of failure and offered a hypothesis for each point of failure as relates to the overall progressive collapse and its underlying mechanisms.
Sorry. My bad.
%^)
Twoofer states:
"The fact that ASCE endorsed NIST's fire safety report doesn't mean they expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
So I challenge you again. Name one independent (non-NIST-tainted) engineer who will express confidence in NIST's report on the collapse mechanism."
AWH!!! there it is....the goal post just changed. I knew it.
Originally:
Where did ASCE express confidence in the NIST report?
Note: what he didnt realise was the ASCE was 'NIST tainted' from the begining of the investigation and because they were involved from the jump, once he figured that out he then said.(goal post changed)
Changed to:
"Name one independent (non-NIST-tainted) engineer who will express confidence in NIST's report on the collapse mechanism."
YAWNS!!! to easy!!!
BIGDOG
The fact that ASCE endorsed NIST's fire safety report doesn't mean they expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
The fact that they're addressing the recommendations (and not the report itself) implies that they accept the findings of the report.
The goalposts moved because the original formulation left a loophole for a dishonest answer to sneak through.
ASCE was "NIST-tainted" if they were involved in the NIST report. You can't expect them to criticize a report in which they were involved. That's bad for business.
I'm surprised you geniuses stumble on concepts like "independence".
It's specious and dishonest arguments like yours that convince me I'm on the right track.
So your satisfied with an implicit acceptance. I'm not.
Name one independent (non-NIST-tainted) engineer who will express confidence in NIST's WTC collapse mechanism.
Jizzmop dissembles, "...Name one independent (non-NIST-tainted) engineer who will express confidence in NIST's WTC collapse mechanism."
Moving the goal posts again, scumbag?
I'll do you better than one expert, scumbag.
From MIT we find the following:
[1] Eduardo Kausel
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
* C.E. 1967, University of Chile
* M.S. 1972, MIT
* Sc.D. 1974, MIT;
[2] John E. Fernandez
Associate Professor of Building Technology - MIT
1989--MArch, Princeton University
1985--BSAD, MIT;
[3] Tomasz Wierzbicki
Professor of Applied Mechanics Director, Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory - MIT
Ph.D. in Applied Mechanics, 1965 Institute of Fundamental Technological
Research, Warsaw, Poland
S.M. in Engine Design, 1960 Warsaw Technical University, Warsaw, Poland;
[4] Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
BS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
BS in Computer Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
MS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1997
MS in Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003;
[5] Ahmed F. Ghoniem
Professor of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, July 1973, Cairo University, Egypt
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, October 1975, Cairo University, Egypt
Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, June 1980 , University of California, Berkeley;
[6] Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
* Ph.D. 1970, Cornell University
* M.S. 1969, Cornell University
* M.S.C.E. 1963, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey;
[7] Franz-Josef Ulm
Professor of Engineering Mechanics and Materials - MIT
* Diplom Ingenieur (M.Sc.) 1990, TU Munich
* Docteur-Ingenieur (Ph.D.) 1994, ENPC, Paris
* Habilitation 1998, ENS de Cachan;
[8] Yossi Sheffi
Professor of Engineering Systems - MIT
B.Sc. Technion in Israel - 1975
S.M. - MIT, 1977
Ph.D - MIT 1978.
From the ASCE/FEMA we find the following:
[1] Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures
[2] Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Team Leader
Technical Director, Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Specialty: Blast-resistant design
[3] Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Specialty: Blast effects and structural design
[4] James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal, J.R. Harris & Company
Specialty: Structural engineering
[5] Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Specialty: Concrete, structural and fire engineering
[6] Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Specialty: Fire protection
That's a total of 14 engineers, off the top of my head. And notice that Dr. Harris is not "NIST tainted" (whatever the fuck that means)--you lying jackass.
Now, where's that formal apology for lying to us, scumbag?
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
The careful reader will ask: Where does the Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof get his "NIST tainted" lie?
He's parroting water boy (Kevin Ryan).
And here's the proof:
Source: 911 truth.org (via Google webcache): The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception by the Water Boy (Kevin Ryan).
Question for the Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof: When did you become a member of the neo-Nazi Idaho or Montana militia? After all, you parrot them with abandon.
LOL!
So, where's that formal apology for lying to us, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof?
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
The Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof whines, "...It's specious and dishonest arguments like yours that convince me I'm on the right track."
What were you saying, Anonymous?
After all, the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is your inability to find your ass with an hunting dog and a compass.
ROTFLMAO!
So, where's that formal apology for lying to us, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof?
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
And what's that sound coming from the 9/11 troof camp?
*crickets*
%^)
A few more chairs and you got a dining room set for the garage,there Shitpicker!! Arlen Specter would be proud of your Insane Gyrations!
The ArseHooligan dissembles, "...A few more chairs and you got a dining room set for the garage,there Shitpicker!! Arlen Specter would be proud of your Insane Gyrations!"
More 100% fact-free gibberish, Mr Magoo?
Another epic failure for the 9/11 troof movement.
LOL!
And remember, cretin, I'm just askin' questions...
So your satisfied with an implicit acceptance. I'm not.
Well, you can be unsatisfied all you want, asshole. It is not the obligation of the scientific community to tailor their reports to your liking (and to your minimal level of understanding). Especially if you're going to dismiss them as "tainted" five seconds later.
GB, so when did your list of MIT guys express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism?
And when you say "Dr. Harris is not 'NIST tainted'" are you saying the other 13 are NIST tainted?
You guys can't answer a simple question?
TR, I asked a simple question. Name one engineer independent of NIST who will express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
Why is this do difficult for you to answer? I'd think there'd be thousands of engineers offering to vouch for the honest researchers at ScrewLooseChange!
Anonymous the lying, slimy invertebrate dissembles, "...GB, so when did your list of MIT guys express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism?"
Oh Fuck you--you slimy little worm.
Source: MIT: The Towers Lost and Beyond.
Face it, you lost again. worm.
Now, go fuck yourself.
Anonymous dissembles, "...And when you say "Dr. Harris is not 'NIST tainted'" are you saying the other 13 are NIST tainted?"
There's no such thing as "NIST tainted"--you prevaricating shit stain. The only place where "NIST tainted" applies is in that composts heap that masquerades as your "brain".
Now, where's the formal apology you own us for lying, Anonymous?
I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology, because we all know you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong. Like all shit stains for 9/11 troof, you're a coward, a lout and a compulsive liar.
From John E. Fernandez.
Read it and weep, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof.
From Page 10 we read,
"...On September 11, 2001 terrorists attacked the towers using two airliners to crash into and cause the collapse of both buildings. Each building was struck at a different height and angle. Preliminary analysis seems to indicate that the two suffered damage in different areas of the exterior wall and core and, as a result, the individual progressive collapse mechanisms were also distinct. In the end, each tower was felled by the initiation of a critical progressive collapse that toppled each building in a near free-fall condition."
Source: MIT: A History of the World Trade Center Towers -- By John E. Fernandez.
Face it, Anonymous, YOU ARE OWNED.
Name one engineer independent of NIST who will express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
GuitarBill already named 14 of them.
But wait, don't tell me, let me guess: they work for universities, and universities get money from the government like NIST does, and therefore they're "NIST tainted."
Face it, Anonymous, YOU ARE OWNED.
No, he's not. He'll just change the rules again and go back on the offensive. It's all just one big game of Calvinball.
GB, "The Towers Lost and Beyond" was published in 2002, three years before the NIST report. So how can that express confidence in the NIST report?
You are out of touch with reality.
Anonymous dissembles, "...GB, "The Towers Lost and Beyond" was published in 2002, three years before the NIST report. So how can that express confidence in the NIST report?"
The NIST Report concluded that the Towers underwent a progressive collapse.
"...as a result, the individual progressive collapse mechanisms were also distinct. In the end, each tower was felled by the initiation of a critical progressive collapse that toppled each building in a near free-fall condition."
You can't read.
Now, if the NIST Report agrees with the progressive collapse hypothesis, why would they need to express confidence in a Report that agrees with them?
Got logic, petgoat?"
"You have the right to be my bitch, Anonymous."
Face it, petgoat, you're OWNED.
Remember Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof, you have the right to be my bitch. (Watch the video, it's hilarious)
ROTFLMAO!
OWNED!
I'm so glad Brian Good is back with his legendary insanity.
It's specious and dishonest arguments like yours that convince me I'm on the right track.
You wouldn't know a specious argument if it gave you Carol Brouillet's cell phone number.
TR, I asked a simple question. Name one engineer independent of NIST who will express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.
He did already, Petgoat.
Why is this do difficult for you to answer? I'd think there'd be thousands of engineers offering to vouch for the honest researchers at ScrewLooseChange!
Nobody cares, Punxsutawneybarney.
GB, "The Towers Lost and Beyond" was published in 2002, three years before the NIST report. So how can that express confidence in the NIST report?
You are out of touch with reality.
Seek professional help, Petgoat.
In the spirit of debate i challenge any twoofer.
Can you, twoofer, name one peer-reviewed paper supported by scientific method of study and (non-GAGE-tainted) A&E's hypothesis....who will express confidence in GAGES WTC collapse mechanism?? Demolition experts are welcome as well but must demonstrate why they support Gage and the veracity of his claims.
NOW answer the question with facts like GB did for you and the many others that refuted your lies.
BIGDOG
goalpost set in stone, now answer my question.
The claim was made that 147,000 engineers endorse the NIST report.
When pressed for specifics, you nimrods cite pre-emptive (like 3 years pre-emptive) endorsements.
Oh, "progressive collapse" was the mechanism, eh? That's like saying the decedent died of death.
Queer-bait dissembles, "...The claim was made that 147,000 engineers endorse the NIST report."
More specious nonsense, Glenn?
Would you like me to expose your "MaxBridges" fraud again, liar for 9/11 troof? After all, you'll never lived that one down, fraud.
Now bow to your master, compulsive liar for 9/11 troof.
Try me, freak.
Face it, Colorado culo freak, you've been
Shot Down In Flames.
"...Ain't it a shame, to be shot down in flames?"
ROTFLMAO!
Question: How's your beard, the alleged "Craig Hawley," doing, fraud for 9/11 troof?
LOL!
Now, go lick your wounds, prevaricator for 9/11 troof.
And remember, Glenn, I'm just askin' questions...
GB, at the top of the thread you claimed 147,000 engineers. Now you laugh at the restatement of that claim anyone can see at the top of the thread.
You're pretty silly, you know that?
As the ASCE makes clear, they're 147,000 members strong, and ASCE speaks for all their members.
Care to refute that statement, cocksucker?
Go for it, charlatan.
Glenn dissembles, "...When pressed for specifics, you nimrods cite pre-emptive [SIC] (like 3 years pre-emptive) [SIC] endorsements."
Can you read, Glenn?
Read it again, charlatan, "...Now, if the NIST Report agrees with the progressive collapse hypothesis, why would they need to express confidence in a Report that agrees with them?"
So, what's your major malfunction, jackass for 9/11 troof?
And remember, Colorado salad tosser, I'm just askin' questions...
"New Yorker said...
I'm so glad Brian Good is back with his legendary insanity."
Did he make bail?
Work release program?
Boy howdy, they told me the SLC crowd was a bunch of dumb bunnies and they sure weren't wrong!
You're like a bunch of "special kids" telling the same jokes over and over and over and over...
Brian Good dissembles, "...You're like a bunch of 'special kids' telling the same jokes over and over and over and over..."
"...[S]pecial kids"?
Really? No kidding?
I guess that explains why I've handed you your head over-and-over again. Right, momma's boy?
And while we're on the subject of "special kids", do you still live with your parents, jizzmop?
You're like a bunch of "special kids" telling the same jokes over and over and over and over...
9-11 Truth is the same joke over and over and over and over.
"Anonymous said...
Boy howdy, they told me the SLC crowd was a bunch of dumb bunnies and they sure weren't wrong!"
Yet you, you short-bus riding, window licking retard, are a twoooofer™.
What does that say about you?
Says nothing about me, Stillbirth Short. Says a lot about your rich fantasy life.
So GB, when you are you going to name some non-NIST-tainted independent engineers who will express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism?
(And don't claim the mechanism was "total progressive collapse". It was total progressive collapse even if it was controlled demolition.)
So GB, when you are you going to name some non-NIST-tainted independent engineers who will express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism?
LEELA (voice-over) ...My only outlet was Arcturan Kung Fu.
[Teenage Leela takes on two guys and floors them. Her teacher, a green alien called Fnog watches.]
FNOG: Excellent. Bill, Keith, you will go to Junior Championships. Bill, congratulate Keith when he regains consciousness.
LEELA: But, Master Fnog, I can beat these dorks with one eye closed.
FNOG: Perhaps. But there is more to winning than beating your opponent. You lack the will of the warrior. No girl has the will of a warrior. You have the will of a housewife or, at best, the schoolmarm.
LEELA: That's it. I'll take you on right now.
FNOG: Very well. But, you see, I have the will of the warrior. Therefore, the battle is already over. The winner? Me! Rematch? You lose again! Had enough? I thought so!
IOW, though you girls claim millions of engineers support the NIST collapse mechanism, you can't name one who's independent of NIST.
"Ass-face dissembles, "...IOW, though you girls claim millions of engineers support the NIST collapse mechanism, you can't name one who's independent of NIST."
What's this, poofter?
Source: SLC: I'll do you better than one expert, scumbag.
Do you honestly believe that lying through repetition will convince anyone of anything--with exception of your boundless intellectual dishonesty, poofter for 9/11 troof?
If nothing else, you've done tremendous damage to your troof movement.
Good job, weasel.
Dickhead scribbles, "...(And don't claim the mechanism was 'total progressive collapse'. It was total progressive collapse even if it was controlled demolition.)"
I never made that claim, Mr. Straw Man Argument.
Again, is libel all you have?
Don't you have toilets to clean, former janitor for 9/11 troof? Oh that's right, your brain is washed.
"Brian Good resorts to another straw man argument, and whines, "...IOW, though you girls claim millions of engineers support the NIST collapse mechanism."
"...[M]illions"?!?
Since when does 147,000 = 1,000,000+?
Clearly, you lie with such frequency, that you can't keep your lies straight.
Tell us, is your middle name Pinocchio?
Pathetic.
When are you going to name an engineer independent of NIST's taint who endorses its report about its findings of the collapse mechanism?
You're all bark, no facts.
Fuck you!
Go to Hell, liar.
It's not my fault you can't back up your claims.
If you had truth on your side you could just stick to facts like I do.
Fuck off, Brian.
That Brian guy sure did get your panties wadded up. I bet when something goes bump in the night you go "Brian! Is that you?"
Harris says (according to your link) "ASCE/SEI supports a thorough review and deliberation of all of the NIST
Recommendations."
Uh oh, that doesn't look like an endorsement to me. Looks like he doesn't trust NIST.
Where's the part where he expresses confidence in NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism?
I bet when something goes bump in the night you go "Brian! Is that you?"
Only if someone is here to scrub my toilet.
I see, do you often have studly men over in the middle of the night "to scrub my toilet"?
I see, do you often have studly men over in the middle of the night "to scrub my toilet"?
I don't know about studly, but I wouldn't hire anyone from this photo.
That Brian guy sure did get your panties wadded up. I bet when something goes bump in the night you go "Brian! Is that you?"
Seek professional help, Brian.
STILL WAITING OFR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION!! TWOOFER!!
Can you, twoofer, name one peer-reviewed paper supported by scientific method of study and (non-GAGE-tainted) A&E's hypothesis....who will express confidence in GAGES WTC collapse mechanism?? Demolition experts are welcome as well but must demonstrate why they support Gage and the veracity of his claims.
BIGDOG
Given the fact that it takes great courage to speak up against the NIST report, and the fact that it takes none to speak up in support of it make it all the more surprising that not one independent engineer can be found who will express support of the findings of the NIST report on the collapse?
Given the fact that it takes great courage to speak up against the NIST report, and the fact that it takes none to speak up in support of it make it all the more surprising that not one independent engineer can be found who will express support of the findings of the NIST report on the collapse?
Brian, why is this your new obsession instead of the widows' unanswered questions? Did Mindy Kleinberg pepper spray you once too often, and now they're on your shit list with Rodriguez and Barrett?
Given the fact that it takes great courage to speak up against the NIST report
Tell it to Neda, asshole.
See what i mean folks. So i will ask one last time.
STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION!! TWOOFER!!
Can you, twoofer, name one peer-reviewed paper supported by scientific method of study and (non-GAGE-tainted) A&E's hypothesis....who will express confidence in GAGES WTC collapse mechanism?? Demolition experts are welcome as well but must demonstrate why they support Gage and the veracity of his claims.
BIGDOG
TR I don't understand your point. Why are you comparing the millions of professional engineers who are too cowardly to speak out in support of the NIST report and Neda?
Because its relevent to your arguement and those that you say are cowardly is a false assertion by you; you are a coward amongst nobles, who answered your rhetorical BS.
Wating abreast for your reply to my question directed solely at you. YOU MUST BE SCARED!!
BD
Your post no make sense, sorry.
The psychopath dissembles, "...Your post no make sense, sorry."
Make no sense to whom?
A psychopath?
Pathetic.
"...Your post no make sense, sorry."
More proof that you're lucky to have a GED, psychopath for 9/11 troof.
You don't know anything about me, Mr. unemployed IT guy.
Do you enjoy having your ass shoved down over your head again and again and again? Is that how you like to spend your Sundays?
I'm not unemployed.
Now, let's address your logical fallacies, shall we psychopath for 9/11 troof?
Psychopath for 9/11 troof, your inability to provide a psychiatrist who endorses your sanity suggests that you are, in fact, a psychopath.
Two can play at your game, charlatan.
So, how's psychopathy treating you, compulsive liar and sex fiend for 9/11 troof?
By all means, let's address my logical fallacies. How about you show one?
You're not unemployed? Oh right, you're a "consultant" who hasn't had an assignment in 30 weeks, but you're employed.
Psychopath, look at yourself.
You claim that you're sane; yet, you can't back up that claim.
Now, until you can provide a psychiatrist who backs your claim, we're forced to conclude that you are, in fact, a psychopath.
What's the matter, psychopath, you don't like the taste of your own "logic" when it's used against you?
Pathetic.
"...By all means, let's address my logical fallacies. How about you show one?"
As you wish, nut bar.
Psychopath, you lack the intellectual horsepower to prove that the engineers I listed for you don't endorse the NIST Report--which is proof positive that you're a psychopath.
Sounds like a logical fallacy to me, when you ask me to prove a negative.
Since you're unable to provide evidence that proves that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report, let alone provide evidence that confirms your alleged "sanity", it's safe to conclude that you're, in fact, a lying psychopath.
Now, until you can provide a psychiatrist who backs your claim of sanity, we're forced to conclude that you are, in fact, a psychopath.
What's the matter, psychopath, you don't like the foul taste of your own specious "logic" when it's used against you?
Cry me a river, psychopath.
Now, where's that certificate that verifies your sanity, psychopath?
And while you're at it, it should be child's play for you to prove that the engineers I listed don't endorse the NIST Report. Right?
I'm waiting patiently for your evidence.
Now, get to work, psychopath.
Huh? You are asking me to prove a negative--that your list do not support the NIST report. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to back up your claims.
You are seriously whacked.
Now, hold it psychopath, I've proven that they endorse the Report by adoption of the Reports' recommendations; thus, the burden of proof falls on your narrow shoulder's to prove that they don't endorse the NIST report.
I've done my job, now you do your job.
Get to work, psychopath.
Hey poofster, only one of your 14 names is even associated with the report.
So how about showing where the other 13 endorse the NIST report?
Moving the goalpost again, psychopath?
Answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?
Now, get to work psychopath for 9/11 troof.
I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm asking you to prove your case. You refuse to do it, and instead resort to the dishonest demand that I prove something I never claimed.
Sorry, psychopath. If the engineers are not advocates of the NIST Report (your argument); they must be opponents of the NIST Report (your "logic").
Do you see how your idiotic circular logic works?
Got causality, psychopath?
And remember, psychopath, I'm just askin' questions...
Oh if they're not with Bush, they're against him.
Sorry, poofster, you're really losing it. Adults won't buy that stuff.
Like Barrett and Ranke, you're an embarrassment to your own cause.
"...Oh if they're not with Bush, they're against him."
Moving the goalpost again?
After all, I'm merely using your brand of "logic".
Got causality, psychopath?
GutterBall, you are just trying to spam over the fact that you made claims you did not and can not support. I never said anything about causality. I only challenged you to support your claims.
Who's the spammer?
After all, how many times did you repeat, ad nauseum: "....You claimed that independent engineers supported the NIST report. You haven't demonstrated that."
You're a hypocrite, aren't you?
And for your information, pud huffer, you don't make the rules.
Now, answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?
And remember, psychopath for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
Poofster, your repeated demand that I prove something I never claimed is only a pathetic attempt to spam away the fact that you never supported your claims that independent engineers endorsed the NIST report.
More lies, jackass? Or are you getting your second wind (a fart, I presume), old man?
Again psychopath for 9/11 troof, the report was endorsed by the civil and structural engineering community when they adopted the reports' recommendations at all critical levels: Academia, safety and design.
Care to prove me wrong?
Now, answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?
And remember, psychopath for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
Poofster, your repeated demand that I prove something I never claimed is only a pathetic attempt to spam away the fact that you never supported your claims that independent engineers endorsed the NIST report. So now you're down to claiming that "the community" implicitly endorsed the report, a de facto admission that you can't support your claims. Pathetic.
Hey, if my argument fails by "implication"; so does yours.
Again psychopath for 9/11 troof, the report was endorsed by the civil and structural engineering community when they adopted the reports' recommendations at all critical levels: Academia, safety and design.
Care to prove me wrong?
Now, answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?
And remember, psychopath for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...
Now, answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?
C'mon, asking Brian Good to understand the concept of the burden of proof is too much for him. Just let him think that he has "pwned" you. He's had a rough life.
New Yorker, you seem to miss the fact that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed.
GutterBall's inability to support his claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report and his reliance on the supposed implicit endorsement by the engineering community are bogus.
Not to mention the laughable claim that since his job title was "engineer" that he is an engineer. Hey GutterBall, a sanitary engineer is an engineer then, right?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...New Yorker, you seem to miss the fact that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed."
"...the fact that..."?
The calling card of the compulsive liar.
A vile phrase, at best. Notice that facts rarely follow its use.
William Strunk, Jr. wrote, "...The fact that is an especially debilitating expression. It should be revised out of every sentence in which it occurs...If you feel you are possessed of the truth, or of the fact, simply state it. Do not give it advanced billing."
Why abuse the English language, psychopath?
Oh that's right. You're dishonest to the core.
My bad.
GutterBall, I need an object in the sentence or it makes no sense.
I said "You seem to miss the fact that..."
You would have me say "You seem to miss that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed"?
That makes no sense. You're as incompetent in grammar as you are in logic and, no doubt, in shell scripting. If the latter was your claim to fame you probably lost your job to some guy in Pakistan ten years ago.
"...That makes no sense. You're as incompetent in grammar as you are in logic and, no doubt, in shell scripting."
I related a quote from William Strunk, Jr.
Did you miss this part, psychopath?
"...William Strunk, Jr. wrote..."
LOL! What an idiot.
"...That makes no sense."
Of course it makes "no sense". After all, you're a moron.
Allow me to give you a quick course in elementary writing style, psychopath.
For example,
[1] Owing to the fact
use since or because
[2] in spite of the fact that
use though or although
[3] the fact that he had not succeeded
use his failure
[4] I was unaware of the fact that
use I was unaware that
Got it, stupid? Or is elementary writing style beyond your limited ability to "reason"?
You're so dishonest, that you can't acknowledge the obvious.
New Yorker, you seem to miss the fact that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed.
Nobody cares what you have or haven't claimed, Petgoat.
GutterBall's inability to support his claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report and his reliance on the supposed implicit endorsement by the engineering community are bogus.
Stop lying, Petgoat.
That makes no sense. You're as incompetent in grammar as you are in logic and, no doubt, in shell scripting. If the latter was your claim to fame you probably lost your job to some guy in Pakistan ten years ago.
So it was a Pakistani immigrant who took your janitorial job, Petgoat? That's probably good, since he probably cleans stuff instead of spending his working time making phone calls to Carol Brouillet.
GutterBall, perhaps your rule-bound and pedantic sensibilities will appreciate the fact that Orwell's Rule #VI trumps all of them: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
Note, oh pedantic one, that my constuction "You're missing the fact..." and "You'll appreciate the fact..." are not covered by Strunk's example set. Your willingness to jetison sense to maintain a slavish adherence to a set of rules suggests why your salary came to exceed your value in IT.
GutterBall, perhaps your rule-bound and pedantic sensibilities will appreciate the fact that Orwell's Rule #VI trumps all of them: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
Note, oh pedantic one, that my constuction "You're missing the fact..." and "You'll appreciate the fact..." are not covered by Strunk's example set. Your willingness to jetison sense to maintain a slavish adherence to a set of rules suggests why your salary came to exceed your value in IT.
Seek professional help, Petgoat.
The lying psychopath wrote, "...Note, oh pedantic one, that my constuction 'You're missing the fact...' and 'You'll appreciate the fact...'"
That's not what you wrote, liar.
Here's your sentence:
"...New Yorker, you seem to miss the fact that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed."
You can't write a sentence without injecting lies, can you, psychopath?
The psychopath continues, "...are not covered by Strunk's example set."
Do you honestly expect Strunk to cover every case in a small booklet?
In fact, the exercise is left to the reader. For example,
"New Yorker, you seem to miss the fact that I have no obligation to prove something I never claimed."
use New Yorker, I have no obligation...
Notice that vigorous writing is concise, as opposed to verbose--you idiotic chatter box.
All you've managed to accomplish by using the vile phrase the fact that, is give your lies advanced billing as "facts".
The dishonesty DRIPS from every ASCII character you commit to the blog.
The psychopath rambles, "...Your willingness to jetison sense to maintain a slavish adherence to a set of rules suggests why your salary came to exceed your value in IT."
Not true, retard.
2002 marked the year when level 1 and level 2 (low level) IT personnel were slowly replaced by imported labor from India and China. However, level 3 and level 4 personnel were not replaced.
Why?
Because India and China couldn't provide level 3 and level 4 personnel.
FACT: I've been a level 4 (the highest level) IT security specialist since the mid-90s. Thus, I was not displaced, and I've never been laid off or fired.
And guess what, psychopath for 9/11 troof? The level 1 and level 2 Indian and Chinese imports are being sent home.
Why?
Because they're incompetent. Projects that should take a month to complete were often completed in 5 to 6 months, and the stupid imports still failed to meet our specifications.
Have a look at Silicon Valley. Notice that the Indian restaurants are going out of business.
Now why is that happening?
I'll give you one guess, psychopath.
Have a look at Silicon Valley. Notice that the Indian restaurants are going out of business.
Now why is that happening?
I'll give you one guess, psychopath.
I'll take a guess: they hired Brian Good to clean the kitchen, but instead of doing so, he called Carol Brouillet 740 times and vandalized Kevin Barrett's wikipedia page, so the health department shut the restaurant down.
If you're half as incompetent at your job as you are in defending the official Fairy Tales, you're a security liability, GutterBall.
The psychopath dissembles, "...If you're half as incompetent at your job as you are in defending the official Fairy Tales, you're a security liability, GutterBall."
Right! I suppose that explains why you've lost every "debate". Moreover, I've caught you quote mining so many times now that you should be listed on the NYSE as a mining interest.
Is your middle name "sham", psychopath for 9/11 troof?
Speaking of "sham" the whole concept of "quote-mining" is an attempt by sophists to convince the American people that there's something wrong with supporting one's points with quotes. Next they'll be saying "Yeah, you just found that in some book."
So how about you mine some quotes, Sir Spamsalot, that support your claim that independent engineers have endorsed the NIST report?
Speaking of "sham" the whole concept of "quote-mining" is an attempt by sophists to convince the American people that there's something wrong with supporting one's points with quotes. Next they'll be saying "Yeah, you just found that in some book."
So you admit to quote mining. I suppose it's another attempt to keep the delusional fairytale of 9/11 "truth" going in your mind, but it's not fooling us. Then again, you still deny being Brian Good, and you denied being Petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, etc. before so it's not like you're particularly adept at fooling anyone.
So how about you mine some quotes, Sir Spamsalot, that support your claim that independent engineers have endorsed the NIST report?
Seek professional help, Brian.
The psychopath scribbles, "...Speaking of 'sham' the whole concept of 'quote-mining' is an attempt by sophists to convince the American people that there's something wrong with supporting one's points with quotes. Next they'll be saying 'Yeah, you just found that in some book.'"
No, there's nothing wrong with supporting your argument with quotes. And especially so if you provide a link back to the original document (my method).
The problem arises when you omit relevant information that directly contradicts your specious argument, with no direct link back to the original document (your method).
So what part of "provide a link back to the original document" and refrain from omitting "relevant information that directly contradicts your specious argument" don't you understand, Mr. Psychopath?
You have not provided an example where I omitted relevant information, GutterBall. The exclusions in LERA's contract did not alter the fact of LERA's contract or the effect of LERA's contract one bit--and your suggestion that it did was dishonest or incompetent.
You're so busy you can afford to spend hours and hours and hours whoop whoop whooping your own ass over and over and over.
The psychopath scribbles, "...That makes no sense. You're as incompetent in grammar as you are in logic and, no doubt, in shell scripting."
If I'm so "incompetent" at shell scripting, why did YOU utterly fail to answer the following question:
What does the following UNIX command do? And what do the regular expressions do? Can you tell me, Mr. "Engineer"?
ls -l | grep '^d' | sed 's/.* //'
And why would anyone issue such a command? (There's a VERY good reason, by the way)
I'm waiting for your answer, Mr. UNIX shell expert.
The psychopath prevaricates, "...You have not provided an example where I omitted relevant information, GutterBall."
Yes, I did. Click on the hyperlink I provided, psychopath.
"...The exclusions in LERA's contract did not alter the fact of LERA's contract or the effect of LERA's contract one bit--and your suggestion that it did was dishonest or incompetent."
Right! Then why did you fail to mention that LERA "shall have no role in the investigation other than providing NIST with the deliverables associated with the above tasks."?
And why did you conveniently omit the additional restriction placed on LERA, which read, "...The contractor shall not provide any findings, conclusions, or recommendations from its work on the three tasks. These are the sole and exclusive responsibility of NIST"
FACT: A half-truth is still a whole lie.
Now, you claim that LERA is tainted by association with NIST. If that's true, perhaps you can explain why Leslie Robertson supports the conclusions found in the NIST Report, while he had ZERO input on the final document?
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
GutterBall, you obviously have no concept of what a conflict of interest is.
That Robertson had no input into the report's findings has nothing to do with the fact that a major NIST contract with his firm represents a major conflict of interest, and thus Robertson is not an independent engineer.
I have a real hard time believing you have the education you claim.
That Robertson had no input into the report's findings has nothing to do with the fact that a major NIST contract with his firm represents a major conflict of interest, and thus Robertson is not an independent engineer.
Nobody cares, Petgoat.
I have a real hard time believing you have the education you claim.
Nobody cares, Petgoat.
The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, you obviously have no concept of what a conflict of interest is."
On the contrary, there's no conflict of interest.
Robertson et al, are free to speak out against the conclusions drawn by the NIST team; nevertheless, they chose not to do so.
Why?
I think it's clear who doesn't understand the concept of conflict of interest in this case--and it's not me.
"...I have a real hard time believing you have the education you claim."
That's rich. Are you still working on elementary grammar, Einstein?
GutterBall, you seem determined to whoop whoop whoop your own education.
Robertson's right to say what he wants is not the issue. The fact that his conflict of interest makes him unreliable is the issue.
For you to link yourself as an authority on grammar is another Barrett-style move.
How about you provide some real grammatical analysis on why you think "are" is right?
The psychopath scribbles, "...How about you provide some real grammatical analysis on why you think 'are' is right?"
The number of the subject determines the number of the verb.
Damn, GutterBall, you have an enormous talent for stepping in a dog turd and sinking up to your neck!
When I say "What I want is kisses..." the subject is "I" so the verb is singular like I said.
It's not "What I want are kisses".
Thanks for proving my point.
But then of course it's "What we want is kisses", so you're not even right about matching the subject.
How's that whoop whoop whooping you're giving your own ass going for you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Really? No Kidding?
Here's a test:
Part 1.
[1] One of those people who is never ready on time.
[2] One of those people who are never ready on time.
Which form, [1] or [2], is correct?
Part 2.
[1] One of the ablest engineers who has addressed this problem.
[2] One of the ablest engineers who have addressed this problem.
Which form, [1] or [2], is correct?
Go for it.
GutterBall, you can step on a dog turd and disappear up to your ears!
None of your four examples are correct, you illiterate turkey. They are all sentence fragments.
Cop out. Irrelevant.
We're talking about matching the number of the subject to the verb.
Now, answer the question, blowhard.
Psychopath, I can see the smoke rising from your head.
And what's that I hear from the illiterate troofer camp?
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
ROTFLMAO!
Foghorn Leghorn: "Listen over yonder, son. What do y'all here?
Chickenhawk: Huh?
Foghorn Leghorn: "I said pay attention, son. What do y'all here?"
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
Foghorn Leghorn: "Good God boy! Cat got your tongue?"
Hey "Git",of course we know you're an expert on everything and your instant studying routine is straight out of vaudeville,but you're the one who insists that Israel has no nuclear weapons,right jackoff? I'd say you tomahawked yourself onto a raging bonfire of insanity and you can't see the forest for the trees.That makes you insane,in case you hadn't noticed.And the smoke is still rising from your spoiled brat mug.Aren't there any beaches in California?
There goes Guitar Bill, not only confusing people about 9/11, but misinforming them on grammar as well!
Post a Comment
<< Home