Gold Gets Off
But forgets to dedicate his acquittal to the family members.
Cindy told me a couple of times before the trial that it was going to be boring, and it was. The only “excitement” came when Elaine, Laflora, and Cindy were allowed to testify. Everyone did great. When Casey was brought up, Cindy started to cry. I leaned over to Ann Wilcox (one of our attorneys, Mark Goldstone was the other), and said I want to testify. I wanted to come to the aid of Cindy because I was angry that she was made to cry, and the thought, “WTF?!? Hasn’t she been through enough already?” went through my mind. I was told that my testifying wouldn’t do any good, so I declined. I’m glad I didn’t testify, because if I did, I most assuredly would have been found guilty. I wanted to say, “yes, I crossed the police line, but that’s because the police were manhandling Cindy, and I wanted to keep an eye on her.” I think the only reason I got off was because there was no video of me going under the police line. If I did testify, I would have probably ruined it for everyone else.
Good thing the lawyer the NWO assigned to the case didn't let him testify, eh?
posted by Pat @ 8:43 AM
152 comments
152 Comments:
What kind of police state are we running here? Geez, can't even put Jon Gold behind bars.
They crossed the police barricade, then claimed they'd put their bodies on the gears of the war machine and complained about getting arrested for it. Not exactly the truth movement's finest hour, but no harm done, nobody hurt, and I hope they learned something from it.
Holy shit, Jon Gold is admitting Guilt there. If the prosecution saw that, they could re-open everything and he could go to jail for that. Retard, seriously.
What was it, some sort of moronic convergence?
Gold never references the "New World Order." You're thinking of that idiot Alex Jones.
"...Gold never references the 'New World Order.' You're thinking of that idiot Alex Jones."
We stand corrected, Captain Pedant.
"I hope they learned something from it."
Very unlikely. The so-called 'truthers' are unable to process basic facts, concepts, ideas, information. If Bruno had been in the courtroom he probably would have indulged in his trademark "involuntary facial expressions", mindless of the shit this has already landed him in.
"This was my first arrest and trial so all of this was new to me."
Better get used to it, because it won't be the last, albeit the NWO, aware that Gold achieves what one would have thought was impossible, i.e. he makes the 'truthers' look bad, will see to it that he's never convicted.
"Not exactly the truth movement's finest hour"
"Finest hour"?
The 'truth movement' loonies have never had a 'finest' minute, never mind an hour.
What no Rodney King style beatdown by half a dozen cops with batons?
Sheez what is this nation coming to?
I was told that my testifying wouldn’t do any good, so I declined. I’m glad I didn’t testify, because if I did, I most assuredly would have been found guilty.
Smart move, Jon.
You forgot to mention this part:
The case against Cindy seemed strong enough that she was going to be convicted, but the judge seemed to be on her side. She was completely surprised when she was acquitted. I’m glad the judge was at least able to do that for her.
Guess that judge was not appointed by that piece of shit GWB
Yo Psychopath!
Since when is that fat fuck, Jon Gold, a source of credible information?
"my testifying wouldn’t do any good"
They were wrong, Jon.
Knowing you idiot truthers, you would have not stopped spouting the Truth mantra, the judge would've ordered you to stop, you'd refuse, and then be dragged from the stand, and out the courtroom, shouting about the New World Order, and we'd have an awesome video to watch.
Those bloody lawyers need to think about the importance of comedy.
If it were me, I'd happily send you onto the stand, sit back and watch the show, and after it was all over, have the extra laugh of taking your money.
Ah, another chance of Comedy Gold missed.
Here was his statement.
"In response to our Government lying about, and covering up the 9/11 attacks, I began fighting for truth, accountability, and justice for what happened that day. My efforts, for the past eight years, have been on behalf of the people that lost someone that day, and for the 9/11 first responders that needed health care because of the toxic dust down at Ground Zero. The United States Government has used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to launch illegal, preemptive wars and to take away our civil liberties. The resulting bankrupting of this country is unacceptable to me, and I felt it was my duty as a citizen to help to expose the cover-up. Ultimately, that fight led me to be in Washington D.C. on March 20th. It greatly saddens me that I was arrested, and will have to stand trial for such a trivial crime. I was under the impression that Americans have the right to peaceably assemble. Paradoxically crossing a police line is treated as a crime, but our leaders are not held accountable for their much more serious crimes of murder and genocide. It is also quite tragic to me that Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a killed soldier, has to stand trial because she believes in ending the illegal and unjust occupations that led to her son's death."
Nothing about "New World Order."
The psychopath scribbles, "...Nothing about 'New World Order.'"
We don't care, Captain Pedant.
I know you don't. That's what you people are for. Distorting the truth.
"Nothing about 'New World Order.'"
And likewise nothing about food (and its different shapes and sizes, its availability, its expense - whether free or not - and how much he enjoyed eating it etc. etc. etc.
Nonetheless, we've established that Untreated Apnea Boy sometimes can't shut up about food.
The psychopath dissembles, "...I know you don't. That's what you people are for. Distorting the truth."
Projecting again, psychopath?
And nothing about inside jobby job stuff either, which is a good improvement over most other troofers. He's still spouting the "illegal war" stuff, though...
The psychopath dissembles, "...I know you don't. That's what you people are for. Distorting the truth."
I'm fed up with you, cocksucker, so let's cut to the chase, shall we?
I have a series of questions for you, troofer scum. Click on the following link, intellectual midget.
Source: SLC: Are you a man, or an intellectually challenged mouse?.
Let's "debate", provided you're man enough to "debate".
GuitarBill said...
The psychopath dissembles, "...I know you don't. That's what you people are for. Distorting the truth."
I'm fed up with you, cocksucker, so let's cut to the chase, shall we?
I have a series of questions for you, troofer scum. Click on the following link, intellectual midget.
Source: SLC: Are you a man, or an intellectually challenged mouse?.
Let's "debate", provided you're man enough to "debate".
the fact is no one around here is concerned with facts or the truth, dipshits troll this bitch like it's a fucking full time job.
seriously, just admit you're an assclown and think about some skinflute lessons.
I love how troofers get all idignant and come here to say things like WE are the ones who ignore facts and the almighty "truth."
Its that "If I call them a name first, they CAN'T call me that name later!" game they think they are so good at.
Please, troofers, please, give me one actual FACT that we are ignoring... and let's see what "mined quote" or "implication without actually stating anything" you dig up...
From Mr. Anonymous that whips guitar Bill's ass and any other debunker...
In this latest character attack and story lift from 9/11 Blogger, Pat gets it wrong again....
Pat states: "Good thing the lawyer the NWO assigned to the case didn't let him testify, eh?"
The truth states: "I was told that my testifying wouldn’t do any good, so I declined. "
I don't see anywhere in the story stating the NWO lawyer wouldn't let him.
Pat, your writing and investigation skills suck.
Billman:
Please, troofers, please, give me one actual FACT that we are ignoring... and let's see what "mined quote" or "implication without actually stating anything" you dig up...
1. "eutectic steel" found in WTC 7 by FEMA and addresed et.el.
2. NIST stated they would investigate the cause.
3. They didn't. Even Ryan Mackey wanted to see NIST investigate this "greatest mystery" according to the NY Times!
4.. Experiement proves gypsum and other normal building materials, including disel fuel, didn't cause the "eutectic steel".http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-13/911-experiments-mysterious-eutectic-steel#comment-235250
5.Something else did cause this that is not found in a normal building. Other experiments show a near identical reaction on the steel using thermate.
5. Another eutectic hole in the official story that Billman and buddies ignore.
Is that a good example, Billy?
Put then again, Pat would rather focus on a ridiculous trial rather than the science.
That's your fact, huh? Your video's major talking points have been debunked repeatedly.
Look, Thermite might be good for vaporizing VX Gas or melting Terminators, but in the real world, it's just a sparkler.
And every experiment that ever tried to melt a steel beam using thermite has failed to do so, even with thousands of pounds of the stuff.
Even "Dr." Jones red/gray chips ignited only for him (so he claims) and no other troofer "scientist" who's had access to his dust has been able to replicate his results.
And according to the troof, every column of WTC7 had to be cut at the same time for the building to collapse ever. So then, why aren't there more of these "mysterious eutectic steel" chunks instead of this one piece? You should be finding a shit load, according to your doctrine. Or are you guys changing what you claim, AGAIN?
And no, that was a pretty bad example. Try again.
If you could show me any other case where thermite has caused this same reaction in steel (or hell, any other reaction that troofers have ever claimed about thermite), then you'd start to have something.
The psychopath dissembles, "...From Mr. Anonymous that whips guitar Bill's ass and any other debunker...[blah][blah]."
Really? No kidding?
I don't see any answers to my questions.
Source: SLC: Proof that troofers are charlatans.
Give it a whack, psychopath.
Until then, blowhard, you're nothing more than a garden-variety gasbag.
LOL! The Mythbusters used 1000 lbs of thermite, and still it didn't cut through the roof of an SUV, it just dripped everywhere.
Chester Copperpott, gasbag for 9/11 troof, dissembles, "...seriously, just admit you're an assclown and think about some skinflute [SIC] lessons."
That's not an answer gasbag. Since when does an ad hominem attack qualify as an answer?
Now, crawl back into your bomb shelter, charlatan.
"In response to our Government lying about, and covering up the 9/11 attacks...."
Well, there you go right there.
Nuttier than squirell shit.
Only to people who deny and lie about the truth.
Dirt bag dissembles, "...Only to people who deny and lie about the truth."
Projecting again, psychopath?
The psychopath dissembles, "...I don't see anywhere in the story stating the NWO lawyer wouldn't let him."
Pat was making a joke, cretin.
Moreover, a sense of humor (or wit if you prefer) is a indication of intelligence. Thus, your inability to get the joke compels one to conclude that you're a cretin.
Now, crawl back into your bomb shelter, psychopath.
"Anonymous said...
Only to people who deny and lie about the truth."
Projection, they name is Twoooofer™.
" Anonymous said...
Only to people who deny and lie about the truth."
And his insanity and your insanity are objective reality, something with which you have only a passing knowledge.
Yet another whinge from the unhinged Debunker Cult:the "Git" weighs in with another abject example of his spinelessness.Ad hominems indeed!!
The ArseHooligan, fugitve from justice, whines, "...Yet another whinge [SIC] from the unhinged Debunker Cult:the "Git" weighs in with another abject example of his spinelessness.Ad hominems indeed!!"
Still trying to invent new "words", English professor?
Tell us more, invertebrate. After all, I can always use the laugh.
You should consider a career in comedy--the joke being yourself, of course.
I leaned over ... and said I want to testify. I wanted to come to the aid of Cindy because I was angry...
Good God. If I'm ever a defendant in a criminal trial the LAST fucking thing I want is for a 9/11 Truther to help me by opening their mouth.
The very fact that this lunatic thought he could accomplish something by speaking says a lot about him. Seriously, what was his plan? Now that 9/11 Truth is a judicially recognized delusion, these guys need to steer clear of the courts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Billman-That's your fact, huh? Your video's major talking points have been debunked repeatedly.
I would ignore that experiment too if I were a debunker. The scientific evidence proves the official excuse for this steel piece to be turned into swiss cheese is bunk. The question remains, what did cause this and why did NIST not investigate this??
As I said, even Mr. Mackey and other so called debunking scientists wanted NIST to investigate this issue. NIST did not and for good reason..simply because a normal office fire or even one that burned for 24 hours as per the experiment isn't going to melt a steel or turn it into swiss cheese.
Billman said...
If you could show me any other case where thermite has caused this same reaction in steel (or hell, any other reaction that troofers have ever claimed about thermite), then you'd start to have something.
Here you go Billman I think this the start to have something your looking for:
Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. However, defects such as slag inclusions and holes are often present in such welded junctions and great care is needed to operate the process successfully. Care must also be taken to ensure that the rails remain straight, without resulting in dipped joints, which can cause wear on high speed and heavy axle load lines.
See the pics there yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg
"See the pics there yourself."
And this proves....what?
I would ignore that experiment too if I were a debunker.
I'm not ignoring it. I addressed it. It presents no new information that has not been debunked.
And don't think I didn't notice the irony of YOU ignoring the rational argument of "why isn't there a LOT of pieces like this, then?" Though, I would ignore critical and rational thinking too, if I were a troofer.
The scientific evidence proves the official excuse for this steel piece to be turned into swiss cheese is bunk.
Uh.. NIST apparently doesn't seem to have an explanation for this. So there IS no "official excuse."
The question remains, what did cause this and why did NIST not investigate this??
Because one little chunk of anomalous steel would have blown the cover for the whole inside jobby job!
NIST did not and for good reason..simply because a normal office fire or even one that burned for 24 hours as per the experiment isn't going to melt a steel or turn it into swiss cheese.
Please... explain how thermite can do that, then.
Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive;
*applause* then EXPLAIN why you troofers are constantly using quotes like "there was an explosion" as PROOF THERE WAS THERMITE?! You just debunked a major troof movement claim.
instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures.
Agreed. Useful in welding.
Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.
There you go. You understand so far...
Thermite can be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment.
And also can be used in large steel structures.. LIKE BUILDINGS.
However, defects such as slag inclusions and holes are often present in such welded junctions and great care is needed to operate the process successfully.
Plus, Thermite is notoriously UNRELIABLE to light off in anything like "a timed sequence."
Care must also be taken to ensure that the rails remain straight, without resulting in dipped joints, which can cause wear on high speed and heavy axle load lines.
See the pics there yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg
Oh, I have no argument with any of the above.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Brian Good talking about thermite was remarkably sane. Now he should explain to us how thermite was built into the structure in the 1960s so they could quickly demolish it in case it became a financial drain and how all that was needed was a few fuses in the elevator shafts...
...or some loony nonsense like that.
4.. Experiement proves gypsum and other normal building materials, including disel fuel, didn't cause the "eutectic steel".http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-13/911-experiments-mysterious-eutectic-steel#comment-235250
That experiment proves only that it's possible to burn gypsum, diesel, paper, logs, etc. without creating eutectic steel. It's an interesting data point, but it's hardly proof that Some Uncommon Substance was present in WTC7.
Maybe an easy analogy will help you understand where you went wrong. If I shoot you in the head and you survive, does that prove that the cause of JFK's death must have been cancer? Your error is easy to spot if you just look with an open mind.
"because a normal office fire or even one that burned for 24 hours as per the experiment isn't going to melt a steel or turn it into swiss cheese."
The WTC fires didn't have to "melt steel".
The WTC fires weakened the steel in the structure.
So you're caught in another lie, brian.
RGT, it's unfair to damand proof before there's been a proper investigation. You might find this recent experiment interesting: fire, gypboard, diesel fuel, steel--no corrosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded
Lazarus, NIST has not one piece of core steel that shows heating above 480 degrees F. That's not hot enough to seriously weaken it.
Also, NIST denies the existence of the FEMA Appendix C samples, which do show the mysterious, corrosive, eutectic heating.
Anonymous, it's unfair to make wild claims if, as you say, there has been no "proper" investigation to back them up.
You're 2 for 2 at debunking yourself today.
Billman, I'm not making any wild claims. I'm not claiming that hundreds of thousands of independent engineers support the NIST report and then finding that I can't cite a piblic statement by a single one.
"Lazarus, NIST has not one piece of core steel that shows heating above 480 degrees F"
Stop lying, brian, you reatrded marmoset, you are tuning INTO A FUCKING BORE!!!!!
You head should be caved in from the number of bitch slappings you have received on this forum over the years, yet you repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and the same debunked shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
And again and again and again and again and again.
Give it up, boron.
You.
Have.
Lost.
The.
Argument.
Your crazy sandwich-board rants convince no one, because all the sane people here know you're about a chromosome short of a Biden.
Your falsehoods, misrepresentations, and brick-brained ignorance are proved every time you post, every time you "argue", every time you lose.
Give it up and go back to molesting little boys.
LL, please cite NIST's report to the effect that they have a piece of core steel showing heating above 480 degrees F.
LL wrote, "...Your crazy sandwich-board rants convince no one, because all the sane people here know you're about a chromosome short of a Biden."
LOL!
(Hell, I'm a centrist Democrat and I almost fell off my chair laughing at that comment.)
"...Give it up and go back to molesting little boys."
ROTFLMAO!
Don't encourage him, LL. After all, think of all the soccer mommies he'll traumatize.
%^)
If anyone knows about getting slapped upside their head over and over and over and over and over and over again it's the paleo-con,"Hitler was a Commie" buffoon with the porn movie sock puppet! Irony was dead after 9/11 only for cement heads like him!
"Arhoolie Vanunu said...
If anyone knows about getting slapped upside their head over and over and over and over and over and over again it's the paleo-con,"Hitler was a Commie" buffoon with the porn movie sock puppet! Irony was dead after 9/11 only for cement heads like him!"
The imposition of humanist organicism is, and yet is not, the unanalyzed arbitrariness of power. But a guarded remark concerning the relationship between the differentiation of disciplinary boundaries and the reading of the parent-child dynamic reintroduces the work of Zapp, who for too long has been casually pocketed as the field's tame theoretical authority.
We can deduce that, in other words,
the Ideal is what first gives rise to by means of the discipline of human reason, the phenomena, and the Ideal is the clue to the discovery of however, the thing in itself.
In short, you can't name a single independent engineer who's willing to publicly endorse the NIST report.
" Anonymous said...
In short, you can't name a single independent engineer who's willing to publicly endorse the NIST report."
[sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk
sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk
sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk]
Those aren't independent engineers.
"Anonymous said...
Those aren't independent engineers."
[sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk
sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk
sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk]
Whassamatter LL, did New Yorker chase you away from your usual doorway so you have to sleep at ScrewLooseChange? Must be hard to sleep with GutterBall in here whoop whoop whooping his own ass half the night.
"Anonymous said...
Whassamatter LL, did New Yorker chase you away from your usual doorway so you have to sleep at ScrewLooseChange? Must be hard to sleep with GutterBall in here whoop whoop whooping his own ass half the night."
To the devoted supporter of Sophists, yet otherwise nice, Beavis fully supported rights for Florentines. This should not apply to such a limited, authoritative context-- it can be applied to ducks of death, bags of Top Ramen, and the U.S. Budget. In the brilliant Nietsche's the W2 tax form, we see striking examples of slimy ducks of death, and gregarious Communists. The author proves such views using the favorite tools of the Reign of Spain: digital telephony and tabula rasa.
Those aren't independent engineers.
How dare you suggest that I am not a distinguished independent engineer!
Whassamatter LL, did New Yorker chase you away from your usual doorway so you have to sleep at ScrewLooseChange?
Oh, the irony of this being written by a middle-aged man with no job who lives with his parents. Brian, it's just because mommy and daddy didn't give you any tough love that you aren't annoying tourists in Ghirardelli Square, asking for spare change and babbling about thermite.
IOW, none of you can address my points, so you have to substitute what y'all charitable allow each other to believe is wit.
In short, you can't name a single independent engineer who's willing to publicly endorse the NIST report.
Why do you believe that calls NIST's findings into question?
IOW, none of you can address my points, so you have to substitute what y'all charitable allow each other to believe is wit.
What "points"?
Why do you believe that calls NIST's findings into question?
Don't expect him to answer this.
Why does that call NIST's findings into question?
For two reasons:
1) It challenges the confident assertions made at places like SLC that the NIST report is conventional wisdom
2) Because those of us who adhere to journalistic standards of verifiability reject NIST's unverified fantasies.
1) It challenges the confident assertions made at places like SLC that the NIST report is conventional wisdom
"Challenges" in what way? Is there some kind of independent standard under which NIST assertions are questionable unless publicly endorsed? Or is that just your opinion?
2) Because those of us who adhere to journalistic standards of verifiability reject NIST's unverified fantasies.
That's kind of a nonsense statement. You seem to be confusing journalistic standards of verifiability with scientific standards of acceptance. In fact, real life suggests the opposite outcome -- the discipline of journalism has failed to reject NIST's story in favor of any alternative theory.
Wny do you believe mainstream science and mainstream journalism accept the official story?
"2) Because those of us who adhere to journalistic standards"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!
"of verifiability reject NIST's unverified fantasies."
In other words, "I'm a street corner scramer carrying a sandwich board covered with tiny teeny script PROVING, PROVING BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOubt that....um.....uhhh......what was I saying?"
Nuttier than squirell shit.
1) It challenges the confident assertions made at places like SLC that the NIST report is conventional wisdom
Um, no. You really need to understand the concept of the burden of proof. No "truther" seems to understand that.
2) Because those of us who adhere to journalistic standards of verifiability reject NIST's unverified fantasies.
Yes, and you'd reject them no matter what Dr. Harris says and does. You're not a disinterested investigator looking for facts, you're a delusional lunatic looking to feed your fanatical belief in an absurd conspiracy theory.
"... you're a delusional lunatic looking to feed your fanatical belief in an absurd conspiracy theory."
A well nigh perfect distilation, NY.
Wait,did the "Git" call someone a "garden variety gasbag"?!?
RGT, NIST's findings are questionable because of their dishonest methodology, the circular reasoning of their computer models, and the fact that they can't back up their theories with physical evidence.
The fact that no independent engineers can be found who endorse their work simply challenges the belief among ignorant people that NIST's findings are widely accepted within the engineering community.
I'm not confusing journalistic standards with scientific ones. I brought up journalistic standards because they are a lower standard than the scientific one, and I wished to say that NIST doesn't even meet the lower standard.
There's no evidence that mainstream science accepts the official story. The unwillingness of engineers to comment shows the chill--no one will comment. No one will even examine the questions.
LL, I never said I'd proved anything.
NY, I never said I'd proved anything. As to Dr. Harris, I have found that most engineers are spectacularly ignorant about the construction of the towers, the nature of their destruction, the nature of the official reports, and the specific problems that skeptics have with them. If Dr. Harris demonstrates some knowledge of the facts I will be interested in his opinion.
I don't have a fanatical belief in anything, and I don't have a conspiracy theory. What I have is discomfort with official reports that are dishonest, incomplete, evasive, and unbelievable. And I'm distressed that the American people are not demanding better.
The fact that no independent engineers can be found who endorse their work simply challenges the belief among ignorant people that NIST's findings are widely accepted within the engineering community.
Interesting. Say we were to poll a representative sample of the engineering community about NIST's findings and ask them if they accept, reject, or have no opinion about those findings. How would you estimate the results? And do you think the subjects' answers would match what they really believe?
The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, whines, "...Wait,did the 'Git' call someone a 'garden variety gasbag'?!?"
Yes, I did call the psychopath a "garden variety gasbag".
What's the matter, ArseHooligan, does that description hit a little too close to home?
RGT I don't know what would happen. I believe Ron Brookman sent out a 9/11 questionnaire to something like 100 structural engineers and he only got one response.
My best guess is that most would plead ignorance. It's easy and safe to claim that since you lack experience with 100-story buildings, you're not qualified to have an opinion.
Actually I've been very surprised that no engineers ever come to Richard Gage's talks to wave the Popular Mechanics book at him. If I thought Gage was going around perverting the minds of impressionable young people with nonsense, I would go to one of his programs and try make a fool of him. As far as I know, nobody other than West Virginia Troy has ever done that.
What was that? Did you hear something?
Was that a weasel?
If a smarmy, logic molesting compulsive liar shits in the woods, will anybody hear him?
When he whoop whoop whoops like you do, sure, he'll be heard in the next county!
Listening to you and your idiotic, uninformed rants is like having to listen to a eunuch discuss the Kama Sutra.
Persist with half truths innuendos and outright lies to your heart's content, psychopath. I am tired, moreover, of pointing out to you what you find so difficult to comprehend, that most everyone else sees upfront. I apologize for insisting in my foolhardy attempts to teach the pig to sing.
From now on, all you'll get from me is ridicule.
You made your bed, scumbag; now you lay in it.
All I'll get is ridicule, because it's all you have left. You lied in claiming that you had 14 independent engineers endorsing the NIST report, you tried to cover that up with obfuscating spam, then by citing a document that did not say what you claimed, and now by expecting us to accept your hearsay account as if it were a public statement.
Your fixation on Dr. Harris only proves my point. Your list of 14 guys do not endorse the NIST report, and you can't find an independent engineer who will endorse the NIST report in public.
RGT I don't know what would happen.
Let's assume most would indeed plead ignorance, either to stay out of trouble or because they honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other. Of the ones who do have an opinion, do you think they lean toward accepting or rejecting NIST's findings?
I don't know. (How often are you going to hear those "three little words" around here?)
those of us who adhere to journalistic standards of verifiability
You don't even know what that means.
Can you verify that claim?
This will just be another chapter for Jon Gold's forthcoming autobiography to be published by Prisonplanet Press entitled:
ME!
Bitch, please. Trying to find Brian Good's ignorance is like trying to find an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.
This will just be another chapter for Jon Gold's forthcoming autobiography to be published by Prisonplanet Press entitled:
ME!
Nah, not Jon Gold's style. More like: Me! Dedicated To The Victims, Families, And First Responders Of 9/11
NY, I never said I'd proved anything. As to Dr. Harris, I have found that most engineers are spectacularly ignorant about the construction of the towers, the nature of their destruction, the nature of the official reports, and the specific problems that skeptics have with them. If Dr. Harris demonstrates some knowledge of the facts I will be interested in his opinion.
Nobody cares what you've "found" since, as you've demonstrated time and time again here, you're appallingly ignorant of the most basic facts related to 9/11, and physics and engineering more generally.
What I have is discomfort with official reports that are dishonest, incomplete, evasive, and unbelievable.
Nobody cares if a deranged lunatic and ignoramus finds these reports to be dishonest, incomplete, evasive, or unbelievable. Sane people who know what they're talking about disagree.
Actually I've been very surprised that no engineers ever come to Richard Gage's talks to wave the Popular Mechanics book at him.
I'm not. These people are busy with real work and aren't going to waste their time with a charlatan like Gage. Just because you have nothing better to do with your life than babble about conspiracy theories doesn't mean you should expect people with lives to respond to you.
You lied in claiming that you had 14 independent engineers endorsing the NIST report, you tried to cover that up with obfuscating spam, then by citing a document that did not say what you claimed, and now by expecting us to accept your hearsay account as if it were a public statement.
GuitarBill didn't lie, Petgoat. The only liar here is you.
Actually I've been very surprised that no engineers ever come to Richard Gage's talks to wave the Popular Mechanics book at him.
I think this quote from Brian Good shows what's really going on in the minds of people like him.
They think there is some kind of real debate going on about the basic facts of 9-11.
There isn't.
9-11 Truth no longer rises to the level of requiring a response. As a real-world position, it is dead and buried. It is the province of kooks, charlatans, dingbats, and suckers.
But people like Brian Good can't accept that. They go around the Internet wanting to know -- with all seriousness -- why scientists don't maintain 9-11 conspiracy position statements on their personal web pages. In July 2010.
They boast of their successes in getting 236 people to send letters, or Richard Gage presenting his bullshit to 143 people -- most of whom were already believers in the cause.
They wet themselves with joy over the prospect of a a debate with some guy from a local skeptics group and a web forum, on Coast To Coast AM. Between the Planet X Hour and the Art Bell Show, presumably.
They're all in denial. And 9-11 Truth has been dead long enough that people still shouldn't still be in denial. But they fight on, like a bunch of Hiroo Onodas, still fighting a battle that ended long ago, in a theater where it wouldn't matter if they won anyway.
I don't know.
Fair enough. Then we need to figure out what the big "no opinion" group really means. You've been urging that NIST's assertions are scientifically questionable unless publicly endorsed, but you haven't explained how you came up with that requirement. Is that an objective test? If so, where did it come from? There must be some precedent for this state of affairs, in the scientific validity of government-produced findings has been discredited through the scientific community's failure to endorse those findings. Could you please point us to a couple?
NY, GutterBall lied when he claimed that his list of 14 engineers had endorsed the NIST report. They had not.
TR, you heap straw man on straw man. There is no debate going on about 9/11, and the reason for that is because none of the the defenders of the official reports, and few of the doubters, have the courage to air their views in public. There's only a corrosive and anti-democratic silence.
RGT, it's not the lack of public endorsement that makes the official reports scientifically questionable. What makes the questionable is their unscientific methodology, the dishonesty of the officials involved, and their incomplete nature.
The issue of the lack of public endorsement arises only because people in this forum insist that since only 1200 architects and engineers will publicly acknowledge their questions about the NIST report, therefore the millions of architects and engineers who will not do so are supporters of the NIST report. Whenever I challenge the debunkers to provide a quote, it always comes from someone who is connected to NIST, whether through contracts, direct employment, receiving awards or, in Dr. Harris's case, heading up a committee that implemented NIST's recommendations.
Still in denial, psychopath?
You lie first, last and always.
Pick up your revolver, put it in your mouth and squeeze the trigger, psychopath.
Do yourself and the World a favor. End your miserable life.
GutterBall, if your list of 14 engineers was valid, you wouldn't have found it necessary to rely on a hearsay account of an implicit endorsement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bite me, shit stain.
So tell us, psychopath, when will you get back to this thread and apologize to us for lying--you quote mining cretin?
And remember, dissembler for 9/11 troof, I OWN your sorry ass.
I didn't post on the robo thread. Say, do you suppose that was Brian Good who all you guys seem to have a big crush on?
Bite me--you lying sack-of-shit.
Still in denial, shit stain?
So tell us, psychopath, when will you return to this thread and apologize to us for lying?
Coward.
What makes [the official reports] questionable is their unscientific methodology, the dishonesty of the officials involved, and their incomplete nature. ... [SLCers] insist that since only 1200 architects and engineers will publicly acknowledge their questions about the NIST report, therefore the millions of architects and engineers who will not do so are supporters of the NIST report.
The silence between "public opposition" and "public endorsement" normally means assent. There's even a formal name for it in some contexts. I know if two situations were silence cannot mean agreement or assent, neither of which applies here. Can you think of one that does?
Your "silence procedure" involves the silence of participants to a proceeding.
In the case of the 9/11 reports actual partipants are few, and everyone else has the option of simply opting out. Thus to assume that they are participants silently endorsing is wrong.
No comment is no comment. I wonder how many in the engineering community have never heard of building 7? How many have never heard that FDNY Chief Ray Downey, one of the premier collapse experts in the country, told a priest that he thought tower two had been brought down with explosives?
The quote miner prevaricates, "...No comment is no comment. I wonder how many in the engineering community have never heard of building 7? How many have never heard that FDNY Chief Ray Downey, one of the premier collapse experts in the country, told a priest that he thought tower two had been brought down with explosives?"
More quote mining, psychopath?
Let's look at 911flogger, shall we?
"...There he met with Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command. Delendick asked Downey if the jet fuel from the plane had blown up, thus causing the South Tower to collapse. According to Delendick, Downey 'said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."
Source: 911flogger: America's Leading Collapse Expert Thought South Tower Was Brought Down With Explosives
But that's not what Father John Delendick said, is it, psychopath?
Here's what Father John Delendick really said--sans the compulsory troofer quote mining.
"...I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up? He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even. As we've since learned, it was the jet fuel that was dropping that caused all of this. But he said it was too even."
Source: nytimes.com: World Trade Center Task Force Interview--Father John Delendick. (see page 5)
Will the troofers ever give up the quote mining?
You turn my stomach, troofers.
It's not quote mining, GutterBall. That's what Downey said. He said he thought there were bombs. Who cares what some priest says about fires causing the collapse? Chief Ray Downey, one of the premier collapse experts in the country, said he thought there were bombs because the collapse was too even.
Look at the link I provided to 911flogger, idiot.
What did 911flogger write? Now compare the 911flogger quote fragment to the PDF document from The New York Times.
You're an idiot--not to mention a compulsive liar.
Converse with any plankton lately, psychopath?
Bottom line: You're libeling Father John Delendick in an effort to make it sound like he agrees with the troofers.
In addition, you're libeling a hero, Chief Ray Downey, who gave his life while trying to rescue injured an dying victims.
Again, you turn my stomach.
"Converse with any plankton lately, psychopath?"
Plankton are too smart.
I'm not libeling anybody, GutterBall. Chief Downey said it looked like explosives. That's all he said. You're larding his statement with the irrelevant opinions of Father Delendick.
Idiot, the quote was taken from the testimony of Father John Delendick.
You bastards deliberately removed the last sentence.
Compare the two passages.
From 9/11 flogger:
"...According to Delendick, Downey 'said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even.'"
From The New York Times:
"..."...I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up? He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even. As we've since learned, it was the jet fuel that was dropping that caused all of this. But he said it was too even."
The Flogger quote is in bold font. Notice that the troofers deliberately removed the last sentence.
Moreover, it doesn't matter what Chief Downey said because first impressions of any event are often inaccurate.
Bottom line: You're scum.
Oh I see, so the eyewitness testimony of one of the premier collapse experts in the country doesn't matter.
Father Delendick's opinions about fires are immaterial--not to mention erroneous, since everybody knows the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes.
Your desperate need to believe a lie is quite puzzling. What's wrong with you?
More evasion, scumbag?
Face it, that's twice in one thread that I caught you quote mining.
The troofers are such degenerates that they'll libel a pastor and a fallen hero.
Again, you turn my stomach.
"Anonymous said...
I'm not libeling anybody, GutterBall."
Libel is the only weapon in the twoooofer™ arsenel, fucktard. You libel every day, all day long, with every post, with every utterence.
And you wonder why the sane people around here hold you in contempt?
There is no debate going on about 9/11, because none of the the defenders of the official reports, and few of the doubters, have the courage to air their views in public.
Brian, you have a talent for packing so much stupid into so few words.
In that one sentence, you've managed to proclaim (1) there's a massive body of people who silently agree with you; (2) those people are not brave as you are; (3) the people who oppose you are cowards; and (4) you don't succeed because there's a stigma against you.
I've got to admire your efficiency. I really do.
NY, GutterBall lied when he claimed that his list of 14 engineers had endorsed the NIST report. They had not.
False.
TR, you heap straw man on straw man. There is no debate going on about 9/11, and the reason for that is because none of the the defenders of the official reports, and few of the doubters, have the courage to air their views in public. There's only a corrosive and anti-democratic silence.
False. There is no debate about 9/11 because there is nothing of substance to debate. Your deranged fantasies are not something anyone cares about.
RGT, it's not the lack of public endorsement that makes the official reports scientifically questionable. What makes the questionable is their unscientific methodology, the dishonesty of the officials involved, and their incomplete nature.
False. There is nothing questionable about the official reports.
The issue of the lack of public endorsement arises only because people in this forum insist that since only 1200 architects and engineers will publicly acknowledge their questions about the NIST report, therefore the millions of architects and engineers who will not do so are supporters of the NIST report. Whenever I challenge the debunkers to provide a quote, it always comes from someone who is connected to NIST, whether through contracts, direct employment, receiving awards or, in Dr. Harris's case, heading up a committee that implemented NIST's recommendations.
Nobody cares, Petgoat.
Chief Ray Downey, one of the premier collapse experts in the country, said he thought there were bombs because the collapse was too even.
Well, he was wrong. It happens.
In the case of the 9/11 reports actual partipants are few, and everyone else has the option of simply opting out. Thus to assume that they are participants silently endorsing is wrong.
No, we're not talking about "endorsing". We're talking about how during an opportunity to object, silence typically constitutes acceptance. It's a common convention. You're urging that silence means something else in this case, but you're being vague about what it means.
Please don't wander off the subject again. Stick to the issue. Do you believe the lack of widespread objection to NIST's findings indicate rejection of, acceptance of, or indifference to those findings?
GutterBall, it's not quote mining to leave out Father Delendick's immaterial, ignorant, and erroneous remarks. What matters is what Chief Ray Downey, one of the premiere collapse experts in the country, said.
RGT, I don't know what the silence means. Back in the Vietnam War days, Nixon used to claim that the great silent majority of Americans backed him. But now it's hard to find anyone who will admit that they ever thought that war was a good idea.
What I do know is that the claims made in this forum that silence = endorsement have not been backed up in any way. I have never heard of one credentialed person showing up at a Richard Gage presentation to challenge him, and that puzzles me. If I thought he was selling snake oil to impressionable young people (like these liars in the SLC forum do) then I would challenge him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Since when is quote mining "immaterial"--you ignorant fuck?
Go for it, shit-for-brains, and impress us with the breadth and depth of your intellectual dishonesty.
What I do know is that the claims made in this forum that silence = endorsement have not been backed up in any way.
We've already established that in matter where a governmental body solicits comment before adopting a proposed position, silence typically equals acceptance. Are you now claiming you have *no* opinion about what the silence means in the case of NIST's findings? You previously referred to that silence as "corrosive and anti-democratic", so your abrupt change in opinion is puzzling.
I have never heard of one credentialed person showing up at a Richard Gage presentation to challenge him, and that puzzles me. If I thought he was selling snake oil to impressionable young people (like these liars in the SLC forum do) then I would challenge him.
Richard Gage is an icon to 9/11 Truthers and a nobody to the rest of the world. You can find some YouTube material of Gage being informally challenged, but most people don't know or care about him. He's just another guy with a story to tell. In Gage's case I think the massive silence surrounding him indicates disinterest. What do you think it indicates?
The psychopath dissembles, "...I have never heard of one credentialed person showing up at a Richard Gage presentation to challenge him, and that puzzles me. If I thought he was selling snake oil to impressionable young people (like these liars in the SLC forum do) then I would challenge him."
Really? No kidding?
What's this, fucktard for 9/11 troof?
Source: Radiodujour.com: Kim Hill Destroys Richard Gage.
Enjoy your plate of crow, Onan.
GutterBall, quote-mining is not immaterial. A priest's opinion on the collapse mechanism is--unless he's an eyewitness, and I see no evidence to that effect.
Also, I am not aware that Kim Hill has any engineering credentials. We were talking about the unwillingness of engineers to challenge Gage. That a glib radio host manages to score a few points using sophistry is a different subject entirely.
RGT, I haven't seen a scientific study but I suspect that large numbers engineers have never even heard of building 7. Is there any evidence that knowledge of the comment period on the report was widespread? Note also that the comment period on the building 7 report was unreasonably short--not even those who had anticipated the report and planned to attack it had time to prepare proper responses. There are thus many reasons short of acceptance that people might not comment on the report.
I don't understand how engineers can lack interest in the most spectacular structural failure in history. I also don't understand why, if they disagree with Gage's thesis, they would not be sufficiently offended to move them to challenge and embarrass him publicly.
RGT, let's take GutterBall as an example. You say that engineers' failure to challenge Gage is a sign of disinterest. And yet here we have GutterBall, who certainly has no lack of interest, but who has been missing the guts to go and challenge Gage in any of Gage's dozen or so Bay Area appearances.
I have no need to challenge the charlatan.
After all, folks like Kim Hill have already decimated Richard Gage.
You have no need to challenge Gage because a woman in New Zealand has done the job for you for once and for all--and yet you seem to feel it's necessary to put in a great deal of time here hiding behind a pseudonym. Does that make any sense?
I'll spend my spare time any way I like, and I won't ask you for permission.
Got it, crack head?
I wasn't offering permission. I was pointing out that you're a hypocrite and a coward.
That hurts, 'tard.
And especially so when one considers that the comment was made by a psychopath.
I know you are but what am I?
You're a psychopath.
And yet here we have GutterBall, who certainly has no lack of interest, but who has been missing the guts to go and challenge Gage in any of Gage's dozen or so Bay Area appearances.
And again, we see Brian Good's real agenda: drumming up interest in Richard Gage's presentations, and by extension 9/11 Truth.
I do think Gage's presentations would be a lot more interesting if there was more controversy. When you're mostly telling people stuff they already know, there's a temptation to reach out into new stuff that may be of poor quality.
I don't understand how engineers can lack interest in the most spectacular structural failure in history.
They don't lack interest in 9/11. Instead, they lack interest in a fraud and charlatan like Gage.
I do think Gage's presentations would be a lot more interesting if there was more controversy.
Right, there is nothing controversial about the facts of 9/11. Gage is simply a con-artist.
If I thought Gage was a charlatan lying to impressionable young people about 9/11, I would go to his presentations and challenge him. If Dr. Sunder or Dr. Gross or Ronald Hamburger had the guts to show up in public I would challenge them.
How come none of the millions of engineers in the world who you say know Gage is a charlatan have the guts to challenge him?
If I thought Gage was a charlatan lying to impressionable young people about 9/11, I would go to his presentations and challenge him.
Nobody cares what you think, Petgoat. Most of us have jobs, families, sane interests. The reason you think this is that you have no job, no family, and no life outside of this absurd conspiracy theory.
How come none of the millions of engineers in the world who you say know Gage is a charlatan have the guts to challenge him?
It's not that they don't have the guts to challenge him, it's that they DON'T CARE. It's completely unimportant to them what Gage does.
Please tell me, Petgoat, how many evolutionary biologists challenge the Nation of Islam's tenet that the white race was created by a mad scientist named Yakub? Now, if you can't name any, is it because they "don't have the guts", or because they don't waste their time with fringe crackpots?
Keep in mind that many scientists DO challenge creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. There's a simple reason for this: a large percentage of the US population, including many sane and sincere people, believe in creationism and "intelligent design". Thus, it's worth the time of scientists to challenge it.
9/11 "truth" is only believed by a small group of lunatics, and thus is not worth the time of serious people any more than the Yakub story.
TIME magazine said in 2006 that only 16% of the American people believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11.
Thus is it you guys that are the fringe, not the truth movement.
TIME magazine said in 2006 that only 16% of the American people believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11.
You know what? I'm not certain that the government is telling the whole truth about 9/11, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there was a whole lot of ass-covering going on.
I guess I must be in the 84%, huh Petgoat? Now, what do you think is more likely: that the vast majority of that 84% is like me and they generally accept the facts of 9/11 but think some things might have been hidden, or that they're like you and think Dick Cheney sprayed thermite on the elevator shafts in order to blow the towers up?
Thus is it you guys that are the fringe, not the truth movement.
This is why I love you, Petgoat. You seem to honestly believe the insanity you type, and you seem to honestly expect us to believe it too. It's no different than your various denials of being Petgoat, Brian Good, etc.
Seek professional help.
Also, Petgoat, please cite an independent biologist who has denounced the Yakub theory of the white race. You can't do it.
TIME magazine said in 2006 that only 16% of the American people believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11.
Jeezus fucking Christ. The 84% story again? Seriously?
Haven't heard the insane DopeyTriteFuck complain about censoring "truther" comments lately.Too busy boning up on the actual evidence of a conspiracy,Dogboy?
Haven't heard the insane DopeyTriteFuck complain about censoring "truther" comments lately.
Pffft. Banning you from this blog wouldn't be censorship anymore than I censor my garbage by taking it to the dumpster. And you don't even qualify as a "Truther."
In the insane DopeyTriteFuck's universe banning ain't censorship!! Aww,aren't they cute when you hammer the hell out of them?!?
ArseHooligan--you ignorant slut.
Blogspot.com is private property. Now read this carefully: You don't have freedom of speech on private property.
Want proof? Try exercising your "freedom of speech" at work. Or better yet, barge into your neighbor's home and babble about 9/11 troof. We'll see how far your vaunted "freedom of speech" extends.
Here's a clue for you, genius: The 1st Amendment limits the government's ability to stifle free speech. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private property.
Now, go pester your neighbors. And good luck, because you're going to need it.
In the insane DopeyTriteFuck's universe banning ain't censorship!
It's not, you fucking moron. The U.S. Supreme Court says so.
Aren't they so cute at this age?!? Whining dogs are envious of these saps.
Arsehooligan, why not admit that you're a cretin?
For example, why toss around the word censorship on a private blog where the word has no practical application?
Clue time, ArseHooligan.
If you don't know the definition of a word, don't use it.
Got it, genius?
Aren't they so cute at this age?!? Whining dogs are envious of these saps.
That doesn't make sense, even by your standards.
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private property.
Well, yes and no. Private property is generally "non-public forum", which is one of three types of free speech venues, and the one with the least stringent First Amendment requirements.
However, laws against behavior on private property have been found to violate the First Amendment. For example in Watchtower Bible v Stratton, a local law requiring door-to-door canvassers to register with the government was found unconstitutional. (So the next time the JWs knock on your door, take a moment to ponder that they have the Constitutional right to be there.)
When it comes to the issue of banning Arhoolie from this blog, I suspect laws pertaining to media would be more applicable anyway. And the courts have long established that operators of media have the right to decide what material does and does not appear within their medium.
Banning someone from a blog is not a restriction on their free speech, because the Internet is open to all and the banned party is free to acquire their own web page and express whatever they want. In fact, being forced to carry Arhoolie's drivel would be a violation of Pat and James' First Amendment rights.
You kick their ass up and down their home field and this is what they are relegated to.Jeepers Boyos,Scientology is a whole lot saner than this crazy cult.Set yourselves free!!!! Anything on Able Danger yet?
Trite and dopey fuckface,I got two words to say to you:"Shut the fuck up".
Trite and dopey fuckface,I got two words to say to you:"Shut the fuck up".
Oooh... I touched a nerve. Who knew he had a nerve?
And how revealing that the thing that pushed him over the edge was a simple explanation of how banning his sorry ass from this blog is not a constitutional issue.
Yeah, we found your hot button. I think I know what you and I will be talking about from now on.
It's a line from a movie,posted as a joke,you dim bulb nerd.Sarcastically.The only "nerve" that's been touched is the nervous system of the Debunker Cult,after getting housed by a mere few "Truthers".Jeepers,Dogboy,get out of the cellar and see what's going on in the world around you,cement head!!
It's a line from a movie,posted as a joke
Buddy, if you tried to say "Luke I am your father" it would come out "This just in:Jedi cult,relegated to the brine shack! It's all over for you jerkoffs.Luke and Pornboy have crashed,burned and need rescuing!"
Trite little moaning boy,you're as dumb as a box of rocks.But even more relevantly:you're boring,tedious AND dull,you circle jerking half-wit!
"Hasta la vista baby" back atcha.
I do not need science to explain what is going on with WTC7 anymore than I need science to explain why water falls through the holes in a fishing net.
Post a Comment
<< Home