Friday, July 09, 2010

It is Disinfo about Disinfo!

Over on 9/11 Flogger it has been announced that the CIT no-plane kooks are following in the footsteps of David Ray Griffin and touring Europe. This of course has woken up their sleepy little burg and led to the usual battles over whether they are government disinfo plants.

As part of this argument someone posted a video called the CIT-Deception mocking them, but ironically they included the audio of me lecturing Jason Bermas about the book Firefight. The ironic thing is though, Bermas is not in any way affiliated with the CIT kooks, he belongs to the more mainstream part of the kookery!






Update: This is the original video that they lifted the audio of me from.

Labels: ,

237 Comments:

At 09 July, 2010 10:15, Blogger nicoHIStory said...

"Oslo Terror" and Russian-U.S. SpySwap continue to smokescreen away from EUROSpace/Kazachstan Power - http://ff.im/ntidd "...btw, i still predict, after getting somehow 'cleared', redhair Anna Chapman will get her own u.s. tv show in a few months from now, then present some eurobeat hit songs, together with piles of facebook fan pages - you heard it here first ; ]
...of course you still have only to read the following sources, to check what's *really going on instead: http://justpaste.it/mixedbag02 ; http://nicohistory.webnode.com/ ; TOP 70 Most Interesting 'Power Structure' Companies and Institutions [ewing2001 ; compiled August 2009] http://tinyurl.com/9-11top70] +++ also related: EUTELSAT, "UK Space Agency" etc...-the rising power of eurospace electronic defense- and media hubs [http://ff.im/i6PPn ] ; Rethink "Terrorist Countries 2010" : Germany and Switzerland at the top with Kazachstan [http://ff.im/kOG5Q ] ;

 
At 09 July, 2010 12:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The liars have to go overseas to give the illusion that they're doing something. CIT, William Rodriguez, and Kevin Barrett can't even put on a presentation in the USA. They have to go overseas to find people naive enough to put on their show.

 
At 09 July, 2010 12:43, Blogger avicenne said...

I can't believe he hasn't read The Looming Tower. And yet he claims to be "at least 80/90% right"?!

The difference between Lawrence Wright and Professor Pedant is that the former conducted what are commonly referred to as 'interviews'. He actually spoke to people. What was he thinking?

Grifter on the other hand does all his 'research' from behind a desk, in between frequent book tours that is.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh "Brian", I busted you lying again.

Source: SLC: The buildings were designed to take an impact from a jet traveling at no more than 180 mph., not 600 mph--you liar.

Now, get back to that thread and apologize for lying to us again, tinkerbell. And I expect a formal apology.

Got it, freak?

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Bill, you just can't resist spamming the whole forum with your ignorance. Google ... 600 mph 707 wtc ... and you get City in the Sky's reference of a 1964 white paper wherein the 600 mph spec was set forth.

I'm really really sorry you're such a poorly educated, unemployed, autohumiliating turkey--but really, it's not my fault.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Is libel all you have fuckface?

Pathetic.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, it's just gravy poured on your steaming plate of crow.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Crow"?

As I recall, you're the one who's lying.

And your "reply" is pure libel. Thus, you lose again, Tinkerbell.

Enjoy your plate of crow, poofter.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're not competent to distinguish "recall" from "invent".

The 1964 white paper said the design spec was a 707 at 600 mph, says the book "City in the Sky".

And you still haven't named an engineer who endorses NIST's explanation of the collapse who is not tainted by association with NIST.

 
At 09 July, 2010 15:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Brian Good" dissembles, "...The 1964 white paper said the design spec was a 707 at 600 mph, says the book 'City in the Sky'."

More lies, tinkerbell?

What's this, scumbag?

Source: SLC: What were you saying about sloppy, "Brian"?

"...And you still haven't named an engineer who endorses NIST's explanation of the collapse who is not tainted by association with NIST."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, prevaricator?

Source: SLC: I'll do you better than one expert, scumbag.

Enjoy your bowl of crow, dissembler for 9/11 troof.

 
At 09 July, 2010 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Brain Good dissembles, "...I'm really really sorry you're such a poorly educated, unemployed, autohumiliating [SIC]turkey--but really, it's not my fault."

Don't make me laugh, spelling bee champ.

"...autohumiliating."

ROTFLMAO!

Making up words now, Einstein?

FACT: I make more money in a month than you make in a year.

Tell us more about supporting a family, Mr. unemployed, childless, former janitor who lives with his parents.

Pathetic.

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I see. Guitar Bill is the kind of liar who, when confronted with his lies simply repeats them.

The 1964 white paper says the design criterion is a 707 at 600 mph. That's a fact.

So which one of the engineers on your list is independent of NIST and has expressed confidence in the findings of the report about the collapse mechanism--after the report was written and not four years before?

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB is an unemployed IT guy who doubles as a psychic when he's not lying about 9/11.

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Brian Good" prevaricator for 9/11 troof dissembles, "...GB is an unemployed IT guy who doubles as a psychic when he's not lying about 9/11."

Obviously, I've reduced you to pure libel.

Pathetic.

Care to offer proof, poofter for 9/11 troof?

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Petgoat dissembles, "...The 1964 white paper says the design criterion is a 707 at 600 mph. That's a fact."

"...fact"?

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

"...We envisioned it much as the case would be for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War. More or less the same condition--lost in the fog--ie, an accidental impact by an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jet that actually hit it. In fact, those jets were flying well above their rate speed at that altitude." -- Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center Towers.

"...the Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing." -- Paul Thomspon.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.

Now, take your troofer book and ram it.

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Petgoat prevaricates, "...So which one of the engineers on your list is independent of NIST and has expressed confidence in the findings of the report about the collapse mechanism--after the report was written and not four years before?"

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

What was that you were saying, petgoat?

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, petgoat, I want you to answer my questions: Do you still live with your parents in Palo Alto, CA?

Question #2: Did you ever get over your homosexual infatuation with Willie Rodriguez?

%^)

And remember, psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

The maximum speed of a Boeing 707 was 526 MPH.

Busted again, lying fucktard.

 
At 09 July, 2010 16:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, your list of names doesn't say where those guys express confidence in the collapse mechanism findings of the NIST report. It's just a list of names.

LL, the top speed of a 707--even assuming that your information is true--has nothing to do with the question of whether the design criterion for the towers was a 707 at 600 mph. It would be conservative to exaggerate the conditions to allow for progress.

You girls are not very smart, which helps explain why you hang out here with your own kind.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Fuck you, liar.

I've already answered your questions. Now, you're trying to trash the threads.

You've been thoroughly trounced, Pinocchio.

Now, go to Hell.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, you lie like a Barrett, like a Rodriguez, like a Ranke, and you use the same techniques. You post a list that does not contain the information you claim it does.

Which one of those names endorsed NIST's findings? Why can't you say?

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go for it, petgoat, give us another un-sourced quotation.

My sourced commentary trumps your un-sourced bullshit hands down.

Oh, and go to Hell.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's your source for an independent engineer endorsing the NIST report's collapse mechanism?

You can't name one.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The pencil-necked prevaricator whines, "...GB, your list of names doesn't say where those guys express confidence in the collapse mechanism findings of the NIST report. It's just a list of names."

The answer is obvious, jackass.

The NIST Report's recommendations were adopted by the ASCE; the recommendations were adopted at all levels: design, safety and college curricula.

Questions: Since when do engineers adopt a report that they find in error?

Now, stop the evasions and answer the question, scumbag.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You haven't named one independent engineer who expresses confidence in the veracity of NIST's report about the collapse mechanism.

That a few minor code changes involving fire safety were adopted is not the same thing.

Now name the names, and tell me what they said and where they said it.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot scribbles, "...Which one of those names endorsed NIST's findings? Why can't you say?"

Like a broken record, aren't you, liar?

"...Talking to you is like talking to a goat."

Source: YouTube: '9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You haven't named one independent engineer who expresses confidence in the veracity of NIST's report about the collapse mechanism."

Repeating the same lie over-and-ever again does nothing to prove your point, asshole.

Who's this?

[4] James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal, J.R. Harris & Company
Specialty: Structural engineering

What does "Principal, J.R. Harris & Company" mean, jackass.

You're an idiot.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:52, Blogger Triterope said...

GB, your list of names doesn't say where those guys express confidence in the collapse mechanism findings of the NIST report.

They expressed it oppositely by not expressing it. Now hop on one foot and sing the "I'm Sorry" song.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, where does JB Harris express confidence in the NIST report? Is he independent of NIST?

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GB, where does JB Harris express confidence in the NIST report? Is he independent of NIST?"

My God, you're a fucking retard!

I've already given you the links--you thick as a brick jackass.

Source: SLC: Dr. Harris' congressional testimony.

Source: SLC: Testimony of Dr. James Harris, Ph.D, P.E..

All pdf documents are from the ASCE.

Now, put a lid on it, jackass. You're done.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

Looks to me like Harris was on a committee charged with dealing with the recommendations, and evaluating the reliability of the report was not in his mandate.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:20, Blogger Triterope said...

Looks to me like Harris was on a committee charged with dealing with the recommendations, and evaluating the reliability of the report was not in his mandate.

Christ, you're stupid.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? What's stupid about this:

Dr. Harris's whole talk was entirely about the recommendations, he expressed some skepticism and reservations about some of the recommendations, and he nowhere expressed confidence in the NIST report's proposed collapse mechanism.

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:30, Blogger angrysoba said...

I want to see a list of names of NASA scientists that have confidently asserted their belief - in writing - that the world is flat.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? What's stupid about this:

Dr. Harris's whole talk was entirely about the recommendations, he expressed some skepticism and reservations about some of the recommendations, and he nowhere expressed confidence in the NIST report's proposed collapse mechanism.

GuitarBull was full of it.

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:30, Blogger angrysoba said...

the world is flat.

"is NOT flat", obviously.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? What's stupid about this:

Dr. Harris's whole talk was entirely about the recommendations, he expressed some skepticism and reservations about some of the recommendations, and he nowhere expressed confidence in the NIST report's proposed collapse mechanism.

GuitarBull was full of it.

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not Christ.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More intellectual dishonesty, petgoat?

Get it through your thick skull: 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)

Source: asce.org: Testimony of Dr. James Harris, Ph.D, P.E.

Thus, the ASCE agrees with the NIST Report's progressive collapse hypotheses.

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm not Christ."

Damned straight!

Barney Fife is more like it.

Now, petgoat, I want you to answer my questions: Do you still live with your parents in Palo Alto, CA?

Question #2: Did you ever get over your homosexual infatuation with Willie Rodriguez?

%^)

And remember, psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's your interpretation, Bull. Harris nowhere expresses confidence in NIST's findings, and expresses some reservations about several of the recommendations.

Isn't it just as likely that Harris's position is a political one based on his belief that several of the recommendations are a good thing for ASCE--whether he has confidence in NIST's investigation or not?

 
At 09 July, 2010 18:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OT -- can anybody name a single independent psychologist who has expressed confidence in the sanity of 9/11 Truthers?

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:00, Blogger Triterope said...

Really? What's stupid about this: Dr. Harris's whole talk was entirely about the recommendations, he expressed some skepticism and reservations about some of the recommendations, and he nowhere expressed confidence in the NIST report's proposed collapse mechanism.

I've already told you what's stupid about it, and so has Bill. It's also obvious to people with any understanding of how scientific organizations operate. Your failure to understand this is not your "interpretation", it is a function of your own ignorance.

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Dr. Harris's whole talk was entirely about the recommendations, he expressed some skepticism and reservations about some of the recommendations, and he nowhere expressed confidence in the NIST report's proposed collapse mechanism...http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf"

Another bald faced lie. Moreover, I gave you that link to the pdf document, scumbag.

Now, I want direct quotes from the document (free from your customary quote mining, of course), not your opinion.

Come on, shit-face, I double-dare you.

Put up, or shut up.

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would not be appropriate for a psychologist to express a professional opinion about people he or she has never met.

GuitarBill can't name an independent engineer who will express confidence in NIST's hypothesized collapse mechanism. It's not a "progressice collapse hypothesis". Even the controlled demolition hypothesis is a progressive collapse hyopthesis. Everybody (except Judy Wood) believes it was a progressive collapse. The question is what started it, and at what point did it become inevitable.

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBull, Harris's speech nowhere expresses confidence in NIST's findings about the mechanism of collapse.

Here are quotes expressing skepticism about the recommendations.
Do you really need me to hold your hand and walk you through your own document?


ASCE/SEI supports a thorough review and deliberation of all of the NIST Recommendations

With regard to Recommendation #27 ... our initial reaction is that it may not be necessary or beneficial to all parties...

ASCE/SEI prefers a building-specific and/or ownerspecific approach to mitigating progressive collapse rather than a code-mandated requirement.

some of the NIST recommendations need further clarification and discussion. ASCE/SEI would like a clearer description of the rationale and motivation for developing limit state criteria in Recommendation #3.

the concept of certification of “as-designed or as-built” safety needs additional discussion and understanding.

a requirement for the retention of a broad range of documents would not improve the safety or performance of structures.

The assignment of roles and responsibilities is an issue best handled by the contract documents rather than codes and standards, as proposed in Recommendation #28.

While not every NIST recommendation may be ready for enactment as is, ASCE/SEI is
moving forward with discussion of the issues

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GuitarBill can't name an independent engineer who will express confidence in NIST's hypothesized collapse mechanism."

[4] James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal, J.R. Harris & Company
Specialty: Structural engineering

What does "Principal, J.R. Harris & Company" mean, jackass.

It means that he's independent.

Check

"...Where does he express confidence in the NIST report?"

He expressed confidence in the report by adopting the report's recommendations.

Dr. Harris wrote, "...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)"

Source: asce.org: Testimony of Dr. James Harris, Ph.D, P.E.

Too stupid for words, aren't you, goat fucker?

Check and mate

Have a nice evening, goat molester.

Now, I have to prepare for tonight's gig.

Enjoy your plate of crow, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"... our initial reaction is that it may not be necessary or beneficial to all parties..."

Quote mining again, goat fucker?

Is that all you have, quote mining and libel?

LOL!

Pathetic.

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you mind mining the part where Harris expresses confidence in the NIST findings about collapse mechanism?

Your "quote-mining" meme is very cynical. You will give young people the idea that there's something shameful about supporting one's assertions with examples. Is that what you teach your kids?

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Do you mind mining the part where Harris expresses confidence in the NIST findings about collapse mechanism?"

Thanks for admitting that I'm correct.

Furthermore, there's a big difference between a sentence fragment (your quotes) and a paragraph with links back to the original document (my method).

Educated in a trailer park, goat fucker?

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:44, Anonymous New Yorker said...

The 1964 white paper says the design criterion is a 707 at 600 mph. That's a fact.

Brian, your lies about this are as easy to see through as your lies about how many unanswered questions the widows have.

Where's your source for an independent engineer endorsing the NIST report's collapse mechanism?

He has already named them, Brian.

You will give young people the idea that there's something shameful about supporting one's assertions with examples.

When have you EVER supported any of your diseased assertions with evidence? Pyroclastic flows? SAMs at the Pentagon? "Free-fall speed"? You have no evidence for any of that insanity, and yet you babble about it endlessly.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 09 July, 2010 21:13, Blogger angrysoba said...

Richard Gage's Gonads:

OT -- can anybody name a single independent psychologist who has expressed confidence in the sanity of 9/11 Truthers?

Anonymous:

It would not be appropriate for a psychologist to express a professional opinion about people he or she has never met.



Does this mean Truthers have never met a psychologist who would express confidence in their sanity?

 
At 09 July, 2010 21:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It would not be appropriate for a psychologist to express a professional opinion about people he or she has never met.

"Inappropriate" in what way? Citation please.

And you forgot to name a single psychologist who has expressed confidence in the sanity of 9/11 Truthers.

 
At 10 July, 2010 05:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LL, the top speed of a 707--even assuming that your information is true--has nothing to do with the question of whether the design criterion for the towers was a 707 at 600 mph."

And you're a fucking retard.

How do you hypothosize an event when the event couldn't take place?

Doe your Mom tie your shoes int the morning for you?

You LOST, you retarded marmoset.

 
At 10 July, 2010 05:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Questions: Since when do engineers adopt a report that they find in error?"

Apparently when an airplane can fly faster than it can fly.

 
At 10 July, 2010 05:37, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"...Talking to you is like talking to a goat."

More like a telephone pole.

 
At 10 July, 2010 05:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
It would not be appropriate for a psychologist to express a professional opinion about people he or she has never met."

Not in your case, Brian,

You are bugfuck crazy, layered on top of wack-a-doo stupidity.


You are a Person of Stupid.

 
At 10 July, 2010 08:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LL, a design criterion is not a hypothesis.

I'm sorry your intellectual impairments make it difficult for you to see that. Were you a crack baby?

 
At 10 July, 2010 08:59, Anonymous New Yorker said...

LL, a design criterion is not a hypothesis.

I'm sorry your intellectual impairments make it difficult for you to see that. Were you a crack baby?


It's kind of funny how nasty Brian has gotten lately. I suppose that even in his delusional mind, it has become apparent that he's a failure even by "truther" standards. Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett get all the fame, and Brian just gets banned at Wikipedia and gets laughed at here.

Psychiatric treatment, Brian. Please look into it.

 
At 10 July, 2010 12:36, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
LL, a design criterion is not a hypothesis."

It is when it's an impossibility, you al Queda dick sucking retard.

"I'm sorry your intellectual impairments make it difficult for you to see that. Were you a crack baby?"

So when you're a MAJOR FAIL about the facts, turn to the ol' lame ad hom attack.

Fuck you, you retarded marmoset, I'm about a million times smarter than you. The best part of you slid down your mother's ass crack.

 
At 11 July, 2010 11:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBull, your links do not support your claim that Dr. Harris endorses the findings of NIST on the collapse mechanism. You lie and then try to cover up the lie with bloviating. If you had the truth on your side you would not need to resort to such tactics.

Stillborn Short, it's easy to hypothesize an event that can't take place. The force of an object on another object will be D/Dt(mv). You insert the mass of a 707 for "m" and 600 mph for "v".
Almost like magic, isn't it!

And I notice that GuitarBull has slunk away after pwning himself.

 
At 11 July, 2010 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...And I notice that GuitarBull has slunk away after pwning himself."

I'm right here, goat fucker.

"...GuitarBull, your links do not support your claim that Dr. Harris endorses the findings of NIST on the collapse mechanism."

That's right, Hitler worshipper, just tell "the Big Lie" over-and-over again and hope that repetition will lend a certain force of credibility to the lies.

Sieg Heil.

Sieg Heil.

Sieg Heil.

"...You lie and then try to cover up the lie with bloviating. If you had the truth on your side you would not need to resort to such tactics."

Wrong. I've already proven that you're a liar.

Now, crawl back into your mother's basement, troofer scum.

 
At 11 July, 2010 12:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So instead of talking about me, let's get back to the point.

Let's talk about your inability to name one independent engineer who will express confidence in NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism at the World Trade Center.

Your claim that belief that it was a case of "total progressive collapse" constitutes confidence in NIST is unfounded. NIST did not model the collapse, but only its initiation. So put up or shut up. Show me someone who expressed confidence in NIST's report and its methodology.

 
At 11 July, 2010 12:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Let's talk about your inability to name one independent engineer who will express confidence in NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism at the World Trade Center."

I've answered your question, charlatan. And you lost the debate again.

Telling the same lie over-and-over again, doesn't make your case, and it never will.

 
At 11 July, 2010 13:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Empty claims of victory are a standard disinfo technique. Where did Dr. Harris express confidence in the findings of the NIST report? Why can't you answer such a simple question?

Because he didn't, that's why. You lie like a Barrett, like a Ranke, like a Rodriguez, GutterBull. Prove me wrong. You can't.

Nowhere in Dr. Harris's testimony does he endorse NIST's findings on the collapse mechanism of the WTC.

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf

 
At 11 July, 2010 14:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Empty claims of victory are a standard disinfo technique."

Tell us about it. After all, you constantly do the same. And isn't "accuse others of your crimes" a Nazi propaganda technique?

Keep it up, neo-Nazi for 9/11 troof.

And telling the same lie over-and-over again does nothing to add credibility to your argument.

And don't forget that I gave you the hyperlink to that pdf document, goat fucker.

You can quote mine it to death, psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof, but the fact remains that you're still lying.

 
At 11 July, 2010 14:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bull, show me where Dr. Harris expresses confidence in NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism. C'mon, man, prove me wrong.

You can't. Why are you so emotional about 9/11?

I hope your wife and kids are having a nicer Sunday afternoon than you are.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychpath continues to lie, because that's all he knows, and scribbles, "...Bull, show me where Dr. Harris expresses confidence in NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism. C'mon, man, prove me wrong."

I've already answered your questions, psychopath. And you're not going to receive any other answer.

You may think that you can bully and intimidate me, just as you've done to everyone in your miserable life, Mr. Psychopath, but I refuse to fall for your lies and manipulation.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bull, you have not shown where Dr. Harris expresses confidence in NIST's findings. An interest in progressive collapse is not an endorsement of their report.

Why can't you find an example of an independent engineer expressing confidence in NIST's findings?

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Keep it up, psychopath.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you name someone other than Dr. Harris who you believe to be an independent engineer who has expressed confidence in the NIST report?

I don't think so. Otherwise you wouldn't get so irrationally angry.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already answered your questions, psychopath.

Care to offer the name of a psychiatrist who'll vouch for your sanity, Mr. Psychopath?

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you have answered. You can not offer the name of an independent engineer other than Dr. Harris who you believe expresses confidence in the NIST report.

Why is that? Why won't engineers express support? How come you never challenged Gage at any of his many public appearances in the Bay Area and in Santa Cruz?

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...I guess you have answered. You can not offer the name of an independent engineer other than Dr. Harris who you believe expresses confidence in the NIST report."

No. Wrong.

On the contrary, I'm fed up with playing games with a psychopath.

Squeeze the trigger, path.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you challenge me to name engineers who question the reliability of the NIST report, I will quite cheerfully name them all day long.

But when I ask you to name independent engineers who support the NIST report, you flee the scene yelling insults.

Why is that? Could it be that I can support my claims and you can not?

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You support your claims with unsourced lies and opinion.

Try again, psychopath.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can source all my claims. There's no point in sourcing them in the repetitive lying spamfest you're putting on here.

Name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report, and source the claim. Over 200 licensed engineers have signed the AE911truth petition.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:08, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report, and source the claim.

Name an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity, Petgoat.

Over 200 licensed engineers have signed the AE911truth petition.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report"

Why should he repeat himself when you would either lie, misconstrue or misunerstand what he says, you retarded marmoset?

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I can source all my claims."

No you can't, psychopath.

Proof: Why do you refuse to source your claims?

Answer: Because you're a psychopath, who lies without conscience or remorse.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker, I am unaware of any controversy about gravity. By trying to establish an equivalence between the theories of gravity and the NIST reports, you are dishonesty asserting a lack of controversy, which lack is demonstrably false.

It's a good thing you're beautiful, New Yorker.

GutterBall, I haven't refused to source anything. You have, however, refused to provide the name of any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, psychopath, just keep lying and proving my point.

Again, care to provide a psychiatrist who'll vouch for your sanity?

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Harris can not be considered untainted, since he had to work with NIST on the recommendations and it can be reasonably supposed that he'd like to parlay the exposure into future contracts.

So when did any of the other 13 names you list endorse the NIST report?

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There's no sense in arguing with a psychopath, because he'll never admit the truth. And the truth is that you lost another debate.

I'm done with you, freak. I'll let someone else play whack-a-mole with you.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:49, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, I am unaware of any controversy about gravity.

I am unaware of any controversy about 9/11, Petgoat.

By trying to establish an equivalence between the theories of gravity and the NIST reports, you are dishonesty asserting a lack of controversy, which lack is demonstrably false.

There is no controversy, Petgoat. There are only desperate lunatics like you trying to make yourself into something more than someone who can't even hold down a janitor's job.

It's a good thing you're beautiful, New Yorker.

That's nice, Petgoat, although I don't think you've ever met me, unless that was you who asked me for some change while I was walking through San Francisco last summer.

GutterBall, I haven't refused to source anything.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

You have, however, refused to provide the name of any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

False.

Dr. Harris can not be considered untainted, since he had to work with NIST on the recommendations and it can be reasonably supposed that he'd like to parlay the exposure into future contracts.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:51, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I'm done with you, freak. I'll let someone else play whack-a-mole with you.

Uh oh, GuitarBill, now Brian Good will declare that he has "pwned" you. Now, I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to follow that, as Brian will still be an unemployed janitor and we'll still be almost 9 years removed from 9/11 without the "truthers" getting an inch closer to some sort of success, but I think we should let him have his "victory", as he doesn't have much else going for him.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So rather than back up his claims, GutterBall only provides insults. Just like Willie Rodriguez, just like Craig Ranke, just like Kevin Barrett.

Show me where one of the other 13 names endorses the NIST report. That you just rely on the claim of Dr. Harris's implicit endorsement is damning to your case, idiot.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I back up my claims, as everyone acknowledges.

Trust me, if I was wrong, no one would back me up.

So what are we left with?

Your lies, and your lies alone.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...That you just rely on the claim of Dr. Harris's implicit endorsement is damning to your case, idiot."

An implicit endorsement is only "damning" in the eyes of a psychopath with a specious political agenda.

For the remainder of us who inhabit the real world, it's as solid as a rock.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

New Yorker wrote, "...Uh oh, GuitarBill, now Brian Good will declare that he has "pwned" you. Now, I'm not sure exactly what's supposed to follow that, as Brian will still be an unemployed janitor and we'll still be almost 9 years removed from 9/11 without the "truthers" getting an inch closer to some sort of success, but I think we should let him have his "victory", as he doesn't have much else going for him."

You can't argue with a psychopath.

Arguing with a psychopath makes about as much sense as arguing with a person who possesses an IQ of 35. It's an exercise in futility.

 
At 11 July, 2010 21:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your claim that an implicit endorsement is as good as the real thing strongly suggests you can not provide the real thing--i.e., an actual endorsement of the NIST report by an actual independent engineer.

Would you accept an implicit paycheck? How'd your gig go last night? Did the implicit applause give you a boost? Get any implicit nookie lately?

 
At 11 July, 2010 22:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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?

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, look at yourself.

You claimed that engineers support the NIST report, and you have been unable to back up that claim.

All you can do is respond with namecalling--like a little girl.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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 medicine?

Pathetic.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I am talking about NIST. You are talking about me.

I am a thinker; you are a gossip--and a delusional one at that.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, you're a psychopath, and I'm an engineer with over 25 years of experience.

But I digress...

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.

Here, have another dose of your specious "logic".

Yum, yum...

So, where's that certification from a qualified psychiatrist that verifies your alleged sanity?

I'm waiting, patiently, for your evidence. Or, don't you care for the taste of your own medicine?

Now, get to work, psychopath.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, an IT guy is not an engineer.

Sorry. Looks to me like the "virtual man" fantasy you have built up around yourself is breaking down.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, jackass, but I was a software engineer for over a decade. And today, my title is Security Forensics Engineer, and my CISSP proves it.

Do you have a CISSP, Barney? Do you know what it takes to obtain a CISSP? What are the prerequisites? Can you tell me, psychopath?

Or are you desperately trying to change the subject again?

Try again, psychopath.

Now, I've proven that the engineers I listed 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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your CISSP tag in no way makes you an engineer.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate your claim that independent engineers support the NIST report.

All you can show is a specious claim of an implicit endorsement by one engineer. You're disproving your own case.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, there's the problem that you claim that the 14 engineers you listed are associated with the report you cite, but in fact only one of them is.

So let's have some evidence of endorsement of the NIST report by the other 13 on your list, eh poofster?

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath for 9/11 troof dissembles, "...Also, there's the problem that you claim that the 14 engineers you listed are associated with the report you cite, but in fact only one of them is...So let's have some evidence of endorsement of the NIST report by the other 13 on your list, eh poofster?"

So, now you're moving the goalpost again?

That's a tacit admission of failure on your part, poofter.

"...poofster [SIC]."

That's poofter, you illiterate psychopath.

And who are you to call me a "poofster"? After all, I'm married to a woman, and have no homosexual proclivities.

You, on the other hand, tried to suck Willie Rodriguiz's dick.

So, who's the "poofster" [SIC]?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm asking you to prove your claims.

You'll look pretty silly trying to claim that "Anonymous" made homosexual overtures to the con artist William Rodriguez.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm not moving the goalposts."

Right! Whatever you say, psychopath.

And you look pretty silly trying to claim that the engineers who adopted the recommendations found in the NIST Report somehow don't endorse that same Report.

Got logic, psychopath?

So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?

Answer the fucking question, cocksucker!

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you show that all 14 of the engineers on the list adopted the recommendations in the NIST report? You only cited the testimony of one of them, Dr. Harris.

I don't need to prove anything except that you have failed to prove your case. Your juvenile and irrational name-calling defeats your own purpose.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Playing stupid again, stupid?

Answer the question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't need to prove anything. You need to prove your case.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already proven my case, now you answer my questions.

Answer the question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?

Get to work, psychopath.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have not proven your case. You have not shown that the 14 names you list have endorsed the NIST report.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More obfuscation, psychopath?

I can play this game all night.

I've already proven my case, now you answer my questions.

Answer the question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?

Get to work, psychopath.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you prove your case?

I never claimed that your 14 engineers oppose the NIST report. Why should I when 20 times that at AE911Truth have overtly opposed it?

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, psychopath. If the engineers are not advocates of the NIST Report (your argument); they must be opponents of the NIST Report.

Do you see how your idiotic circular logic works?

Got causality, psychopath?

And remember, psychopath, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...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?

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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."

Causality? You can't spell causality.

You're a hypocrite, aren't you, psychopath?

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...

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spelled causality just fine.

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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 03:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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...

 
At 12 July, 2010 03:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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...

 
At 12 July, 2010 05:15, Anonymous New Yorker said...

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.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

Also, "poofster"? Do you hate gays as much as you hate women? You really need psychiatric help, Brian.

 
At 12 July, 2010 05:22, Anonymous New Yorker said...

It's pretty funny how Brian won't respond to my questions any longer. It's obvious that he's scared of me given how many times I've pwned him in the past. I pointed out his lies about the widows, I pointed out his lies about "essentially in free-fall", and I pointed out his lies about his various internet identities.

Please seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I have no argument by implication. My argument is quite explicit: Though the debunkers claim that the majority of engineers support the NIST report, they can not point to any specific person or statement. And you are proving my point again and again and again and again. Whoop whoop whoop whoop.

New Yorker, I don't respond to you because you are a pathological liar.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I have no argument by implication. My argument is quite explicit: Though the debunkers claim that the majority of engineers support the NIST report, they can not point to any specific person or statement."

Here we go again.

They don't have to make a statement. All they need to do is adopt the NIST Reports' recommendations. Engineers are loath to adopt any report--to say nothing of adopting the Reports' recommendations at the academic, safety and design level--where the conclusions are in doubt. Obviously, if the recommendations found therein are in error, injury or death could result. Additionally, the legal ramifications are enormous. (Never mind, the obvious always escapes our resident psychopath for 9/11 troof).

Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it, psychopath?

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:39, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, I don't respond to you because you are a pathological liar.

False. You don't respond to me because I've pwned you more times than you can count, and you're scared of dealing with me.

Anyway, name one independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity. You can't do it.

Though the debunkers claim that the majority of engineers support the NIST report, they can not point to any specific person or statement.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues shows. There is no danger of death or injury from the adoption of excessively conservative recommendations. You have not and can not point to one explicit statement of support for the NIST report from an independent engineer.

New Yorker, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the laws of physics, which would include the Law of Gravity.

 
At 12 July, 2010 11:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues shows. There is no danger of death or injury from the adoption of excessively conservative recommendations. You have not and can not point to one explicit statement of support for the NIST report from an independent engineer.

You've been pwned, Petgoat.

New Yorker, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the laws of physics, which would include the Law of Gravity.

Citation, please. You're really not very good at this whole "evidence" thing, are you Petgoat? That would explain why you're a sucker for 9/11 "truth".

 
At 12 July, 2010 11:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For Brookman's statement see the AE911Truth petition or this blog post:
http://911blogger.com/node/15749

 
At 12 July, 2010 11:28, Anonymous New Yorker said...

For Brookman's statement see the AE911Truth petition or this blog post:
http://911blogger.com/node/15749


See, Petgoat, I ask you for an endorsement from an independent engineer who believes in the theory of gravity, and all I get is a tainted one who seems to believe gravity doesn't actually work.

You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 12 July, 2010 11:42, Anonymous Arhoolie "Solitary Confinement" V. said...

Wait just a second,did the half witted,slow motion jerkoff "New Yorker" just complain about someone insulting gay people? You need to go back on vacation,Captain Blowhard.Only in an insane cult such as the Debunker Cult could someone say something as ridiculous as that.Hey Dogboy,get yourself to a geisha house because your brain is flapping in the wind and you're on the verge of a stroke.You're worse than a dumbass trapped in a mad cult,you're attached at the hip to the craziest bunch of fools this side of the Bill Kristol Fan Club (President,Pornboy!).And you can't even play guitar!

 
At 12 July, 2010 12:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie "Solitary Confinement" V. said...
Wait just a second,did the half witted,slow motion jerkoff "New Yorker" just complain about someone insulting gay people? You need to go back on vacation,Captain Blowhard.Only in an insane cult such as the Debunker Cult could someone say something as ridiculous as that.Hey Dogboy,get yourself to a geisha house because your brain is flapping in the wind and you're on the verge of a stroke.You're worse than a dumbass trapped in a mad cult,you're attached at the hip to the craziest bunch of fools this side of the Bill Kristol Fan Club (President,Pornboy!).And you can't even play guitar!"

Some short order cook inside the cloud formation is thoroughly proverbial. If a radioactive maelstrom conquers a customer related to the spider, then a ball bearing about an insurance agent wakes up. Indeed, the varigated bottle of beer competes with the fashionable ocean. The muddy tomato satiates a varigated roller coaster.

 
At 12 July, 2010 12:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LL, that makes more sense than most of what you post.

 
At 12 July, 2010 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, scribbles, "...And you can't even play guitar!"

Right, ArseHooligan.

I suppose that explains why I've been a professional guitarist since the age of 17.

Care to see my AFM (America Federation of Musicians) and ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) cards?

And given that you're such an accomplished "musician", I find it disturbing that I'm still waiting for you to answer the following elementary question (I've been waiting for three months now):

The C mixolydian mode represents which major scale?

Go for it, ArseHooligan! After all, this is elementary music theory.

 
At 12 July, 2010 14:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice one, GutterBall. Trying to show how smart you are you show you're so dumb you don't know that you can google "C mixolydian mode" in 30 seconds, and thus you demonstrate why your opinions are such a strange color, fit, and smell.

 
At 12 July, 2010 15:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So what's the answer, psychopath.

And make sure you're right, because the answer to the next question won't be found on the 'net (but any competent musician can answer the question).

Go for it, psychopath.

 
At 12 July, 2010 15:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
LL, that makes more sense than most of what you post."

Are you on acid?

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're missing the point, GutterBall, yet again showing why your salary came to exceed your value.

It's not about a pissing contest in music theory. It's about your demonstrated inexperience in internet research.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
You're missing the point, GutterBall, yet again"

No, moron, that'd be you.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...It's not about a pissing contest in music theory. It's about your demonstrated inexperience in internet research."

Really? No kidding?

Well, you did the "research", so what's the answer?

Try again, psychopath for 9/11 troof.

Question: The C mixolydian mode represents which major scale?

And as Triterope pointed out, you automatically reject all evidence presented to you, because you argue like woman.

But that shouldn't surprise us, because the majority of gay men (that's you, psychopath) are effeminate.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:43, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Brian, do you plan on ever citing an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity? You have yet to do so.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, the answer to your question is of no interest to me. What interests me is your apparent ignorance of the fact that the answer can be found in 20 seconds on google.

NY, Ron Brookman, S.E., endorses the theory of gravity.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GB, the answer to your question is of no interest to me."

But the ArseHooligan claims that he can play a Hammond organ.

And I say he's lying.

Here, I'll give you a hint (see what a nice guy I am?):

Mixolydian mode is like a major scale except that the seventh note (dominant 7) is lowered a half step.

So, here's the question, again:

Question: The C mixolydian mode represents which major scale?

Clearly, for someone with your alleged cognitive powers this should be child's play.

Go for it, genius.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...NY, Ron Brookman, S.E., endorses the theory of gravity."

Ron Brookman, S.E openly endorses the theory of gravity? In writing, too?

Really? No kidding?

%^)

Link please.

 
At 12 July, 2010 18:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GB, the answer to your question is of no interest to me. What interests me is your apparent ignorance of the fact that the answer can be found in 20 seconds on google.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

NY, Ron Brookman, S.E., endorses the theory of gravity.

False. He is neither independent nor does he endorse the theory of gravity. Try again, Petgoat.

 
At 12 July, 2010 19:09, Blogger Triterope said...

It's about your demonstrated inexperience in internet research.

This is one of those little things that 9-11 Truthers say that I just love, because it betrays so much about their mindset.

"Demonstrated inexperience in internet research."

As though Googling were a skill that only elite minds like theirs could possibly master.

We see more of this "I Google, therefore I am" attitude again in the followup comment:

you're so dumb you don't know that you can google "C mixolydian mode" in 30 seconds

Yes, you can. But what you can't do is Google up an answer that will convince someone who's spent a lifetime studying the subject. Clearly, the above poster does not realize this.

 
At 13 July, 2010 00:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TR, any idiot can google. Except to GutterBall it's apparently a deep mystery.

There's nothing mysterious about the mixolydian mode. I had that shit in junior college.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricates, "...There's nothing mysterious about the mixolydian mode. I had that shit in junior college."

Really? No Kidding?

Then perhaps you'll explain why you can't answer the question.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't?

Won't!

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It doesn't matter, blowhard.

Answer the question.

After all, you "had that shit in junior college." Right?

Now, get to it, coward.

 
At 13 July, 2010 04:35, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, any idiot can google. Except to GutterBall it's apparently a deep mystery.

Did you even read what I said? You completely missed the point. Or as usual you're just saying what you want to say with no regard to what came before, and acting like it's some kind of intellectual rebuttal.

Can't? Won't!

Can't.

 
At 13 July, 2010 09:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB's answer to his self-pwnishment is to get pedantic about irrelevant trivia.

He must be very proud of his knowledge of stuff that any idiot can google in 20 seconds.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:14, Anonymous Arhoolie "Solitary" Vanunu said...

It's darling how the insane "Git" responds to the tag "Captain Blowhard" with such fetching promptness!! I was talking to the pathetic twerp,New Yorker",you compulsive,spoiled brat wackjob.That's your credibility seeping into the Gulf of Mexico there,shotspot.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Aw, poor psychopath.

Your inability to answer a simple question proves that you're bullshitter.

Pathetic.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan, I have a $100 bill that says you can't play "chopsticks" on the piano.

Want to give it a whirl?

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:37, Anonymous Arhoolie V. said...

Say what,jackoff?

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

On one condition: You provide the piano.

After all, given your criminal record, it's even odds that you'll try to fuck the poor piano.

 
At 13 July, 2010 16:07, Blogger Triterope said...

That's your credibility seeping into the Gulf of Mexico there,shotspot.

So he has 162,000 gallons a day of credibility to spare?

Sheesh, can't you mongoloids even write a coherent simile?

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:18, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

I think Trite the Dopeyfuck is onto something! 162,000 barrels of crude is probably the real number.In light of the thousands of lies BP has told the public over the years,and the hundreds of millions of dollars they've been fined,that sounds about right!

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan, tell us about the thousands of lies told by the 9/11 troof movement.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:53, Blogger Triterope said...

I think Trite the Dopeyfuck is onto something!

You know, when someone calls you a mongoloid, "I think he's onto something!" is not really a witty response.

 
At 13 July, 2010 18:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...TR, any idiot can google. Except to GutterBall it's apparently a deep mystery."

I've forgotten more about Google than you'll ever know, psychopath.

And if it's so easy to Google the answer to my question, why do you fail to answer the question?

Got logic, psychopath?

 
At 13 July, 2010 18:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie Vanunu said...
I think Trite the Dopeyfuck is onto something! 162,000 barrels of crude is probably the real number.In light of the thousands of lies BP has told the public over the years,and the hundreds of millions of dollars they've been fined,that sounds about right!"

Sometimes, the box regularly cleaned a secret dead body, but the affirmation of the real may be taken as the figuralization of praxis. A meditation on the relationship between the internal structure of post-Foucaultian sexuality and the fallacy of a radical alterity is marked by a refusal of 'style'. However, this particular evil potato quietly cleaned a confusing arm.

 
At 13 July, 2010 19:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

TR, any idiot can google. Except to GutterBall it's apparently a deep mystery.

Yes, anyone can Google. That's how I learned that you, Brian Good, go by the internet names Petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, Snug Bug, Contrivance, etc. and that you were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the pages of Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett, and that that you stalked Carol Brouillet.

That's also how I found the photo of you where you look sort of like a homeless Christopher Lloyd.

Google is a great thing!

 
At 13 July, 2010 21:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker, you just keep on with your Brian Good fan club. No skin off my nose. You don't know anything about me.

 
At 13 July, 2010 22:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...New Yorker, you just keep on with your Brian Good fan club. No skin off my nose. You don't know anything about me."

We know plenty about you, psychopath.

Would you like me to publish your address?

Try me.

 
At 13 July, 2010 23:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Publish Brian Good's address? Why would I care? You know nothing about me.

 
At 14 July, 2010 01:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Publish Brian Good's address? Why would I care? You know nothing about me."

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".

 
At 14 July, 2010 04:54, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, you just keep on with your Brian Good fan club. No skin off my nose. You don't know anything about me.

My, such squealing! Your reaction to my pointing out all the info about you available via google just convinces me I'm on the right track about 9/11.

Seek professional help, Brian Good.

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:14, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

Of course,the wacky "Git" has a soft spot for BP.I mean who couldn't have predicted that? There's insane,and then there's a teetotaling guy in Cali chopping up Adderal and manning a keyboard for fifteen hours a day,regularly churning out the biggest whoppers this side of the guy who killed Jonbenet Ramsey.And all because the "Truth" crowd is completely inconsequential,right jerkoffs? Yea,and Paddy and his friend the Jogging Sap do it all for the love of free inquiry! It's certainly not a lie that Sunder said the buildings came down in "essentially free-fall".Or is it,jackoff? Did Bush lie when he said,twice,that he saw,live, Flight #11 hit the North Tower? Was it a lie that Rumsfeld was nowhere to be found during the crisis,yet was seen picking up debris after the event at the Pentagon?

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan dissembles, "...Of course,the wacky "Git" has a soft spot for BP"

Pulling shit out of your ass again, gasbag?

So, what's new?

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your inconsequential questions are simply an attempt to change the subject from New Yorker's lies and your lies to your alleged qualifications. An argument from authority is no defense to lying.

You link a quote from an independent engineer endorsing the NIST report. Support your claims.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, your inconsequential questions are simply an attempt to change the subject from New Yorker's lies and your lies to your alleged qualifications. An argument from authority is no defense to lying."

False. Still in denial, asshole?

Face it, you lost the debate--period.

"...An argument from authority is no defense to lying."

Who made an argument from authority?

Idiot, I asked you a series of very relevant questions--questions which you can't answer.

"...You link a quote from an independent engineer endorsing the NIST report. Support your claims."

False.

Repeating the same lie over-and-over again does nothing to substantiate your argument, cretin.

I've answered your questions at least 50 times.

You couldn't "debate" your way out of a wet paper bag.

You're too stupid for words, cretin.

Now, crawl back into your bomb shelter, psychopath.

 
At 14 July, 2010 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, empty claims of victory are a transparent disinfo ploy. Do you claim that an argument from authority is a defense to lying?

If you have answered my question 50 times, then answer it again. "Harris"? No, Harris has not endorsed the NIST report.

If not Harris, then who?

 
At 14 July, 2010 19:43, Blogger Triterope said...

If you have answered my question 50 times, then answer it again.

You know, I thought my "arguing with Brian Good is like arguing with a woman" rant was a little harsh, but... boy, this quote just proves it, doesn't it?

 
At 14 July, 2010 19:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name the name. Harris is not it. You can't. Your claim that you'ce answered is a lie. You lie like a Rodriguez, like a Ranke, like a Barrett, like a Rice, a Cheney, a Sunder.

 
At 14 July, 2010 20:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, your inconsequential questions are simply an attempt to change the subject from New Yorker's lies and your lies to your alleged qualifications. An argument from authority is no defense to lying.

Nobody lies here except you, Petgoat. You've lied about the widows, you've lied about Dr. Sunder, you've lied about your various internet identities, and so on....

If you have answered my question 50 times, then answer it again. "Harris"? No, Harris has not endorsed the NIST report.

See what I mean about you lying, Petgoat?

Name the name. Harris is not it. You can't. Your claim that you'ce answered is a lie. You lie like a Rodriguez, like a Ranke, like a Barrett, like a Rice, a Cheney, a Sunder.

False.

 
At 14 July, 2010 23:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker, please quote Dr. Harris. Please support your claim that he endorsed the NIST report. In fact he did not; he expressed skepticism about many of NIST's recommendations.

 
At 15 July, 2010 05:04, Blogger Triterope said...

New Yorker, please quote Dr. Harris. Please support your claim that he endorsed the NIST report.

Hey Brian, here's an idea: why don't you ask Dr. Harris what Dr. Harris thinks?

You have all these scientists' names committed to memory like they're the starting lineup of the '27 Yankees. And you're always telling us what a great Googler you are. I'm sure you could dig up a couple email addresses and settle this matter once and for all.

Be sure to remind Dr. Harris that an organization's responding to recommendations gleaned from a study does not constitute acceptance of the study. I'm sure he'll appreciate the chuckle.

 
At 15 July, 2010 06:17, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, please quote Dr. Harris. Please support your claim that he endorsed the NIST report.

GuitarBill already did.

In fact he did not; he expressed skepticism about many of NIST's recommendations.

False.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Triterope wrote, "...Hey Brian, here's an idea: why don't you ask Dr. Harris what Dr. Harris thinks?"

J.R. Harris & Company
Structural Engineers
1775 Sherman St Suite 1525
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 860-9021

I'll try to contact Dr. Harris today.

Grab your ankles, Boron.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Dr. Harris thinks is not the point. The point is that there are no public statements from engineers endorsing the NIST report, and you seem to find it necessary to lie about that fact.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Moving the goalpost again, psychopath?

Grab your ankles, Boron.

After all, your desperation is palpable.

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, you seem to miss the fact that you're moving the goalposts. It seems you've abandoned your claim that you have 14 engineers who endorsed the NIST report, it seems you've abandoned your claim that Dr. Harris endorsed the NIST report, and now you're claiming that Dr. Harris is going to endorse the NIST report in the near future--an irrational claim since you have no way of knowing what he's going to do.

The only reason I need to grab my ankles is to pull my boot out of the pulp I've made of your fat ass.

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, you seem to miss the fact that you're moving the goalposts. It seems you've abandoned your claim that you have 14 engineers who endorsed the NIST report, it seems you've abandoned your claim that Dr. Harris endorsed the NIST report, and now you're claiming that Dr. Harris is going to endorse the NIST report in the near future--an irrational claim since you have no way of knowing what he's going to do."

I haven't abandoned anything--you lying son-of-a-bitch (That's right, psychopath, your mother eats Alpo).

I'm going to put an ignominious end to your bullshit, once and for all.

If you had any guts--you sorry excuse for a "man"--you'd get on the phone and call Dr. Harris. But we know you're a compulsive liar, with the intellectual integrity of an Oakland, CA street-walking whore. So what's new, psychopath?

Now, grab your ankles, psychopath.

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, the fact that you need to seek a personal statement is strong evidence that you haven't yet provided one. Otherwise you could just provide a link to that you've already provided.

I can't reach my ankle. It's so deep in the pulp that was once your ass I can't find it.

 
At 15 July, 2010 11:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath whines, "...I can't reach my ankle. It's so deep in the pulp that was once your ass I can't find it."

Still in denial, creep?

Yeah, I'll bet it's hard to see your ankles while your head is shoved up your ass.

 
At 15 July, 2010 11:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How'd that call to Dr. Harris go, poofster?

 
At 15 July, 2010 12:19, Anonymous New Yorker said...

How'd that call to Dr. Harris go, poofster?

Homophobia. Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 15 July, 2010 13:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Update.

I just got off the phone with Dr. Harris, and I can say with 100% confidence that you're wrong, troofer.

First, let me say that Dr. Harris is a kind and patient engineer; his answers are candid, lucid and very informative.

GuitarBill: Is it fair to say that you endorse the NIST Report and its conclusions, including the collapse mechanism?

Dr. Harris: (Paraphrasing) Yes. I endorse the engineering analysis, and I think it's the most probable explanation.

Any questions, troofer?

(Dr. Harris, if you're reading this post, feel free to chime in with anything you'd like to add to the debate.)

 
At 15 July, 2010 13:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, here's some questions:

1) When are you going to provide a public statement by an independent engineer endorsing the NIST report?

2) Why can't you find one?

3) Why doesn't Dr. Harris put such a statement on his website?

4) After you lie and lie and lie and lie, how can expect us to believe your paraphrase of Dr. Harris's remarks?

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dr. Harris told me that he's an independent structural engineer. In addition, he has NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST with NIST--period.

Don't believe me. Call him, eunuch. You have his number.

I have nothing to hide.

You, on the other hand...

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is Dr. Harris afraid to make a public statement endorsing the NIST report? Why can't you name any independent engineers with the gut toput their reputations on the line by endorsing the NIST report?

If you have nothing to hide, why do you use a pseudonym?

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Why is Dr. Harris afraid to make a public statement endorsing the NIST report? Why can't you name any independent engineers with the gut toput [SIC] their reputations on the line by endorsing the NIST report?"

On the contrary, why don't you call him, child molester? I gave you his number.

What are afraid of, scumbag?

"...If you have nothing to hide, why do you use a pseudonym?"

Tell me about it, hypocrite.

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:41, Anonymous George Metesky said...

Why is Dr. Harris afraid to make a public statement endorsing the NIST report? Why can't you name any independent engineers with the gut toput their reputations on the line by endorsing the NIST report?

If you have nothing to hide, why do you use a pseudonym?

 
At 15 July, 2010 15:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, "Brian", squirm and lie--you pathetic weasel.

Another epic FAILURE for the 9/11 troof movement.

Keep it up, "Brian", because you're doing untold damage to your vaunted troof movement.

 
At 15 July, 2010 15:09, Anonymous New Yorker said...

4) After you lie and lie and lie and lie, how can expect us to believe your paraphrase of Dr. Harris's remarks?

Who is "us", Petgoat? You're the only one babbling about this.

 
At 15 July, 2010 15:10, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Seek professional help, George Metesky.

 
At 15 July, 2010 15:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Us" is anyone reading. What did Dr. Harris mean by the "engineering analysis"? How do we know you weren't quote mining?

That's why we need public written statements endorsing the NIST report. You haven't provided any.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home